You tend to start slinging shit the moment someone disagrees with damn near anything you say.
Nah, I treat posters with
exactly the respect which I'm shown. Otherwise, I bring citations, which I'm sure is more than sufficient to qualify as "slinging shit" to you when it's a citation that disagrees with your conclusions in any way whatsoever.
Don't blame me for getting sick of the condescension and passive-aggressiveness with which you treat others years ago, and decided to treat
you in kind. Look in the mirror.
No, I mean criminal prosecution, the subject of the ruling.
"Criminal prosecution and no other individual facet, which may or may not influence any forthcoming court ruling, regardless of context, justiciability, political reality, or the Constitutional or statutory constraints of the judiciary."
No, all you want to do (yet again) is scream Orange Man Bad into the void, to hell or highwater with the consequences. Of which this court decision is
exactly one. Just as the case with
Roe, liberals fucked around expecting juridical democracy to bend the knee to their whim regardless of reality itself is their political automaton wont, and found out.
Of course, when nothing is objectively our undeniably set out, the SCOTUS will draw on whatever is most convenient to what they want to rule. Much like how they'll appeal to something being "historically significant" when it's useful.
And of course, ratio just don't matter so long as you agree with the outcome...
Nice try, but that's a tremendously weak equivalence. Some actions are taken as part of a President's duties. Some are not.
For what it's worth, there are plenty of actions for which Obama (and half the other Presidents) should absolutely be indicted for, in an ideal world. But it's fun to see you argue for letting them all off the hook after condemning them for so long.
Man, you're gonna be
real pissed if you ever read
Mississippi v. Johnson (1867) and realize the full extent of a president's discretionary duties, the ones to which executive immunity applies.
I say they
ought to be. I also say they
won't. Because unlike you, I'm capable of telling the difference between reality and political fantasy, my political beliefs and law, what what is and what ought to be.
That's it? "The damage is already done" so no use pursuing justice? Cool, I'll be sure to try that if I ever get taken to court. I can't do exactly the same crime again, so just drop it eh, its moot.
More attempts to condescendingly dismiss and distract. Which you must at this point, because you know damn well the legal recourse to presidential crime is to impeach, remove from office, and remand to criminal court. As Trump was in office at the time the alleged crime was committed, but is no longer in office, there is no longer a legal remedy for that crime, meaning the case is moot.
But you can't do that, because you also know damn well the goalpost is to block Trump from being on the ballot in November. In your head, the case cannot be moot, and like so many other liberals must doublethink through not just that, but simply admitting the goalpost is to block Trump from ballot access is also admitting the case is a political question (and therefore, not justiciable anyways).
And you've come to the conclusion the
unelected branch of federal government apparently should have single-handedly enacted an
ex post facto law by allowing Trump to be tried as the private citizen he is now for acts committed while he was president, negating the entire impeachment process as enumerated in the Constitution, while simultaneously magicking for itself into existence some method for enforcing its own ruling without interference from either legislative or executive branches. You know, "to save democracy".
But I shouldn't be surprised. It's hardly the
first time you've demonstrated a poor understanding of jurisprudence and mootness on these very forums.
Morons (Trump included) rioting does not a coup make.
That said, Reagan did that, just not here. I already mentioned Grenada and Nicaragua.
