B-Man Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 Sotomayor's Dissent in Presidential Immunity Case Certainly Has People Talking Rebecca Downs On Monday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision of Trump v. United States that the office of the United States presidency has immunity from criminal prosecution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also signed onto. It's a dissent that has plenty of people talking over social media, with a common theme of the reaction being "bats**t" to describe her ranting and raving. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent," she wrote in what sounds like a line the Biden reelection will almost certainly take advantage of. She also began her dissent in part by writing that "the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2024/07/01/sotomayor-dissent-n2641206 .
4th&long Posted July 2 Posted July 2 (edited) 3 hours ago, boyst said: you're the cigerette. seriously, you're doing the double dumbass on us? you literally go poke the bear where the intellectuals are then come back here to your den of ret*ards to brag about it... it's adorable you miserable *****. The whole intellectuals thing is laughable. More like wimps because the all had to turn tail and run to their own message board because they can’t deal with an opposing opinion and you know I’ve stated that over their many times. and I’m sure you can check my posts, I don’t usually if at all bring it up over here. Since you know me so well I’ve said over there I like to keep the two boards separate, not really into dragging crap from board to board like you. So as usual you are wrong and displayed how petty you are. Which is, by the way, why I don’t comment over their much anymore. They are all like you, very full of themselves. The person who thinks they are the smartest person in the room is usually the dumbest. If you are so smart and everyone like all your highly intelligent friends over their why are you here with the “######s” You look down your nose on. please keep talking you keep digging your hole deeper. And honey did you join the queers for Palestine group yet? They are looking for more of your type. Edited July 2 by 4th&long
Backintheday544 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: Sotomayor's Dissent in Presidential Immunity Case Certainly Has People Talking Rebecca Downs On Monday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision of Trump v. United States that the office of the United States presidency has immunity from criminal prosecution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also signed onto. It's a dissent that has plenty of people talking over social media, with a common theme of the reaction being "bats**t" to describe her ranting and raving. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent," she wrote in what sounds like a line the Biden reelection will almost certainly take advantage of. She also began her dissent in part by writing that "the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2024/07/01/sotomayor-dissent-n2641206 . Boom - that’s a Ben Shapiro knock out: 2
Tiberius Posted July 2 Posted July 2 5 minutes ago, B-Man said: Sotomayor's Dissent in Presidential Immunity Case Certainly Has People Talking Rebecca Downs On Monday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision of Trump v. United States that the office of the United States presidency has immunity from criminal prosecution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the dissent, which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also signed onto. It's a dissent that has plenty of people talking over social media, with a common theme of the reaction being "bats**t" to describe her ranting and raving. "With fear for our democracy, I dissent," she wrote in what sounds like a line the Biden reelection will almost certainly take advantage of. She also began her dissent in part by writing that "the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebeccadowns/2024/07/01/sotomayor-dissent-n2641206 . Ya, don't worry, Trump being above the law is no big deal. Who cares, it's only you he is coming after. Why should you care about your life, your country and your governmnet? Stop worrying and just let Trump take everything. Why worry? "Calm down and don't fight back." That's the message. Surrender to evil. Make it easy for evil to triumph.
B-Man Posted July 2 Author Posted July 2 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: So . . . . . . . . . . nothing on the universally criticized dissent by Sotomayor. Just a childish attempt to divert. okay. . . Edited July 2 by B-Man
boyst Posted July 2 Posted July 2 13 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Glad you’ve shown yourself not only ignorant, but willfully ignorant as well. you're on the JV roster. go ahead and stay on the bench, toots. 4 minutes ago, B-Man said: So . . . . . . . . . . nothing on the universally criticized dissent by Sotomayor. Just a childish attempt to divert. okay. . . he must not have made the bullet points and 1) 2) 3) things. those clearly make it seem like he has credible intelligence and honest abilities in discussion. hell, i even acknowledged what neither he or i don't know. he's just too foolish to sit at the adults table. let him meddle here with the likes of Pete 11 minutes ago, 4th&long said: The whole intellectuals thing is laughable. More like wimps because the all had to turn tail and run to their own message board because they can’t deal with an opposing opinion and you know I’ve stated that over their many times. and I’m sure you can check my posts, I don’t usually if at all bring it up over here. Since you know me so well I’ve said over there I like to keep the two boards separate, not really into dragging crap from board to board like you. So as usual you are wrong and displayed how petty you are. Which is, by the way, why I don’t comment over their much anymore. They are all like you, very full of themselves. The person who thinks they are the smartest person in the room is usually the dumbest. If you are so smart and everyone like all your highly intelligent friends over their why are you here with the “######s” You look down your nose on. please keep talking you keep digging your hole deeper. And honey did you join the queers for Palestine group yet? They are looking for more of your type. i didn't read any of this. 1
4th&long Posted July 2 Posted July 2 4 minutes ago, boyst said: you're on the JV roster. go ahead and stay on the bench, toots. he must not have made the bullet points and 1) 2) 3) things. those clearly make it seem like he has credible intelligence and honest abilities in discussion. hell, i even acknowledged what neither he or i don't know. he's just too foolish to sit at the adults table. let him meddle here with the likes of Pete i didn't read any of this. First of all you’re lying as always. Yes you did. And is your green card up to date? go back to Vietnam.
Backintheday544 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 9 minutes ago, B-Man said: So . . . . . . . . . . nothing on the universally criticized dissent by Sotomayor. Just a childish attempt to divert. okay. . . No I was just saying Shapiro really out her in her place. He really added great discussion to the discord with that tweet. He showed her. 7 minutes ago, boyst said: you're on the JV roster. go ahead and stay on the bench, toots. he must not have made the bullet points and 1) 2) 3) things. those clearly make it seem like he has credible intelligence and honest abilities in discussion. hell, i even acknowledged what neither he or i don't know. he's just too foolish to sit at the adults table. let him meddle here with the likes of Pete i didn't read any of this. Lol, I’ve seen what you post and let me just say it’s lacking. If you think of yourself as an intellectual you may want to back and find a book, learn how to read it and come up with coherent arguments. I think if you can follow a basic logic table, you’d see I cleared laid out your a hypocrite that no one should listen to.
phypon Posted July 2 Posted July 2 12 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Glad you’ve shown yourself not only ignorant, but willfully ignorant as well. First of all, I'd like to say thank you to you and @boyst for prompting me to look into the Logan Act a bit. It's not something in which I was familiar with. At this point, I'd say in a way you are both correct. The difference being, Trump might want to do what he can to end a possible nuclear war as soon as possible, but legally he might not be able to inject himself into the conflict until inauguration. Since he hasn't done that, he has not broken any laws. It is customary for president-elects to contact foreign nations after the election and before inauguration to discuss issues pertaining to US foreign policy, but not in times of war. It would be a gray area for Trump to do so since technically the US and Russia are not officially directly at war (even though it is a proxy war). Obama, as most president-elects, reached out to countries once elected and before inauguration as well (nothing illegal about it). "In the case of President-elect Barack Obama in 2008-2009, engagement with foreign leaders began with a series of phone calls placed shortly after Election Day to close American allies. This list included the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, Canada and Mexico. This engagement was strategic and intended to emphasize the importance of these nations to the United States. Two days later, Obama placed calls to leaders in Russia and China, countries with more complex relationships with United States." Source: https://presidentialtransition.org/reports-publications/how-newly-elected-presidents-engage-foreign-leaders/ I'm not trying to get involved in the discussion between the two of you, just wanted to add some context and thank both of you for talking about this and highlighting a subject that was a bit obscure to me.
boyst Posted July 2 Posted July 2 6 minutes ago, 4th&long said: First of all you’re lying as always. Yes you did. And is your green card up to date? go back to Vietnam. lol this was short enough i read it... i'm an old vietnamese lady who fought against the american military and came to this country... yep. you believe it.
GaryPinC Posted July 2 Posted July 2 On 7/1/2024 at 11:18 AM, Warcodered said: The decision does feel an awful lot like what I thought it'd be, right now it's President has immunity for official duties but not for anything else and they're not defining what was or wasn't and sending it back, because they'll be damned if they'll actually clear things up themselves in this case. As to the Vice President thing I would wonder if that would still apply when the conversation goes outside the scope of their official duties. It'd be rather ridiculous that you could tell someone to do anything illegal just by starting a conversation that way. I don't know, I'd rather see things elucidated in Judge Chutkan's court. The SCOTUS did offer guidance in their document though: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf (apologies if already posted) I've only read through about 8 pages, and I agree with the court's decision. The President needs to make the best official decisions/acts possible to uphold the Constitution as he or she sees fit without fear of prosecution. I do believe WRT Jan 6 that when the Pres knew or was clearly shown there was no significant fraud, any actions attempting to prevent the change of power were subversive to his Constitutional duties and therefore prosecutable. Unfortunately it's going to take time and court cases to elucidate all that. And we all know Brownholed Dump will delay and prolong things as long as possible. But I can give a full circle scenario for the left wingers: If Dump wins the upcoming election and Biden has legitimate evidence of widespread fraud, he will need to pursue the truth in a short time and he should. We trust he will differ from Dump much like Gore did in finally conceding when the evidence showed otherwise. But he shouldn't be prosecuted for legitimately pursuing the truth, even if it disrupts some of the regular process. Unless he knew or was shown the evidence to be false.
4th&long Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 minute ago, boyst said: lol this was short enough i read it... i'm an old vietnamese lady who fought against the american military and came to this country... yep. you believe it. Lies as always. Keep exposing yourself for who you are.
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 hour ago, TH3 said: Sotomayor huh? This scotus told us a gun that shoots 500 rounds a minute and was used to shoot 500 and kill 50 is not an automatic weapon Which gun is that?
boyst Posted July 2 Posted July 2 1 minute ago, phypon said: First of all, I'd like to say thank you to you and @boyst for prompting me to look into the Logan Act a bit. It's not something in which I was familiar with. At this point, I'd say in a way you are both correct. The difference being, Trump might want to do what he can to end a possible nuclear war as soon as possible, but legally he might not be able to inject himself into the conflict until inauguration. Since he hasn't done that, he has not broken any laws. It is customary for president-elects to contact foreign nations after the election and before inauguration to discuss issues pertaining to US foreign policy, but not in times of war. It would be a gray area for Trump to do so since technically the US and Russia are not officially directly at war (even though it is a proxy war). Obama, as most president-elects, reached out to countries once elected and before inauguration as well (nothing illegal about it). "In the case of President-elect Barack Obama in 2008-2009, engagement with foreign leaders began with a series of phone calls placed shortly after Election Day to close American allies. This list included the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, Canada and Mexico. This engagement was strategic and intended to emphasize the importance of these nations to the United States. Two days later, Obama placed calls to leaders in Russia and China, countries with more complex relationships with United States." Source: https://presidentialtransition.org/reports-publications/how-newly-elected-presidents-engage-foreign-leaders/ I'm not trying to get involved in the discussion between the two of you, just wanted to add some context and thank both of you for talking about this and highlighting a subject that was a bit obscure to me. i wouldn't have brought it up if i did not know the subject matter sufficiently. while you're lookin it up you can look at what Kerry had done working out and behind the scenes of the Iran nuclear deal during Trumps tenure. you can look at a several of politicians and what they have done. further, the office of the president elect does not exist. what is interesting is every former president and therefore former first lady receives almost every piece of intel from the government, even up to the "q" rating for interests of national security. that means even Jimmy Carter still gets almost all of the presidential briefs - well, maybe access to them. before taking office you do not receive all of this information - however. 1 minute ago, Orlando Buffalo said: Which gun is that? no joke, i want to know what gun that is because it sounds like a terribly unreliable and poor gun. i'd never want it! 10 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: No I was just saying Shapiro really out her in her place. He really added great discussion to the discord with that tweet. He showed her. Lol, I’ve seen what you post and let me just say it’s lacking. If you think of yourself as an intellectual you may want to back and find a book, learn how to read it and come up with coherent arguments. I think if you can follow a basic logic table, you’d see I cleared laid out your a hypocrite that no one should listen to. sweetie, you can't even answer a question. so, be a good dear and ask your mother to turn off the content blocker for your browser so you can go unwind.
Backintheday544 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, phypon said: First of all, I'd like to say thank you to you and @boyst for prompting me to look into the Logan Act a bit. It's not something in which I was familiar with. At this point, I'd say in a way you are both correct. The difference being, Trump might want to do what he can to end a possible nuclear war as soon as possible, but legally he might not be able to inject himself into the conflict until inauguration. Since he hasn't done that, he has not broken any laws. It is customary for president-elects to contact foreign nations after the election and before inauguration to discuss issues pertaining to US foreign policy, but not in times of war. It would be a gray area for Trump to do so since technically the US and Russia are not officially directly at war (even though it is a proxy war). Obama, as most president-elects, reached out to countries once elected and before inauguration as well (nothing illegal about it). "In the case of President-elect Barack Obama in 2008-2009, engagement with foreign leaders began with a series of phone calls placed shortly after Election Day to close American allies. This list included the United Kingdom, Israel, Japan, Canada and Mexico. This engagement was strategic and intended to emphasize the importance of these nations to the United States. Two days later, Obama placed calls to leaders in Russia and China, countries with more complex relationships with United States." Source: https://presidentialtransition.org/reports-publications/how-newly-elected-presidents-engage-foreign-leaders/ I'm not trying to get involved in the discussion between the two of you, just wanted to add some context and thank both of you for talking about this and highlighting a subject that was a bit obscure to me. Historically that’s been something that’s been done. Biden admin would have done it too. its when you negotiate to change a position that it would become an issue. Trump blamed Kerry for negotiating with Iran. Trumps admin had Flynn who: First, he encouraged world leaders to vote against a United Nations resolution on Israeli settlements, bucking the Obama White House position. Second, he undermined sanctions established under President Barack Obama against Russia in his phone conversations with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak The idea being a non-elected person at the time cannot negotiate against the current Presidents positions. Trump going to Russia or Ukraine to broker a peace would clearly undermine the current admin.
Backintheday544 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, boyst said: i wouldn't have brought it up if i did not know the subject matter sufficiently. while you're lookin it up you can look at what Kerry had done working out and behind the scenes of the Iran nuclear deal during Trumps tenure. you can look at a several of politicians and what they have done. further, the office of the president elect does not exist. what is interesting is every former president and therefore former first lady receives almost every piece of intel from the government, even up to the "q" rating for interests of national security. that means even Jimmy Carter still gets almost all of the presidential briefs - well, maybe access to them. before taking office you do not receive all of this information - however. no joke, i want to know what gun that is because it sounds like a terribly unreliable and poor gun. i'd never want it! sweetie, you can't even answer a question. so, be a good dear and ask your mother to turn off the content blocker for your browser so you can go unwind. Honey boo boo bear, I wish you were half as smart as you think and weren’t half as dumb as you’ve proven yourself to be. End of story - you support Logan violations against Kerry. Trump has no way to end a war with Russia and Ukraine without violating Logan Act prior to being sworn in. Trump has told you he will violate the Act you care about. So, you either don’t actually care about the Logan Act or you’re ok with violations of the act as long as there is an (R) next to the name , making you just another Republican hypocrite. Now honey pie. Leave the computer and let the adults handle conversations. 1
4th&long Posted July 2 Posted July 2 3 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Honey boo boo bear, I wish you were half as smart as you think and weren’t half as dumb as you’ve proven yourself to be. End of story - you support Logan violations against Kerry. Trump has no way to end a war with Russia and Ukraine without violating Logan Act prior to being sworn in. Trump has told you he will violate the Act you care about. So, you either don’t actually care about the Logan Act or you’re ok with violations of the act as long as there is an (R) next to the name , making you just another Republican hypocrite. Now honey pie. Leave the computer and let the adults handle conversations. Uh oh. I hope this is the only message board you are on. You just earned yourself a stalker.
Backintheday544 Posted July 2 Posted July 2 8 minutes ago, 4th&long said: Uh oh. I hope this is the only message board you are on. You just earned yourself a stalker. Unlike our friends in the right here, I don’t make other boards to support my echo chamber when people disagree with me. 1
4th&long Posted July 2 Posted July 2 5 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Unlike our friends in the right here, I don’t make other boards to support my echo chamber when people disagree with me. I never seen anything like it. I stayed there long enough to toy with them.a few act like they are not maga till you say something about trump. They gang up on and attack anyone not maga to drive them out. I check in once in awhile to see the maga tears. I might keep it for football talk.
Recommended Posts