Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Donald Trump the Megathread part II - mod warnings in OP

1…2930323435…93

Comments

  • #1552
    Agent Coulson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 60,937 ✭✭✭✭Agent Coulson


    Biden should have SEAL Team 6 take out the Conservative justices now since they have given him immunity to do so and replace them with his own Judges that can then revoke the ruling.



  • #1553
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,191 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    GRaMUvEWsAAq55E.png
    doit-ben-stiller.gif

    .…



  • #1554
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,191 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://twitter.com/neal_katyal/status/1807786278328426830

    Wow



  • #1555
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,586 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326939#Comment_122326939

    Garland is a huge part of the problem. He has ties to the Kushners, and has delayed taking any action for Jan 6th for years. He has been a disastrous appointment.



  • #1556
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,059 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    In todays USSC ruling on the Trump case reference his presidential acts, “The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.

    It's noticeable that the noun "IS" is used twice in the present-tense form so it can be read to refer to the present office holder as well as Trump. It gives latitude to the lower courts to read that Roberts did NOT give Trump an escape free from jail card.



  • #1557
    scottser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 796 ✭✭✭scottser


    Bidens team should be drafting legislation as we speak to eliminate this immunity bullshit



  • #1558
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,191 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://twitter.com/jkbjournalist/status/1807837467384729822

    Hopefully there is some juicy information on 45...



  • #1559
    Ahwell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭Ahwell


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327107#Comment_122327107

    I think they would need majorities in both the House and the Senate to get that legislation through and MAGA has got the House.



  • #1560
    nachouser
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,195 ✭✭✭nachouser


    The US is f*cked based on the recent SC rulings. The whole point of the US was not to be ruled by an English King, and yet they are now wanting to be ruled by a King. 'Murica.



  • Advertisement
  • #1561
    everlast75
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,191 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    https://twitter.com/ditzkoff/status/1807805740708426054

    A+++



  • #1562
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,745 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327265#Comment_122327265

    dreaming I think , Epstein would have had a knighthood by now, liberal degenerates were Epstein's hunting ground

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1563
    Flaneur OBrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,585 ✭✭✭Flaneur OBrien


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327401#Comment_122327401

    What? Epstein didn't give a sh*t about liberal or conservative.

    Prince Andrew? Trump? Liberal degenerates?



  • #1564
    Danzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,298 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326383#Comment_122326383

    So really just a clarification on continuance of standard operating procedure.



  • #1565
    Danzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,298 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122326553#Comment_122326553

    He might give the order but put in his own name by mistake.



  • #1566
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,527 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327542#Comment_122327542

    Signing his own name in the target field is a pretty easy mistake. He has to sign a lot of stuff.



  • Advertisement
  • #1567
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327527#Comment_122327527

    Well yes and no.

    They've failed to actually clarify what constitutes an Official or Personal act and by that failure they give Trump the delay he wanted.

    Up to now a President couldn't be Civil charged for actions taken as President - Like he couldn't be personally sued for the results of some law/action he took. Now though they have said that the President has immunity for certain actions which is a step further as it suggests that a President can't be criminally charged for actions if they are deemed to be "official acts".

    That blanket of "official acts" could potentially be used to cover a multitude and the hoops that might have to be gone though to get something classified as a personal act are likely to be huge.

    It's another step toward the "unitary executive" theory the GOP are so fond of.



  • #1568
    duploelabs
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,759 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327542#Comment_122327542

    Still spoofing that you're an expert in geriatric medicine I see



  • #1569
    Danzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,298 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327663#Comment_122327663

    You got me. I'm behind the whole Joe is a cognitive wreck thing that is sweeping America and especially the democratic party.

    Anyone who was surprised by Joe last Tuesday was in wilful denial.

    You need to set the record straight and do a talking tour of America.



  • #1570
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,278 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122324088#Comment_122324088

    Wonder how you feel about this ruling now for Presidents given today's immunity ruling. Seems as though Cash for Pardons is "presumptively" legal carry on for a POTUS now.



  • #1571
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,278 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327107#Comment_122327107

    Should be drafting orders to Seal Team 6 to officially execute 6 corrupt justices.



  • Advertisement
  • #1572
    Ahwell
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,869 ✭✭✭Ahwell


    AOC is going to file articles of impeachment…

    https://x.com/AOC/status/1807814421168710111

    It has to be done, the bar is too high for it to succeed in the Senate, but at least it buts some pressure on the six lunatic justices. It needs to be a big election issue in all three races.



  • #1573
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,278 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122328580#Comment_122328580

    She doesn't say against who

    😂

    240 chars isn't enough



  • #1574
    dogbert27
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,949 ✭✭✭dogbert27


    The US is turning in to a banana republic.



  • #1575
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122328450#Comment_122328450

    I've not read the opinion yet (On family vacation in Greece and haven't had a long enough time).

    Note that the immunity doctrine in the US does not mean that everything becomes legal. Unlawful actions by, say, police, agents etc remain unlawful, are redressed by the courts, and recompensed by the agency in question.

    "Absolute Immunity" has its own legal definition in the US, and is not without limits. Absolute immunity from civil litigation, for example, was granted to the President in 1982, though it was trimmed a bit in 1997 to hold that the immunity only existed for official acts, and not unofficial, and even at that, it's not carte blanche: it "protects officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions",[2] extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law"" (Wiki quote citing a case). If the same term is used by SCOTUS in the current ruling on criminal liability, then unless they say otherwise in the opinion I would presume a similar meaning applies and is much less concerning than a lot of people seem to be making it out to be.



  • #1576
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,745 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327470#Comment_122327470

    Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, hollywood types were the ones "that went to the Island" , Prince Andrew is just a degenerate

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #1577
    Christy42
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,070 ✭✭✭Christy42


    It's the Trump thread so let's not forget about him taking some of those flights. Feel free to stick Clinton into the cell next to him, I am not picky on this and all the profiles can get locked up.

    On that topic did we ever get an excuse as to why he should be considered sane after the electric boat ramble?



  • #1578
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122328747#Comment_122328747

    Buried in there is basically carte blanche for any President to weaponise the DOJ for their own political benefit.

    Among many other protections and facilitations for the "Unitary Executive" - Basically , with this decision in place , Nixon could have told everyone to PFO and they couldn't have done anything about it. The tapes that did all the damage to him would be inadmissible according to this SCOTUS.

    In the ruling, the court stated that “testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial,” referring to anything a president does as an “official” act.

    Much of the evidence gathered against Trump in his January 6 trial, for example, relies on what he said to his advisers and to Vice President Mike Pence, as well as records that were kept on such discussions in the White House. It could also erase evidence of Trump speaking to lawmakers on the evening of January 6 to delay the certification of Biden’s victory.

    According to the Supreme Court, all such evidence is now unusable, an interpretation that, fortunately for Trump, guts that case against him. 

    As bad as that is however it pales in comparison to this little nugget.

    The Justice Department will no longer be an independent authority on the law, thanks to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Donald Trump’s immunity case Monday. Instead, it will be an arm to be leveraged by the Oval Office, with open communication enabled between the federal law enforcement agency and the presidency for all future investigations.

    Chief Justice John Roberts slipped the allowance into his majority opinion, as the justices ruled 6–3 in Trump’s favor along ideological lines. In a quiet sentence, Roberts argued that the fresh take on the executive branch relationship would help the president carry out his constitutional duties.

    “The president may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General and other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,’” Roberts wrote.

    “And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President’s ‘chief law enforcement officer’ who ‘provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution,’” Roberts continued, citing a precedent from an immunity case argued for Cabinet members, Mitchell v. Forsyth.

    This means that if Trump returns to office, he will have free rein to wield the Justice Department as he sees fit—and he and his allies have already given plenty of indications as to what they plan to do.

    Autocracy , plain and simple.



  • #1579
    Manic Moran
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,476 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manic Moran


    I'm not sure I see any practical difference between before and after. Or are you advocating that J Edgar Hoover's FBI wasn't an organisation which undertook policies as much on a political as a criminal basis? In my own memory, the DoJ is normally an agency which decides which things to investigate, prosecute or defend according to the political leanings of the administration and the executives appointed by the President.

    I seem to recall that the tapes which did damage to Nixon did so because of their political effect, not legal process. SCOTUS has confirmed that POTUS is not beyond subpoena, which is how the tapes were revealed. The inability to use such things as evidence in a trial does not mean that evidence cannot be compelled to become public. Unless there is a detail in the latest opinion which contradicts that, and I'm not a fan of apparently politically biased (Note the source) 'lite' assessments by an 'associate writer' with no indication of legal training, what you are suggesting seems to be a 'take'.

    Now, in fairness, I've not read the dissent either (who obviously do have excellent legal training and feel free to quote them), to see what they have to say on that exact issue before us, but eventually I'll sit down and read the 133 pages.



  • #1580
    gneel
    Registered Users Posts: 95 ✭✭gneel


    Trump already throwing as much **** against the wall to see what sticks. If it wasn't clear already, it would be an unmitigates disaster if Trump got reelected

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4yp9g7ynwo.amp



  • #1581
    ancapailldorcha
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 39,641 CMod ✭✭✭✭ancapailldorcha


    I just didn't think Conservatives would be this bold about embracing fascism but here we are. Usually, you do this sort of thing after the election, not before.

    The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

    Leviticus 19:34



  • Advertisement
  • #1582
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329141#Comment_122329141

    The dissent is pretty damning saying that the decision gives the President almost unfettered immunity.

    The point about the Nixon tapes is that no one would have ever heard them if this decision was in place at the time.

    Nixon says " They cover official business, go pound sand" and there's virtually nothing that anyone could do. Any subpoena to compel him to give them to a House/Senate committee could be ignored and now with his ability to explicitly direct the DOJ he could simply get them squashed.

    The viewpoint on their decision is pretty universally in agreement that this is terrible.

    It's notable that none of the usual GOP legal mouthpieces have said a word about the decision because it's hard to spin it as anything other than making the office of President a near monarchy.

    Trump has already gone back to the courts to have the hush money verdict overturned as he says that because he signed the dodgy paperwork to give Cohen the money after he was elected that means it was an "official act".

    The DOJ does indeed operate under a particular political lens , but this ruling looks to give the President the ability to influence specific cases rather than policy.

    So a President might have a zero tolerance policy on Drugs which is reflected in the way the DOJ approaches drugs cases, which is fine.

    This ruling seems to say that a President can get involved in individual cases and be part of the decision making process to take specific action.

    There's a massive difference between "I want you to be tough on Drug dealers" and " I want you to arrest John Smith and charge him with XYZ"



  • #1583
    LambshankRedemption
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,310 ✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122327825#Comment_122327825

    Speaking of cognitive decline, I think you meant to say Thursday, not Tuesday.



  • #1584
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,873 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Biden should just simply order the seals to assassinate Trump.

    Immunity is guaranteed as its "an official act"



  • #1585
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,059 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122328951#Comment_122328951

    Those final few bits from Roberts seem to make his role, and those of his colleagues on the USSC, redundant as they make Trump and his AG the arbiters on what the presidents constitutional duties are where upholding the laws is concerned. Presumably, Roberts seems to be minded that the AG will make decisions on protecting the laws and the constitution after consultations with the president where preserving the constitution is concerned. Nixon lost AGs over his attempt to avoid prosecution. It would be nice if Roberts sat down with the AG and went through his lawful obligations to the constitution are, as distinct from whatever a person like Trump chooses to cobble together with his appointee to the office of AG.



  • #1586
    Danzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,298 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329422#Comment_122329422

    What I meant to say, look here, we got the job started, malarkey.



  • #1587
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329484#Comment_122329484

    Absolutely.

    As I said , this is just another step in the journey to the Unitary executive theory that they all love so much.

    All power consolidated under the office of President - Essentially the restoration of the Monarchy in the US.

    They are blowing up the very thing that led to the creation of their country..



  • #1588
    Danzy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,298 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329640#Comment_122329640

    Dramatic but in reality it just clarifies and protects the standard operating procedure that all Presidents operate under and frankly can only operate under.



  • #1589
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329705#Comment_122329705

    It really really doesn't.

    Up to now there was no immunity from Criminal prosecution only civil.

    So for example if a President banned Tobacco, the cigarette companies couldn't personally sue them for loss of earnings or whatever , which makes complete sense.

    Now though, a President can commit an actual crime and as long as they can frame it as an "official act" they are immune , no matter what they did.

    They are now also explicitly allowed to engage with the DOJ directly as regards the cases they bring which again further hypes the immunity as the President can simply instruct the DOJ not to bring charges against them for whatever it is they are accused of.

    Impeachment is the only potential protection and that's effectively impossible in todays hyper partisan world.

    And even if they are impeached , they can't be subsequently charged as they have immunity for anything they did in office.

    That is totally and completely different to "standard operating procedure" up to this point.



  • #1590
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,278 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122328951#Comment_122328951

    the first part is incredibly egregious. Essentially it appears a president could even write a criminal conspiracy down on paper and that paper would not be admissible as evidence because it is a private presidential record.

    A president could orchestrate a coup attempt and you would not be able to admit into evidence that he sat in the dining room and refused to do nothing about the coup unfolding for hours but instead just stared at the live news feeds of his coup unfolding and his advisers could not testify about it at trial.



  • Advertisement
  • #1591
    amandstu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,810 ✭✭✭amandstu


    Does "possession is 9 tenths of the law" apply now?

    Biden is President and ,according to the corrupt SC has license to break the law during his term of office.

    If Trump was presently in Biden's place ,what likelihood would there be that the forthcoming election would be fair and its results transparent and respected?

    Marks out of 100? I might give a 2%

    I wonder if he would get Putin to do some of his dirty work.



  • #1592
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,278 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330183#Comment_122330183

    this is why Biden has to be the next president. He has all the power right now to, very officially and with presumptive immunity, assassinate Donald Trump, John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Comey Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas - and every Republican member of Congress; but he would never in a million years, because he isn’t, never was, and never aspired to be or believes in tyrants.

    Trump has already entertained the idea of assassinating his political rivals, as we know from his advisers blowing that whistle loudly and clearly.



  • #1593
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330101#Comment_122330101

    Well exactly.

    "President holds meeting to discuss Election results" would an official act , so therefore the minutes of that meeting or the testimony of any attendees CANNOT be used in court to show that the President asked during that meeting if they could just cancel the result and call him the winner even though he clearly lost.

    The President can also block any access to that information from the House/Senate as well.

    The additional "oversight" of the DOJ that Roberts little addendum provides also means that any attempts to get a legal ruling on whether a specific act was official or personal can be suppressed and/or ignored at the instruction of the President.

    In practical real world terms , it's near total immunity from offences committed whilst holding office.



  • #1594
    Dogsdodogsstuff
    Registered Users Posts: 92 ✭✭Dogsdodogsstuff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122329640#Comment_122329640

    I don’t think an awful lot of people realise how big this is and how much closer now that USA is to being autocratic democracy and that bit closer to either civil war or full blown dictatorship.


    Trump isn’t the problem, he’s just a system of the massive divide that both dems/Repubs have done little to navigate. I don’t see how USA is repaired, even if Trump doesn’t get in.


    It’s like the wheels are already in motion and the only thing that would stop it is a foreign adversary directly galvanising Americans or a philanthropic president reversing a lot of the destruction of the guard rails that provided usa with some protection from a rogue president.

    Will the dollar remain as popular a reserve currency ? They will collapse if cracks appear as they won’t be able to service their debt if dollar doesn’t retain its power. Feels like the potential beginning of the end of USA super power.


    Think China and Russia know, the new world order will most likely be seperate satellites of USA , Europe, South America , Africa , Asia , Russia, China etc with everybody kind of keeping to themselves in general. A Europe pivot east is possible , particularly if Trumps c*ntish narcissistic attitude goes into proper over drive.



  • #1595
    amandstu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,810 ✭✭✭amandstu


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330213#Comment_122330213

    But can/should Biden now break the law in selective and minor ways (on grounds of the greater good) to ensure that ,if Trump is elected then it will have been with open eyes and so that those who do not want to live under a dictatorship retain the means to defend themselves against a MAGA regime ?

    Would a Trump victory presage the end of the American democratic project and should they be preparing to salvage what of it that they can? (I am sure they would be happy to split up the States.Can that be prevented without giving in to the MAGA goons?)



  • #1596
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,278 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330318#Comment_122330318

    what selective and minor ways that couldn’t be reversed by an incoming incumbent with tyrannical aims?



  • Advertisement
  • #1597
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,244 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330327#Comment_122330327

    Restoration of the 60 vote threshold for Senate approval of laws.

    Change it and ensure that it requires 60 votes to bring it back.

    At least insert some brakes on the behaviours.

    Doesn't stop executive action , but it slows things down at least.



  • #1598
    amandstu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,810 ✭✭✭amandstu


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330327#Comment_122330327

    If USA votes for tyranny with open eyes they (but not those who vote against) deserve their fate.

    My suggestion was that selective and minor breakages of the law by Biden could head this off at the pass.

    If they can't then so be it (the opposing States might have to take greater independence from the authoritarian ones)

    Can Biden force the trials of Trump to take place before any election?(remove the SC judges for example- their approval rates are at rock bottom so it could be a popular move.)



  • #1599
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 85,278 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330437#Comment_122330437

    that’s not something the president can do. And it’s not something they have the votes for in the senate either. Also I may be wrong but that sort of thing normally can only happen at the start of the next congress. And the so called nuclear option was already taken under Trump - so it literally accomplishes **** and all, the next party just undoes it again.



  • #1600
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,382 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122330437#Comment_122330437

    This is not something within the President's power.

    I think people are pretty badly misconstruing the ruling. The President won't face personal consequences for potentially illegal actions, but the entire government as a whole is still constrained by the Constitution. He can (apparently) murder someone but he can't cancel student debt.



  • #1601
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,059 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    A while back another poster and I had an argument about the USSC and it's role in respect to the constitution. I thought, as I was comparing like with like [Irish and US Supreme Courts] that the USSC had the power to rule on whether parts of the US constitution were [as is sometimes the case in Ireland] ultra vires other parts of the constitution - in that parts were directly conflicting each other.

    I was corrected by the O/P and told that as the constitution was made up of the laws passed by Congress, the USSC could not make declarations on the legal validity of [parts of] the US constitution.

    Looking at yesterday's ruling from the USSC, it's obvious that the ruling only refers to the decisions of lower courts being appealed to it by Trump. Now if that is the nub of the ruling, then [to me] it seems probable that the USSC [Roberts] could issue a clarification on it's ruling to the effect that it would not entertain and further appeals by Trump and his legal people about lower court ruling in respect of Trumps legal liability from future rulings of the lower courts as it's ruling yesterday was made with the intent of leaving the lower courts alone to decide on Trumps legal liabilities. The effect would be to bolster the lower courts position constitutionally and prevent vexatious [no standing] cases being presented to the USSC.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement