Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    sci.military.naval    |    Navies of the world, past, present and f    |    118,661 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 118,400 of 118,661    |
|    Trumptronic to All    |
|    Justices claim immunity ruling allows pr    |
|    02 Jul 24 10:12:40    |
      XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.guns       XPost: sac.politics       From: trumptronic@gmail.com              If this case was about that gay nigger Obama, Democrats would be dancing in       the streets and lighting bonfires.              Remember when Obama had Seal Team 6 killed for telling the truth about him?              In their dissents from the Supreme Court's decision on presidential       immunity, the court's liberal justices suggested that the majority opinion       allows for a slew of alarming scenarios — including a president ordering a       Navy SEAL team to "assassinate" his political rival or even poisoning one of       his own cabinet members.              The high court on Monday ruled 6-3 that a president has substantial immunity       for official acts that occurred during his time in office. It's a decision       that has significant implications for former President Trump, whose       prosecution on charges related to the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol breach and alleged       2020 election interference spurred the Supreme Court to hear the case.              But although the majority opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts explicitly       stated that the president "is not above the law" and immunity is only a       factor when it involves an "official act" — the justices sent the case back       to lower courts to determine if the acts at the center of Trump's case were       "official" — the ruling raised a series of frightening possibilities,       according to the trio of dissenting justices.              Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan wrote in the       primary dissent that the court's majority opinion "makes a mockery of the       principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that       no man is above the law."                     "The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the       country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any       way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal       prosecution," Sotomayor wrote. "Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate       a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power?       Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune,       immune."                     Sotomayor added that the majority decision has "shifted irrevocably" the       relationship between the president and the American people, being that "in       every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law."                     Yet another startling scenario is included in a footnote from a separate       dissent authored by Jackson.              Noting that the president's removal of a cabinet member would constitute an       official act, Jackson says that "while the President may have the authority       to decide to remove the Attorney General, for example, the question here is       whether the President has the option to remove the Attorney General by, say,       poisoning him to death."                            Both dissents were taken to task in the court's majority opinion.              "As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly       disproportionate to what the Court actually does today…," Roberts wrote.                     TRUMP TOUTS SUPREME COURT'S PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY RULING AS 'BIG WIN FOR OUR       CONSTITUTION AND FOR DEMOCRACY'              Adding that the dissents came "up short on reasoning," Roberts wrote that       the "positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s       separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on       the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President ‘feels       empowered to violate federal criminal law.'"              Sotomayor's dissent swiftly reverberated throughout social media. Former       Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who lost to Trump in the 2016 election,       posted on X that she agrees with Sotomayor's stand against the "MAGA wing"       of the high court.              "It will be up to the American people this November to hold Donald Trump       accountable," Clinton wrote.              Your day of accountability is coming, Hillary.              https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justices-claim-immunity-ruling-allows-       presidents-poison-staffers-have-navy-seals-kill-political-rivals              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca