noauthority.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Long live NAS!

Administered by:

Server stats:

1.4K
active users

@jeffowski

Mary obviously lacks any concept of how this constitutional republic works and why it has lasted this long.

While most comments seem to think this makes the President above the law, the truth is nothing of the kind. It does help to clarify how to separate Official Acts from Private Acts.

So, the immunity decision protects others more than it helps Trump.

For example, when Trump takes office next January, he can't prosecute Obama for ordering assassinations, etc.

@softbear -- Ok... Try to dismiss the quotes from the dissenting Supreme Court justices.
I'll wait.

Sir Dave of the Clay Pitts

@jeffowski

Ah, I get it. Ignore the classical conservatives, but not the progressives.

I notice you don't mention the concurrence of Justice Jackson on the core finding, yet you don't castigate them. You include Barrett in the photo, but she dissented in part.

The concurring opinion of Justice Thomas is the one that shows the current administration is pursuing an illegal prosecution. You can expect this point to be revisited in the near future if the current activities persist.

@jeffowski

"quotes from the dissenting"

I will get back to you on that if I find any substance there.

@softbear -- So you don't see this Immunity for the President paired with #Project2025 as an extremely dangerous combination?
You sure do seem to be minimizing the dangers when it seems pretty clear that virtually everyone that actually knows something on the subject is raising concerns.
I'd be curious to find out which pundits you're listening to. You have to be forming your opinion from somewhere and who you are going to cite here will be very revealing.
Reply with links.

@jeffowski

Pundits are useless.

Listen to a lawyer who doesn't make their money by their appearances on the Main Stream Media. They are paid to say whatever the producer wants to hear. (Or else they're not invited back.)

Better yet ignore what you've heard, and read the opinion for yourself. It isn't THAT hard to get the basic concepts. If you don't get it: ASK.

"Lawtube" has a wide range of opinions on most subjects. It is interesting to contrast defense attorney and prosecutor opinions.

@jeffowski

The Opinion gives a great deal of history and rational that you will not here from anyone with TDS. So start here:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pd

Look at the information the pundits ignore. Especially that.

@jeffowski

In general, is no different than many transition advisory teams that were common over the past century. What is very different is that it is basically being done in public ON THE INTERNET. The first Trump Campaign failed miserably with regard to transition planning.

SCOTUS overtuning of Chevron is much more important to their proposals than the clarification of Executive Privilege.

@jeffowski

I'm not holding out on you, I just happened across this:

bird.makeup/users/vdhanson/sta

(Yes, you might consider historian Victor Davis Hansen a pundit. I don't.)

bird.makeupVictor Davis HansonAnimal Farm Democrats Leftists make up things as they go along, as yesterday’s heresies (e.g., Biden seems demented) become today’s orthodoxies (e.g. Biden really is demented)—depending on the current party directive about what is most advantageous. So many of the Democrats current dilemmas are self-inflicted— a result of their often illegal and always unethical efforts to warp democracy that boomerang upon them and remind us that hubris really does earn nemesis. Note that there would never have been any presidential immunity suit before the Supreme Court had the Biden administration just not orchestrated local, state, and federal prosecutors to neuter Trump, Joe Biden’s 2024 presidential opponent. That current lawfare effort marked the third sequential attempt to sabotage a political opponent’s campaign—following Hillary’s 2016 Russian “collusion”/Steele “dossier” scam, and Joe’s 2020 Russian “disinformation”/ “51 intelligence authorities” ruse. In other words, had Nathan Wade not synchronized with the White House counsel’s office, had Merrick Garland not had his third-ranking federal prosecutor take over the Manhattan prosecution from the incompetent Alvin Bragg, and had not Garland picked the biased and previously failed special counsel Jack Smith to hound and rush to judgement Trump, the question of presidential immunity from Biden’s orchestrated lawfare would have never come up before the court. The leftwing panic over Biden’s cognitive decline in the debate is not because he is clearly unable to fulfill the duties of a president (is there any other job in America that Joe Biden could perform other than being in charge of the nuclear codes?), and thus might injure the country. The hysteria instead arises solely because he might lose the Democrats power, either by losing the election—or by winning it, then crashing, and passing the country off into the hands of a cackling Kamala Harris. Joe Biden should rejoice over the Supreme Court immunity ruling. After all, as president he knowingly and unlawfully kept classified files in his numerous private residences. He only came forward in fear—after siccing a special counsel after Trump for the same alleged crimes—that someone might ask whether Joe himself had such files. Remember also that Biden’s ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer was illegally given access to the files by Biden, and then in Hillary-style defied a federal subpoena by destroying taped evidence of such breaches—and with complete impunity. Had the Democrats not gone berserk when Robert Hur found Biden indictable, save for his cognitive decline that would supposedly win him sympathy from a nullifying jury, and instead simply had agreed that Joe was near senile, and thus should have been indicted, then they would have had months and a real primary to have selected a living, breathing candidate. Given the Harris dilemma—will any future presidential candidate ever again demagogue before the convention by boasting that he would pick his VP running-mate on the basis of race and gender (unless he is an incumbent facing conviction and removal, and thus envisions a mediocre VP candidate as an insurance policy)? Why after years of the left caricaturing the Trump orange dermis, did an ashen Joe Biden reemerge bright Trumpian orange after his disastrous debate? Will any leftist ever again caricature the Trump tan that apparently now has offered a model of recovery for an in-extremis pallid Biden? Will this start a trend—emerge after a disastrous performance bright orange to reassure the nation you are A-Ok? How could Chuck Schumer now grandstand and seriously say anything about Supreme Court decorum? In 2020 at the head of a frenzied pro-abortion throng, he threatented two justices by name and implied violence upon their persons? (“I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you”)? Months later protestors, showed up illegally—but exempt from arrest given the conservative targets of their intimidation—at the homes of the justices, among them a would-be assassin. The more Democrats grow hysterical, thrash about, and connive, all the more so they self-destruct.

@softbear --
You're a sad joke if you think #Project2025 isn't a threat when they want to replace career government professionals with politically appointed loyalists that they vet and train specifically for.
#Jan6 and Trump's generally bumbling first administration was stunted because of these professionals doing their duty in their positions.
This shapes the next January 6th where those same people open the doors for the insurrectionists.