Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Obviously bad news for America, but can someone explain to me how this systemic power grab is ethically worse than the DNC forcing an unfit geriatric presidential nominee on their electorate with zero meaningful public discourse?

Yes that’s exactly the same thing as an insurrection against your country

I said ethically, not practically. Learn to read!

I will when you admit you’re voting for Trump!

Never in a million years would I vote for him. But the Democratic Party is mostly spineless, and their federal delegation are entirely beholden to an entrenched, basically useless platform leader who is currently supporting the indiscriminate killings of thousands of innocent people to advance a largely inactionable agenda. So I guess I’d just counter that those who are so quick to criticize the Republicans should be equally critical of their own party, and hold them to the same governance standard they’ve set for their opponents.

tragabigzanda wrote:But the Democratic Party is mostly spineless, and their federal delegation are entirely beholden to an entrenched, basically useless platform leader who is currently supporting the indiscriminate killings of thousands of innocent people to advance a largely inactionable agenda. So I guess I’d just counter that those who are so quick to criticize the Republicans should be equally critical of their own party, and hold them to the same governance standard they’ve set for their opponents.

tragabigzanda wrote:Obviously bad news for America, but can someone explain to me how this systemic power grab is ethically worse than the DNC forcing an unfit geriatric presidential nominee on their electorate with zero meaningful public discourse?

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he 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. Organizes a military dissenting coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop. With fear for our democracy, I dissent.

tragabigzanda wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

simple schoolboy wrote:

B wrote:

Here's a better explanation of the particulars:

My useless brain still isn’t quite getting it yet. I understand the arbitrary enforcement piece, but how would regulations work if the cost had to be covered solely by the agency making it?

Congress can pass unworkable laws. Either they fix it, or it's unenforceable. Establishing funding sources is a core part of their powers.

Yeah I’m not even a remotely an expert on the broader implications of this ruling across different industries, but the fishery monitoring situation is an extremely divisive topic in my hometown, and this was exactly the crux of the conflict.

tragabigzanda wrote:

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Obviously bad news for America, but can someone explain to me how this systemic power grab is ethically worse than the DNC forcing an unfit geriatric presidential nominee on their electorate with zero meaningful public discourse?

Yes that’s exactly the same thing as an insurrection against your country

I said ethically, not practically. Learn to read!

Bi_3 wrote:Just got home from the office, what did I miss?

B wrote:

B wrote:Nominating independent Justices that the Senate votes on?

B wrote:Nominating independent Justices that the Senate votes on?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

How is this not fascism?

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:Nominating independent Justices that the Senate votes on?

Expanding the court to create a political rubber stamp in the judiciary