SCOTUS

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Uncle Ted
    replied
    Originally posted by frank ryan View Post
    Don't be a dick napper
    LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • frank ryan
    replied
    Don't be a dick napper

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Ted
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post

    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.

    Other than that Goatnapper laments that reasonable discussion has come to this point that our collective morality as a people affords us electing individuals where we must have these discussions. I worry about any government entity being afforded too much power and protection. I think whether or not an illegal order can be considered "official duty" is going to be problematic over time and how folks feel about whether or not that is an "official duty" will likely be dictated by where they sit. Our problem is our lack of consensus and our lack of morality. Neither will serve us well.

    So with that-everyone should go fly fishing! Oh ya-and Justice Sotomayer ought to just pull the string!
    As a son of the 208, I also agree that JL should fly fish the south fork and Palisades... mighty good fishing. Henry's fork use to be good as well. I also love the green below the flaming gorge, where my father's side of the family is from, but that is in mostly Utah (and Wyoming).

    Leave a comment:


  • Bo Diddley
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post
    hotter than Frank Ryan whenever Uncle Ted doesn't show Hunter Biden the Christlike love all children of God deserve.
    You have a way with words.

    Leave a comment:


  • Uncle Ted
    replied
    Originally posted by Goatnapper'96 View Post

    I am skeptical Trump could kill his political rivals with his penis.
    Yeah, but I bet he can derail a train with his penis...

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatnapper'96
    replied


    I am skeptical Trump could kill his political rivals with his penis.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maximus
    replied
    Originally posted by All-American View Post

    There are a great many illegal orders. Some will be nullified, invalidated, or vacated; others will be limited, cabined, or confined. But, you won't put the president in jail for issuing them.
    Do you agree a president shouldn't be able to prosecuted for official acts ... like discussing how to overturn an election ?

    Leave a comment:


  • Goatnapper'96
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueK View Post

    So now there is essentially no such thing as an illegal order as long as it's official? What goes Goatnapper think about that? If that’s not what this ruling means please explain.
    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.

    Other than that Goatnapper laments that reasonable discussion has come to this point that our collective morality as a people affords us electing individuals where we must have these discussions. I worry about any government entity being afforded too much power and protection. I think whether or not an illegal order can be considered "official duty" is going to be problematic over time and how folks feel about whether or not that is an "official duty" will likely be dictated by where they sit. Our problem is our lack of consensus and our lack of morality. Neither will serve us well.

    So with that-everyone should go fly fishing! Oh ya-and Justice Sotomayer ought to just pull the string!

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueK
    replied
    Originally posted by All-American View Post

    There are a great many illegal orders. Some will be nullified, invalidated, or vacated; others will be limited, cabined, or confined. But, you won't put the president in jail for issuing them.
    Maybe Joe should order the hit on Trump now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff Lebowski
    replied
    Originally posted by All-American View Post

    "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

    I think that is a bit much.
    Our liberal minority is developing a hell of a talent for hyperbole. I mean I had to get quite a ways through this before concluding it was satire. It is getting tougher and tougher to distinguish these days.

    Leave a comment:


  • All-American
    replied
    Originally posted by BlueK View Post

    So now there is essentially no such thing as an illegal order as long as it's official? What goes Goatnapper think about that? If that’s not what this ruling means please explain.
    There are a great many illegal orders. Some will be nullified, invalidated, or vacated; others will be limited, cabined, or confined. But, you won't put the president in jail for issuing them.

    Leave a comment:


  • All-American
    replied
    Originally posted by Maximus View Post
    court finds trump immune for "official" acts. I wonder how roberts will be remembered.

    "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

    I think that is a bit much.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlueK
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post

    And sure enough, the ruling is somewhere in the middle, as most experts expected.

    Anyone who expected zero immunity is a fool.
    So now there is essentially no such thing as an illegal order as long as it's official? What goes Goatnapper think about that? If that’s not what this ruling means please explain.

    Leave a comment:


  • All-American
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    This seems to be a nice summation of the impact of the ruling:



    tl;dr summary:
    The major decision doctrine was the Court's tell. "Well, sure, we apply deference, but not when we think it really matters...." The fact that this exception was ever created just goes to show that the rule was no good in the first place.

    Leave a comment:


  • Maximus
    replied
    Originally posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post

    And sure enough, the ruling is somewhere in the middle, as most experts expected.

    Anyone who expected zero immunity is a fool.
    I didnt expect you to be ok with this. wow.

    right down the middle

    Leave a comment:

Working...