jdeluise <
jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r
TT <TT@dprk.kp> writes:> PeteWasLucky kirjoitti 4.7.2024 klo 1.20:>> Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>>> On 7/2/24 7:34 PM, PeteWasLucky wrote:> jdeluise >>> <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:r>> *skriptis >>> <skriptis@post.t-com.
writes:> jdeluise >>> <jdeluise@gmail.com> Wrote in message:>> It seems to me that >>> the current conservative supreme court >> oscillates between >>> being "textualist", "originalist", and >> "intentionalist" >>> depending on what best supports the
jurist' >> personally >>> desired outcome.>>>> And what's surprising in that?>>> That's >>> the whole point of having options.This may be surprising to >>> you but they aren't supposed to rule based on their personal >>> opinions. They aren't supposed
to show a hint of partiality, >>> inside the court or out. But, apparently we're living in >>> lawless times and now it's OK to have openly political Supreme >>> Court justices who accept bribes and raise flags in support of >>> a defendant going before
them. Yup, dark days ahead...> I >>> didn't find anything in the rulings that was well defined and >>> shockingly new at the same time.> It looked like a published >>> advisory.> Honestly it was annoying to me because of >>> that.>>Yes, I'm not really
sure at this time if any of these >>> ideas are new, they are just clarified somewhat. I think it is >>> a sort of advisory to the lower court where to look and rule >>> to advance the case.People are looking at this as a pro-Trump >>> ruling. It has two
aspects though, and the Trump one is the >>> less important of the two.1) This *delays* any legal >>> proceedings on whether Trump committed any crimes on the 6th >>> or leading up to it. It won't come up until after the >>> election. This is pro-Trump.2)
The more important aspect is >>> that moving forward, ANY president can feel freer to do >>> *whatever* while engaging in official business. This is not >>> just Trump, and may *NEVER* be; however, it might be Kamala >>> Harris.The door is open, clearly.
-- >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~"If >>> we use Occam's Razor, whose razor will *he* use?" >>> --Sawfish~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>> True for both.>>
Honestly if the Democrats are upset, then they have themselves >> to blame for chasing Trump on anything and everything for more >> than eight years.>> Many of Trump's wrong doing came as the result of the many >> things that Democrats did to him such as
Trump Russia >> investigation, impeachment, sex scandals, etc.>> I am sure if he had a peaceful presidency we wouldn't have had >> all>> these disasters.>> Yeah, there would be no problem if nobody knew about Trump's > treason &> lawbreaking...Yes, you'
re seeing the MAGA mindset in the US. They think Trump is not only entitled to break the law, but he can't even be investigated or tried for it. Rather, they want to charge those who uncover his misdeeds with crimes. They want a king.>> What is this
SCOTUS decision all about anyway? What charges will > Trump> avoid due to the decision?The most chilling part of the ruling is that prosecutors can't use discussions with his cabinet and advisors to determine *whether* his crimes were part of an official
act or not. I bet he beats most charges now. Already his lawyers are appealing his recent conviction because they called Hope Hicks to the stand. They're also claiming that the phony slate of electors his team created to steal the election is an "
official act".I can understand why the court would *pause* criminal charges against a sitting president until after his term. I don't understand what justification they have for saying he's entirely immune to any charges in perpetuity.
Lol
--
----Android NewsGroup Reader----
https://piaohong.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/usenet/index.html
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)