- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If the US Supreme Court would rule against Trump ...
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:57 am to masoncj
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:57 am to masoncj
quote:
So admit that Biden could be indicted in a GOP stronghold location, If immunity test fails ?
If he's accused of a non-official act? Sure.
The bribery he's accused of, for example.
1
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:58 am to masoncj
quote:
Any according to you a jury will now decide that
Is this English?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:58 am to SlowFlowPro
That was while he was out of office …you are clueless
Posted on 3/5/24 at 11:00 am to masoncj
quote:
That was while he was out of office …you are clueless
Well, assuming he's still receiving the benefits.
You haven't argued any behavior outside of his official duties. I was trying to fit one in for you.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
Excellent …we have gotten into grammar police mode
When argument is lost attack message board grammar.
When argument is lost attack message board grammar.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 11:03 am to SlowFlowPro
Can we go after all those liberal progressive duly elected officials who promoted the burning of cars and businesses and injury to local and state police?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 11:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
this is the grey area where the debate is occurring
Of course a President could (and would, and does, and has) prevaricate and rationalize any action in hopes of legitimizing it as 'official'. The most common themes in this game include 'matters of national security' that exist only on a 'need to know / top security' basis. This is what greys an area.
What aren't grey areas include almost any speech - no matter how unsavory, abhorrent, or illogical.
Thought experiment: When a President calls the nation to war against enemies domestic, what exactly makes this either black, white, or grey areas in terms of defining official duties? Isn't it merely the outcome of the war itself?
And only a Sadducee would presume to split hairs according to a moving target of defined intent.
In this case, it is not an argument but rather an effort to create self-serving perceptions out of whole cloth...
Posted on 3/5/24 at 11:37 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Trump was trying to pressure Pence into full utility of Electoral College rules in place at the time. He could thereby force the issue to the House, and get the House of Representatives to do what SCOTUS refused to do ... hear TX v PA arguments.
Moreover, wasn’t he bound by the Constitution to do exactly that if he felt there were election irregularities?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 11:46 am to loogaroo
Precisely , that’s why they Changed the law afterwards because they were in fear it could be done under the constitution.
Sounds a lot like official duties to me but Slow wants to leave that to a DC jury for validation …lol!
Sounds a lot like official duties to me but Slow wants to leave that to a DC jury for validation …lol!
Posted on 3/5/24 at 11:49 am to LSU Pappa
quote:
wouldn't this open up the door for any president to be potentially criminally prosecuted for something done in office once his presidency ends?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Right. Because TX was not harmed by the various unconstitutional state elections enabling Biden to take office.
They ruled correctly.
Now if Biden was anti-fossil fuel, opened the TX-MEX border exposing TX to the full brunt of an alien invasion, and scuttled TX attempts to protect itself from said harms, perhaps it would have standing?
Not only was that SCOTUS rule incorrect, it was the worst SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Addressing an unconstitutional and/or fraudulent election falls within the purview of governance, not politics.
Again, probably not a Presidential duty. He was acting as a partisan, political candidate in that scenario.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:10 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Addressing an unconstitutional and/or fraudulent election falls within the purview of governance,
Where were his DOJ lawsuits on the issue pending on January 6?
That is how the executive is supposed to deal with issues of "unconstitutional and/or fraudulent election(s)" (I added the plural to elections).
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:14 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:"Supposed to"?
That is how the executive is supposed to deal with issues
The issue is not "supposed to."
The issue is "can."
How "can" the executive deal with issues.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
"Supposed to"?
The issue is not "supposed to."
The issue is "can."
Well I was speaking in terms of legality.
I'll rephrase.
That is how the executive can legally deal with those issues.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:It is one way. There was another.
That is how the executive can legally deal with those issues.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:29 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Moreover, wasn’t he bound by the Constitution to do exactly that if he felt there were election irregularities?
The part where they planned it BEFORE the election if he lost, is a problem.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:33 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It is one way. There was another.
Now you're venturing into non-legal methods.
Also, the rally has nothing to do with this non-legal method. If this scheme with Pence was legal, Trump's legal avenue was to pull an LBJ and persuade Pence. What does a rally have anything to do with Mike Pence? Where is forming rallies found in the enumerated powers of the Executive in the Constitution?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where is forming rallies found in the enumerated powers of the Executive in the Constitution?
Surely the Executive doesn’t lose 1st Amendment rights, right?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 12:36 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
Surely the Executive doesn’t lose 1st Amendment rights, right?
I'm not saying Trump is guilty of a crime. I'm talking about official executive duties.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News