Trump - Harris Presidential Election 2024

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reader mode
IlovethePies said:
My quote was an excerpt from her remarks. She is permitted to do both: ie, give her reasoning to explain why the Supreme Court decision violated constitutional principles, and to give examples to illustrate her reasoning. Here is a fuller version of what she said:

[This decision] "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
“The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. When the president uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. 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.

“The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Again, not a full rendition of her remarks, but clearly her examples are used to illustrate her legal reasoning. Please point to any legal principle that says that her use of examples of the potential consequences of the decision she dissents with have no place in her arguments.
Click to expand...
She is permitted to write whatever she likes. Mine was a critique of her poor wording. Might be a bit ambitious to give you a legal education, but here is the thing about judgements. They interpret the law as it stands. Not the potential future consequences of a legal decision. Judges' decision making can't be guided by the potential consequences of a particular decision.

It is then for the legislature to respond appropriately to change laws if need be.

Maybe the Yanks are a bit more florid in their written judgements - Lord knows that one was. Dunno how many High Court decisions you have read but they are pretty dry.

You are getting a bit carried away - things aren't that bad.
 
I find it a little amusing/bemusing that one of the key figures behind convincing/forcing Biden to stand down because of age/infirmity was an 84 year old sitting congresswoman who is running for re-election.

One whose husband has made tens or even hundreds of millions trading stocks. But that's another story.
 
sideswipe said:
I find it a little amusing/bemusing that one of the key figures behind convincing/forcing Biden to stand down because of age/infirmity was an 84 year old sitting congresswoman who is running for re-election.

One whose husband has made tens or even hundreds of millions trading stocks. But that's another story.
Click to expand...

Munger was 99 and sharp as all f*ck

Galbraith, Drucker, Soros, Buffett were/are all old campaigners and sharp

Pelosi looks super sharp still (hubby probably was until his skull got hammered)
 

Log in to remove this ad.

WalterBlaknWhte said:
Munger was 99 and sharp as all f*ck

Galbraith, Drucker, Soros, Buffett were/are all old campaigners and sharp

Pelosi looks super sharp still (hubby probably was until his skull got hammered)
Click to expand...
Senators Bernie Sanders 82 and Elizabeth Warren 75 both as sharp as a tack.
 
sideswipe said:
I find it a little amusing/bemusing that one of the key figures behind convincing/forcing Biden to stand down because of age/infirmity was an 84 year old sitting congresswoman who is running for re-election.

One whose husband has made tens or even hundreds of millions trading stocks. But that's another story.
Click to expand...
Rick Scott (R) is 71 and the richest politician sitting in Congress. Pelosi isn't even in the top 10.

Most of his wealth was through Hospital ownership although during his tenure as chief executive, the company defrauded Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs.

The Department of Justice won 14 felony convictions against the company, which was fined $1.7 billion in what was at the time the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history.
 
Maggie5 said:
Rick Scott (R) is 71 and the richest politician sitting in Congress. Pelosi isn't even in the top 10.

Most of his wealth was through Hospital ownership although during his tenure as chief executive, the company defrauded Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal programs.

The Department of Justice won 14 felony convictions against the company, which was fined $1.7 billion in what was at the time the largest healthcare fraud settlement in U.S. history.
Click to expand...
Two, or ten, wrongs dont make a right. Scott sounds like he made his dough before entering politics? Pelosi did not.

Keep up the good work defending the Dems though.
 
sideswipe said:
Two, or ten, wrongs dont make a right. Scott sounds like he made his dough before entering politics? Pelosi did not.

Keep up the good work defending the Dems though.
Click to expand...
Pelosi's husband was quite wealthy before she entered politics.

Not sure why most anti Democrat posters always bring up Pelosi and ignore or excuse other politicians.

Similar to how some laud Trump's wealth given that it started with inherited wealth. Too easy.
 
Maggie5 said:
Pelosi's husband was quite wealthy before she entered politics.

Not sure why most anti Democrat posters always bring up Pelosi and ignore or excuse other politicians.

Similar to how some laud Trump's wealth given that it started with inherited wealth. Too easy.
Click to expand...
Really? He was 23?

Am a long way from lauding Trump for anything other than exemplary wife-picking skills.
 
IlovethePies said:
In regard to "appeasement", Chamberlain was not so much the example I was thinking of. Rather, I was thinking more of the example of Pinochet in Chile, where Allende sought constantly to find an accommodation with the fascists and paid for it with his life. The people of Chile of course paid the price for

In terms of appeasement, the example I was thinking of was that of Allende in Chile. Allende was doing everything he could to "not inflame the situation''. The Social Democrats desperately sought a compromise with the fascists through Parliament etc. The people of Chile paid the most horrific price.

You and I clearly differ profoundly on what the role of the Democrats is and what "national unity" means. My opinion is that the Democrats call for "national unity" is a call to the Republicans for appeasement and for accommodation. They are appealing to the Republicans to co-operate with them, regardless of who wins the upcoming election.

The Democrats are aligned with dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus, and their priority is to continue the war, ie to keep backing Israel in Gaza and to keep inflaming the situation in Ukraine against Russia. If Trump were to agrees to continue along these very same lines, they would be happy to work with him.

Trump on the other hand represents the most openly fascist sections of the ruling class that have concluded that opposition to social inequality and to war must first be dealt with at home. Before the US embarks on global war the homebase needs to be secured.

One fundamental thing to observe is that both the Democrats and the Republicans depend totally on the role of the AFL-CIO. Biden himself referred to the AFL-CIO as the "NATO at home", and one section of the trade union bureaucrats was actually present at the Republican National Convention.

Both the Republicans and the Democrats are totally reliant on the trade union bureaucracy to suppress and call off strike movements, rebellions among the huge industrial working class in the US

I keep coming back to it, but the Supreme court decision is the key indicator. Its meaning is this: the ruling class in America now requires a presidential dictatorship to implement its policies. That is why the Democrats are not "rocking the boat" at all about this fundamental attack on the Constitution.
Click to expand...
I'm leaning towards you with the potential for fascism - or centralised authoritarianism. Trust in the checks and balances have been eroded so fundamentally that there's the definite potential for Trump to assume obscene amounts of power.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Good move by Biden to step aside.His candidacy was no longer viable after his debate performance.

Now the contest is between an ageing,obese,psychopathic criminal who is also in serious mental decline and a much younger black woman,who at least appears to be relatively sane.The prosecutor versus the criminal.Let’s hope the prosecutor wins for the sake of American democracy.
 
sideswipe said:
She is permitted to write whatever she likes. Mine was a critique of her poor wording. Might be a bit ambitious to give you a legal education, but here is the thing about judgements. They interpret the law as it stands. Not the potential future consequences of a legal decision. Judges' decision making can't be guided by the potential consequences of a particular decision.

It is then for the legislature to respond appropriately to change laws if need be.

Maybe the Yanks are a bit more florid in their written judgements - Lord knows that one was. Dunno how many High Court decisions you have read but they are pretty dry.

You are getting a bit carried away - things aren't that bad.
Click to expand...
TBH, if your only critique is poor wording, then this is quite a superficial and lightminded response. What is your opinion of the gravity of the potential consequences that she has elaborated? Do you not think that there is a huge possiblity for the Trump, if elected, to seize dictatorial powers? If not, why not?
She, afterall, is a Supreme Court judge, so she is eminently qualified to write proper legal judgements.
 
Last edited:
anshell said:
Good move by Biden to step aside.His candidacy was no longer viable after his debate performance.

Now the contest is between an ageing,obese,psychopathic criminal who is also in serious mental decline and a much younger black woman,who at least appears to be relatively sane.The prosecutor versus the criminal.Let’s hope the prosecutor wins for the sake of American democracy.
Click to expand...
Harris is by no means guaranteed to be selected. The billionaires who back the Democrats and the military-intelligence apparatus which likewise wields enormous influence over them, will make the decision.
 
IlovethePies said:
None of them were gullible. Trump's philandering behaviour was well known by all before they married. A more plausible explanation is that they all preferred material wealth over fidelity.
Click to expand...
Trumps first wife Ivana received $25M however she was instrumental in designing interiors of the hotels and he appointed her VP of the organisation. They were married for 12 years and had 3 children. Seems a fair payout from a billionaire.

Trumps second wife Marla had signed a pre-nup and received $1M. One child, married 4 years.

Trumps 3rd wife Melania still married but I reckon she is smarter than the previous two and will stay married to him unless he doesn't win the Presidency.

So maybe less gullible but trusting the shyster.
 
IlovethePies said:
TBH, if your only critique is poor wording, then this is quite a superficial and lightminded response. What is your opinion of the gravity of the potential consequences that she has elaborated? Do you not think that there is a huge possiblity for the Trump, if elected, to seize dictatorial powers? If not, why not?
She, afterall, is a Supreme Court judge, so she is eminently qualified to write proper legal judgements.
Click to expand...

Did you understand what I wrote about judgments considering the law and not consequences? Have given you a couple of bites of the cherry on this one. For a judge to mention Seal Team 6 in a judgement is nothing short of horrendous alarmism.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
sideswipe said:
Did you understand what I wrote about judgments considering the law and not consequences? Have given you a couple of bites of the cherry on this one. For a judge to mention Seal Team 6 in a judgement is nothing short of horrendous alarmism.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
Click to expand...
Believe I understood...but it is simply your opinion that it is "alarmist". She is a Supreme Court judge, and in her opinion it wasn't alarmist. Looks time will be the ultimate judge, and I am sure that time will not take long to render its judgement.
 
IlovethePies said:
Believe I understood...but it is simply your opinion that it is "alarmist". She is a Supreme Court judge, and in her opinion it wasn't alarmist. Looks time will be the ultimate judge, and I am sure that time will not take long to render its judgement.
Click to expand...

The extracts of that judgement were an emotive argumentative essay. Beyond flawed.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
IlovethePies said:
TBH, if your only critique is poor wording, then this is quite a superficial and lightminded response. What is your opinion of the gravity of the potential consequences that she has elaborated? Do you not think that there is a huge possiblity for the Trump, if elected, to seize dictatorial powers? If not, why not?
She, afterall, is a Supreme Court judge, so she is eminently qualified to write proper legal judgements.
Click to expand...

For someone who seemingly subscribes to a Marxist view of the world, which would include a more tectonic perspective on historical forces, your focus on the recent Supreme Court decision seems quite tabloid and laced with recency bias.

Also, I've highlighted the bolded because your posts are in fact questioning the qualification and capability of a majority of the Supreme Court.
 
Reader mode
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top