The People Have Spoken

[Brainonska511]

If only there was some mechanism in place to curtail the elected presidents power. Some group who's sole duty was to be sure his actions fit within the confines of some written rules.

Yes, I think there are actually 2, and they are largely controlled by conservatives. One of them is purely reactive, like some kind of venue where you can argue your case, like an Ultimate Tribunal. The other one is like some large body of people selected by people of different regions in the country, and they have the power to pass laws and direct spending, some kind of big committee or something. Probably not important to know the names.

If only conservatives actually cared about the constitution. They hold all the branches, but still choose to do things the illegal way. The moral backbone of eclair.

 

[pmv]

If only there was some mechanism in place to curtail the elected presidents power. Some group who's sole duty was to be sure his actions fit within the confines of some written rules.

Unfortunately this administration doesn't believe that any such mechanism exists.

Legal showdown looms as Trump tests limits of presidential power

A judge accused the Trump administration of defying his orders, setting up a battle that could end up at the Supreme Court.

www.bbc.co.uk

"We want to weed out the corruption," Trump said. "And it seems hard to believe that a judge could say we don't want you to do that."

"Maybe we have to look at the judges," he continued. "I think it's a very serious violation."

On Sunday, Trump's vice-president, JD Vance, was even more blunt.

"Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power," he posted on the social media site X. That view was similar to one Vance expressed in a 2021 podcast, when he said that if Trump returned to power he should refuse to comply with any court order that prevented him from firing federal workers.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Also, wouldn't a advisory team (DOGE) be staffed with financial experts rather than coders and hackers.

They want to play with the system and see what works, just like they do with their own projects. They must think of the actual US population (minus their favorite repugs) as NPCs.

 

[fskimospy]

If only there was some mechanism in place to curtail the elected presidents power. Some group who's sole duty was to be sure his actions fit within the confines of some written rules.

I hate to break it to you but that group literally said the president can execute anyone he wants for any reason he wants and not only can he not be held criminally responsible for it, you aren't even allowed to ask why he did it.

So exactly what do you think that group is going to do here? Also if they did rule against Trump why not just have them killed? It's legal, after all.

 

[JujuFish]

I hate to break it to you but that group literally said the president can execute anyone he wants for any reason he wants and not only can he not be held criminally responsible for it, you aren't even allowed to ask why he did it.

So exactly what do you think that group is going to do here? Also if they did rule against Trump why not just have them killed? It's legal, after all.

This is wrong. SCOTUS said the POTUS gets immunity for official acts. They did not define what an official act is. Of course, they could potentially decide an execution counts as an official act, but likely narrowly for whatever case caused that to be presented to the court.

 

[brycejones]

This is wrong. SCOTUS said the POTUS gets immunity for official acts. They did not define what an official act is. Of course, they could potentially decide an execution counts as an official act, but likely narrowly for whatever case caused that to be presented to the court.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait you're serious

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (I have to stop laughing and catch my breath)

Deciding someone is an enemy of the US and then summarily executing them would be the very definition of an "official act".

The "official act" rational is big enough to drive a fucking aircraft carrier through it.

 

[Brainonska511]

This is wrong. SCOTUS said the POTUS gets immunity for official acts. They did not define what an official act is. Of course, they could potentially decide an execution counts as an official act, but likely narrowly for whatever case caused that to be presented to the court.

I have a feeling a court ordered injunction against ordering the military to bomb John Roberts house isn't going to protect SCOTUS.

 

[JujuFish]

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Oh wait you're serious

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (I have to stop laughing and catch my breath)

Deciding someone is an enemy of the US and then summarily executing them would be the very definition of an "official act".

The "official act" rational is big enough to drive a fucking aircraft carrier through it.

Oh, I see. We're just going to be children today.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[iRONic]

This is wrong. SCOTUS said the POTUS gets immunity for official acts. They did not define what an official act is. Of course, they could potentially decide an execution counts as an official act, but likely narrowly for whatever case caused that to be presented to the court.

Bless your heart…

 

[JujuFish]

I have a feeling a court ordered injunction against ordering the military to bomb John Roberts house isn't going to protect SCOTUS.

If you think that is a serious consideration, then you might as well accept civil war.

 

[Brainonska511]

If you think that is a serious consideration, then you might as well accept civil war.

The president has immunity for unspecified "official acts". With all the shit going on now, we've already crossed the Rubicon. It's only a matter if people realize it yet or not

Plus, if the people enforcing the law don't hold the law in any regard, they can't expect the protection of that law either.

 

[IronWing]

If you think that is a serious consideration, then you might as well accept civil war.

Unless overturned by a future court, the presidential immunity ruling will lead to a future civil war. The ruling breaks the Constitution in a way that is in-reconcilable with stable government. Trump may not be the one to trigger a civil war (he’s a good candidate for this) but it will come.

 

[brycejones]

Oh, I see. We're just going to be children today.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I refuted your bullshit point as well. I notice you didn't bother to address that.

Fuck off.

 

[fskimospy]

This is wrong. SCOTUS said the POTUS gets immunity for official acts. They did not define what an official act is. Of course, they could potentially decide an execution counts as an official act, but likely narrowly for whatever case caused that to be presented to the court.

Absolutely not. Trump is the commander in chief - all he has to do is order the military to launch a drone strike on SCOTUS or whoever displeases him.

Remember, you are not allowed to ask why he did it so the only question you can ask is if giving orders to the military is an official act. If it is, he can kill anyone and everyone he feels like killing with zero consequences. If you think giving orders to the military is not an official act that would require considerable explanation.

 

[fskimospy]

I have a feeling a court ordered injunction against ordering the military to bomb John Roberts house isn't going to protect SCOTUS.

The only grounds for an injunction would be that ordering a military strike is not an official act and on what planet is the commander in chief ordering the military to go blow something up not an official act?

 

[fskimospy]

Unless overturned by a future court, the presidential immunity ruling will lead to a future civil war. The ruling breaks the Constitution in a way that is in-reconcilable with stable government. Trump may not be the one to trigger a civil war (he’s a good candidate for this) but it will come.

Absolutely. It is only a matter of time until Trump or some future president decides to use the immunity granted by SCOTUS to seize power. After all if you win you become a dictator. If you lose, you're immune.

Of course at that point conflicts are not about the law but about power so there could be a constraint where the president thinks the opposition would ignore SCOTUS' ruling if they win but if we are going strictly by the law then the only reason we do not have a dictatorship is the president hasn't decided to make us one.

 

[JujuFish]

I refuted your bullshit point as well. I notice you didn't bother to address that.

Fuck off.

No point in addressing a child other than with a childish remark.

 

[brycejones]

No point in addressing a child other than with a childish remark.

I completely agree. LMK when you grow up and are capable of critical thinking.

 

[JujuFish]

I completely agree. LMK when you grow up and are capable of critical thinking.

Oh, now we're doing the I'm rubber you're glue playground retort. Good to know.

 

[brycejones]

Oh, now we're doing the I'm rubber you're glue playground retort. Good to know.

It’s really funny you have yet to refute the criticisms of your post.

Are you afraid to respond on the merits?

 

[JujuFish]

It’s really funny you have yet to refute the criticisms of your post.

Are you afraid to respond on the merits?

When someone refutes my post with facts, the discussion can continue.

 

[brycejones]

When someone refutes my post with facts, the discussion can continue.

Explain how the President ordering the military to kill someone isn’t an official act.

 

[JujuFish]

Explain how the President ordering the military to kill someone isn’t an official act.

Explain in the Constitution where it says the President has the power to order an assassination.

 

[fskimospy]

Explain in the Constitution where it says the President has the power to order an assassination.

Not relevant.

Is giving orders to the military an official act? Yes or no.

Remember, as per SCOTUS you are not allowed to ask about the contents of the order.

 

[JujuFish]

Not relevant.

Is giving orders to the military an official act? Yes or no.

Remember, as per SCOTUS you are not allowed to ask about the contents of the order.

It is absolutely relevant considering the entire point of SCOTUS is to determine constitutionality.