SCOTUS

[Jeff Lebowski]

What were you fishing with? Lures, bait?

Bait?

Not on my boat.

Trolling flashers and squids with downriggers. Same thing you use for salmon in Alaska, just smaller.

[falafel]

What were you fishing with? Lures, bait?

Bait fisherman.

Buster wants to fish.

[Uncle Ted]

That sounds amazing. I haven't done any fly fishing in ages. I used to tie my own flies and I own a few rods.

I went up the lake yesterday and caught 10 salmon and 50 cuts and rainbows. It was a glorious day.

What were you fishing with? Lures, bait?

[frank ryan]

The decision is not terrible and there are some good things about the decision.

It absolutely is being misrepresented by Democrats right now as a blank check to do whatever the President wants. The dissent was absurd.

I do think there are some legitimate criticisms that can be made about the majority's limitations on what evidence can be considered with regard to determining if something is an official act or not.

This is helpful. Thank you!

[Northwestcoug]

In the theme of posting about fishing in the SCOTUS thread, I had yesterday off and decided to fish the Deschutes right outside of town in the early evening. It was upside down day, with all the action on dry flies and nothing with a nymph. Caught two small rainbows, and had a lot of other nibbles. Wasn't a bad way to end the day.

[MartyFunkhouser]

I don't see how that is relevant to the decision or the point AA was making. This was the correct decision and really quite important for stability going forward given these insane times and it is correct independent of what the relative risks of a Trump or Biden presidency are. The fact that so few who worry about Trump can recognize that is really something and speaks to how little most really care about the rule of law. By any means necessary I suppose.

The decision is not terrible and there are some good things about the decision.

It absolutely is being misrepresented by Democrats right now as a blank check to do whatever the President wants. The dissent was absurd.

I do think there are some legitimate criticisms that can be made about the majority's limitations on what evidence can be considered with regard to determining if something is an official act or not.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Goatnapper thinks Jeff Lebowski should take a day to backpack above the Lower Lake on Palisades Creek along the South Fork of the Snake River and then fly fish Palisades Creek between the lower and upper lake. Restrictions to protect Yellowstone Cutthroat spawning end today-and word on the street was as of Friday the action on any dry fly resembling any critter was hotter than Frank Ryan whenever Uncle Ted doesn't show Hunter Biden the Christlike love all children of God deserve.

That sounds amazing. I haven't done any fly fishing in ages. I used to tie my own flies and I own a few rods.

I went up the lake yesterday and caught 10 salmon and 50 cuts and rainbows. It was a glorious day.

[frank ryan]

Oh, that’s easy. Trump’s behavior is FAR more egregious. But Trump would also be far more likely to try to prosecute Biden for less significant (or fabricated) “offenses.”

Somehow democrats have forgotten that sometimes the other party wins.

Thanks for your response. You can't live in Utah and lack awareness of Republican political victories.

[All-American]

Do you any distance in terms of the amount of ethical or legal concerns one might have about both of them? Or do you view the legitimacy or worries about Trump and Biden as relatively equal?

Oh, that’s easy. Trump’s behavior is FAR more egregious. But Trump would also be far more likely to try to prosecute Biden for less significant (or fabricated) “offenses.”

Somehow democrats have forgotten that sometimes the other party wins.

[frank ryan]

I don't see how that is relevant to the decision or the point AA was making. This was the correct decision and really quite important for stability going forward given these insane times and it is correct independent of what the relative risks of a Trump or Biden presidency are. The fact that so few who worry about Trump can recognize that is really something and speaks to how little most really care about the rule of law. By any means necessary I suppose.

I'm still quite curious. It doesn't need to discredit his comment. But, I'm interested in his perspective. It's a fair question.

[Uncle Ted]

That, and Democrats are forgetting how soon the tables WILL turn. Come this time next year, Trump will probably be president and Biden a former president. Maybe then immunity for official acts will seem like not such a bad thing after all?

Embedded Tweet

And let's not forget all those classified documents found in the scattered around in Grandpa Joe's garage...



https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2493202.html

[Omaha 680]

Do you any distance in terms of the amount of ethical or legal concerns one might have about both of them? Or do you view the legitimacy or worries about Trump and Biden as relatively equal?

I don't see how that is relevant to the decision or the point AA was making. This was the correct decision and really quite important for stability going forward given these insane times and it is correct independent of what the relative risks of a Trump or Biden presidency are. The fact that so few who worry about Trump can recognize that is really something and speaks to how little most really care about the rule of law. By any means necessary I suppose.

[frank ryan]

That, and Democrats are forgetting how soon the tables WILL turn. Come this time next year, Trump will probably be president and Biden a former president. Maybe then immunity for official acts will seem like not such a bad thing after all?

Do you any distance in terms of the amount of ethical or legal concerns one might have about both of them? Or do you view the legitimacy or worries about Trump and Biden as relatively equal?

[All-American]

The deliberate illiteracy about the law that democrats are evincing about this Supreme Court opinion on presidential immunity is shocking. It's as if they don't understand the meaning of presumptions, that they can be overcome, that what is an official act depends on fact finding by a trial court, I.e., a trial. Trump has not been given a free pass. Neither side won. All professions and public officials including journalists enjoy some kind of immunity.

The Supreme Court had already held decades ago that Nixon was immune from tort claims for official acts.

Even Laurence Tribe is being deliberately stupid. The opinion restores restraint and sanity. I'm sure Biden could be indicted for negligence about the border. Sotomeyor is irresponsible suggesting that assassinating your opponent is an official act. If the tables were turned I know democrats would be praising this decision. The partisanship has swallowed reason and even true liberalism.

That, and Democrats are forgetting how soon the tables WILL turn. Come this time next year, Trump will probably be president and Biden a former president. Maybe then immunity for official acts will seem like not such a bad thing after all?

[PaloAltoCougar]

Amen, brother.

Agreed, I spent two holes of golf today laying out for my friends what SU did in a couple of minutes.