Tuesday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Tuesday, July 2. 2024

How DEI is coming for lawyers

DEI efforts in US Armed Forces ineffective, run ‘opposite of the military ethos’

Teachers don't have time to be therapists, cops, nurses and social workers

Dear elite apocalyptic teeth-gnashers: The end of the world is just a matter of where you stand

Long Live Judicial Review -Overturning Chevron is the story of this Supreme Court term.

Supreme Court: Trump Entitled To “At Least Presumptive Immunity From Prosecution For All His Official Acts

Niall Ferguson on the Democrats’ Choice. Trump’s Immunity. Plus. . .

Biden Flying Illegal Aliens, Deported Under Trump, Back to U.S.

Meet the Latest Batch of Illegal Migrants

Biden’s Border Chief Claims Power to Admit More Illegals

Biden Can Only Function Until 4 PM. Do we have a backup president who can work evenings?

Why the Democrats lied about Joe Biden’s frailty

Ukraine Begins Sending Prisoners to the Front Lines

Where it all went wrong for Macron: How France turned to the right after president failed to tackle migration, Islamic terror attacks, cost of living crisis - and infuriated the public with his arrogant image

France update

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 07:59 | Comments (38) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

QUOTE:

Supreme Court: Trump Entitled To “At Least Presumptive Immunity From Prosecution For All His Official Acts

"When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal" — Richard Nixon

#1 Zachriel on 2024-07-02 09:23 (Reply)

The irony! The left is incensed that the Supremes declared the obvious and stated that a president couldn't be "lawfared" by their opponent and use the courts to destroy them. They have gone off the deep end and resorted to accusing Trump of doing or planning to do exactly what they themselves are doing that the Supremes stifled. The lefts entire election strategy was to tie Trump up in court on fake charges until after the election knowing that the wheels of justice turn so slowly that by the time more honest judges were able to rule and throw out these phony charges the election would have been a done deal.

#2 OneGuy on 2024-07-02 10:36 (Reply)

The irony!

No, it's the bedwetting.
The stomping of feet.
The gnashing of teeth.

#2.1 Zachinoff on 2024-07-02 11:20 (Reply)

No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we require him to obey it. — Teddy Roosevelt

OneGuy: The left is incensed that the Supremes declared the obvious and stated that a president couldn't be "lawfared" by their opponent and use the courts to destroy them.

The Supreme Court went beyond that and put the president largely above the law. Just curious, if the president tried to set up death squads to kill dangerous communists, would he be immune to later federal prosecution?

#2.2 Zachriel on 2024-07-02 11:23 (Reply)

Dan McGlaughlin, writing in National Review Online, discusses this very issue.

#2.2.1 Mike Anderson (Link) on 2024-07-02 11:33 (Reply)

Even the Zach-bot is losing it's cool. The panic is real! =)

#2.2.2 Lord Heathen on 2024-07-02 11:33 (Reply)

Oh, with the "death squads" again.
It's rather enjoyable watching the Quibble-DickZ (along with the rest of the democraticals) lose their shit.

#2.2.3 Zachinoff on 2024-07-02 11:37 (Reply)

Even as they conduct total 'lawfare' on their political opponents. Steve Bannon will be in prison for the next four months for the same 'crime' that Eric Holder and Hunter Biden got away with. In Canada Trudeau still has the truck convoy organizers either locked up or under surveillance. Fascism 101.

#2.2.3.1 Lord Heathen on 2024-07-02 11:43 (Reply)

If you continually prosecute presidents for their actions in office, it won't be long until you get a president that refuses to leave office. Such a president would calculate he has little to lose by staying if he faces a prosecution and a prison sentence upon leaving office.

#2.2.4 feeblemind on 2024-07-02 11:39 (Reply)

Leftists Falsely Suggest Biden Can Assassinate Trump, SCOTUS Justices

QUOTE:

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor fanned the flames of hysteria by deliberately misrepresenting the majority’s holding in her dissent?

“When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor falsely claims. “Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.”

https://thefederalist.com/2024/07/01/leftists-falsely-suggest-biden-can-assassinate-trump-scotus-justices/

#2.2.4.1 feeblemind on 2024-07-02 11:44 (Reply)

Every elected person has some level of immunity for their actions taken in their job. Harry Reid famously lied while on the Senate floor to sway an election. Afterwards he was asked about it and pointed out that he couldn't be sued or prosecuted because he was a senator standing on the floor of the house and could say anything true or a lie and get away with it because he had immunity. Every state, county and city elected official has a similar immunity. All that the Supremes did was restate the obvious. It is a qualified immunity which can be pierced if the politician intentionally breaks laws. It is NOT "above the law" it "is the law"!!!

#2.2.5 OneGuy on 2024-07-02 11:45 (Reply)

Mike Anderson: Dan McGlaughlin, writing in National Review Online, discusses this very issue.

Thanks. Very informative.

QUOTE:

On the first point, of course, presidents are still not kings. They can be voted out of office: If Donald Trump was a king, he would not need to ask the voters to give him his job back.

Democratic autocracy has elections, but the executive uses the power of his office to preclude any effective opposition.

QUOTE:

They can be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate.

That has been shown to be ineffective. Again, in a democratic autocracy, the executive has almost unlimited power to reward friends and punish enemies.

QUOTE:

They can give orders to the executive branch to do things, and courts can issue orders to stop those things from happening.

Not when the autocracy is preceded by judicial capture. Furthermore, it wouldn't be against the law to defy the court as long as the proposed action is "within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority", which would certainly include protecting the United States from traitors.

QUOTE:

All of them know that they could and would be prosecuted for an unlawful killing, even if the president would not be.

Now you got it. Even if the conspiracy fails (like J6), the conspiracy itself is a crime and a danger to constitutional government. Of course, the president could promise and give pardons for all involved.

QUOTE:

If he tried to wall himself off with pardons, the president could be stripped of Secret Service protection and left to the mercies of the mob.

Ah, so the solution is mob rule. Have we seen this movie before?

QUOTE:

Cinna the Poet. Truly, my name is Cinna.

First Citizen. Tear him to pieces; he's a conspirator.

Cinna the Poet. I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet.

Fourth Citizen. Tear him for his bad verses, tear him for his bad verses.

Cinna the Poet. I am not Cinna the conspirator.

Fourth Citizen. It is no matter, his name's Cinna; pluck but his
name out of his heart, and turn him going.

Third Citizen. Tear him, tear him! Come, brands ho! fire-brands:
to Brutus', to Cassius'; burn all: some to Decius'
house, and some to Casca's; some to Ligarius': away, go!

#2.2.6 Zachriel on 2024-07-02 11:57 (Reply)

The Zach-bots definition of 'mob rule' is being escorted into a heavily guarded building and being attacked with tear gas and flash bangs. Not one single 'insurrectionist' even thought to bring a lethal weapon...in the United States!!! And still good people rot in creepy Joe's gulags.....

#2.2.6.1 Lord Heathen on 2024-07-02 12:57 (Reply)

Lord Heathen: Not one single 'insurrectionist' even thought to bring a lethal weapon...in the United States!!!

That is incorrect. Weapons included stun guns, pepper spray, baseball bats and flagpoles wielded as clubs. Not to mention firearms.

#2.2.6.2 Zachriel on 2024-07-02 13:38 (Reply)

The only gun that was discharged in the Capital on January 6th was used to murder Ashli Babbitt in cold blood. I'm guessing that killer is a hero of yours.

#2.2.6.2.1 Lord Heathen on 2024-07-03 07:46 (Reply)

Lord Heathen: The only gun that was discharged in the Capital on January 6th was used to murder Ashli Babbitt in cold blood.

So, when your first claim was found false, you move on to your next false claim without acknowledging the falsity of the first.

Trump supporter charged with firing gun during Jan. 6 attack

#2.2.6.2.2 Zachriel on 2024-07-03 07:52 (Reply)

More gish gallop from the Quibble-DickZ .
One can read the NRO article without their interpretive nonsense.

#2.2.6.3 Zachinoff on 2024-07-02 13:43 (Reply)

This is the guy who makes excuses for the current administration dispatching it's 3rd highest ranking person at DOJ to prosecute its presumptive opponent in the upcoming presidential election, for felonies no other citizen would ever be charged with.

It's also a guy who clearly doesn't understand the terms "official acts" and "core constitutional powers", or the difference between those two and clearly illegal acts, or why impeachment is seen as an empty threat now (by the way, it's not an empty threat and has worked exactly as intended).

Or what SCOTUS actually did here, and who forced their hand?

Your mask is slipping. You really don't understand any of this, do you?

#2.2.6.4 SK on 2024-07-02 13:54 (Reply)

SK: It's also a guy who clearly doesn't understand the terms "official acts" and "core constitutional powers", or the difference between those two and clearly illegal acts

Rather than saying "Is not," this is where you could explain the difference and where our argument was faulty.

As for McLaughlin, he actually did claim that mob rule was the check on presidential power.

#2.2.6.5 Zachriel on 2024-07-02 14:01 (Reply)

My god, you're the only person I know who doesn't understand those simple concepts.

Plenty refuse to accept them--you actually seem not to understand them.

As to why not explain them, refer to Ed Koch's famous formulation.

#2.2.6.5.1 SK on 2024-07-02 14:07 (Reply)

SK: Plenty refuse to accept them--you actually seem not to understand them.

If you can't explain the difference, then you are doing nothing but handwaving. Is protecting the United States from treachery or subversion a core constitutional power?

Nor has anyone directly addressed the problems with McLaughlin's argument, including his claim that mob rule somehow preserves the constitutional order.

#2.2.6.5.2 Zachriel on 2024-07-02 15:35 (Reply)

Listen, I'll be straight up about it--I don't have the ability, the empathy, hell, maybe the smarts, whatever quality it takes to explain such crushingly simple ideas to a...well, let's just say someone like you, in a way that a...well, someone like you would understand.

I've got a buddy who spent 30 years teaching special needs kids who could probably do it, assuming he could stop laughing long enough at the absurdity of actually having to do it.

#2.2.6.5.2.1 SK on 2024-07-02 19:44 (Reply)

SK: Listen

We are listening. The difference between “official acts" and "core constitutional powers" is hardly trivial. We even asked a binary question to help you frame your understanding of the distinction. Let us know, when you can make a substantive reply.

#2.2.6.5.2.2 Zachriel on 2024-07-02 20:16 (Reply)

"Hardly trivial" is not a definition or an explanation of the distinction between the terms. Let me know when you have either of those--right now it's clear you don't.

Hint--it's easy to find, takes a few seconds, and from people who are better than me at explaining simple things to people with limited...resources.

There are websites other than Maggie's Farm, you know...live a little! It's a big world out there with lots of neato stuff to learn, little buddy!

#2.2.6.5.2.2.1 SK on 2024-07-03 10:29 (Reply)

Please see comment #2.2.9.2 below.

#2.2.6.5.2.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2024-07-03 10:50 (Reply)

An official act is one the president has the legal authority to do. Maybe you can point to the place in the constitution where the president can send death squads after US citizens. I've asked you before about Obama's extrajudicial execution of US citizens. You feigned ignorance. If Obama hasn't been prosecuted for it, what's your complaint about this ruling?

It's amazing that you can wine one day about a president not being allowed to have his staff make up laws out of whole cloth, then complain the next day about the president being above the law. Maybe progressives would have been wise to not have engaged in the course of lawfare they did against Trump and some of his supporters.

#2.2.7 James4HJ on 2024-07-02 20:36 (Reply)

James4HJ: An official act is one the president has the legal authority to do.

So, if it against federal statute, then, lacking legal authority, the president would be breaking the law?

James4HJ: I've asked you before about Obama's extrajudicial execution of US citizens.

Those who wage war against the United States and cannot be apprehended are legitimate military targets. That is neither new nor controversial.

#2.2.8 Zachriel on 2024-07-02 21:18 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Alexander Hamilton. Federalist 69, on the difference between the president and a king: "The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the King of Great-Britain is sacred and inviolable: There is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution."

Despite the comments above, the Court doesn't define an official act, but indicates its definition presents "difficult questions". But the Court does provide some specifics:

If the President and Attorney General conspire to initiate sham investigations for political purposes, this would be under absolute immunity. If the President accepts bribes for giving pardons, his motives can't be questioned. Indeed, the Court has given Trump and any future President a roadmap to getting away with criminal behavior: only conspire with those in the executive branch and be sure to give it an official patina.

The decision makes it virtually impossible to hold the President to account. Even his conviction for falsifying business records to pay off a porn star may be tossed. So, what horrified the nation when Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal," has now come to pass.

Don't call him Mr. President. Your Imperial Presidency Sacred and Inviolable sounds about right.

#2.2.9 Zachriel on 2024-07-03 06:49 (Reply)

"So, what horrified the nation when Nixon said, "When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal," has now come to pass."

I remember that dude. He sure said that! What you apparently don't know is that he was about to be impeached and convicted, and resigned to forestall that.

Not a great example. Give 'er another try, Zachie!

Glad I could help!

#2.2.9.1 SK on 2024-07-03 10:37 (Reply)

SK: "Hardly trivial" is not a definition or an explanation of the distinction between the terms.

Whether you grant it or not, the Supreme Court decision recognizes the complexity of the distinction. Notably, you responded to the comment, but ignored it.

SK: What you apparently don't know is that he was about to be impeached and convicted, and resigned to forestall that.

Yes, that was before the Roberts court immunized the President creating His Imperial Presidency Sacred and Inviolable, may peace be upon Him.

#2.2.9.2 Zachriel on 2024-07-03 10:48 (Reply)

Appeals Court asks if President Trump has "Absolute Immunity" when ordering assassination of American citizen-short answer: YES

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2024/01/11/appeals-court-asks-if-president-trump-has-absolute-immunity-when-ordering-assassination-of-american-citizen-short-answer-yes/

#3 indyjonesouthere on 2024-07-02 12:41 (Reply)

Apparently the Zach-bot can reference Shakespeare. It's basically three traitors in one. the Earl of Cambridge; Lord Scroop and Sir Thomas Grey. If only we could send it 'a gift of tennis balls.' We would surely 'play a set' that will 'strike' the crown of France 'into the hazard'. P.S. Macron is toast mate. Vive Le Penn =)

#4 Lord Heathen on 2024-07-02 12:43 (Reply)

At long last Biden can truthfully proclaim, "My butt's been wiped!"

#5 Tom Hyland on 2024-07-02 12:46 (Reply)

Overturning Chevron was the wake-up call for the administrative state. They can no longer create law and now Congress has to do its job rather than leaving interpretation to the unelected and often the unaccountable. If experts are needed they can be brought to the court.

#6 indyjonesouthere on 2024-07-02 13:09 (Reply)

I've reached an age where I can't be scared by doomsayers anymore. The simple fact is, the end of the world comes for us all sooner or later.

#7 RebeccaH on 2024-07-02 13:28 (Reply)

I agree but...

I have children, grand children, and great grand children. I wish for all of them to one day have children and grand children too. And I don't wish to die at the hands of some terrorist, invader or illegal immigrant nor do I want to see my loved ones or any American die that way. I can accept that my life is almost over and in fact my body may be dying as I speak. But I don't want us all to go out in a blinding flash especially if it is the result of incompetence or intention on the part of our leaders. And that is in fact what I see in our future, the handwriting is on the wall written in Chinese, Russian and Arabic. I feel a quickening in too many indicators and events around the world. I cannot properly express how sad for my fellow countrymen and ashamed of my government I will be to see nuclear Armageddon blowing up the horizon and my city. None of this needs to happen but for a corrupt Democrat party and tyrannical world leaders and groups. IMHO at this point it is not "IF" but "WHEN" and the "when" feels more and more like it will be soon...

#7.1 Anon on 2024-07-02 14:16 (Reply)

Much the same here. I have learned over the years to ignore the political grifters like AGW crowd and the Fauci hoax grifters but I do keep my antenna up for the IC grifters and associated shit stirrers. They have zero conscience's and a long NWO, WEF, BBB history... and none of it is good.

#7.2 indyjonesouthere on 2024-07-02 16:00 (Reply)

https://www.military.com/daily-news/2024/06/14/armys-recruiting-problem-male.html

#8 Foo on 2024-07-02 18:24 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Tuesday, July 2. 2024

Tuesday morning links