Immunity decision out

Whatever it ends up being, we can be 100% assured they will have no idea what it actually means.

 

I echo the sentiment of @gatorjd95. I don’t know if I agree or disagree because I don’t understand the sentence. Did you leave some words out? Here is what you wrote:

“Guys, how will we even Trail of Tears without immunity might not be the airtight logical argument that you think it is.”

Are you making “Trail of Tears” a verb?

 

Who said it was new?

I’ve seen that term widely used for several years in the nether regions of the internet, mostly from the sorts of folks still eagerly awaiting the release of the Kraken.

The only thing surprising here is that you took this long to add to your vernacular.

I also find it amusing you think the supposed unawareness is a sign anyone here is insular in their news consumption, when the reality is this (similar to other keywords) is probably more of a tell when a person is taking in mostly deranged-takes on topics.

 

It seems that way, but you understood what he did… sooooooooo.

 

Well, at least the shitty Republicans on SCOTUS did Biden a solid after his debate. Yet another example of the unhinged, anti-democratic nature of the Roberts Supreme Legislature. To take a page out of the right-wing playbook, show me in the Constitution where it gives Presidents immunity from prosecution.

 

Yes. It is the Internet.

Do You Even Language, Bro? Understanding Why Nouns Become Verbs - JSTOR Daily

 

Presidential immunity was never even considered a thing until snowflake Trump couldn’t stop committing crimes and now all of a sudden he’s the only president in history who needs it. Strange how he can’t do his job that everyone else before him has managed to do without massive caveats. In before “lawfare.”

 

Yeah. I much prefer living in a country where a former President can be held accountable for doing shit like the Trail of Tears.

 

Save for Lincoln, I assumed conservatives thought all those things listed were good anyways

 

I think POTUS’s always had a sort of unwritten immunity for “official” acts, clearly some of those historical acts were not prosecuted, yet are unthinkable now. I don’t think it’s a good idea to codify or establish legal precedent for that sort of immunity either. How about Presidents just… follow the law? Especially on domestic issues. It’s just a very bad policy, just like “qualified immunity for cops” who use excessive violence or kill. Immunity almost inherently suggests violation of law being swept under the rug. That needs to be a high bar, not low.

Clearly it’s not difficult to imagine scenarios where a President might give an order under his authority. “National guard: shoot those pesky student protestors”. I know that is the world some righties appear to want, but that is a very dangerous place for your children’s futures whether you are wise enough to realize it or not.

 

Obama, Bush, and Clinton all breathed a sigh of relief with Trump.

 

Old news. Times have changed.

 

Who said it was new??? Like 5 posts asking where this 'new term' came from.

Kinda like yall using 'autogope'--which btw, is a Spanish word. You could just as easily translate it to self inflicted wound, or shooting oneself in the foot, or use the more familiar coup (from the French), but one guy says 'autogolpe', and everyone else picks up on it, and runs with it (I don't recall any righties making a stink about that).

...but yall gotta bitch about somedamnthing... lol!

 

Y'all begged the SCOTUS to settle the issue by sending in the storm troopers in the dark of night, to a former POTUS's house...

What pray tell did Y'all figure would happen? Everyone not registered as a Democrst NAZI to ST*U and get in line???

Lol! ...yet another colossal mis calculation.

I remind:

"Never underestimate Doh! Biden's ability to @#$%!& things up!" --BarryO

 

Autogolpe is a new word I learned soon after 1/6, and I have no problem admitting that. I think I probably first saw it on here, actually, and then looked into origins of the word itself.

My understanding is it’s more appropriate to use that word than the more popular coup d'é·tat. A coup is usually an extra governmental force or military junta trying to seize control of the sitting government. In the case of the autogolpe, we have the sitting leader conspiring or committing illegal acts to maintain power. Exactly what your hero tried to do between election day and 1/6.

 

Seems clear to me that Trump was acting as a candidate and not an official act as the president when he tampered with the Georgia election, right?

I mean, there are tons of problems with putting the president above the law, but not sure how this helps him in this case, other than delaying it while he appeals the decision…

 

Yeah, I'm aware. Do we really need to break down the etymology of lawfare?

I was simply pointing how how your adversaries on the right didn't bother with such foolishishness, not that we ought to engage in it now vis a vis lawfare, bc we didn't vis a vis autogolpe.

 

Another clueless rant. Cool, kind of humorous, thanks.

 

I was kind of expecting them to say something more than that considering how long it took them to say that. If all they were going to say is the president can't be prosecuted for carrying out their duties, they could have issued that ruling months ago.