The Trump Crime Family - Legal Issues

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Ah, OK. So SCOTUS rulings are "the law of the land" or "settled law" when you agree with those rulings. When you don't agree, the court is "far right leaning", and "politically corrupted". Got it. Thank you for clarifying.

Have you taken the time to read Trump's comments about the various courts that have ruled against him?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Wonder if any of those intel officials were signatories to the 2020 "Russian disinformation" letter...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...formation.html

Nah, Intel officials would never lie.

You assertion is just a repeat of the assertion of Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch, the folks who advised Trump on keeping stolen government secrets. I wouldn't take anything he says as gospel. Indeed, you'd be better off believing the exact opposite of any of his assertions.

FYI, the open letter said that Hunter's laptop had all the earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation and it most certainly did including involvement of Rudy and Bannon.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

Ah, OK. So SCOTUS rulings are "the law of the land" or "settled law" when you agree with those rulings. When you don't agree, the court is "far right leaning", and "politically corrupted". Got it. Thank you for clarifying.

"So SCOTUS rulings are "the law of the land".

Correct, they are unless overruled by Congress with a new law if it will pass the constitutional muster.

"When you don't agree, the court is "far right leaning", and "politically corrupted"."

They are opinions and everyone is entitled to have one.

Wasn't overturning Roe vs. Wade an example of a far right decision, since a majority of this country is pro- abortion, even extreme states like TX and FL if only they are honest enough to let the people decide?

[whell]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Whether the president has absolute unaccountable authority is the core question.
The real issue should be reviewing the powers vs the accountability of a rogue presidency declaring themselves exempt from Constitutional law the forefathers feared a potential flaw in a democracy making such a choice.
"A republic, if you can keep it". We see plainly there are those who would prefer dominance of power by autocratic control to the rule of constitutional law by cancelling its constraints.

The president does not have "absolute unaccountable authority". However, the Consitution specifies the process by which a sitting president can be held to account for acts committed while in office: Impeachment.

[Oerets]

Memory serves ......


Nixon was pardoned for crimes committed during his term as president.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon_of_Richard_Nixon

Just saying....

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

"So SCOTUS rulings are "the law of the land".

Correct, they are unless overruled by Congress with a new law if it will pass the constitutional muster.

"When you don't agree, the court is "far right leaning", and "politically corrupted"."

They are opinions and everyone is entitled to have one.

Wasn't overturning Roe vs. Wade an example of a far right decision, since a majority of this country is pro- abortion, even extreme states like TX and FL if only they are honest enough to let the people decide?

SCOTUS rulings become a matter of legal precedent reflecting the opinion of a majority of justices, but such rulings are by no means the law of the land or settled law. Precedents can be revisited by future courts and redressed.

Courts and justices do not write laws (though many attempt it and they are sometimes successful). They are limited to interpreting legal statutes.

Only Congress can make a law. Justices may decide whether a particular law is Constitutional. Row V Wade was not a law. It was a legal precedent. To refer to it - as the left did for many years - was more about marketing than it was an exercise in legal analysis. To label a SCOTUS decision as a "far-right" decision is also more about marketing than legal analysis.

I'd certainly concede the fact that most Americans favor access to abortion. I think most surveys I've seen regarding the question of "access to abortion" favor it by something like 60/40.

However, many legal scholars also point out flaws in the Roe decision. Thus when SCOTUS recently overturned Roe, they overturned what many would suggest was a flawed legal decision that conjured a Constitutional right that did not exist. Its also worth noting that, at least in terms of Federal law, nothing has really changed since Roe was overturned. The US constitution did not ban abortion before Roe, and abortion is not illegal under the US constitution following the recent SCOTUS decision.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

You assertion is just a repeat of the assertion of Tom Fitton and Judicial Watch, the folks who advised Trump on keeping stolen government secrets. I wouldn't take anything he says as gospel. Indeed, you'd be better off believing the exact opposite of any of his assertions.

FYI, the open letter said that Hunter's laptop had all the earmarks of a Russian intelligence operation and it most certainly did including involvement of Rudy and Bannon.

I don't take much that anyone says as gospel. Especially you, when you start pulling out all your usual tropes and non-sequiturs.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't take much that anyone says as gospel. Especially you, when you start pulling out all your usual tropes and non-sequiturs.

The last 3 links of yours that I have bothered to look at are assertions of the Washington Times, John Solomon and Tom Fitton, none of which are even remotely credible - ever. And you use these discredited lunatics to untergird your specious arguments.

You're lost in an alternate universe of bullshit.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

SCOTUS rulings become a matter of legal precedent reflecting the opinion of a majority of justices, but such rulings are by no means the law of the land or settled law. Precedents can be revisited by future courts and redressed.

Courts and justices do not write laws (though many attempt it and they are sometimes successful). They are limited to interpreting legal statutes.

Only Congress can make a law. Justices may decide whether a particular law is Constitutional. Row V Wade was not a law. It was a legal precedent. To refer to it - as the left did for many years - was more about marketing than it was an exercise in legal analysis. To label a SCOTUS decision as a "far-right" decision is also more about marketing than legal analysis.

I'd certainly concede the fact that most Americans favor access to abortion. I think most surveys I've seen regarding the question of "access to abortion" favor it by something like 60/40.

However, many legal scholars also point out flaws in the Roe decision. Thus when SCOTUS recently overturned Roe, they overturned what many would suggest was a flawed legal decision that conjured a Constitutional right that did not exist. Its also worth noting that, at least in terms of Federal law, nothing has really changed since Roe was overturned. The US constitution did not ban abortion before Roe, and abortion is not illegal under the US constitution following the recent SCOTUS decision.

Where is the constitutional right to own an AR-15?
Where does it say in the constitution that people can own guns for self defense? It's for an organized militia isn't it?
If you say "right to bear arms", why can't I own an RPG?

And you posted a long diatribe pretty much saying what I had claimed. I know what the three branches of our government are and what their responsibilities are, more than your stars like MTG and Tommy Tubeless.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by finnbow

The last 3 links of yours that I have bothered to look at are assertions of the Washington Times, John Solomon and Tom Fitton, none of which are even remotely credible - ever. And you use these discredited lunatics to untergird your specious arguments.

You're lost in an alternate universe of bullshit.

He lives in it and ignorance is bliss.

Here we are faced with someone who was feckless as president and now with 91 felony indictments vying for the job again and Whell brings up Trump's 1A rights! In earlier times, he would be tarred, feathered and kicked out of town after being told never to return.