Did today’s SC ruling justify King George and invalidate the Declaration of Independence?

[joelbc1]

Today’s ruling legitimizes the concept of the nobel President. Infallible and incapable of wrongdoing because “he/she is the President”….This was Nixon’s position during Watergate…..It can’t be illegal because the President did it.

America broke away from Great Britain in 1776 because Americans did not belief in the infallibility of King George. There response to his and Parliaments numerous taxes and economic policies towards the Colonies resulted in Jefferson being commissioned by the Continental Congress and his writing the Declaration of Independence, enumerating the colonies claims of abuse by the King against them. King George’s response was he was acting within his rights as King. The colonies responded by going to war with Great Britain and eventually forming a government that took expressed care to make sure the leader was beholding to the law of the people.

Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court seems to favor the viewpoint of the American colonist loyalists that supported the King and Great Britain and opposes the values set forth by Jefferson and his Declaration. With the 4th of July a few days away, isn’t this ironic? Maybe in 30 years America will celebrate “the 1st of July” and call it “Federalist Day”? Wed finally proved, as a nation, we are not smart enough to propagate the republic given to us by out Founding Fathers. Adams, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Madison will be replaced with names like TRUMP, Johnson, Grassley, Roberts, Bobert and Greene.

 

[Here_4_a_Day]

Today’s ruling legitimizes the concept of the nobel President. Infallible and incapable of wrongdoing because “he/she is the President”….This was Nixon’s position during Watergate…..It can’t be illegal because the President did it.

America broke away from Great Britain in 1776 because Americans did not belief in the infallibility of King George. There response to his and Parliaments numerous taxes and economic policies towards the Colonies resulted in Jefferson being commissioned by the Continental Congress and his writing the Declaration of Independence, enumerating the colonies claims of abuse by the King against them. King George’s response was he was acting within his rights as King. The colonies responded by going to war with Great Britain and eventually forming a government that took expressed care to make sure the leader was beholding to the law of the people.

Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court seems to favor the viewpoint of the American colonist loyalists that supported the King and Great Britain and opposes the values set forth by Jefferson and his Declaration. With the 4th of July a few days away, isn’t this ironic? Maybe in 30 years America will celebrate “the 1st of July” and call it “Federalist Day”? Wed finally proved, as a nation, we are not smart enough to propagate the republic given to us by out Founding Fathers. Adams, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Madison will be replaced with names like TRUMP, Johnson, Grassley, Roberts, Bobert and Greene.

JFC….have someone change your diaper, jo junior! 😂💩😂

 

[Bonerfarts]

 

[Aardvark86]

Today’s ruling legitimizes the concept of the nobel President. Infallible and incapable of wrongdoing because “he/she is the President”….This was Nixon’s position during Watergate…..It can’t be illegal because the President did it.

America broke away from Great Britain in 1776 because Americans did not belief in the infallibility of King George. There response to his and Parliaments numerous taxes and economic policies towards the Colonies resulted in Jefferson being commissioned by the Continental Congress and his writing the Declaration of Independence, enumerating the colonies claims of abuse by the King against them. King George’s response was he was acting within his rights as King. The colonies responded by going to war with Great Britain and eventually forming a government that took expressed care to make sure the leader was beholding to the law of the people.

Today’s ruling by the Supreme Court seems to favor the viewpoint of the American colonist loyalists that supported the King and Great Britain and opposes the values set forth by Jefferson and his Declaration. With the 4th of July a few days away, isn’t this ironic? Maybe in 30 years America will celebrate “the 1st of July” and call it “Federalist Day”? Wed finally proved, as a nation, we are not smart enough to propagate the republic given to us by out Founding Fathers. Adams, Franklin, Washington, Jefferson and Madison will be replaced with names like TRUMP, Johnson, Grassley, Roberts, Bobert and Greene.

While I am not entirely comfortable with the court's opinion today, I do not think the analogy you are trying to make holds.

In the case of British monarchs, there is no, and never has been an, "election" to "replace" them, after which the King may be subjected to some criminal process by the next King (Charles I notwithstanding). And of course, at that point in history, the King didn't make a hell of a lot of decisions in British politics. It had long moved to a parliamentary system. While the Declaration certainly speaks in terms of the King, the reality of course is that the beef was with "his majesty's government," ie, parliament.

In my opinion, that is a material difference from our executive. Our executive, by contrast, IS tasked with executing the laws, etc., and does get replaced after 1 or two defined terms. Thus, while I personally think the argument of the court today is overstated about the need to allow executives freedom to act within their authority without fear of future reprisal by the next executive (and thus any immunity ought to be somewhat narrower than what I think the court is contemplating), the approach underlying the opinion is at least more germane to our system, both with respect to the authority of the british monarch and the difference in his tenure compared to the Article I authority of an American President.

BTW, July 1 is Canada Day.

 

[joelbc1]

While I am not entirely comfortable with the court's opinion today, I do not think the analogy you are trying to make holds.

In the case of British monarchs, there is no, and never has been an, "election" to "replace" them, after which the King may be subjected to some criminal process by the next King (Charles I notwithstanding). And of course, at that point in history, the King didn't make a hell of a lot of decisions in British politics. It had long moved to a parliamentary system. While the Declaration certainly speaks in terms of the King, the reality of course is that the beef was with "his majesty's government," ie, parliament.

In my opinion, that is a material difference from our executive. Our executive, by contrast, IS tasked with executing the laws, etc., and does get replaced after 1 or two defined terms. Thus, while I personally think the argument of the court today is overstated about the need to allow executives freedom to act within their authority without fear of future reprisal by the next executive (and thus any immunity ought to be somewhat narrower than what I think the court is contemplating), the approach underlying the opinion is at least more germane to our system, both with respect to the authority of the british monarch and the difference in his tenure compared to the Article I authority of an American President.

BTW, July 1 is Canada Day.

In Canada it will always be.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Here’s the long and short of it from THE_DEVILs view…

The dems have been given a road map by the courts and it’s the now on the dems to take advantage of it: Will they? **** no. Dem pols are mostly meandering imps.

 

[Aardvark86]

Here’s the long and short of it from THE_DEVILs view…

The dems have been given a road map by the courts and it’s the now on the dems to take advantage of it: Will they? **** no. Dem pols are mostly meandering imps.

bring back james carville

 

[joelbc1]

Here’s the long and short of it from THE_DEVILs view…

The dems have been given a road map by the courts and it’s the now on the dems to take advantage of it: Will they? **** no. Dem pols are mostly meandering imps.

Whatever happened to LBJ? Damn, the Dems need him now more than ever before………

 

[Aardvark86]

Whatever happened to LBJ? Damn, the Dems need him now more than ever before………

lbj? I think there's a pretty decent chance that Biden already has someone standing nearby when he's taking a dump...

 

[lucas80]

While I am not entirely comfortable with the court's opinion today, I do not think the analogy you are trying to make holds.

In the case of British monarchs, there is no, and never has been an, "election" to "replace" them, after which the King may be subjected to some criminal process by the next King (Charles I notwithstanding). And of course, at that point in history, the King didn't make a hell of a lot of decisions in British politics. It had long moved to a parliamentary system. While the Declaration certainly speaks in terms of the King, the reality of course is that the beef was with "his majesty's government," ie, parliament.

In my opinion, that is a material difference from our executive. Our executive, by contrast, IS tasked with executing the laws, etc., and does get replaced after 1 or two defined terms. Thus, while I personally think the argument of the court today is overstated about the need to allow executives freedom to act within their authority without fear of future reprisal by the next executive (and thus any immunity ought to be somewhat narrower than what I think the court is contemplating), the approach underlying the opinion is at least more germane to our system, both with respect to the authority of the british monarch and the difference in his tenure compared to the Article I authority of an American President.

BTW, July 1 is Canada Day.

The Founders never anticipated such a corrupt man as president, nor did they anticipate the Federalist Society running the Supreme Court as they hashed out our chief executive.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

The Founders never anticipated such a corrupt man as president, nor did they anticipate the Federalist Society running the Supreme Court as they hashed out our chief executive.

The 2nd amendment says otherwise.

 

[joelbc1]

lbj? I think there's a pretty decent chance that Biden already has someone standing nearby when he's taking a dump...

Ol’ Landslide rubbed their (Republican) noses in it……with a smile on his face. And they would ask him if they could wipe his ass, too.

 

[Aardvark86]

The Founders never anticipated such a corrupt man as president, nor did they anticipate the Federalist Society running the Supreme Court as they hashed out our chief executive.

Oh, I don't know about the former - each age has its unique forms of corruption, ego, and the like. But I suppose if one really wanted to get technical about it, one might note that perhaps the abandonment of some of their original vision and control mechanisms, starting around the time of Andy Jackson, for better and worse, might have had something to do with it.

As to the latter, the founders probably hadn't thought about it too much, but I'm pretty sure that Tocqueville recognized it is as an entrenched american trait - and an admirable one at that - not too long thereafter.

 

[Aardvark86]

Ol’ Landslide rubbed their (Republican) noses in it……with a smile on his face. And they would ask him if they could wipe his ass, too.

take a memo for me....

 

[joelbc1]

I fear what we have now in the Courts is a judiciary that wants to rule America citizens as the British Courts ruled the colonists, back in the 1700’s…..

The Court system is the easiest to convert. The appointments are political and routinely granted as part of the spoils system of politics…..which has many similarities to the old monarchy governments of Great Britain. Look how quickly “Federalist” control has taken control of the Supreme Court. It took a long term effort of 40 years or so but the power change occurred rather quickly, in a matter of 4-5 years. For the life of me, I do not see how this Court could, in good faith, make the ruling they made yesterday……Trump is a phuquin’ crook! A liar, first and foremost….and a crook! Perhaps Trump’s endless whining about the system being “rigged” was indeed the truth……….except it was trump and Company and The federalist Society and folks like ALEC and Koch Bros. Who were doing the rigging. We as a nation are phuqued. I am glad I am an old man and will be gone soon………I fear for my daughter and grandchildren (girls)……However, I’d like to find some semblance of a putting stroke, before I go.

 

[Aardvark86]

I fear what we have now in the Courts is a judiciary that wants to rule America citizens as the British Courts ruled the colonists, back in the 1700’s…..

The Court system is the easiest to convert. The appointments are political and routinely granted as part of the spoils system of politics…..which has many similarities to the old monarchy governments of Great Britain. Look how quickly “Federalist” control has taken control of the Supreme Court. It took a long term effort of 40 years or so but the power change occurred rather quickly, in a matter of 4-5 years. For the life of me, I do not see how this Court could, in good faith, make the ruling they made yesterday……Trump is a phuquin’ crook! A liar, first and foremost….and a crook! Perhaps Trump’s endless whining about the system being “rigged” was indeed the truth……….except it was trump and Company and The federalist Society and folks like ALEC and Koch Bros. Who were doing the rigging. We as a nation are phuqued. I am glad I am an old man and will be gone soon………I fear for my daughter and grandchildren (girls)……However, I’d like to find some semblance of a putting stroke, before I go.

federal judgeships -- and even more so, us attorney positions -- have been like that for a long long time. simple legislative currency, and not much more.

As to the "flip", honestly, it's more dumb luck (or the lack thereof, depending on your perspective) of death timing at the scotus level than anything. Below that, R v D is actually pretty even across the judiciary.

You are right that the balancing of the courts has been a long term project, which began, to its credit and that of the early federalist society, with simple scholarship. Of men like McDowell, Berns, Abraham, Storing, Berger, and yes, Bork, and of politicians like Meese who gave it a place to grow a bit within OLC as it ventured from the academy. Has Fedsoc morphed into something less worthy of its origins? Sure, but I don't think it's actually abandoned them.

 

[THE_DEVIL]

 

[THE_DEVIL]

 

[DooBi]

*their

 

[THE_DEVIL]

Here’s the long and short of it from THE_DEVILs view…

The dems have been given a road map by the courts and it’s the now on the dems to take advantage of it: Will they? **** no. Dem pols are mostly meandering imps.

Welp. That was even quicker than I thhought

 

[fsu1jreed]

The 2nd amendment says otherwise.

Under the assumption the weapons would never evolve past flint lock guns

 

[lucas80]

Oh, I don't know about the former - each age has its unique forms of corruption, ego, and the like. But I suppose if one really wanted to get technical about it, one might note that perhaps the abandonment of some of their original vision and control mechanisms, starting around the time of Andy Jackson, for better and worse, might have had something to do with it.

As to the latter, the founders probably hadn't thought about it too much, but I'm pretty sure that Tocqueville recognized it is as an entrenched american trait - and an admirable one at that - not too long thereafter.

There were scalawags in their day. Rakish fellows who might act rashly when filled with ale, but the Founders simply never believed someone so bereft of a sense of civic duty would even want to assume office.

 

[lucas80]

Hopefully Mitch McConnell realizes how badly he effed up before he dies. He had the mechanism to end Trump’s political career, and he’s the guy who packed the courts with Federalists.

 

[Aardvark86]

There were scalawags in their day. Rakish fellows who might act rashly when filled with ale, but the Founders simply never believed someone so bereft of a sense of civic duty would even want to assume office.

I disagree. They understood history quite well and could probably make a list of them who had, longer than you or I could.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Under the assumption the weapons would never evolve past flint lock guns

Good thing they thought of it.

 

[fsu1jreed]

Good thing they thought of it.

Uh huh, why didn't they even think there could be a standing and that we'd militias. A bunch of idiots running around with AR-15s has no chance against our military..they have no training, no logistically support, etc. to counteract the big toys that our military has

 

[ft254]

Uh huh, why didn't they even think there could be a standing and that we'd militias. A bunch of idiots running around with AR-15s has no chance against our military..they have no training, no logistically support, etc. to counteract the big toys that our military has

Don't break whisky's bubble. The 2A fantasy has armed the U.S. society beyond any reasonable measure.

More guns than citizens. Military grade weapons on the street in the hands of people incapable of handling these killing machines, and worse, gangs and criminals. And the right bitches about gangs and criminals killing and murdering.

So, the discussions and rulings have not been now to keep weapons under control. The murder rates have been decreasing as has all violent crime rates for the past (spiked in the Covid year) 5 years. However, the mass shooting rates have increased steadily.

The opposite of reasonable is obsessive or illogical. It's not unreasonable to apply this in the case of a society so fixated on gun ownershi, it relies on a document composed when flintlock weapons were the source of the subject, and weapons outnumber citizens owning them.