User Controls
THE MAGA PARTY!,,, the GOP is dead, republicans are going down with the dems,, get ready for THE MAGA PARTY lefty's
-
2022-01-21 at 5:07 PM UTCI GOT YOUR CONSTITUTION RIGHT HERE, WEASEL ! ! !
CNN
Opinion: What Trump's loss at the Supreme Court means for the future of democracy
Opinion by Norman Eisen, Joshua Perry and E. Danya Perry
On Wednesday evening, the US Supreme Court removed the last obstacle to a congressional committee receiving critical documents about the January 6 insurrection.
The National Archives has already started turning over Trump administration documents to the committee investigating the January 6 attacks, with more to follow. The House select committee can use this trove of evidence -- including handwritten notes, daily logs and draft documents -- to pursue accountability and to shape legislative proposals to armor our democracy against further assaults.
The speed with which this case moved through the courts validates the committee's urgent approach to its mission, and undercuts the weak executive privilege claims that former President Donald Trump's allies have used to try to hide the truth from the American people.
But -- perhaps as a tradeoff for the decision's speed -- it does not signal entirely smooth sailing going forward.
In October, Trump, continuing his pattern of litigation to evade accountability, sued to block release of documents requested by the January 6 committee.
The lower courts were having none of it, issuing quick, careful and decisive opinions. On November 9, federal District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan ruled that Trump can't overrule the sitting president's decisions about executive privilege: "Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President." Exactly a month later, a unanimous panel of the DC Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling. Noting that "nder our Constitution, we have one President at a time," the court explained that courts should defer to the determinations of the sitting president and Congress.
But the circuit court's decision didn't hinge on the conclusion that the sitting president's judgment weighs more heavily than the opinion of a defeated former president. As that intermediate appellate court emphasized, Trump would lose under any legal analysis. That is because he did nothing to show why any specific document should be privileged. All he did was vaguely and generally assert privilege – but that kind of blanket assertion of privilege rarely cuts it in court.
Trump again looked to a higher court for relief. And now, the Supreme Court – with only one justice, Clarence Thomas, noting a dissent – has shut him down, too, refusing to block release of the documents.
The court prefers, when possible, to sidestep hard constitutional questions – that's the doctrine known as "constitutional avoidance." It did that here by ruling that Trump could not win no matter which legal test applied. In other words, even if former presidents had rights equal to sitting presidents, Trump would still lose. Whether because of sloppy lawyering or because even good lawyers can't always win impossible cases, Trump just made no showing that any privilege should apply at all. "Because I said so" isn't a legal argument – especially when you're not the person elected to make those kinds of pronouncements.
The decision matters both for its immediate impact – the Trump documents are now being handed over, a win for democracy and accountability – and for three key things that it tells us about the congressional inquiry into January 6 and the subsequent recommendations that will follow to protect against another insurrection.
First, this decision validates the deliberate speed with which the committee is proceeding in its vitally important work. As we've argued both in written columns and in the DC Circuit and Supreme Court amicus briefs that we filed in support of releasing the documents, former presidents don't have equal rights in this situation. But resolving the legal question of how to balance former presidents' assertions against the determination of the sitting president might have eaten up months of the calendar.
We have said all along that this case could and should be handled on the same three-month schedule that applied in the resolution of the subpoena of the Watergate tapes. This quick decision allows Congress to get the documents immediately and move forward on its schedule of hearings this spring and an interim report this summer.
And that schedule, in turn, means a great deal to the health of our democracy – including the state and local officials who must administer secure and fair elections in the fall of 2022. Trump's delay tactics, which allowed him to evade subpoenas for his tax returns and his henchmen's testimony while he was president, failed him here.
Second, the decision is a warning to Trump's circle, whose members – such as former adviser Steve Bannon – have repeatedly cited executive privilege in refusing to cooperate with the committee.
It's true that this decision didn't describe exactly how courts should weigh a former president's invocation of the privilege. But it did eviscerate the strategy that ex-Trump officials have used so far. After Trump v. Thompson, vague, blanket assertions of the privilege, without any specific explanation of how the information sought is privileged and why its disclosure would hurt the executive office, likely won't cut it.
That is devastating news for Bannon, whose criminal prosecution for an even more outrageous blanket assertion of the privilege has already begun. And it should hasten the Justice Department's decision on whether to prosecute former Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows, who cited the privilege in refusing to show up for his congressional deposition.
Third, the decision suggests that we may not be done with future legal posturing over these issues. Thomas didn't explain his reason for dissenting. But Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote separately to explain that while he was voting against denying relief in this case, he thinks former presidents do have a strong claim to assert privilege: "A former President must be able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the current President does not support the privilege claim." That is an argument that the court's majority does not foreclose.
Kavanaugh is wrong, and it is heartening that no other justice joined his statement. Former presidents should not be able to disturb the constitutional order and interfere in a consensual information exchange between Congress and a sitting president. The Constitution affirmatively requires sitting presidents to share information with Congress.
Kavanaugh's statement invites future mischief making. Trump may be back with more detailed – if ultimately no more meritorious – privilege claims in response to future subpoenas, whether by the committee or other authorities. But the bottom line is that this decision greatly weakens the legal underpinnings of the Trump massive resistance strategy.
The Supreme Court's decision was a bright spot for democracy. Handed down on the same day that some US senators blocked federal election reform, the decision is a reminder that the fight to protect our democracy has many fronts – in the courts, in Congress and in states across the country – and that democracy's defenders must prevail. -
2022-01-21 at 5:43 PM UTCok dummy,
who made the constitution?
the people made it as / before there was a government.
it lists the rights of the people and grants the rules of government for the soon to be created government.
we granted powers to the government, granted powers can be revoked for misconduct. js.
so we the people are above the government, we are above the judicial branch, the legislative branch, we are above the executive branch
when they work together and do not follow the rules of government the constitutions give us the rules to remove said bad actors.
first we must give Notice to them showing our powers over them and the wrongs they are doing, then we affidavit them and demand they show where they get the power to go against the peopel in the constitutions, when they cant or refuse to respond in a sworn affidavit in required time we now have documentation that stands as true against them that will hold up in any court. thats the process in a nut shell. so in reality the supreme court justices don't really have the right ti interpret the constitution any other way than to be in the best advantage to the people under the 51 constitutions. to go against the people's freedoms in any way is unconstitutional.
WE THE PEOPLE are working to fix this issue and makin headway every day, the left/ commies/globilists are panicking because they see us coming for them from 100 directions at once. soon even a stupid sheep commie cunt will see its true and undenighable -
2022-01-21 at 5:56 PM UTCJust the facts, ma'am.
An 8 to 1 decision against that horses Rump.
All three of Rump installed Supremes voted against his fat ass.
Deal with reality, you freaking parrot. -
2022-01-22 at 1:14 AM UTCdelusions don't count as wins. deflecting from true facts in order to promote a fucked up bunch of lies and falshoods is not a win.
pretending you voted for the better man at this point is solid proof you fucked up,, fucking up is not a win.
TRUMP won even tho he is a bumbling moron. god he makes me sick and it makes me sick he is the only one fit for the job. if I had known this shit was going to go down like this I would have prepped myself to be president.
still thinking about running for SheriffThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2022-01-22 at 2:55 AM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT still thinking about running for Sheriff
You should seriously do that. The best chance normal people have is getting local government positions, and ignoring the higher up stuff for now. The higher up stuff is too rigidly controlled, but at the local level ordinary people can really make a difference. -
2022-01-22 at 7 AM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump You should seriously do that. The best chance normal people have is getting local government positions, and ignoring the higher up stuff for now. The higher up stuff is too rigidly controlled, but at the local level ordinary people can really make a difference.
man that would fuck my life up,, they would come for me like they came for Buford T Pusser, I would have to hunt ALL unconstitutional actors in local government in this county and that would be a lot of work cuz every township has taken government money to go against the constitutions -
2022-01-22 at 7:01 AM UTC
-
2022-01-22 at 7:02 AM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT man that would fuck my life up,, they would come for me like they came for Buford T Pusser, I would have to hunt ALL unconstitutional actors in local government in this county and that would be a lot of work cuz every township has taken government money to go against the constitutions
Yeah, let the perfect be the enemy of the good. All useless cunts do that. -
2022-01-22 at 7:03 AM UTCi just woke up, what u sayin?
-
2022-01-22 at 7:10 AM UTC
-
2022-01-22 at 7:11 AM UTCfuckin riddle man speak plainly will ya,,, ur losin patriots by being a riddle man
-
2022-01-22 at 7:13 AM UTC
-
2022-01-22 at 7:16 AM UTCyeah that was just a loud riddle
-
2022-01-22 at 7:19 AM UTCRepublicans lose because they have literally zero demands.
When you engage with the political process, but you have zero demands, you get shit like Jan 6th.
A bunch of harmless obstructionism with no clear goals or leadership.
And a prime target for evil, vindictive, destructive jedis. jedis always have an agenda, they always have demands.
Any you people won't even name them. Pathetic. -
2022-01-22 at 7:27 AM UTChave you read the title of this thread? it covers that exact situation
-
2022-01-22 at 7:33 AM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT have you read the title of this thread? it covers that exact situation
Yet you still cuck out for the Republicans, and once the Republicans make an overture towards you cucks (perhaps after their gains in the 2022 midterms), to the Republicans you shall return.
You don't believe in anything besides some sort of vague civic nationalism. The same as was tried in Brazil, Rhodesia and South Africa. -
2022-01-22 at 7:35 AM UTCBy the way, you fucking retards, I am sick of being asked what happens if Russia invades Ukraine. Even Zelensky, the jedi comedian who runs Ukraine, came out and said it's just not happening.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/ukraines-president-admits-russian-invasion-fears-driven-big-hype-blames-media
What the fuck is wrong with you people? Why do you still believe your gang of swarthy, hook nosed, lying jedis, even after they lied to you in 2019, 2020, 2021, and are trying to lie to you even now? Don't you have any cop on at all? -
2022-01-22 at 7:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump Yet you still cuck out for the Republicans, and once the Republicans make an overture towards you cucks (perhaps after their gains in the 2022 midterms), to the Republicans you shall return.
You don't believe in anything besides some sort of vague civic nationalism. The same as was tried in Brazil, Rhodesia and South Africa.
we know we cant win with a new party so we are uncorrupting the republican party, we are only voting for true America first constitutional republican anti globalist's types, a few rino types may get elected but we are coming for every bad actor not just the dems,, we know what right sounds like and we are 200,000 strong watching for that moment in time they show there true selves, and we will call them out and hold them accountable for unconstitutional acts. -
2022-01-22 at 7:44 AM UTC
Originally posted by POLECAT we know we cant win with a new party so we are uncorrupting the republican party, we are only voting for true America first constitutional republican anti globalist's types, a few rino types may get elected but we are coming for every bad actor not just the dems,, we know what right sounds like and we are 200,000 strong watching for that moment in time they show there true selves, and we will call them out and hold them accountable for unconstitutional acts.
blah blah blah muh numbers muh constitution blah blah blah
Heaven forbid you have to confront something like race in your bullshit. -
2022-01-22 at 8:02 AM UTCanyone bla blaing the constitutions is a commie ass dumb motherfucker not worthy of a vote.
every elected trustee swares an oath to uphold all laws the 51 constitutions being the highest laws in the land. in these times the constitutions are the only things keeping us from globalism,,, bla bla bla is what the enemy says. I see the real you nigger
