Hodad

That's not a huge qualifier. There is almost nothing that can't be argued as an "official act" for which there is full or at least presumptive immunity. Oh, I'm quite interested in honest, intelligent discussion. Do you know where I can find some? This forum seems to be filled with cheerleaders, hand wavers and people pretending that this extreme SCOTUS opinion doesn't really do anything.

No, I have actual data. You know, facts and information. Enjoy your feelings.

By "warped stats" you mean the same original and authoritative data sources that have been used to compare economic performance for forever? Of course, you don't know that, because you don't know anything about economics whatsoever. You have your feelings and your Fox news. And that's all you need to form an opinion, lol.

No, you very much mean "feelings." You "feel" warm, so you declare it the hottest day ever. You "feel" the economy was good, so it was the best economy every. You don't need thermometers or economic data, you just have your feelings and you use them to make create your own reality. And then get pissy when people point out actual facts.

Bullshit. If it's an "official act" the President is now immune from criminal liability. In his interviews with David Frost, Nixon very famously said "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." For decades, that appalling statement was anathema to American democracy--the clearest testament that Nixon had crossed every bright line. Yesterday, despite John Roberts' weak protestations, the Supreme Court made what was once an unthinkably repugnant statement into our new reality. Long live King Biden, newly elevated above the law.

Yeah, who needs data when you've got so many feelings!

I really have no idea WTF you're talking about, because, as usual, you've not even bothered to make an argument. You simply wave your hands and say, "Read the opinion!" which you yourself haven't done. 🙄

Lol. No, they, didn't. Trickle down economics has never worked. Supply siders are like religious kooks who believe a miracle is coming every time, and every time it fails and they still keep believing that it will work next time. Companies don't spend that money on more people. They don't suddenly have more demand. The American people got a trillion-dollar deficit so the rich could get richer. Yahoo finance Tax revenue fell Trump told us we'd get 6% growth. Not even remotely close. Basically nada. Down again by 2019. Trump told us companies would use that this corporate windfall would boost hiring! But again, didn't move the needle even a bit. Growth trajectory unaffected.

You can make up whatever straw men you like. Have fun playing with 'em. And keep waving your hands like the new presidential superpowers are nothing new at all. Poor Nixon. Poor Trump. Finally they are vindicated. Just poor presidents trying to get along on this cruel world but being hassled for criminal behavior.

Sure the problem is not the first attempted coup in American history. The real problem is an effort to hold accountable the perpetrators through our justice system. 🙄

Can you even "hear" yourself? The logical pretzel that one must contort oneself into to claim that granting the executive immunity from criminal prosecution reduces tyranny, is astonishing. Laughable, if it weren't so tragic. I think Biden should go hotwire Clarence Thomas' bribemobile (oh, wait, now I suppose it's a gratuity mobile) and use it for official duties. After all, Biden is now immune from criminal and civil consequences for such an action. Thomas--and all the rest--should get to enjoy first-hand what they've inflicted on the rest of the country in their desperate eagerness to serve the Trump cult.

Oh, fark off, you phony. You haven't read it. Most of us will not go beyond the first 20 pages. It's neither well reasoned nor well written, and rather just drones on making excuses for granting absurd power to the executive which the founders certainly didn't include--or believe existed--in the Constitution. Once again, political convenience puts the lie to the self-styled "textualists" and "originalists" who are inventing "essential" new executive powers after functioning without then (and better for it) for nearly 250 years.

Impeachment? I think it's an open question what "high crimes and misdemeanors" even means when a POTUS is immune to crimes. But let's be real, impeachment, at this point is an entirely political process. There is no honor or decency. Trump tried to trade American military aid for campaign help--as corrupt and blatant as it gets--and still Republican senators refused to hold him accountable. And these are the people you expect to keep criminal behavior in check? No, to keep that behavior in check we've always relied on the fact that the President was not above the law, that, like Nixon, the President must fear prosecution. No longer. Now the President need not fear. He or she is free to "act boldly" and criminally as their whims dictate.

I know it's hard for you to see the big picture with your head firmly up Trump's ass, but perhaps pull out, towel off and take a look at what this actually means for the future of America.

You are very confused. You suggest that potential crimes must come before the court to decide whether a President is immune or not, but that's entirely redundant. Criminal laws already exist, and the question of whether a person--any person--is guilty of and will be punished for transgressions of those laws has always come before the court, with every circumstance evaluated one at a time. Including and up through the SCOTUS. "Immunity" as you describe has always been decided on a case-by-case basis. Historically, the POTUS has always been subject to the same criminal laws--no one above the law. That was the case with Nixon. He broke criminal laws. He resigned and he was pardoned, an explicit acknowledgement that the POTUS was subject to the same criminal code as every other American. And couples with executive privilege, the possibilities are endless and hidden. If Watergate were to happen today, Nixon would have no need to resign. The answer to not being prosecuted is an easy one that has worked for 250 years: even presidents can't commit criminal acts. And it was a essential check against presidential misbehavior. And now, suddenly, this court imagines that the system hasn't been working? Trump is not a victim of persecution. He's received an unusual amount of post-presidential attention because his behavior was brazenly criminal, not even in the interest of the country, but in service of his own personal and political interests. What this infernal court has done is, for the first time in our nation's history, and in direct contradiction of every intention of the founding fathers, is to re-create the presidency as an office above the law. And sure, they did it to shield someone you root for, but my goodness, unless you plan to have "your side" in power in perpetuity (which many do intend) think of the Pandora's box this opens. This is the privilege of position that Putin enjoys, gleefully and untouchably disposing of his enemies and rivals. And now this brand of "democracy" has come to America. It should be a sad day for all Americans, but too many will be celebrating. They are too busy celebrating a "team win" to recognize the general loss.

With no law capable of constraining the executive, the last barrier to dictatorship has fallen, along with all of John Roberts hopes for legacy. Instead, should the country survive to remember, this court will live in infamy.

The lie is that you pretend that they were talking about healthy fetuses, when in fact they were talking about non-viable fetuses and the dignity of death rather than taking gruesome measures to preserve some semblance of life in a non-viable fetus or baby. It's really as ugly as lies come. You should be ashamed.

Right? It's just the worst TV performance ever. Period. Trump was like ChatGPT: all answers given with complete confidence, some of it on topic, half of it just crazy hallucination. And still Biden came off worse. He was a verbal trainwreck from the opening question on.

That was faster than expected. Oklahoma state superintendent announces all schools must incorporate the Bible and the Ten Commandments in curriculums "Every classroom in the state from grades 5 through 12 must have a Bible and all teachers must teach from the Bible in the classroom, Walters said"

Well, I'm watching now, and Biden is crazy old and Trump is just batshit crazy. No one is winning this race to the bottom.

They are the ones who have to sit in the classrooms, looking at posters of the 10 commandments, being told to worship the one true god and to drop their sculpture elective. Not a single Muslim or Hindu (or whatever) student should have to go home and ask their parents why his school is telling him to believe in a different god. Not one. And eventually, they will be the ones targeted by morning prayers and bible study.

Totally false. I point you again to Madison and Jefferson, both of whom wrote extensively about the establishment clause, the separation of church and state and why it is essential to both institutions.

Eh, to each his own. In my view "don't feed the trolls" is a fine strategy for a debate forum (using that label very generously in this case), but not when we're talking about state laws that will actually affect a million+ children. It's real at that point, and due for smiting. Stage 1 cancer is, in most ways, more urgent than stage 4, because the worst effects are still avoidable. If you act quickly and decisively, you can avoid an enormous amount of suffering later. If you let it metastasize because it wasn't really bothering you at stage 1, it's just inviting mortal peril. This is the time to push back.

Hindus? Muslims? Buddhists? Wiccan? Satanists? Followers of the celestial teapot? See, the point isn't that a lot of people display the pride flag, it's that a message of tolerance and welcome and safety isn't exclusive to LGBTQ+ people. In fact, it's not exclusive of anyone. The only people who could possibly find that message antagonistic are those who don't feel that LGBTQ+ people don't have a right to be proud, or to be safe--or even to exist. The lovely people who dragged Matthew Sheppard to death might find a pride flag antagonistic, but it's a pretty well established feature of this society that we are entitled to our non-harm liberties. We don't get to decide for others whether they have a right to existence. I am what? The lord, thy god? -- Flattered, but no. Feel free to make an actual argument some time.

I agree with all of this EXCEPT that these brazen attacks on the establishment clause shouldn't be taken seriously. The slippery slope isn't always a fallacy, sometimes it's just a reasonable warning, and specifically in reference to laws that are obvious and deliberate test cases meant to generate lawsuits and make their way to the SCOTUS. And if they can get this bizarre bench to take a bite out of the first amendment, they will come back immediately for more. It's not just possible, or even probable, but an absolute certainty. Classroom prayer. Bible study. Etc.