|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 26, 2024 13:04:30 GMT -5
I understand Trump is claiming absolute immunity. You probably should have picked up on that when I wrote "He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity." Is that somehow unclear? You asked about past cases. Obama killed an American citizen without due process. And yet, everyone seems to agree that this incident was within Presidential immunity, so clearly, we agree that the concept exists and that killing an American citizen falls within its limits. So the extension of immunity falls somewhere between killing a citizen without due process and failing to act to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Hopefully, the Court can figure out where that line lies. Your Obama example overlooks this was an act of war not a political act. We were at war with Yemen? When did that happen?
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 26, 2024 16:08:35 GMT -5
This makes me laugh. Remember when Nixon famously said "if the President does it, it's legal"? Remember the reaction to that? Good times. The SC's job is to address if the lower court acted according to the Constitution. And this is NOT about if the P acted in "the better interest of the country"!! What a notion! DI'd Bush act in the better interest of the country by invading Iraq? Did JFK with the Bay of Pigs? Bad decisions are not crimes. Bad decisions are what voters are supposed to address. It's about prosecuting the ex P for crimes committed while in office. And have the prosecutor and the lower court followed the law? At one point in the arguments yesterday the government's attorney was making a point about Trump's case and Alito interrupted him, saying "I don't want to talk about that". Yeah, I bet. Trump is claiming absolute immunity. His team doubled down on their lunatic argument that a POTUS could order a SEAL team to assassinate a political opponent and not be prosecuted. Ditto accepting a bribe. Insanity. I understand Trump is claiming absolute immunity. You probably should have picked up on that when I wrote "He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity." Is that somehow unclear? You asked about past cases. Obama killed an American citizen without due process. And yet, everyone seems to agree that this incident was within Presidential immunity, so clearly, we agree that the concept exists and that killing an American citizen falls within its limits. So the extension of immunity falls somewhere between killing a citizen without due process and failing to act to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Hopefully, the Court can figure out where that line lies. Official acts have had immunity with no issues. This is not that.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 26, 2024 16:29:41 GMT -5
I understand Trump is claiming absolute immunity. You probably should have picked up on that when I wrote "He failed to do so and that difference, that failure to ensure the peaceful transfer was, IMO, beyond the limits of Presidential immunity." Is that somehow unclear? You asked about past cases. Obama killed an American citizen without due process. And yet, everyone seems to agree that this incident was within Presidential immunity, so clearly, we agree that the concept exists and that killing an American citizen falls within its limits. So the extension of immunity falls somewhere between killing a citizen without due process and failing to act to ensure a peaceful transfer of power. Hopefully, the Court can figure out where that line lies. Official acts have had immunity with no issues. This is not that. You seriously wrote that? What makes an act official, if not the President ordering it done? Oh. Wait. I forgot. Obama had a (D) after his name.
|
|
|
Post by soulflower on Apr 26, 2024 16:40:59 GMT -5
Your Obama example overlooks this was an act of war not a political act. When did Obama declare war on American citizens? I must have missed it. All Presidents eventually commit war crimes so I can’t see the SCOTUS ruling against immunity for crimes committed in the name of national security. If they rule against Trump it will probably be along the lines of Presidents committing crimes in office for their own political or personal benefit (ie Nixon and Warergate).
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 26, 2024 17:27:19 GMT -5
The P has no role in official submission of electoral college votes. None. Nor in the voting process in individual states. Love how all the so-called conservatives are willing to abandon the rights of individual states when it serves Trump's interests. The President is the chief law enforcement officer for the country. Investigating reports of election fraud in Georgia is well within the scope of law enforcement. The "phony electors" claims are also garbage. They werent phony. They were alternate electors assembled to preserve Trump's rights had he won legal claims in the states where he was fighting in court. There is precedent for this in Hawaii during the 1960 election. The constitution gives no role to the president in certifying federal elections. That role goes to the states and congress. As for your 'phony' electors, fraud is a crime and many of these people, in Michigan, Nevada, and AZ, are now in court because they are accused of fraud. It's amazing how often you argue that people should be above the law.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 26, 2024 17:40:57 GMT -5
It would apply to all presidents and given them freedom to do whatever they wanted, especially with at least a majority in one of the houses. Of course. Full immunity is a concept far too frightening to behold too long. I said this to you on another thread but the conservatives on the court seem to just spitball and concoct their own tortured logic can be applied to whatever case is kicking around.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 26, 2024 19:15:18 GMT -5
Of course. Full immunity is a concept far too frightening to behold too long. I said this to you on another thread but the conservatives on the court seem to just spitball and concoct their own tortured logic can be applied to whatever case is kicking around. IOW, you don't agree with their decision. Got it.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 26, 2024 22:02:15 GMT -5
I said this to you on another thread but the conservatives on the court seem to just spitball and concoct their own tortured logic can be applied to whatever case is kicking around. IOW, you don't agree with their decision. Got it. No, because they make up random stuff to justify those decisions
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 26, 2024 23:25:26 GMT -5
It's like the GOP has lost its mind
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 27, 2024 7:13:33 GMT -5
Official acts have had immunity with no issues. This is not that. You seriously wrote that? What makes an act official, if not the President ordering it done? Oh. Wait. I forgot. Obama had a (D) after his name. An official act is one that is committed as a legitimate part of the Presidential role as defined in Article II of the Constitution. Trump was acting as a Presidential candidate, not President. Suggest reading Article II. Obama ordering drone strike. Bush invading Iraq. JFK ordering Bay of Pigs. Official acts. Thought this was common knowledge. Here's a simple explanation from that bastion of crazy leftism, the AEI. www.aei.org/social-cultural-and-constitutional-studies/what-are-the-official-acts-of-a-president/
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 27, 2024 7:29:10 GMT -5
A couple of articles, out today, sum up what I was saying to Ishmael. The right leaning justices on the court just make stuff up and at times simply ignore the plain language of the law or constitution.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 27, 2024 7:38:55 GMT -5
You seriously wrote that? What makes an act official, if not the President ordering it done? Oh. Wait. I forgot. Obama had a (D) after his name. An official act is one that is committed as a legitimate part of the Presidential role as defined in Article II of the Constitution. Trump was acting as a Presidential candidate, not President. Suggest reading Article II. Obama ordering drone strike. Bush invading Iraq. JFK ordering Bay of Pigs. Official acts. Thought this was common knowledge. Here's a simple explanation from that bastion of crazy leftism, the AEI. www.aei.org/social-cultural-and-constitutional-studies/what-are-the-official-acts-of-a-president/ So Obama ordering a drone strike, specifically for the purpose of killing an American citizen, without any form of due process, is an official act. I didn't see that in Article II. Maybe I should read it from the left side, with blue tinted glasses on. The other two you keep mentioning over and over and over again, without any sense to them at all are obviously official acts. And by the way, I've already posted that, IMO, Trump acted beyond the limits of Presidential immunity. This very necessary USSC hearing will, hopefully, define the limits of that immunity. Unless, of course, it's a (D) President and then it won't matter.
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 27, 2024 8:02:06 GMT -5
An official act is one that is committed as a legitimate part of the Presidential role as defined in Article II of the Constitution. Trump was acting as a Presidential candidate, not President. Suggest reading Article II. Obama ordering drone strike. Bush invading Iraq. JFK ordering Bay of Pigs. Official acts. Thought this was common knowledge. Here's a simple explanation from that bastion of crazy leftism, the AEI. www.aei.org/social-cultural-and-constitutional-studies/what-are-the-official-acts-of-a-president/So Obama ordering a drone strike, specifically for the purpose of killing an American citizen, without any form of due process, is an official act. I didn't see that in Article II. Maybe I should read it from the left side, with blue tinted glasses on. The other two you keep mentioning over and over and over again, without any sense to them at all are obviously official acts. And by the way, I've already posted that, IMO, Trump acted beyond the limits of Presidential immunity. This very necessary USSC hearing will, hopefully, define the limits of that immunity. Unless, of course, it's a (D) President and then it won't matter. Military actions are official acts. Bay of Pigs, check. Invading Iraq, check. Drone strike against suspected terrorist, check. You got a whole lot of snark for someone who thought any action taken by a President is an official act. "What makes an act official, if not the President ordering it done" Glad I could help.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on Apr 27, 2024 8:18:45 GMT -5
A couple of articles, out today, sum up what I was saying to Ishmael. The right leaning justices on the court just make stuff up and at times simply ignore the plain language of the law or constitution. Come on JIM. The Bulwark? Really? That place is more anti-Trump than Schiff. The "plain text" of Article 14, Section 3 states "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."I absolutely agree that this is clearly stated. But these are crimes and the actual guilt of commission of a crime must be determined in a court of criminal law, not in the editorial pages of the Washington Post and New York Times, or in the "news" desk at MSNBC, and certainly, not in the courtroom of some State Judge. There can be no other place for such a determination except in a criminal trial because without that protection, everything else falls apart. There has been no charge proffered, no indictment put forward and no trial for the crime of insurrection, or for aiding and abetting an insurrection. While that crime may well have occurred, removing Trump from the Colorado ballot without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in the crime driving his removal would have been wrong. And Alito was correct, a constitutional guarantee of access to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, not without stretching other rights beyond all imagining. And, as much as it pains me to say this, Justice Kagan is right. (Phew, I need a minute...) No President can be held immune from breaking the law. The question the USSC has to answer is two fold; (1) Have times since the Constitution was originally written, with the speed and ferocity of action and reaction inherent in global affairs, in internal affairs, in technology changes, forced a point where some level of immunity must be present and (2) if so, what are those limits? I keep mentioning Obama's drone attack that killed a 16-year old US citizen. That kid was very likely involved in supporting terrorist activities aimed at the US, as was his father, who was the primary target of the strike. The father was not an American citizen and getting to justification of that attack is not a long walk. The kid was a citizen, protected by constitutional right. Should Obama now be dragged from one of his homes, in cuffs and chains, and tried for murder? Is he immune from such prosecution as the kid was, essentially, collateral damage? There has to be, I think, some level of immunity in the actions of a President. I mentioned "better interest of the country" earlier. Obama killing this kid's father was in "the better interest of the country" and, hence, the kid's death is not an action for which Obama should be prosecuted. I see no "better interest" of the country in some of Trump's actions. Certainly, calling Georgia and asking that a specific number of votes "be found" is not an action in the "better interest of the country".
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 27, 2024 8:43:03 GMT -5
A couple of articles, out today, sum up what I was saying to Ishmael. The right leaning justices on the court just make stuff up and at times simply ignore the plain language of the law or constitution. Come on JIM. The Bulwark? Really? That place is more anti-Trump than Schiff. Odd, I didn't say anything about Trump, I was talking about the Supreme Court The "plain text" of Article 14, Section 3 states "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability." I absolutely agree that this is clearly stated. But these are crimes and the actual guilt of commission of a crime must be determined in a court of criminal law, not in the editorial pages of the Washington Post and New York Times, or in the "news" desk at MSNBC, and certainly, not in the courtroom of some State Judge. There can be no other place for such a determination except in a criminal trial because without that protection, everything else falls apart. There has been no charge proffered, no indictment put forward and no trial for the crime of insurrection, or for aiding and abetting an insurrection. While that crime may well have occurred, removing Trump from the Colorado ballot without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in the crime driving his removal would have been wrong. Again, odd. The constitution doesn't say 'convicted of the crime of insurrection' so you're actually making my point for me. You're just making stuff up. But even more significantly, and the crux of this argument, that's not what SCOTUS said. They didn't even discuss your point in oral arguments. Instead, they just made something up - "Only congress can enforce section 3." So, your saying that the 14th amendment can only apply if there is a criminal conviction for the statutory crime of 'insurrection' - the 14th amendment actually doesn't say that but whatever - and SCOTUS is saying, no the courts don't have a role at all, only Congress does. Where the hell did that argument come from? Furthermore, these justices in oral arguments, suddenly decided that federalism was not such a great idea after all. They expressed alarm that states actually have a role in federal elections and lamented a potential 'patchwork'. I got news for them, it already is a 'patchwork'... by design. Candidates are sometimes prohibited from being on the ballot in some states while on the ballot in others. It's always been this way. Just look at RFK Jr's effort to get on the ballot or the fact that Biden might not actually be on the ballot in Ohio. Is the Supreme Court going to intervene and say that Biden has to be on the ballot in Ohio? This is the dissent. No President can be held immune from breaking the law. The question the USSC has to answer is two fold; (1) Have times since the Constitution was originally written, with the speed and ferocity of action and reaction inherent in global affairs, in internal affairs, in technology changes, forced a point where some level of immunity must be present and (2) if so, what are those limits? That's not the question. The question is, can Trump be charged and tried for THESE alleged crimes? That's it. Honestly, the appeals court decision was so airtight that they should have just left it alone. Instead, the court seems determined to create some new legal standard out of whole cloth, one that is nowhere in the constitution. This is what the Appeals Court said, note the judicial restraint
|
|
|
Post by msmaggie on Apr 28, 2024 10:40:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 28, 2024 13:38:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 28, 2024 19:34:07 GMT -5
Like I keep saying, this court just makes stuff up
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 28, 2024 21:24:11 GMT -5
A couple of articles, out today, sum up what I was saying to Ishmael. The right leaning justices on the court just make stuff up and at times simply ignore the plain language of the law or constitution. Come on JIM. The Bulwark? Really? That place is more anti-Trump than Schiff. The "plain text" of Article 14, Section 3 states "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."I absolutely agree that this is clearly stated. But these are crimes and the actual guilt of commission of a crime must be determined in a court of criminal law, not in the editorial pages of the Washington Post and New York Times, or in the "news" desk at MSNBC, and certainly, not in the courtroom of some State Judge. There can be no other place for such a determination except in a criminal trial because without that protection, everything else falls apart. There has been no charge proffered, no indictment put forward and no trial for the crime of insurrection, or for aiding and abetting an insurrection. While that crime may well have occurred, removing Trump from the Colorado ballot without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in the crime driving his removal would have been wrong. And Alito was correct, a constitutional guarantee of access to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, not without stretching other rights beyond all imagining. And, as much as it pains me to say this, Justice Kagan is right. (Phew, I need a minute...) No President can be held immune from breaking the law. The question the USSC has to answer is two fold; (1) Have times since the Constitution was originally written, with the speed and ferocity of action and reaction inherent in global affairs, in internal affairs, in technology changes, forced a point where some level of immunity must be present and (2) if so, what are those limits? I keep mentioning Obama's drone attack that killed a 16-year old US citizen. That kid was very likely involved in supporting terrorist activities aimed at the US, as was his father, who was the primary target of the strike. The father was not an American citizen and getting to justification of that attack is not a long walk. The kid was a citizen, protected by constitutional right. Should Obama now be dragged from one of his homes, in cuffs and chains, and tried for murder? Is he immune from such prosecution as the kid was, essentially, collateral damage? There has to be, I think, some level of immunity in the actions of a President. I mentioned "better interest of the country" earlier. Obama killing this kid's father was in "the better interest of the country" and, hence, the kid's death is not an action for which Obama should be prosecuted. I see no "better interest" of the country in some of Trump's actions. Certainly, calling Georgia and asking that a specific number of votes "be found" is not an action in the "better interest of the country". I think there is an understanding at SCOTUS that the Democrats have badly overplayed their hand with Trump. The Colorado ruling on the insurrection claims, the 8th Amendment violation coming from Engoron's court, Fani "Odor of Mendacity" Willis and the incoherent case Bragg is bringing have all made plain that the Democrats are persecuting Trump for political gain. Had they not crossed the line into cartoonish super villainy, and left the DOJ and Jack Smith alone to bring the most plausible cases, I think SCOTUS would have been more inclined to let those cases play out. But now the cartoon rulings and cases have discredited the plausible cases. And at this point by "plausible" I'm only really talking about the classified documents case. And the DOJ had to go and decide to not go after Biden for similar behavior with classified documents. So how does SCOTUS address this obvious miscarriage of justice without providing Presidents with wide immunity? Is that not the "better interest if the country" than an endless series of garbage protections because the Democrats refuse to treat the law and the circumstances seriously?
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on Apr 28, 2024 21:27:30 GMT -5
Come on JIM. The Bulwark? Really? That place is more anti-Trump than Schiff. The "plain text" of Article 14, Section 3 states "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."I absolutely agree that this is clearly stated. But these are crimes and the actual guilt of commission of a crime must be determined in a court of criminal law, not in the editorial pages of the Washington Post and New York Times, or in the "news" desk at MSNBC, and certainly, not in the courtroom of some State Judge. There can be no other place for such a determination except in a criminal trial because without that protection, everything else falls apart. There has been no charge proffered, no indictment put forward and no trial for the crime of insurrection, or for aiding and abetting an insurrection. While that crime may well have occurred, removing Trump from the Colorado ballot without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in the crime driving his removal would have been wrong. And Alito was correct, a constitutional guarantee of access to abortion is nowhere in the Constitution, not without stretching other rights beyond all imagining. And, as much as it pains me to say this, Justice Kagan is right. (Phew, I need a minute...) No President can be held immune from breaking the law. The question the USSC has to answer is two fold; (1) Have times since the Constitution was originally written, with the speed and ferocity of action and reaction inherent in global affairs, in internal affairs, in technology changes, forced a point where some level of immunity must be present and (2) if so, what are those limits? I keep mentioning Obama's drone attack that killed a 16-year old US citizen. That kid was very likely involved in supporting terrorist activities aimed at the US, as was his father, who was the primary target of the strike. The father was not an American citizen and getting to justification of that attack is not a long walk. The kid was a citizen, protected by constitutional right. Should Obama now be dragged from one of his homes, in cuffs and chains, and tried for murder? Is he immune from such prosecution as the kid was, essentially, collateral damage? There has to be, I think, some level of immunity in the actions of a President. I mentioned "better interest of the country" earlier. Obama killing this kid's father was in "the better interest of the country" and, hence, the kid's death is not an action for which Obama should be prosecuted. I see no "better interest" of the country in some of Trump's actions. Certainly, calling Georgia and asking that a specific number of votes "be found" is not an action in the "better interest of the country". I think there is an understanding at SCOTUS that the Democrats have badly overplayed their hand with Trump. The Colorado ruling on the insurrection claims, the 8th Amendment violation coming from Engoron's court, Fani "Odor of Mendacity" Willis and the incoherent case Bragg is bringing have all made plain that the Democrats are persecuting Trump for political gain. Had they not crossed the line into cartoonish super villainy, and left the DOJ and Jack Smith alone to bring the most plausible cases, I think SCOTUS would have been more inclined to let those cases play out. But now the cartoon rulings and cases have discredited the plausible cases. And at this point by "plausible" I'm only really talking about the classified documents case. And the DOJ had to go and decide to not go after Biden for similar behavior with classified documents. So how does SCOTUS address this obvious miscarriage of justice without providing Presidents with wide immunity? Is that not the "better interest if the country" than an endless series of garbage protections because the Democrats refuse to treat the law and the circumstances seriously? More nonsensical gibberish.
|
|
|
Post by augustwest on Apr 29, 2024 11:02:26 GMT -5
If the SCOTUS rules that the President has immunity, Biden should eliminate the existing threats to our democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 29, 2024 11:17:15 GMT -5
If the SCOTUS rules that the President has immunity, Biden should eliminate the existing threats to our democracy. One fine day, in the middle of the night, two dead men got up to fight. Back to back, they faced each other, drew their swords and shot each other. A deaf policeman heard the noise and came and shot the two dead boys. If you don't believe my tale is true, ask the blind man he saw it too. .... probably while murdering his political adversaries because they're a threat to democracy.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 11:21:19 GMT -5
If the SCOTUS rules that the President has immunity, Biden should eliminate the existing threats to our democracy. Which would consist of him doing what to whom exactly?
|
|
|
Post by augustwest on Apr 29, 2024 12:14:00 GMT -5
If the SCOTUS rules that the President has immunity, Biden should eliminate the existing threats to our democracy. Which would consist of him doing what to whom exactly? That would be up to the President and may require clearance from Secret Service and the Marshall Service. Not my place to say but we all know that our democracy has been threatened and there were attempts to thwart the election and peaceful transfer of power
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on Apr 29, 2024 12:18:49 GMT -5
If the SCOTUS rules that the President has immunity, Biden should eliminate the existing threats to our democracy. Which would consist of him doing what to whom exactly? Giving trump to Kristi Noem.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Apr 29, 2024 12:26:40 GMT -5
Is there anything quite as fascisticly moronic as calling for the elimination of your political opponents to save democracy?
No wonder the Dems are obsessed with Putin. They're just like him.
|
|
|
Post by alienrace on Apr 29, 2024 12:33:03 GMT -5
No wonder the Dems are obsessed with Putin. They're just like him. Facts.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1 on Apr 29, 2024 12:37:25 GMT -5
Which would consist of him doing what to whom exactly? That would be up to the President and may require clearance from Secret Service and the Marshall Service. Not my place to say but we all know that our democracy has been threatened and there were attempts to thwart the election and peaceful transfer of power Are you saying he should be able to have whoever he claims is a threat to democracy imprisoned or executed? Joe Biden and the Democrats are the real threat to democracy.
|
|
|
Post by mrsmlh on Apr 29, 2024 12:37:45 GMT -5
Is there anything quite as fascisticly moronic as calling for the elimination of your political opponents to save democracy? No wonder the Dems are obsessed with Putin. They're just like him. HAHA that is exactly what Trump has said he will do when he is re-elected
|
|
|
Post by augustwest on Apr 29, 2024 12:39:05 GMT -5
That would be up to the President and may require clearance from Secret Service and the Marshall Service. Not my place to say but we all know that our democracy has been threatened and there were attempts to thwart the election and peaceful transfer of power Are you saying he should be able to have whoever he claims is a threat to democracy imprisoned or executed? Joe Biden and the Democrats are the real threat to democracy. That’s what SCOTUS is debating. If they choose to eliminate checks and balances why should Biden be the last president to not use the new power? The next one will for sure.
|
|