• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SCOTUS decisions

sailordeac said:
by society

maybe you should ask yourself: why was the institution of marriage created, and why has it been maintained?
Click to expand...

You are a shit bag. You think marriage is sacred at this time in America, you are deranged. What is the % of heterosexuals that divorce (anti-bible) compared to homosexuals? I would say unequivocally lower. Your starting from a bases of bigoted crap!

Do you still think that the only reason to copulate is to procreate? That is the precedent you are implying. I mean, that is what the Bible says, right? And we can’t stray from the word, right?
 
Junebug, if President Hillary nominated a justice who had said Heller "may" have been wrongly decided, you'd lose your shit. C'mon.

Your explanation makes no sense. If the President of the United States is committing treason against this country, we can't afford to just wait. Hell do you realize the damage a treasonous President could do between Election Day and swearing in?

You're thinking about this as a partisan hack, not as someone who loves this country. Imagine if it was President Obama and he did something really really bad like put his feet up on his desk while wearing a tan suit and eating an arugula salad while having a beer with a black professor. Would you want him in office another two months until Republicans could impeach him?
 
Junebug said:
I’m satisfied that if there were strong evidence that Trump had committed treason, the pubs in Congress would impeach him and remove him from office.

But even if I’m wrong, there is no basis to conclude that simply indicting a president would cause him to cease being president. I’m not even sure that convicting him would, at least of its own accord. In any event, it would be years before the case would be tried. Indictment would be a much slower process than impeachment.
Click to expand...

So what's the problem with indicting him then?

There's no way the Pubs impeach him. No way whatsoever. They're too far gone. But I'll bite.

Junebug, what would constitute "strong evidence" that Trump committed treason for you? Give some examples.
 
PhDeac said:
Junebug, what would constitute "strong evidence" that Trump committed treason for you? Give some examples.
Click to expand...

I'll answer for Junebug: two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in an open court. But, wait, how does an un-indictable POTUS confess in open court????
 
Junebug said:
It adds nothing to the process that is set forth in the constitution for removal of a president and it violates separation of powers principles to have the judiciary enforce a subpoena, etc., served by a lower-level executive officer on the president.
Click to expand...

Seems like an indictment would provide the "strong evidence" needed to justify impeachment. That would add something to the process.
 
Junebug said:
The same evidence would be presented to congress during the impeachment proceedings.

I’m not answering your question because this thread is about SCOTUS decisions. If you want to discuss the definition of treason on one of the many other threads devoted to Russian meddling, etc., feel free.
Click to expand...

I don’t care where you answer the question. You brought up impeachment. Just stop ducking it.
 
Last edited:
So colluding with Russians is similar to freeing slaves?

Still waiting for your explanation of what hard evidence is. Just pick one of the Russia threads and post it.
 
Junebug said:
I wonder if posters’ views on this would change if, instead of Mueller and Trump, we were talking about, say, a prosecutor from a southern state who indicted Abraham Lincoln for interfering with slaveowner property rights by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation?
Click to expand...

lol, stupendous analogy. What would we say if a prosecutor from a state that seceded from the union indicted Abraham Lincoln?
 
Junebug said:
Thanks! But I have to confess, I borrowed it from Neal Katyal, who was the acting solicitor general under the Obama administration.

And you, sir, have made an ass of yourself. Again.
Click to expand...

How so?

Just because you stole it from an Obama-era bro doesn't mean it is clever.
 
wakephan09 said:
How so?

Just because you stole it from an Obama-era bro doesn't mean it is clever.
Click to expand...

AH HA@! IT WAS A LIBERAL THING

giphy.gif
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top