(July 3, 2024 at 9:43 pm)Foxaèr Wrote: I don't need to listen to a debate to know whom I don't want as president.

Right? All the shit that has been said and done is evidence enough. I consider that debate as not negative against Biden. People are going bugnuts about it, if the news is to be believed. Both candidate's histories speak for themselves. If people are that dependent on debates, I'd like for Biden to be well and for the chump to be sick, next time. Well, sicker than usual.

(July 3, 2024 at 7:12 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 2, 2024 at 4:26 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Something major needs to be done. It seems to me that this is a national security issue. The USA has long kept its external enemies at bay but we are now being dismantled internally. The nation is literally under attack and Biden has an obligation to act. He is the Commander in Chief and has now been given limitless official power.

(Bold mine)

Actually, he hasn’t. The Court’s decision grants presidents immunity, not authority. This is an important distinction. 

Boru

Granted. I have to think though that Biden could find a few military members and/or federal agents who would be willing to take on a covert assignment from the President aimed at eliminating national security threats. I'm not going to spell out the nature of the covert assignment(s) I'm talking about but I'm sure you can figure it out.

This may seem like an extreme and unethical act but under the circumstances, I don't think it is. With external threats, the President sends the military. They break things and kill people. It's justified by the righteousness and necessity of national defense. This is the same thing except the threat is from the inside.

(July 4, 2024 at 3:30 pm)AFTT47 Wrote:

(July 3, 2024 at 7:12 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (Bold mine)

Actually, he hasn’t. The Court’s decision grants presidents immunity, not authority. This is an important distinction. 

Boru

Granted. I have to think though that Biden could find a few military members and/or federal agents who would be willing to take on a covert assignment from the President aimed at eliminating national security threats. I'm not going to spell out the nature of the covert assignment(s) I'm talking about but I'm sure you can figure it out.

This may seem like an extreme and unethical act but under the circumstances, I don't think it is. With external threats, the President sends the military. They break things and kill people. It's justified by the righteousness and necessity of national defense. This is the same thing except the threat is from the inside.

That would be a nightmare precedent to set. Where would it stop?

Boru

(July 4, 2024 at 3:52 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 4, 2024 at 3:30 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Granted. I have to think though that Biden could find a few military members and/or federal agents who would be willing to take on a covert assignment from the President aimed at eliminating national security threats. I'm not going to spell out the nature of the covert assignment(s) I'm talking about but I'm sure you can figure it out.

This may seem like an extreme and unethical act but under the circumstances, I don't think it is. With external threats, the President sends the military. They break things and kill people. It's justified by the righteousness and necessity of national defense. This is the same thing except the threat is from the inside.

That would be a nightmare precedent to set. Where would it stop?

Boru

Hopefully, it would stop by fixing the insane SCOTUS ruling. This might be done by constitutional amendment or by expanding the court to at least 13 justices.

Roberts did say he wanted to protect an “energetic,” and “independent executive,” willing to take “bold” actions and make unpopular decisions when needed. He'd just be taking them at their word.

(July 4, 2024 at 3:52 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(July 4, 2024 at 3:30 pm)AFTT47 Wrote: Granted. I have to think though that Biden could find a few military members and/or federal agents who would be willing to take on a covert assignment from the President aimed at eliminating national security threats. I'm not going to spell out the nature of the covert assignment(s) I'm talking about but I'm sure you can figure it out.

This may seem like an extreme and unethical act but under the circumstances, I don't think it is. With external threats, the President sends the military. They break things and kill people. It's justified by the righteousness and necessity of national defense. This is the same thing except the threat is from the inside.

That would be a nightmare precedent to set. Where would it stop?

Boru

If that precedent were set by this president, at least there's hope it would be set right. If trump were to win and set that precedent while chasing his stated revenge fantasies, there's good reason to believe only revolution would correct it.

In spite of the tortuous interpretations of law by this kangaroo court, legalists generally rely on precedent. That Pandora's box has been opened, sad to say.

(July 4, 2024 at 4:22 pm)AFTT47 Wrote:

(July 4, 2024 at 3:52 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: That would be a nightmare precedent to set. Where would it stop?

Boru

Hopefully, it would stop by fixing the insane SCOTUS ruling. This might be done by constitutional amendment or by expanding the court to at least 13 justices.

Congress won't move on either of those solutions. We all know this.

(July 4, 2024 at 8:51 pm)Fireball Wrote: In spite of the tortuous interpretations of law by this kangaroo court, legalists generally rely on precedent. That Pandora's box has been opened, sad to say.

The conservative majority has shown they don't care about precedent. That means you'll need, in likely order, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts to die or retire -- and then get any nominations past a tightly-divided Senate -- and that's only if Biden wins.

It's clear by now that the six conservatives care about neither precedent nor originalism. "We can do it, therefore we will" is the only remaining justification. They will support the transition to authoritarianism because it's their preferred brand. Outside that, sure, they lean on Constitutional "originalism" insofar as it suits their agenda, which obviously matters more to them than the national weal.

These six aren't "legalists". They're unelected arbiters beholden to the rich who've bought them off.

(July 4, 2024 at 9:23 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(July 4, 2024 at 8:51 pm)Fireball Wrote: In spite of the tortuous interpretations of law by this kangaroo court, legalists generally rely on precedent. That Pandora's box has been opened, sad to say.

The conservative majority has shown they don't care about precedent. That means you'll need, in likely order, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts to die or retire -- and then get any nominations past a tightly-divided Senate -- and that's only if Biden wins.

It's clear by now that the six conservatives care about neither precedent nor originalism. "We can do it, therefore we will" is the only remaining justification. They will support the transition to authoritarianism because it's their preferred brand. Outside that, sure, they lean on Constitutional "originalism" insofar as it suits their agenda, which obviously matters more to them than the national weal.

These six aren't "legalists". They're unelected arbiters beholden to the rich who've bought them off.

I wasn't all that clear. Legalists in general includes a lot more than those a-holes.