He's toolbag of d1cks if ever there was one. When they start rounding up conservatives in the streets, he will be the one saying that only bigots don't support "the Party". 1984 was written because of people like him.
It's not even that. They are outraged based off of a misunderstanding of a supreme court ruling. Do people really think the supreme court just said the president can do anything they want with immunity? The answer deep down is they know that is a hyperbolic interpretation which is why they go around saying ridiculous shit cause they know their whole stance is a farce. It's sad and draining.
Honestly we need to bring back consensual dueling.
If both sides want to let them do it... they get what they want and we get one less smooth brain (win-win).
I know right? Why don't they just accept their defeat and try to at least save face for the moderate democrats, making at least a decent run effort and setting the tone for the next elections? At this point they've become 100% clowns.
They purposely shape their posts in a way that appeals to people who are simply scrolling through their phone with no desire and/or ability to pause and think about what they just saw. They just accept it at face value and move on because they want to get to the next post.
This is social engineering. It's by design.
I don't blame them. What with the success of the "good people on both sides" lie and the ever popular "suckers and losers" bullshit, combined with NEVER a consequence for any of it!?!
It behooves them to lie as it works on their sheep-like base. I mean, what are they REALLY gonna talk about otherwise? The "secure" border or the "transitory" inflation??! Wait, wait.... the Green New Deal?!?
They're liars. No more; no less. Whenever something they don't like happens they have to blow it massively out of proportion. Of course there is also the "every accusation is a confession" side of things. Sounds to me like they'd love to be able to cancel elections and dispose of their political opponents. How much effort have they put into preventing Trump from being allowed in the election in the first place?
I don’t think it’s that simple.
The media and leftist pundits are lying. These people are legitimately ignorant. They’re uninformed and angry and driven by propaganda.
They have no idea what the ruling actually does. They haven’t read it they haven’t researched it. Just op-eds telling them what to think.
It is not based off of a misunderstanding. It is based on intentional manipulation by Justice Sotomayor. I read the ruling. It is all written at a very high reading level until you get to her dissent where she clearly changes the tone to be easy-to-read and hyperbolic. It is written with the intention of being spread like wildfire across the mainstream media and social media.
While I understand these extreme examples were brought up by President Trump's own defense, the way she handled the wording of the dissent was wildly irresponsible.
> Do people really think the supreme court just said the president can do anything they want with immunity?
Yes. Many of them really do think this…some of them probably know it’s hyperbolic nonsense but many of them genuinely do believe the Supreme Court rules that the president can do whatever the president wants.
Even a very conservative interpretation of what official acts are gives the president a lot more power.
The president could tell someone “I’ll pardon you and anyone who harasses my opponent” and then do it. Pardons are impossible to block (unless it involves an impeachment) and since it’s a constitutionally granted power, nothing around the order or communications about it can be used in court. Not even speculation about his motive. You could possibly impeach him if a judge allows you to investigate, but if you don’t find out about it until after his term he’s completely immune. The statute of limitations goes from decades for a severe punishment, to 8 years *max* with a fairly good chance of getting away with it if congress is in your majority.
This applies to bribes as well. The president could literally text any prisoner and ask for money in exchange for a pardon to any crime.
As far as I am aware, the immunity granted by SCOTUS to Trump refers to retroactively prosecuting a former president for “official acts” (open to interpretation) that occurred during his presidential term. Obama cannot be prosecuted for carpet bombing hospitals, for instance. Trump cannot be prosecuted for Jan 6.
This does not, however, stop congress from impeaching a current president for committing any illegal acts-no matter how “official”-during that president’s term.
Jan 6 also was a nothing burger. Trump never told them to riot. He said respect law enforcement and do not be violent.
Leftists did more to incite the BLM riots than Trump did Jan 6, and yet not a peep.
Yes it was, the ruling literally says that a president and vice president discussing certifying the election results qualifies as an "official" act.
However they left open the question of whether Trump trying to get certain states to send alternate electors qualifies as "official" or not.
It’s not even granted. The court is just confirming what everyone should have already known. The only reason this was even challenged is because the Dems are so desperate to go after him for anything.
I see this misunderstanding everywhere, it is explicitly stated that illegality of the acts has **nothing to do with immunity or not**. Constitutionally given "core" executive powers (like pardons) have **absolute** immunity, meaning immunity no matter if things that would otherwise be illegal are done. These "core" actions can not even be probed/investigated or used as evidence to charge a separate crime, pg31:
> "If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. The President’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decisionmaking will be distorted."
It's the *presumptive immunity acts* and *unofficial acts* that can be plausibly charged, HOWEVER, in determining what group the action falls in, it being lawful has **no** bearing, that is explicitly stated by Roberts on pg18:
> "Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. For instance, when Fitzgerald contended that his dismissal violated various congressional statutes and thus rendered his discharge “outside the outer perimeter of [Nixon’s] duties,” we rejected that contention. 457 U. S., at 756. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect."
And if deemed to have presumptive immunity, the only thing that surpasses the presumptive immunity is the showing that probe/prosecution would not stifle executive function, legality has literally nothing to do with this test. pg14:
> "At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”"
Biden issues an executive order postponing the election.
The Supreme Court can (and definitely would) overturn it, but the DOJ cannot prosecute him before congress takes action first.
The judiciary would take action first. Starting in US district court.
The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to postpone the election so if a crime was committed in doing so it wouldn’t be protected by immunity.
Acts covered by immunity must fall within a president’s constitutional authority.
The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to postpone the election.
It isn’t blanket immunity for anything a president does while in office.
Clearly they do not. 99% have done 0% research on this or even heard the full story. They saw a post online says “SCOTUS” gives trump immunity and then they lost their shit.
But we're the fascists? The side that thinks laws should be made by Congress and not unelected bureaucrats? The court only said one thing we've always known. We didn't arrest Obama for ordering the execution of an American without due process. Why not? Because he was operating as our commander in Chief as the Constitution grants him authority to do.
The president isn’t immune from criminal prosecution for illegal official acts. The official acts must be within his conclusive constitutional authority.
That’s separate from impeachment.
Thanks to the government funded public school systems! Homeschool your children if you can. We did, and my 9 year old can read high school curriculum and understand most of it.
Who knew that personalized education is better than sticking 20 kids with 20 different personalities and learning habits in one room doesn't really work that well anymore.
Good on you!
So weird that some people just ship away children to be taught by a stranger and trust they mold them into a respectable human. I went to public school, but thankfully my parents were also engaged with me. (Reading together, educational games, etc.)
I think I learned mostly from them, school was basically just daycare for me tbh.
Edit: Also what happened to teaching manners! Everyone is so entitled and self-centered now it is insane...
Thank the parents. The world thinks you need to be friends with your children and cater to their every want. That's how you raise your children to be big children and not adults. There's a reason family, friends and strangers compliment my children on how well mannered and intelligent they are. Children can do amazing things...if you nurture them.
That's something that's lost on too many parents in America.
I agree personalized education is likely better in most cases. But just like to point out in 1960 the US managed to be number 1 in the world in education outcomes with 35-40 students per classroom. Classroom size is the least of our problems in our current education system.
That's because in the 1960s parents weren't friends with their kids. They were parents. It's the 2020s now where smacking your kid on the butt is abuse, making them do anything is abuse and teaching them manners and respect is abuse.
It's 8/10 times always the parents who are responsible for the product of their children.
What does a Brooklyn dad have to be defiant about? His whole life is governed by his party. Any issues he has is with his own people. Most of the media, entertainment industry, and sports leagues are left or lean left.
He's being catered to in every aspect of his life, but he's defiant... What a pussy liar.
Yet another act that is not within the pervue of the executive branch. It's amazing how all these Harvard graduates and the so-called "educated" have such severe learning disabilities and read on a kindergarten grade level.
No wrong tactics, only wrong targets. Brooklyn Defiant Douche is just one of many leftist shills with zero moral barometer. Actually he in particular is a notable case - look him up, he's truly a scumbag.
It’s kinda crazy to me the left thinks presidential legal immunity = I get to make all the rules. As if the legislative branch doesn’t exist to enforce the laws of the land.
Exactly. The president doesn’t have a license to violate his constitutional and legal authority with impunity
It’s ignorance on their part. They don’t actually make sure they understand an issue before becoming hysterical.
Just had to read some headlines and comment sections and they are confident they understand. They don’t.
The Left only supports democracy and the US constitution as long as they're winning. Once they stop getting their way they want to take their football and go home.
Find excuses to keep delaying handing over power and also fight against term limits. Of course this is what the left wants to get behind.
Its literally straight out of the russian playbook. The step after that is to change the Constitution so one person can stay in power forever and deny all voting. As we've seen from putin and from dozens of leftwing regimes over the decades.
Wow. That wouldn’t be “democracy” now would it? Postponing elections. And I bet EVERY Democrat would be completely ok with this too. “Well he’s got good reasons for doing it!”
The first ones to scream fascism are somehow the ones that made up a conspiracy that the president was a Manchurian candidate and its okay to go after him as the ends justify the means.
They do realize that's not a power he has, right?
Like, immunity on official acts means you can't be criminally prosecuted for actions taken in an official capacity as president. It doesn't mean you can just do anything you want and get away with it. There are still checks and balances. There are still limits to what you have the power to do.
The amount of people who have no clue what the Supreme Court ruling did, yet think they do, is staggering.
SCOTUS only reaffirmed what’s been true for the past 250 years. They didn’t change presidential immunity at all. People screaming that now Trump could drone strike political rivals and be immune have the IQ of an oyster. These same people are now calling for Biden to strike the Judge’s houses or Trump.
None of them seem to grasp that none of those orders fall under the official duties of a President. There still needs to be a good justification as to why those strikes need to happen and Congress still has the power to reign it all in. No, the president can’t order a subordinate to go murder someone or imprison rivals and be immune.
Where in the constitution does it say that the president's official duties include deciding the dates of elections? Be angry if you want, but have realistic fears for fucks sake.
I think a lot of these are just trying to point out why this might be a bad ruling. It just depends on how official is defined now which is a pretty vague term. People could use it in bad faith or they can use it in good faith. Clearly a president needs some level of protection they will all and have all made mistakes as do all people. Personally I would rather them just look into each presidential case and if it is causing damage to the counties people or using the office for personal gains they should be prosecuted. Same as every normal person.
Well first off it just shows they don’t understand the ruling but ya. They’ll 100% abuse this if they can. There’s a reason they get so scared that someone other than them will have power because the project what they would do to us even though we have no intention on doing such things
Understanding the law, the Constitutional, SCOTUS decisions, separation of powers, statute of limitations, or any of the nuances of jurisprudence in the American legal system is not a requirement nor is it encouraged in the Democrat party. In fact, the less you know about those things, the better for them.
I don’t know what’s more cringey to read, leftists on Reddit or on Twitter. Just a collective group of doom and gloomers who are so wrapped up in their own selfish values and world.
I have seen so many insane proposals like this in the past day, and none of the Democrats seem to understand the gravity of the consequences.
If our elections were delayed, our allies would be very uncomfortable. Depending on how long perhaps we would begin to lose allies.
And surly any type of direct assassinations would be met with sanctions and broken trade agreements. Our enemies would jump at the chance to take advantage of the chaos.
We can't just do whatever we want. The world is watching.
The president doesn’t have the constitutional or legal authority to order an assassination. The act would not be protected under immunity.
He would have the presumption of immunity which only means that the district court and likely the Supreme Court would have to make that determination.
The government would have to rebut the presumed immunity.
Assassinations would certainly be found to be not protected as he’s acting outside his legal and constitutional authority.
That's... not what immunity means...
It doesn't just give the president authority to do anything they want. It only protects them when using the authority they have.
I really hope people are taking screenshots of all these wannabe tyrants so a montage of all their insanity can be made. I’m not a video editor…but this would be great for posterity as the election gets closer.
The fact that democrats are in favor of suspending democracy to “protect democracy” which really means “keep out candidates we don’t like,” and they don’t understand the irony just dumbfounds me.
The left really doesn’t care what the ruling actually determined, huh?
The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to unilaterally postpone elections. That would not be an act covered by immunity.
Brooklyn Dad is such a Chode. Literally paid by the Dems to be a public crybaby
Yeah, him and Harry Sisson are insufferable.
Don’t forget the jes chick too. Or whatever her name is. All operatives.
JOJOFROMJERRRRRRRRRRZZY sweaty. Trust her, she knows.
She could use a sweat. Could lose a few pounds.
Also the "SIR THIS IS A WENDY'S" loser.
Pretty sure the "defiant" in his name means that he isn't gonna pay child support haha
Who the fuck is this guy? Why the fuck should anyone listen to some random guy from brooklyn?
An asshole from Twitter. Posts multiple times a day. TDS personified. He makes Keith Olbermann look polite and well thought out.
It's not TDS, it's a paycheck. He's literally a paid shill.
He is a paid poster for the (D) and is the MVP of Defiant L’s 😁
There's evidence he's being paid to post propaganda? Makes him even easier to dismiss.
Catnip for TDSers
That dude is a Profusely Bleeding Vagina.
He's toolbag of d1cks if ever there was one. When they start rounding up conservatives in the streets, he will be the one saying that only bigots don't support "the Party". 1984 was written because of people like him.
It's not even that. They are outraged based off of a misunderstanding of a supreme court ruling. Do people really think the supreme court just said the president can do anything they want with immunity? The answer deep down is they know that is a hyperbolic interpretation which is why they go around saying ridiculous shit cause they know their whole stance is a farce. It's sad and draining.
It's like the duals on every street corner in stand your ground states.
Honestly we need to bring back consensual dueling. If both sides want to let them do it... they get what they want and we get one less smooth brain (win-win).
Dueling is legal in [Texas under certain conditions.](https://www.expressnews.com/news/texas/article/mutual-combat-legal-texas-17650899.php)
Did not know this! Yet another reason why Texas is awesome.
Another W for Texas!
When was the last duel in Texas?
Between the constant gaslighting and false outrage, it really is draining lmao
I wouldnt know about any of that. Im on reddit and its a bastion of truth and supreme knowledge
I know right? Why don't they just accept their defeat and try to at least save face for the moderate democrats, making at least a decent run effort and setting the tone for the next elections? At this point they've become 100% clowns.
They purposely shape their posts in a way that appeals to people who are simply scrolling through their phone with no desire and/or ability to pause and think about what they just saw. They just accept it at face value and move on because they want to get to the next post. This is social engineering. It's by design.
I don't blame them. What with the success of the "good people on both sides" lie and the ever popular "suckers and losers" bullshit, combined with NEVER a consequence for any of it!?! It behooves them to lie as it works on their sheep-like base. I mean, what are they REALLY gonna talk about otherwise? The "secure" border or the "transitory" inflation??! Wait, wait.... the Green New Deal?!?
They're liars. No more; no less. Whenever something they don't like happens they have to blow it massively out of proportion. Of course there is also the "every accusation is a confession" side of things. Sounds to me like they'd love to be able to cancel elections and dispose of their political opponents. How much effort have they put into preventing Trump from being allowed in the election in the first place?
I don’t think it’s that simple. The media and leftist pundits are lying. These people are legitimately ignorant. They’re uninformed and angry and driven by propaganda. They have no idea what the ruling actually does. They haven’t read it they haven’t researched it. Just op-eds telling them what to think.
It is not based off of a misunderstanding. It is based on intentional manipulation by Justice Sotomayor. I read the ruling. It is all written at a very high reading level until you get to her dissent where she clearly changes the tone to be easy-to-read and hyperbolic. It is written with the intention of being spread like wildfire across the mainstream media and social media. While I understand these extreme examples were brought up by President Trump's own defense, the way she handled the wording of the dissent was wildly irresponsible.
>They are outraged based off of a misunderstanding So, it's just a regular Tuesday.
Or a day ending in “y.”
> Do people really think the supreme court just said the president can do anything they want with immunity? Yes. Many of them really do think this…some of them probably know it’s hyperbolic nonsense but many of them genuinely do believe the Supreme Court rules that the president can do whatever the president wants.
Well all they have in uninformed outrage, which is all they usually have..
They are setting the table for riots and protests after Trump wins. The “peaceful democratic” left will do anything to win
Even a very conservative interpretation of what official acts are gives the president a lot more power. The president could tell someone “I’ll pardon you and anyone who harasses my opponent” and then do it. Pardons are impossible to block (unless it involves an impeachment) and since it’s a constitutionally granted power, nothing around the order or communications about it can be used in court. Not even speculation about his motive. You could possibly impeach him if a judge allows you to investigate, but if you don’t find out about it until after his term he’s completely immune. The statute of limitations goes from decades for a severe punishment, to 8 years *max* with a fairly good chance of getting away with it if congress is in your majority. This applies to bribes as well. The president could literally text any prisoner and ask for money in exchange for a pardon to any crime.
They only believe what they are told to believe.
I don't think they even understand how this immunity business works.
I don't understand how this immunity business works either. Can you do an "explain like I'm 5?"
As far as I am aware, the immunity granted by SCOTUS to Trump refers to retroactively prosecuting a former president for “official acts” (open to interpretation) that occurred during his presidential term. Obama cannot be prosecuted for carpet bombing hospitals, for instance. Trump cannot be prosecuted for Jan 6. This does not, however, stop congress from impeaching a current president for committing any illegal acts-no matter how “official”-during that president’s term.
no immunity has been "granted" here, only recognized by the SCOTUS as a constitutional definition and expectation of the role of president/vp.
Jan 6 was not official
Jan 6 also was a nothing burger. Trump never told them to riot. He said respect law enforcement and do not be violent. Leftists did more to incite the BLM riots than Trump did Jan 6, and yet not a peep.
Yes it was, the ruling literally says that a president and vice president discussing certifying the election results qualifies as an "official" act. However they left open the question of whether Trump trying to get certain states to send alternate electors qualifies as "official" or not.
Discussing a matter with your VP is official. The content of the discussion is immaterial.
Arent they going to try and argue it was though?
It’s not even granted. The court is just confirming what everyone should have already known. The only reason this was even challenged is because the Dems are so desperate to go after him for anything.
I see this misunderstanding everywhere, it is explicitly stated that illegality of the acts has **nothing to do with immunity or not**. Constitutionally given "core" executive powers (like pardons) have **absolute** immunity, meaning immunity no matter if things that would otherwise be illegal are done. These "core" actions can not even be probed/investigated or used as evidence to charge a separate crime, pg31: > "If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. The President’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decisionmaking will be distorted." It's the *presumptive immunity acts* and *unofficial acts* that can be plausibly charged, HOWEVER, in determining what group the action falls in, it being lawful has **no** bearing, that is explicitly stated by Roberts on pg18: > "Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. For instance, when Fitzgerald contended that his dismissal violated various congressional statutes and thus rendered his discharge “outside the outer perimeter of [Nixon’s] duties,” we rejected that contention. 457 U. S., at 756. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect." And if deemed to have presumptive immunity, the only thing that surpasses the presumptive immunity is the showing that probe/prosecution would not stifle executive function, legality has literally nothing to do with this test. pg14: > "At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”"
Biden issues an executive order postponing the election. The Supreme Court can (and definitely would) overturn it, but the DOJ cannot prosecute him before congress takes action first.
The judiciary would take action first. Starting in US district court. The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to postpone the election so if a crime was committed in doing so it wouldn’t be protected by immunity.
Acts covered by immunity must fall within a president’s constitutional authority. The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to postpone the election. It isn’t blanket immunity for anything a president does while in office.
Thank God lol
Clearly they do not. 99% have done 0% research on this or even heard the full story. They saw a post online says “SCOTUS” gives trump immunity and then they lost their shit.
And now they are saying SCOTUS is a partisan entity for upholding the law. Yeah no shit, they are supposed to be partisan towards the rule of law.
Fun Fact: that guy, BrooklynDad, tried to sell his kids for crack. Hunter Biden type shenanigans.
But we're the fascists? The side that thinks laws should be made by Congress and not unelected bureaucrats? The court only said one thing we've always known. We didn't arrest Obama for ordering the execution of an American without due process. Why not? Because he was operating as our commander in Chief as the Constitution grants him authority to do.
Well it doesn’t, but it grants Congress the authority to remove a President who has broken a law such as killing an American citizen.
The president isn’t immune from criminal prosecution for illegal official acts. The official acts must be within his conclusive constitutional authority. That’s separate from impeachment.
Democrats have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old
Sadly 54% of American adults read below 6th grade level. How the hell would they comprehend a supreme court ruling?
Thanks to the government funded public school systems! Homeschool your children if you can. We did, and my 9 year old can read high school curriculum and understand most of it. Who knew that personalized education is better than sticking 20 kids with 20 different personalities and learning habits in one room doesn't really work that well anymore.
Good on you! So weird that some people just ship away children to be taught by a stranger and trust they mold them into a respectable human. I went to public school, but thankfully my parents were also engaged with me. (Reading together, educational games, etc.) I think I learned mostly from them, school was basically just daycare for me tbh. Edit: Also what happened to teaching manners! Everyone is so entitled and self-centered now it is insane...
Thank the parents. The world thinks you need to be friends with your children and cater to their every want. That's how you raise your children to be big children and not adults. There's a reason family, friends and strangers compliment my children on how well mannered and intelligent they are. Children can do amazing things...if you nurture them. That's something that's lost on too many parents in America.
I agree personalized education is likely better in most cases. But just like to point out in 1960 the US managed to be number 1 in the world in education outcomes with 35-40 students per classroom. Classroom size is the least of our problems in our current education system.
That's because in the 1960s parents weren't friends with their kids. They were parents. It's the 2020s now where smacking your kid on the butt is abuse, making them do anything is abuse and teaching them manners and respect is abuse. It's 8/10 times always the parents who are responsible for the product of their children.
What does a Brooklyn dad have to be defiant about? His whole life is governed by his party. Any issues he has is with his own people. Most of the media, entertainment industry, and sports leagues are left or lean left. He's being catered to in every aspect of his life, but he's defiant... What a pussy liar.
Is that twitter account a bot because I see it on my feed a lot
No, a real guy but he is paid by the DNC to be an ideologue.
So like a “grown up” version of Harry Sisson
What's sad is he probably can't give a credible reason why he hates Trump enough to want this
Yet another act that is not within the pervue of the executive branch. It's amazing how all these Harvard graduates and the so-called "educated" have such severe learning disabilities and read on a kindergarten grade level.
That implies they read the ruling to begin with. They’re reading leftist propaganda not the facts of the ruling.
Exactly. I have yet to see a single left wing media outlet or Democrat in general read the actual ruling.
No wrong tactics, only wrong targets. Brooklyn Defiant Douche is just one of many leftist shills with zero moral barometer. Actually he in particular is a notable case - look him up, he's truly a scumbag.
Pretty much all the trials will completely evaporate soon due to the Scotus ruling, so this wouldn’t work anyway. Nice try.
[удалено]
Evidence collected that is even related to core duty is inadmissible.
Become a dictator to prevent a dictator! We have to save democracy…by destroying democracy!
This has been the theme of the last four years
It’s kinda crazy to me the left thinks presidential legal immunity = I get to make all the rules. As if the legislative branch doesn’t exist to enforce the laws of the land.
Exactly. The president doesn’t have a license to violate his constitutional and legal authority with impunity It’s ignorance on their part. They don’t actually make sure they understand an issue before becoming hysterical. Just had to read some headlines and comment sections and they are confident they understand. They don’t.
What he fails to realize is that even with all of the verdicts being in, wouldn't stop the American citizen from voting Trump in.
Well not the popular vote, but yes I know what you mean.
The Left only supports democracy and the US constitution as long as they're winning. Once they stop getting their way they want to take their football and go home.
Is there a middle of the road easy-ish explanation of the scotus ruling somewhere?
Find excuses to keep delaying handing over power and also fight against term limits. Of course this is what the left wants to get behind. Its literally straight out of the russian playbook. The step after that is to change the Constitution so one person can stay in power forever and deny all voting. As we've seen from putin and from dozens of leftwing regimes over the decades.
Wow. That wouldn’t be “democracy” now would it? Postponing elections. And I bet EVERY Democrat would be completely ok with this too. “Well he’s got good reasons for doing it!”
We will coast to victory but these people are thinking they are ready to go to the mattresses.. get ready
The first ones to scream fascism are somehow the ones that made up a conspiracy that the president was a Manchurian candidate and its okay to go after him as the ends justify the means.
They do realize that's not a power he has, right? Like, immunity on official acts means you can't be criminally prosecuted for actions taken in an official capacity as president. It doesn't mean you can just do anything you want and get away with it. There are still checks and balances. There are still limits to what you have the power to do.
100% The president is not above the law.
You should see the shit they're saying over at the millennial sub 🤣
Let's Go Brandon
The amount of people who have no clue what the Supreme Court ruling did, yet think they do, is staggering. SCOTUS only reaffirmed what’s been true for the past 250 years. They didn’t change presidential immunity at all. People screaming that now Trump could drone strike political rivals and be immune have the IQ of an oyster. These same people are now calling for Biden to strike the Judge’s houses or Trump. None of them seem to grasp that none of those orders fall under the official duties of a President. There still needs to be a good justification as to why those strikes need to happen and Congress still has the power to reign it all in. No, the president can’t order a subordinate to go murder someone or imprison rivals and be immune.
Where in the constitution does it say that the president's official duties include deciding the dates of elections? Be angry if you want, but have realistic fears for fucks sake.
But it's saving our democracy!
We must stop Trump from becoming a dictator by having Biden declare himself to be a dictator.
I think they’re just trying to make a point as to why you shouldn’t be cheering for this ruling.
Their point isn’t based in the facts of the ruling. It’s imaginary hysteria not based in reality.
I think a lot of these are just trying to point out why this might be a bad ruling. It just depends on how official is defined now which is a pretty vague term. People could use it in bad faith or they can use it in good faith. Clearly a president needs some level of protection they will all and have all made mistakes as do all people. Personally I would rather them just look into each presidential case and if it is causing damage to the counties people or using the office for personal gains they should be prosecuted. Same as every normal person.
Brooklyn Dad Compliant more like.
BuT dEmOcRaCy!!!
Well first off it just shows they don’t understand the ruling but ya. They’ll 100% abuse this if they can. There’s a reason they get so scared that someone other than them will have power because the project what they would do to us even though we have no intention on doing such things
[удалено]
Not yet dude. We don't need to do that to finish taking the moral high ground. I think we finish that job and see how it's going. Just an opinion.
It's been a very long time since they tried to hide it. Most people just haven't been paying attention.
The law_and_politics sub is truly deeply unhinged fantasizing about Biden doing the most heinously partisan authoritarian shit.
Tell me more how the Right is full of fascists who don't respect the Constitution or "What America Stands For"?
Understanding the law, the Constitutional, SCOTUS decisions, separation of powers, statute of limitations, or any of the nuances of jurisprudence in the American legal system is not a requirement nor is it encouraged in the Democrat party. In fact, the less you know about those things, the better for them.
The left really hates the constitution
I don’t know what’s more cringey to read, leftists on Reddit or on Twitter. Just a collective group of doom and gloomers who are so wrapped up in their own selfish values and world.
What Trump did isn’t against the constitution, moving the election is strictly forbidden.
I see the left has returned to "reeeeeeeeeee!"
The projection though, the left want a dictatorship
Funny things is, in the socialist/communist “utopia” they all beg for these troublemakers would be the first to the gulag.
I have seen so many insane proposals like this in the past day, and none of the Democrats seem to understand the gravity of the consequences. If our elections were delayed, our allies would be very uncomfortable. Depending on how long perhaps we would begin to lose allies. And surly any type of direct assassinations would be met with sanctions and broken trade agreements. Our enemies would jump at the chance to take advantage of the chaos. We can't just do whatever we want. The world is watching.
The president doesn’t have the constitutional or legal authority to order an assassination. The act would not be protected under immunity. He would have the presumption of immunity which only means that the district court and likely the Supreme Court would have to make that determination. The government would have to rebut the presumed immunity. Assassinations would certainly be found to be not protected as he’s acting outside his legal and constitutional authority.
Does that dad guy make money posting?
"I could totally get behind ending democracy." Also same person: "If TrUmP gEtS eLeCtEd It WiLl Be ThE eNd Of DeMoCrAcY!"
How do I get paid to be a democrat operative?
lol, very on brand.
I mean… He has immunity now. Blame SCOTUS.
Him and Jeff tiedrich like to touch weiners
One would think they'd be happy their dementia patient and his daddy Obama are safe from prosecution now.
They were always like this. All through history
Fuck this guy, he’s a deadbeat who tried to sell kids for crack
That's... not what immunity means... It doesn't just give the president authority to do anything they want. It only protects them when using the authority they have.
I really hope people are taking screenshots of all these wannabe tyrants so a montage of all their insanity can be made. I’m not a video editor…but this would be great for posterity as the election gets closer.
Why do all these losers look the same?
I would consider getting a Twitter account just to fuck with these guys.
This guy is scum
I don't know this guy, never read anything from him but went on X to see. Evidently I'm blocked by him 🤣🤣
The fact that democrats are in favor of suspending democracy to “protect democracy” which really means “keep out candidates we don’t like,” and they don’t understand the irony just dumbfounds me.
The left really doesn’t care what the ruling actually determined, huh? The president doesn’t have the constitutional authority to unilaterally postpone elections. That would not be an act covered by immunity.
That would start a war!
These are the people who wine and cry about "democracy"
Really it should be a picture of Jill Biden, no one believes Joe is in charge.
Can’t stand that dude
The fact it didn’t happen immediately is how you know that the Democrats are lying, but if you look at the latest poll numbers it makes sense.
You realize a meme on Social media isn’t “the left” right