I'm not saying it should happen, but I am saying IF the Supremes ok presidential immunity, then there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional for Biden to assassinate 6 Supreme Court justices. They really need to carry their logic to its own conclusion in regards to themselves
Reap what you sow. You say the president can legally murder people, I say let the president legally murder people. Classic fuck around; find out scenario
He truly could and I hope they realize that. Sadly with the 6 in his pocket they COULD rule in his favor. He’d promise them riches like he does everyone else but in the end, he would burn them too. Woe be into those who would not see that until too late.
The only thing with that line of reasoning is for al their posturing they know Democrats would never do all the evil shit Rs contemplate on a daily basis
I grew up watching movies thinking they were 'Saver' jets - cuz they always seemed arrive just in time (these were drive-in movies so details are missing)
Hm? Well, in WMS's sentence, I suppose there's a dual predicate force being exerted on "us and them", since they're part of the general predicate "...the difference between 'us' and 'them' ", and "us and them" is also the object of the preposition "between." Although I'm not sure if that second instance actually qualifies as a 'predicate', since there's no verb involved...
And you're still whingeing about the comments *they* made. Not to mention your asinine implication that only something that happened in the past two seconds is worth commenting upon. Public discourse must be a TERRIBLY complicated issue for you.
These are the last words I will ever write in response to your bullshit. I have never said to placate bullies I've said that the bullies aren't here, and your efforts to make a big moral stand against them here can't hurt the bullies, because they're not here, but could inadvertently hurt members of our community. And that's something we all should be mindful of. They you find that idea so offensive is why I'm now done talking to you.
There’s a certain irony that commenting rules still apply for an article about the ‘Extreme Court’ allowing a former *president to escape accountability from the rule of law.
I had to stop reading Wonkette (and taking part in news) for my mental health, which is fragile (must be Italian!) and I wish to hell that I weren't a delicate flower in this way because I love & stan you all so much. Non-commenters too. But this is the kind of news that wrecks my shit. They're just so dedicated to the lies.
SCOTUS was pretty much obligated to hear this case since it involves questions of presidential powers that have not been previously adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and constitutional limits on governmental authority. Had this been about anyone else but someone who had been president, the Court would have allowed the lower court's ruling to stand. But since the presidency is a co-equal branch of government, the lower court's opinion, which is the correct one, has to be vetted by SCOTUS.
I expect a 9-0 decision affirming the court below on this.
Well... we can hope, I guess. You'll pardon me if I remain skeptical, since I feel like if they were just going to unanimously rule it was bullshit, they wouldn't wait 3 months to hear arguments first.
I was surprised that there was no petition made for an en banc hearing before the court of appeals. But Trump did wait a long time before filing his Cert petition, so a 90-day delay between the order from the court below to the Supreme Court granting Cert, really isn't that unusual. There's no emergency at hand to get the Court to move any faster on this. At least they didn't put this case over until October.
This is performative justice by Roberts. Remember while the Supremes are majority partisan hacks, they are still all intelligent men and women. And thus they will realize that there is NO benefit to giving Assmouth a pass, because it could certainly backfire on them when OHJB wins in Nov (court expansion, etc.). If they keep their heads down and maintain the status quo, they can continue undermining democracy with their lifetime appointments from INSIDE THE BUILDING.
Roberts know this as well as anyone, but wants to preserve the illusion that they are non-partisan. So he will allow this to go to court, they will shut it down after serious deliberation (my money says 7-2, I’m looking at YOU ALITO AND THOMAS), and he can say how open they were to considering all viewpoints but how they hewed to the rule of Law in the end. And by delaying it they get the bonus of helping the Assmouth candidacy while maintaining their pretense of non-bias. While not incidentally protecting themselves from the Assmouth cultists and their tanks and their bombs and their bombs and their guns. It’s twisted, but not un-brilliant.
All true, but only due to the Illegitimate Partisan Hack Supreme Court‘s Illegitimate Partisan Hack stacking. I believe 3/9 of the members still have souls, and can still speak complete sentences without gagging on Assmouth’s balls. So give them some credit, for being at least eloquent voices of reason even without any ability to change outcomes.
Call me Pollyanna, but maybe this will work out anyway. If Trump tries to get re-elected while he is undergoing a trial for trying to overturn the previous election, it might not be a great look for him.
If only Dubya had given Alito the Chief Justice position he did not deserve and was not qualified for; then we might be able to live in (highly relative) peace, with Alito blissed out on bejeweled fishing lures and his retaliatory inner Puritan on-leash.
But no. And so we get Citizens United AND Dobbs, giant leaps for man into the thirteenth century. Just for man, you understand. Women need not apply for rights anymore. But you knew that.
I predict a 7-2 decision in favour of Presidents not having the Divine Rights of Kings to float now and forever above the law. With furious and onanistic dissents from Justice Sam Edgelord and Justice Clarence Arvee.
Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all participated as legal support for Bush the Lesser during Bush v Gore. All three are perfectly fine with election tampering, interference with vote counting, and using propaganda to inflame the orcs that vote for Republicans. They will decide in TFG's favor, and rule that all charges be dropped.
Loving reminder that commenting rules still apply, dears!
We bring up the Florence Pan question because it actually happened in court, and such are the literal implications of Trump's legal "theory."
I feel a new euphemism coming on. Be a real shame if he got Florence Pan'd
For FP'd for short.
I keep seeing "Florence Pugh" whenever anyone mentions "Florence Pan." Takes me a minute...
I thought I was the only one!
Really makes the story extra-interesting!
And I just watched Midsommar, so I figured I had Florence Pugh on the brain!
the reductio of Trump's "legal" "theory" is bad enough as a thought experiment. you don't have to write it down to make it more impactful.
the Florence Pan question demonstrated that quite effectively.
Bless their hearts.
That will make Biden immune, too.
Yeah, he should drag Trump to Florence, Colorado, and leave him there. "Hey motherfucker, I'm immune too!"
Whatever. You're not my real dad.
*flounces away*
I'm not saying it should happen, but I am saying IF the Supremes ok presidential immunity, then there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional for Biden to assassinate 6 Supreme Court justices. They really need to carry their logic to its own conclusion in regards to themselves
i mean...why do we need violence? i would be absolutely satisfied by seeing SCOTUS work at a wendy's for the remainder of their working lives.
or chick-fil-a.
Reap what you sow. You say the president can legally murder people, I say let the president legally murder people. Classic fuck around; find out scenario
Or just fire them all. I mean why the hell not?
Because he hypothetically could
He truly could and I hope they realize that. Sadly with the 6 in his pocket they COULD rule in his favor. He’d promise them riches like he does everyone else but in the end, he would burn them too. Woe be into those who would not see that until too late.
He could also sic his dogs on them.....
#JusticeForMajor
#JusticeForCommander
The only thing with that line of reasoning is for al their posturing they know Democrats would never do all the evil shit Rs contemplate on a daily basis
Why not? It's well past the time for us to meet the scum on their own level.
Tired of playing with one hand tied behind our collective back.
I don’t know. You never know with people where the line will be. Push enough people and you might find out where their lines are.
firing anti-democratic SCOTUS justices and federal judges isn't even evil.
THIS PART.
And I can't tell you how much I wish people would stop treating it like it was.
https://www.wonkette.com/p/illegitimate-partisan-hack-supreme/comment/50642390
And I say it's high time they were disabused of that notion
Please everyone try to remember the difference between "us" and "them"
"Them" are giant ants.
Fine. I'll get the flamethrower, you call in the F-86 Sabre jets.
I grew up watching movies thinking they were 'Saver' jets - cuz they always seemed arrive just in time (these were drive-in movies so details are missing)
again with the pronouns.
Pronoun trouble.
When they go low, if you go high, they take a chainsaw to your knees.
That's what I remember.
As I said in an earlier thread, though, the only people we're hitting with our comments are each other.
Whack!
So, our comments here will be seen by the people running the right and they'll feel the sting of our contempt? I find that highly unlikely.
subject and object?
Predicated on what?
Hm? Well, in WMS's sentence, I suppose there's a dual predicate force being exerted on "us and them", since they're part of the general predicate "...the difference between 'us' and 'them' ", and "us and them" is also the object of the preposition "between." Although I'm not sure if that second instance actually qualifies as a 'predicate', since there's no verb involved...
i was told there would be no math.
Thank you
Still have someone replying to hours old comments I made on that subject earlier today. It's a complicated issue for some.
And you're still whingeing about the comments *they* made. Not to mention your asinine implication that only something that happened in the past two seconds is worth commenting upon. Public discourse must be a TERRIBLY complicated issue for you.
You're being a jerk. Maybe stop that.
These are the last words I will ever write in response to your bullshit. I have never said to placate bullies I've said that the bullies aren't here, and your efforts to make a big moral stand against them here can't hurt the bullies, because they're not here, but could inadvertently hurt members of our community. And that's something we all should be mindful of. They you find that idea so offensive is why I'm now done talking to you.
hey Trained, do me a favor and lay off MRK. There's no block function here, and it's getting personal and pokey.
Thank you!
if people are attacking you, please flag their comments for me. I can't do anything about them if I don't know about them.
You have consistently misread what I'm saying, but I no longer care enough to try to correct that
There's a Pink Floyd song about it
I like the verse about the cloak best.
I certainly was in the right.
There’s a certain irony that commenting rules still apply for an article about the ‘Extreme Court’ allowing a former *president to escape accountability from the rule of law.
Sometimes you have to be Walter Sobchak cocking a .45 and yelling, "Someone's gotta give a shit about the rules around here!"
Otherwise you have chaos, not bowling!
"Sorry Smokie, it's a league game."
"Yeah, but I wasn't over!"
"This ain't Vietnam, Smoky. There are rules."
But ... that's what *she* said! :)
Elmo?
So, "with hypothetical votes?"
I had to stop reading Wonkette (and taking part in news) for my mental health, which is fragile (must be Italian!) and I wish to hell that I weren't a delicate flower in this way because I love & stan you all so much. Non-commenters too. But this is the kind of news that wrecks my shit. They're just so dedicated to the lies.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/03/01/ann-telnaes-cartoon-trump-immunity/
I hope y'all and cut and paste. Best editorial cartoon ever! Ann Telnaes is a genius.
It would take way more than seven weeks to excavate the bizarre ideas to be found in the self-righteous corners of SCOTUS.
SCOTUS was pretty much obligated to hear this case since it involves questions of presidential powers that have not been previously adjudicated by the Supreme Court, and constitutional limits on governmental authority. Had this been about anyone else but someone who had been president, the Court would have allowed the lower court's ruling to stand. But since the presidency is a co-equal branch of government, the lower court's opinion, which is the correct one, has to be vetted by SCOTUS.
I expect a 9-0 decision affirming the court below on this.
Well... we can hope, I guess. You'll pardon me if I remain skeptical, since I feel like if they were just going to unanimously rule it was bullshit, they wouldn't wait 3 months to hear arguments first.
I was surprised that there was no petition made for an en banc hearing before the court of appeals. But Trump did wait a long time before filing his Cert petition, so a 90-day delay between the order from the court below to the Supreme Court granting Cert, really isn't that unusual. There's no emergency at hand to get the Court to move any faster on this. At least they didn't put this case over until October.
Incandescent, Evan. Thank you.
This is performative justice by Roberts. Remember while the Supremes are majority partisan hacks, they are still all intelligent men and women. And thus they will realize that there is NO benefit to giving Assmouth a pass, because it could certainly backfire on them when OHJB wins in Nov (court expansion, etc.). If they keep their heads down and maintain the status quo, they can continue undermining democracy with their lifetime appointments from INSIDE THE BUILDING.
Roberts know this as well as anyone, but wants to preserve the illusion that they are non-partisan. So he will allow this to go to court, they will shut it down after serious deliberation (my money says 7-2, I’m looking at YOU ALITO AND THOMAS), and he can say how open they were to considering all viewpoints but how they hewed to the rule of Law in the end. And by delaying it they get the bonus of helping the Assmouth candidacy while maintaining their pretense of non-bias. While not incidentally protecting themselves from the Assmouth cultists and their tanks and their bombs and their bombs and their guns. It’s twisted, but not un-brilliant.
All true, but only due to the Illegitimate Partisan Hack Supreme Court‘s Illegitimate Partisan Hack stacking. I believe 3/9 of the members still have souls, and can still speak complete sentences without gagging on Assmouth’s balls. So give them some credit, for being at least eloquent voices of reason even without any ability to change outcomes.
"We typed “Trump Supreme Court Jesus” into the AI and this monstrosity came out" is an apt description of his presidency TBH
"And, well, the Supreme Court apparently thinks Trump’s shit-throwing is a game of fetch."
This line is amazing. Bravo.
So Biden will be able to do whatever he wants without regard to laws? Maybe he can have Trump assassinated or something.
Call me Pollyanna, but maybe this will work out anyway. If Trump tries to get re-elected while he is undergoing a trial for trying to overturn the previous election, it might not be a great look for him.
If only Dubya had given Alito the Chief Justice position he did not deserve and was not qualified for; then we might be able to live in (highly relative) peace, with Alito blissed out on bejeweled fishing lures and his retaliatory inner Puritan on-leash.
But no. And so we get Citizens United AND Dobbs, giant leaps for man into the thirteenth century. Just for man, you understand. Women need not apply for rights anymore. But you knew that.
I predict a 7-2 decision in favour of Presidents not having the Divine Rights of Kings to float now and forever above the law. With furious and onanistic dissents from Justice Sam Edgelord and Justice Clarence Arvee.
Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett all participated as legal support for Bush the Lesser during Bush v Gore. All three are perfectly fine with election tampering, interference with vote counting, and using propaganda to inflame the orcs that vote for Republicans. They will decide in TFG's favor, and rule that all charges be dropped.