I have no mouth and I must scream.
I have no mouth and I must scream.
Right. Lieberman screwed single-payer healthcare, therefore all of the Democrats in Congress were useless.
So the obvious solution is give control to the party that’s systematically dismantling the protections of our rights?
Agreed. The entire House is up for election in November, along with 33 Senate seats.
My biggest concern is the down ballot effects of sizable Democratic abstentions. If Trump wins, he’ll likely have a Republican Congress supporting him.
Exactly. The consequence of not voting for that senile old man is accepting an authoritarian criminal into the White House.
I agree. It’s maddening. The way I challenge it is by citing sources to debunk the misinformation. Most people just block them, leading to unchecked misinformation for more passive users to read as facts.
Most polls put her on par with Biden. Dataforprogress.org has her leading when “fitness” and “strength” are brought into question, but that’s the only poll I’ve seen where she has any lead at all.
That’s probably true for the candidate that’s half a billion dollars in debt to NY, has “allegedly” sold government secrets to foreign entities, used his hotel to siphon millions from taxpayers by mandating it for governmental use, and hopes to become President to pardon himself from several crimes awaiting trial.
Biden’s sizable funds are campaign contributions. There are rules on how those are spent after the campaign ends.
Presidential candidates raise millions of dollars from donors and through political action committees during campaigns.
There are rules in place for how money can be used after a campaign ends. Permissible uses include charitable donations and donations to other candidates while personal use is prohibited.
Campaigns may refund money to donors or redistribute it with their permission if they drop out.
Super PACs may use leftover campaign cash to support the same candidate in other elections.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/042716/what-happens-campaign-funds-after-elections.asp
He cannot. There are no vacancies.
The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.
There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.
They’ll still be “presidents.” Putin is an “elected president.”
That’s a good and terrifying point.
There will likely be more presidents than just Trump. Even if he manages to become dictator, he’s old and far from fit.
I think it would set a very low bar for all subsequent Presidents if Biden used the new power to assassinate members of SCOTUS or Congress. The repercussions would be horrific.
Congress could impeach Justices or increase the headcount to properly balance the Court. Those are the legitimate ways to challenge these rulings based on the checks and balances in our governmental design.
That would require Democrats to vote with high turnout for Senate and House elections.
Who do you believe could just tell them no and have them comply?
It would be Congress, but Republicans control the House at the moment.
You don’t understand the ruling.
It is not giving POTUS any additional authority. It grants POTUS immunity from criminal prosecution of a crime related to an official act.
Biden could personally slap the ice cream cone out of your hand and get away with it, if a court ruled it to be an official act. No one else is immune from crime committed on his behalf.
This was tailored to Trump’s insurrection charges. If SCOTUS granted POTUS more executive privilege, Biden would just overrule SCOTUS and exempt felons from presidential candidacy.
Oh, I agree that it should be considered a crime. I’m just suggesting a way Cannon may leverage this in Trumps favor.
Since there’s no requirement that the President needs to be actively in office for immunity, if she ruled that his ownership of the documents was an “official act,” then any crime he may have committed involving the documents could be considered in service of said act.