₦airaland Forum

With SCOTUS rulings in last 2 weeks, how did judges allow the cases to go on trial. Are they just half baked law school graduates or partisan. Are they in a coordinated get trump partisan campaign.
Do cases have to go to the highest court to determine constitutionality of charges.
These judges should be investigated.
Wait , they have immunity of their official actions.

Take a look. Jack Smith most famous successful conviction of a Republican governor. Overturned 9-0 by the Supreme Court. Andrew Weissman successful convictions in Enron cases. Unanimously overturned by SCOTUS. Good Lord .

Addendum..Judge Chutkan quickly processed Jackboot case despite glaring questions of the appropriateness of the case. She gave a private citizen the pass to prosecute a former president without questioning his eligibility.
Ijesbosb. As usual Julie Kelly the house wife or whatever you calls is asking about matters beyond your paygrade
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1807790898496888986.html

This is CJ John Roberts blistering summation.

Budaatum.
Imma considering closing basilico account here.
Like Gary Kasparov, I've run out of opponents.

PS. I never do anything without a reason.

budaatum:
The below is the conclusion of the post you selectively quoted:



And here is a further post by the same person where Secret Service is (use of) "official duty".

Selective and mischievous

Why will someone highlight the first part of this quote and not the 2nd part which states the conditions and the most important part. Which of killing political opponents fall conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

budaatum:
The below is the conclusion of the post you selectively quoted:



And here is a further post by the same person where Secret Service is (use of) "official duty".

I selectively edited a post that I told you about and put "..." in to let you know I quoted particular sections relative to what we were talking about for brevity. Lol. Yeah, try again. Not my first rodeo with quotes and more than anyone here I make sure I put the link to whatever full article I quote from so people can see the quote in perspective if they choose.

And explain how what you quoted is relevant or enhances your argument in any way. More eyes will not be on it. The Supreme Court has final say, so they gave themselves the ability to determine what is official vs. unofficial re: what the lower courts say. I hope you understand what an appeal is. Lastly, the bar to get rid of the presumptive immunity is high and given that the courts can't look at motivations, makes it even harder. Again, you are at the beginning of your road to understanding. So spend your time understanding and less time reflexively arguing.

Re: the Secret Service. Why would I care what he posted about that. Secret Service may not be use of official duty as POTUS doesn't have the right to order them around and their use is of course not core constitutional powers. Who was even referring to that? THe Secret Service is not part of the military. You probably didn't understand that. The military though is part of the President's Core Constitutional Powers.

You're doing your ego and Nigerian thing again. Arguing shit you don't understand just because you don't want to be wrong that this is a seminal moment in the US. You have a bias/narrative and are trying to find facts that will fit it.

Even Biden who you said hit the right note, said he agreed with Sotomayor's apocalyptic dissent. Read it.

raumdeuter:
Selective and mischievous

Why will someone highlight the first part of this quote and not the 2nd part which states the conditions and the most important part. Which of killing political opponents fall conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

Your argument is, I quoted a post, bolded only a section of that quote, that I thought was relevant, didn't bold the rest so that means I selectively edited it? Curious, did the part I bolded prevent you from reading the rest of the quote I posted? Lol.
Jesus.
Real talk, where did you go to College?

Stop it.
Budatuum incorrectly beleives/ed that a POTUS being impeached for official acts or core Constitutional Powers could still be indicted after impeachment.
That post was simply to show him/her that for core Constitutional Powers the immunity was so sacrosanct that it was absolute. So POTUS couldn't be indicted/charged even if Congress requested it after impeachment. Hence the highlighted section with the word "absolute" in it.
Maybe I have to give him a definition of absolute since he's still arguing.

I know you're determined to find something to prove me wrong after the many times I've schooled you. But this ain't it. In fact it makes you look unknowledgeable about this as what you are quoting is a top line summary or understanding of the ruling which everyone should have by now. I've moved on to deeper things.

raumdeuter:
Why will someone highlight the first part of this quote and not the 2nd part which states the conditions and the most important part. Which of killing political opponents fall conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority

The President via 'Article II, Section 2, Clause 1' has the Core Constitutional Power to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Now Roberts in this Ruling says that when using that Constitutional Authority, POTUS has absolute immunity (section of quote you thought was so important). So any time POTUS uses that power to command the Army of Navy, POTUS has absolute immunity.
Now imagine POTUS knows that a political opponent is in a particular building overseas. POTUS intends to kill that opponent. POTUS tells Seal team Six that there is a terrorist in that building and to drone fire that building. They do. Opponent killed.
By this ruling, POTUS was using one of their Core Constitutional authorities. So POTUS is immune. Even more so, per this ruling, no one can even question the motivation of why POTUS wanted to drone that building in the first place. Bold action indeed. lol.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

ijebosb:
Your argument is, I quoted a post, bolded only a section of that quote, that I thought was relevant, didn't bold the rest so that means I selectively edited it? Curious, did the part I bolded prevent you from reading the rest of the quote I posted? Lol.
Jesus.
Real talk, where did you go to College?

Stop it.
Budatuum incorrectly beleives/ed that a POTUS being impeached for official acts or core Constitutional Powers could still be indicted after impeachment.
That post was simply to show him/her that for core Constitutional Powers the immunity was so sacrosanct that it was absolute. So POTUS couldn't be indicted/charged even if Congress requested it after impeachment. Hence the highlighted section with the word "absolute" in it.
Maybe I have to give him a definition of absolute since he's still arguing.

I know you're determined to find something to prove me wrong after the many times I've schooled you. But this ain't it. In fact it makes you look unknowledgeable about this as what you are quoting is a top line summary or understanding of the ruling which everyone should have by now. I've moved on to deeper things.

School anyone? Can you school anyone here? You are the butt of jokes around here if you havent noticed

ijebosb:
The President via 'Article II, Section 2, Clause 1' has the Core Constitutional Power to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Now Roberts in this Ruling says that when using that Constitutional Authority, POTUS has absolute immunity (section of quote you thought was so important). So any time POTUS uses that power to command the Army of Navy, POTUS has absolute immunity.
Now imagine POTUS knows that a political opponent is in a particular building overseas. POTUS intends to kill that opponent. POTUS tells Seal team Six that there is a terrorist in that building and to drone fire that building. They do. Opponent killed.
By this ruling, POTUS was using one of their Core Constitutional authorities. So POTUS is immune. Even more so, per this ruling, no one can even question the motivation of why POTUS wanted to drone that building in the first place. Bold action indeed. lol.

constitutional power does not mean go and kill everyone or order the military to kill everyone. the constitution dors not allow that

bemeruca:
constitutional power does not mean go and kill everyone or order the military to kill everyone. the constitution dors not allow that

Constitutional powers are defined in the constitution. Does the constitution allows the POTUS to order military to kill everyone?

raumdeuter:
Constitutional powers are defined in the constitution. Does the constitution allows the POTUS to order military to kill everyone?

The Constitution provides checks and balances to prevent abuse of power. For instance, the President cannot unilaterally declare war; that power is vested in Congress. The President is subject to U.S. laws, including the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce domestic laws without explicit congressional authorization.

The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law that was signed on June 18, 1878, by President Rutherford B. Hayes. It limits the powers of the federal government in using military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. Essentially, the Act bars federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by law. This tradition reflects the belief that military interference in civilian affairs poses a threat to democracy and personal liberty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/posse-comitatus-act-explained

raumdeuter:
School anyone? Can you school anyone here? You are the butt of jokes around here if you havent noticed

Jokes amongst you Basilico and Bemeruca? Lol.
Fam, you are the sum of your environment.
Get a better environment and you'd focus more on sharpening your mind instead of silly insults.

And you don't want to be arguing who is objectively more knowledgeable about this stuff.

raumdeuter:
Constitutional powers are defined in the constitution. Does the constitution allows the POTUS to order military to kill everyone?

You still don't understand it.
The constitution gives the POTUS the Power to control the military.
What he does with it is his motivation.
Per Roberts you can't question motivation with a Constitutional Power.
Repeat that slowly. And think about each section of it slowly.

You can lead a horse to the water, but can't make him drink.
Get off of Fox News and the like. Their aim is to purposefully confuse. If you keep listening to them, you'll never understand it.

raumdeuter:
School anyone? Can you school anyone here? You are the butt of jokes around here if you havent noticed

And of course I come bearing receipts of the last/recent time I schooled you on this very topic.
Be a man and admit you were wrong since you spent the better part of the day arguing it.

It's clear you don't understand the ruling (even arguing the opposite) and you are talking out your a$$.

ijebosb:
Jokes amongst you Basilico and Bemeruca? Lol.
Fam, you are the sum of your environment.
Get a better environment and you'd focus more on sharpening your mind instead of silly insults.

And you don't want to be arguing who is objectively more knowledgeable about this stuff.

where is the insult?
are you taking drugs?

ijebosb:
You still don't understand it.
The constitution gives the POTUS the Power to control the military.
What he does with it is his motivation.
Per Roberts you can't question motivation with a Constitutional Power.
Repeat that slowly. And think about each section of it slowly.

You can lead a horse to the water, but can't make him drink.
Get off of Fox News and the like. Their aim is to purposefully confuse. If you keep listening to them, you'll never understand it.

Driver's License gives you the power to drive your car on public roads but it does not give you the power to drive in opposite directions or break the rules of the road.

ijebosb:
You still don't understand it.
The constitution gives the POTUS the Power to control the military.
What he does with it is his motivation.
Per Roberts you can't question motivation with a Constitutional Power.
Repeat that slowly. And think about each section of it slowly.

You can lead a horse to the water, but can't make him drink.
Get off of Fox News and the like. Their aim is to purposefully confuse. If you keep listening to them, you'll never understand it.

What a stupid conclusion

The constitution gives the POTUS right over the military
Does it give the POTUS right to order the military to go kill his wife?

The constitution gives the POTUS right to make budget and financial decisions for the country like grant and forgive loans
Does it gve the POTUS right to order the federal reserve to put the country money in his bank account.
Can Biden using POTUS orders forgive his own debt or grant himself loans from Federal purse?

I don't even know if you are pretending to be stuppidd or just plain stuppid

ijebosb:
Jokes amongst you Basilico and Bemeruca? Lol.
Fam, you are the sum of your environment.
Get a better environment and you'd focus more on sharpening your mind instead of silly insults.

And you don't want to be arguing who is objectively more knowledgeable about this stuff.

From Buda to bemu to basil have educated you on what the SCOTUS said which is plain for all to see. but you seem so clueless that you cant just understand simple explanations

What do you really know? Life must be very tough for you

Very very interesting read.


https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/02/clarence-thomas-questions-whether-jack-smiths-appointment-is-even-constitutional/

ijebosb:
You still don't understand it.
The constitution gives the POTUS the Power to control the military.
What he does with it is his motivation.

What he does with it is not his motivation!

If a president kills someone with the official military or a car he is officially driving because he does not like the shirt the person is wearing, as you presented, his motivation is the dislike for the shirt, which you are saying can't be questioned, while his unofficial act is the killing of the person, which is a crime that will be questioned and which he can be charged for.

Not being able to present the motivation of disliking a shirt before a court does create some difficulty, of course, especially if he claims it was official duty, but this ruling has simple made it such that a district judge must first rule if the killing is official or not, and if the judge rules unofficial, the charge goes ahead.

Now, there's this super jury of a majority called We The People who will judge this president unofficial or not. We all saw the evidence on Jan6 televised live on our tellies and will vote if we like what we saw or not. And if the majority of us think his killing someone is official and legal, we will gladly elect the killer, signifying not guilty, but if we don't like the killing of people we will not elect the guilty criminal.

Or don't you have any faith in We The People of the Federal Republic of the United States of America?

ono:
Very very interesting read.


https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/02/clarence-thomas-questions-whether-jack-smiths-appointment-is-even-constitutional/

yeah, I saw this.

budaatum:
What he does with it is not his motivation!

If a president kills someone with the official military or a car he is officially driving because he does not like the shirt the person is wearing, as you presented, his motivation is the dislike for the shirt, which you are saying can't be questioned, while his unofficial act is the killing of the person, which is a crime that will be questioned and which he can be charged for.

Not being able to present the motivation of disliking a shirt before a court does create some difficulty, of course, especially if he claims it was official duty, but this ruling has simple made it such that a district judge must first rule if the killing is official or not, and if the judge rules unofficial, the charge goes ahead.

Your understanding of act is limited in terms of the legal sense. You are given immunity for all consequences surrounding your official act. It's a broad immunity or else it wouldn't be immunity. Similar to the immunity Congresspeople have in Congress. A Congressperson can literally read a classified document on the House floor that has nothing to do with any bill being proposed and there would be nothing the government could do as the Speech and Debate clause is that broad.

You are arguing the concept of immunity. Do a study on the concept and you'll understand where you are going astray and the purpose.

raumdeuter:
What a stupid conclusion

The constitution gives the POTUS right over the military
Does it give the POTUS right to order the military to go kill his wife?

The constitution gives the POTUS right to make budget and financial decisions for the country like grant and forgive loans
Does it gve the POTUS right to order the federal reserve to put the country money in his bank account.
Can Biden using POTUS orders forgive his own debt or grant himself loans from Federal purse?

I don't even know if you are pretending to be stuppidd or just plain stuppid

All this so beyond you.
Of course it is, I started this in high school in AP Government. Have you ever picked up a book on any of it?
Brovada doesn't make you smart, it just makes you sound even stupider when you are eventually proven wrong like below.

What is your goal here? To pretend you know something you have no clue about? To remain ignorant and by repeating ignorant shit cause other people to be ignorant as well? Or to learn and have insightful conversations.

You literally spent a morning lying that Roberts said the opposite of something that was clear based on the ruling. You kept arguing it until I proved you the idiot you to be. And instead of falling back, acknowledging you have 0 idea you what you were talking about, you puffed out your chest and kept on going to talk about more things you have no clue about.

Get lost you uneducated clown.

ijebosb:
The President via 'Article II, Section 2, Clause 1' has the Core Constitutional Power to be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. Now Roberts in this Ruling says that when using that Constitutional Authority, POTUS has absolute immunity (section of quote you thought was so important). So any time POTUS uses that power to command the Army of Navy, POTUS has absolute immunity.
Now imagine POTUS knows that a political opponent is in a particular building overseas. POTUS intends to kill that opponent. POTUS tells Seal team Six that there is a terrorist in that building and to drone fire that building. They do. Opponent killed.
By this ruling, POTUS was using one of their Core Constitutional authorities. So POTUS is immune. Even more so, per this ruling, no one can even question the motivation of why POTUS wanted to drone that building in the first place. Bold action indeed. lol.

You really are funny. Potus is obviously not going to be immune from the judgement of the supporters of the opponent he killed now, would he? And if those opponents manage to get some of his supporters to see as they see and become the majority, will we not not elect that person?

I have faith that We the People of the USA will continue to "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and that it is unacceptable for any potus to disendow anyone of their unalienable Rights of Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness just because you don't like the shirt they wear or even for no motive whatsoever. But if the USA has become so maga that they forgot this, then you all deserve the misery you get to be frank, and in heaps of spades too.

raumdeuter:
From Buda to bemu to basil have educated you on what the SCOTUS said which is plain for all to see. but you seem so clueless that you cant just understand simple explanations

Lol.

Budatuum - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.
Basilico - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.
Bemeruca - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.

Yes, very wise informed people about the US Constitution. Budatuum up until yesterday evening didn't really understand impeachment and still doesn't understand the immunity this ruling grants. Somehow thinks that even if something is an official act, Congress can still have the Justice dept. indict and convict the President after impeachment despite this ruling.

ijebosb:
Your understanding of act is limited in terms of the legal sense. You are given immunity for all consequences surrounding your official act. It's a broad immunity or else it wouldn't be immunity. Similar to the immunity Congresspeople have in Congress. A Congressperson can literally read a classified document on the House floor that has nothing to do with any bill being proposed and there would be nothing the government could do as the Speech and Debate clause is that broad.

You are arguing the concept of immunity. Do a study on the concept and you'll understand where you are going astray and the purpose.

And you are limiting yourself from recognising whom this supposed immune potus will presumably be immune from, and do not realise he may not be immune from the wrath of We The People.

In a sense, it's like what's happening with Roe v Wade. The Scotus said the people should decide and many people in many states are deciding to abort. Same as We the People will decide if they want an immune president come November or not.

budaatum:
You really are funny. Potus is obviously not going to be immune from the judgement of the supporters of the opponent he killed now, would he? And if those opponents manage to get some of his supporters to see as they see and become the majority, will we not not elect that person?

I have faith that We the People of the USA will continue to "hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and that it is unacceptable for any potus to disendow anyone of their unalienable Rights of Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness just because you don't like the shirt they wear or even for no motive whatsoever. But if the USA has become so maga that they forgot this, then you all deserve the misery you get to be frank, and in heaps of spades too.

I hear you. Unfortonetely your perspective from across the Pond is not the perspective of concerned Americans here like Biden who said he agreed with Sotomayor's dissent. You seem to have a desire to believe it's not as bad as it is. Go on.

ijebosb:
Your understanding of act is limited in terms of the legal sense. You are given immunity for all consequences surrounding your official act. It's a broad immunity or else it wouldn't be immunity. Similar to the immunity Congresspeople have in Congress. A Congressperson can literally read a classified document on the House floor that has nothing to do with any bill being proposed and there would be nothing the government could do as the Speech and Debate clause is that broad.

You are arguing the concept of immunity. Do a study on the concept and you'll understand where you are going astray and the purpose.

It is not an official act to kill your wife even if you send the DOJ to do it or you do it in the white house.

Why are you still arguing?

The immunity that is granted by the Speech or Debate Clause is intended to protect legislative process, not to protec members from accountability for criminal acts. If a member of Congress engage in illegal activities; let's say they sell the classified document to Russia, they could be prosecuted and face serious legal consequences.

budaatum:
And you are limiting yourself from recognising whom this supposed immune potus will presumably be immune from, and do not realise he may not be immune from the wrath of We The People.

In a sense, it's like what's happening with Roe v Wade. The Scotus said the people should decide and many people in many states are deciding to abort. Same as We the People will decide if they want an immune president come November or not.

Why don't you do this. Find me one political commentator you respect that shares your opinion.
Link their piece here.

ijebosb:
Lol.

Budatuum - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.
Basilico - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.
Bemeruca - Has never lived in the US, has never studied US Government nor opened up a constitutional law book.

Yes, very wise informed people about the US Constitution. Budatuum up until yesterday evening didn't really understand impeachment and still doesn't understand the immunity this ruling grants. Somehow thinks that even if something is an official act, Congress can still have the Justice dept. indict and convict the President after impeachment despite this ruling.

Yet the person you are responding to still does not agree with you. So living in the US is not a factor even as thats the case for me.

Budaatum already told you some people who live in the US, born and raised there has little knowledge about their country. You can go to YouTube and see for yourself. I can bet you AOC cannot name 15 states in the United States.

ijebosb:
Why don't you do this. Find me one political commentator you respect that shares your opinion.
Link their piece here.

Go and listen to Biden's last speech. He is calling on We The People to dissent and pass judgement on dump.

budaatum:
Go and listen to Biden's last speech. He is calling on We The People to dissent and pass judgement on dump.

You mean this one?
The one where Biden agreed with Sotomayer's dissent? The dissent you called apocalyptic?
The one where Biden sounds almost like me, warning about the path the Supreme Court had been on?
I told you to link me a commentary from someone you agree with that agrees with your perspective.
This isn't it.

With today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all — for all practical purposes, today’s decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do.

This is a fundamentally new principle, and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.

This decision today has continued the Court’s attack in recent years on a wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights to taking away a woman’s right to choose to today’s decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation.

...

I concur with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent today. She — here’s what she said. She said, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law. With fear for our democracy, I dissent, ” end of quote.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/01/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-supreme-courts-immunity-ruling/

ijebosb:
I hear you. Unfortonetely your perspective from across the Pond is not the perspective of concerned Americans here like Biden who said he agreed with Sotomayor's dissent. You seem to have a desire to believe it's not as bad as it is. Go on.

It may seem to you that I "believe it's not as bad as it is", but this is so bad, its almost comical.

Imagine. Before this dump cretin became president, he already believed he can grab pussy and shoot people on fifth avenue and be immune and get away with it, and now a whole supreme court of the United States of America have sided with him and given him immunity! Can it possibly get worse? Yes it can. If We The People endow him with immunity by electing him come November.

My future is in the hands of Ijebosbs like you. Your fear of how bad it is and might get is like a fuel rod up your backside that will save me from dump's second term wrought.

Vote Blue and save America for me please.
My faith in you is unwavering and undying.