![Yes](https://preview.redd.it/ib9lb2mpt6881.png?auto=webp&s=d2ecb828f916569404e1d82b074e0b7e8ab9ec35)
Nor is telling the vice president not to certify the election (a responsibility belonging solely to the VP as head of the senate, outside of the executive branch's purview) an "official act", yet that's what the court held.
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladviceofftopic/comments/syd0n0/can_the_president_order_an_american_citizen/
The President can apparently order a citizen killed under certain circumstances depending on the threat they pose to the United States. You can disagree with the assessment of whether the person posed a sufficient threat. The assessment can even be blatantly wrong. Unfortunately, thanks to Trump v. U.S., that doesn't change the calculus of whether or not it was within the President's authority under the Constitution. If you want to introduce evidence that the President even knew it was a false pretense, good luck with that, because it definitely qualifies as an official act, which means all the evidence will be inadmissible.
Absolute immunity, not presumptive. Control of the military is within his constitutional authority.
The frenzy is mostly the media. They were pushing the shit out of this narrative instantly.
Fighting back by freaking the fuck out and replacing the candidate with some untested candidate TBD.
"Incapable of running the race" is quite far fetched. He's run the country for the past four years and none of the gaffes during the debate were anything new.
I understand people having reservations, but the volume is so over the top I have trouble believing it's organic.
Be honest with yourself and stop shifting the goalposts.
Why do you think Wisconsin's conservative controlled legislature doesn't raise the minimum sentencing for hit and run homicides above 0 prison time?
Here's a 4 yr sentence from last year in northern WI https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsaw.com/2023/11/20/sentencing-hearing-set-lac-du-flambeau-woman-convicted-fatal-pedestrian-crash/%3foutputType=amp Let me know when it's conservative enough for you
Here's what you get outside of our utopia: https://www.google.com/amp/s/fox11online.com/amp/news/local/john-parnon-sentenced-to-45-days-in-jail-for-hit-and-run-crash-that-killed-pedestrian-eliot-cooper-austin-straubel-airport-green-bay-judge-marc-hammer
45 days. Just last year.
If you can get past the subtitle without laughing, congratulations.
The opinion is full of abject garbage reasoning.
For example:
The majority says the immunity applies to responsibilities that are "within [the President's] conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," then goes on to say this includes telling the Vice President what to do with respect to the Vice President's exclusive responsibility as head of the Senate.
So apparently the immunity actually covers just generally telling other people in government what to do, regardless of whether it even pertains to executive branch responsibilities.
We all know Trump lies, everyone expected that going in.
We all know Biden often stumbles over his words and speaks softly, too. The news cycle right now is 100% that Biden blew the debate. By any objective analysis, he destroyed Trump. Trump wouldn't even answer half the questions (imo he literally lacks the mental capacity to stay on topic). He just spent the entire debate making up lies and completely unsubstantiated claims. The last 20 minutes of the debate was basically Trump saying "I was the best President. You were the worst President." Meanwhile Biden comes back with a factually accurate response that ~150 presidential scholars agreed Trump was the worst President in history.
Yeah, the Democrats should absolutely have someone who can perform better in a debate than this, but this news cycle is completely deranged.
I spent this entire day feeling gaslit by all these stories about what an alleged disaster Biden's debate performance was. Maybe it would have been in a sane election. Not vs Trump though.
Great news for people who love cancer, pollution, dead wildlife, workplace injuries, and coercive employers.
Lmao. Two comments from nameless Democrats. The rest is quotes from Trump staffers.
Says the guy who had the U.N. literally laugh in his face.
Your excuse for the fact that a bunch of other countries did the same thing that Fauci recommended was that they were just following our lead, so I rebutted that by providing a bunch of countries that implemented lockdowns before the U.S.. Either you missed that point or you're just pretending not to get it.
You come into contact with virus particles every day, but how often do you actually get sick? Point being, you don't need to completely eliminate any exposure. That was never the goal. The point was reducing the rate of people getting sick by reducing the amount of the particles floating around and limiting exposure to them, not staying hermetically sealed in a bubble for the rest of your life.
I'll see you at the voting booths in November.
I take it you won't be voting for the guy who kept Fauci as his chief medical advisor during the pandemic and the lockdowns, since you thought Fauci was such a disaster.
Countries with lockdowns prior to the U.S.:
Italy, Saudia Arabia, Mongolia, Qatar, Denmark, Ireland, El Salvador, Poland, Bulgaria, Albania, Iran, Kosovo, San Marino, Spain, Netherlands, Lebanon, Philippines, Serbia, Lithuania, Austria, Germany, Czecch Republic, Ecuador, Peru, Switzerland, France, Brazil, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago, Ukraine, Venezuela, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Croatia, Jordan, Belgium, Argentina, Portugal, Morocco.
You could have looked any of that up yourself, but you just had a plausible excuse to throw out there, so that's what you did.
You're accusing a guy who has an exemplary record and who chose to stay a public servant earning a fraction of what he could in the private sector of playing with people's lives because he's a "pot stirrer".
Straight right wing fantasy.
Half of the world's population was under some form of lockdown (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19\_lockdowns), so what exactly is your working theory here? That he and all of the other physicians at the head of their country's public health responses were incompetent or negligent in their decisions? You realize these people are picked because of their expertise and success in the field of public health, right?
I don't really understand your point about CNN. You claim they were fear mongering, but then in the same breath say they were sharing a death rate that you perceive to be low. Then you say Fauci should answer for CNN's behavior?
The death rate may have been "only" 1%, but I'm sure you recall that basically every ICU in the nation was at its breaking point. Fauci and many other healthcare professionals were making it a point to educate the public about the need to flatten the curve to prevent completely overwhelming the healthcare system. Life threatening conditions and life-saving interventions were already being unaddressed. Imagine if there were twice as many people trying to avail themselves of hospital care.
Total fabrication. They knew more people would get it over time, sure, but isolation and masking were initially effective ways to slow that down and buy time until a vaccine was available. Once available, the vaccine was effective at preventing transmission and at reducing the severity of infections if they were acquired. Later mutations reduced the vaccines efficacy at preventing transmission, but not its efficacy at reducing severity.
Besides being a ridiculous stance (there are an endless amount of things that could be considered important to someone - you can't check them all, let alone list them all), this doesn't address what I said.
Presumptive immunity was the court's prescription for official acts. Here's the court applying it to Trump's actions with respect to the VP:
So as long as whatever the President is saying to the VP has something to do with their official responsibilities, it's an official act, even if what he's telling the VP to do is completely contravene those official responsibilities. That's an incredibly stupid holding, which is why they describe the alleged conduct here in the carefully vague language "to take particular acts in connection with his role..." rather than faithfully describing the allegations.
ACB's disagreement on that point was precisely why ACB didn't join the majority. It's a 5 person majority, so their opinion is binding regardless of ACB's disagreement.
The Supreme Court Has Murdered the Constitution
politics