1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Running SCOTUS thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by 2muchcoffeeman, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    You send it back to the lower court to define. Then when that definition is ruled upon, you can sit on the appeal of the lower court's ruling again later if needful.
     
  2. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    What constitutes an "official act" is anything that five dudes in robes decide it is.
     
  3. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    Careful with the prognosticating; several folks around here won't cotton to it.
     
  4. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    So, basically, they know an official act when they see it.
     
  5. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    What bothers me isn’t the court insisting a president is immune when doing things as part of its constitutional duties. Executing acts of war, engaging in national defense, enforcing laws and policies should be protected. That isn’t that hard to say. It also isn’t very hard to say a president has no immunity for acts of subversion against the Constitution. If he feels the election was improper, there are legal remedies that must be followed. When you use means outside of legal remedies, you have no immunity. When you take actions in violation of existing laws and outlined procedures, you have no immunity. That isn’t that hard. We have laws. We have legal procedures. Follow them or you get prosecuted.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2024
  6. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I see how well that's working out. If Trump get re-elected those cases are dead.
     
  7. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    Jan. 6 should be unofficial. He’s speaking as a candidate. He’s ordering his klan to break the law in order to prevent the certification of his opponent’s election. He could and would make that same speech as a private citizen.
     
  8. tapintoamerica

    tapintoamerica Well-Known Member

    I have always been told that if POTUS, as Commander in Chief, ordered the military to kill citizens randomly, protocol would require the military to ignore/refuse because the order would be unlawful. Is that still the case? Would the order still be unlawful and therefore disobeyed?
     
  9. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    It really isn’t hard. When laws say you must do it this way, or else. Fucking enforce the “or else.” It really is scary how much this parallels the rise of the Nazis in Germany. Just so much systematic erosion of the structures of government. And what’s worse, the GQP has everyone so convinced the Libs are harbingers of the coming Anti-Christ, they are missing that he’s already here and they are voting him in.
     
    garrow, Driftwood and Tarheel316 like this.
  10. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Never fired a gun in my life, much less owned one. Never felt the need.

    I’ve got four months left to fix that.
     
  11. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    Dude, even this Cali lib quasi hippy has fired a gun. Your handle is “Dixie” for crying out loud!
     
  12. Scout

    Scout Well-Known Member

    Power > potential Nazi
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page