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.

Page 43 of 54
  1. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member


     
    Neutral Corner, Jul 1, 2024 at 12:37 PM
    #505
  2. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Those six are political hacks, and judicial hacks. I mean, tell me something I don’t know. Obviously a president has immunity for constitutional acts, telling people the storm the capital to change an election is not a constitutional act.
     
    qtlaw, Jul 1, 2024 at 12:48 PM
    #506
    Driftwood likes this.
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    WHY does a president have immunity for "official" acts?

    Putting aside the insanity now of all the court cases in which they now are going to parse what is official and what isn't (and create more made up standards that have nothing to do with anything except absolute made up BS). ...

    What if using his authority as president, as an official act he does (or orders people who work for him to do) something that is illegal for anyone else?

    I don't see the "of course" you get immunity in that. Not in a country that operates under rule of law with equal treatement for everyone.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 1, 2024 at 12:59 PM
    #507
  4. qtlaw

    qtlaw Well-Known Member

    Its the same as the immunity that a DA gets, you don't want someone scrutinizing your official decisions. That's the cost of giving people discretion to make difficult decisions. Is the decision to attack Waco a decision to murder innocent people? Or for purposes of national security? So to me, this was nothing that I didn't think was already there.
     
    qtlaw, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:11 PM
    #508
  5. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    Because it’s been well established that the president needs to execute the job without fear of reprisals. And we have the fail safe of impeachment if a president run afoul of the office.

    When a president is actually doing the job, that job needs to be protected. But usually actually doing the job is outlined by existing laws and procedures.
     
    Spartan Squad, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:11 PM
    #509
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I disgaree completely.

    A president should be held to the highest standard any of us would be held to when it comes to potential criminal activity ... not a LOWER standard.

    I personally don't want a president being able to do any shitty thing imagineable and then get immunity because of, "national security!" How many civil liberties of people have been trampled on using the "national security" standard before we realize we do harm to the country with that nonsense?

    You'd think the first Trump presidency would have actually shown people how that can be a REALLY bad thing. Just because you got elected president doesn't give you a moral compass.

    The president is one of us, not above us. We're not electing a god or a king. We should be thinking about how to LIMIT the powers of that person, not expand them. We've really allowed our values to be turned upside down in this country.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:18 PM
    #510
  7. Spartan Squad

    Spartan Squad Well-Known Member

    You’re not going to do it by arresting a president for every little thing. The country would grind to a halt. Do it by Congress actually taking power back, which is funny because Congress can’t get anything done now.

    And we still have checks and balances in place. The court just hamstrung the effective branch last week.

    But this decision is egregiously dumb, but saying the president needs to be able to do the job isn’t anywhere close to what was dumb about it.
     
    Spartan Squad, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:27 PM
    #511
  8. Tarheel316

    Tarheel316 Well-Known Member

    This is what happens when you have six Republicans on the Supreme Court. Dems should have packed the court when they had the chance. The court has become a partisan institution entity just like the House and Senate.
     
    Tarheel316, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:30 PM
    #512
    qtlaw and Driftwood like this.
  9. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    If there is a second Trump administration, the Supreme Court majority is going to be very surprised when they rule some administration action is unconstitutional and he tells them to pound sand.
     
    Michael_ Gee, Jul 1, 2024 at 1:57 PM
    #513
    HanSenSE and dixiehack like this.
  10. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    That bridge was crossed decades ago.

    People who endorsed all of the social change the court brought about during the Warren and Burger years, allowing the judiciary to short cut itself around the actual legislatures that weren't doing those things themselves (but were the proper place for it), were opening the barn door they now complain about.

    You reap what you sow.

    It's along the lines of what I was saying about the presidency, where we would be best off limiting the powers, not expanding them. That expanded power might lead to something you think is great. ... it ultimately weakens hte country. It's also REALLY dangerous, because the expanded power cuts in ways that are really bad in the wrong hands.

    If you think that "Dems should have packed the court when they had the chance," you're the problem. When someone you think is bad takes that approach. ... you have no right to complain.
     
    The Big Ragu, Jul 1, 2024 at 2:03 PM
    #514
    Batman likes this.
  11. Batman

    Batman Well-Known Member

    So the solution to keep it from turning into a partisan institution entity, is to turn it into a partisan institution entity?
     
    Batman, Jul 1, 2024 at 2:13 PM
    #515
    maumann likes this.
  12. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    If it's going to be a partisan actor, then naturally the other side's partisans are going to want to play that game, too. I've posted this elsewhere, but if Trump is elected, it will just be a matter of time before he ignores/defies a Supreme Court ruling. The majority has in effect neutered itself.
     
    Michael_ Gee, Jul 1, 2024 at 2:16 PM
    #516
Page 43 of 54
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page