Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Caek Islove ? ❤️ (caekislove@gleasonator.com)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 06:50:23 JST Caek Islove ? ❤️

   This dumb wetback bitch is apparently unaware that the President has been openly drone murdering Americans without due process since Saint Obama

   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 06:50:22 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to
     Yes. The president would be immune from prosecution. The order would be illegal though, so any person carrying it out would be criminally liable.
     
     Rather than using dumb questions, I suggest she go review the history of the idea of the sovereign and the King'a absolute immunity for acts he himself commits by his own hand.
   • Embed this notice
     Caek Islove ? ❤️ (caekislove@gleasonator.com)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:08:52 JST Caek Islove ? ❤️

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??

     @Humpleupagus You're assuming that tamale maker even knows how to read

   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:08:52 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to
     Eso si que es. 🤷♂️
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:13:34 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • GenesRus
     As a Supreme Court Justice, she should know that there are illegal acts for which there are no legal remedies.
     
     The political question doctrine comes to mind, as well as the tax payer standing doctrine.
     
     There may also be situations under the 11th Amendment where a state may violate federal law, but not be subject to federal jurisdiction.
   • Embed this notice
     GenesRus (genesrus@poa.st)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:13:37 JST GenesRus

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     @caekislove @Humpleupagus One of the questions invoked the Obama ordered assassinations.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:18:02 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • GenesRus
     Ask her "can a judge order the sterilization of a child for a malicious reason and in violation of due process and be immune from prosecution?"
     
     The answer is "yes." BTW.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:30:46 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • sj_zero
     • GenesRus
     Federal jurisdiction is 2/3L elective though, but you'd think a justice would be familiar. Modern jurisprudence requires that a case be dispensed with on procedural grounds if such infirmities exist. Substantive questions are only to be addressed after jurisdiction is firm. This perseveres substantive questions for future determination in many cases. Without such a rule, courts would quickly take up and decide substantive questions for political purpose and effectively prohibit the evolution of law over time, which would likely lead to the quick collapse of the legal regime (it's going to collapse either way, but it will last much longer with such a rule in place).
   • Embed this notice
     sj_zero (sj_zero@social.fbxl.net)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:30:47 JST sj_zero

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • GenesRus
     Sovereign immunity is probably first year law school...
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:57:01 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • sj_zero
     • GenesRus
     My first act will be to reverse https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/9/510.html
   • Embed this notice
     Caek Islove ? ❤️ (caekislove@gleasonator.com)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 07:57:02 JST Caek Islove ? ❤️

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • sj_zero
     • GenesRus

     @Humpleupagus @sj_zero @GenesRus You seem to know the law pretty well. I wish you were on the Supreme Court instead of these DEI appointees who think that the Bill of Rights was never meant to "hamstring the government".

   • Embed this notice
     Caek Islove ? ❤️ (caekislove@gleasonator.com)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 10:41:43 JST Caek Islove ? ❤️

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • ランファン
     • GenesRus

     @leyonhjelm @Humpleupagus @GenesRus "Should the President be basically immune to every federal law?" was a question the Founding Fathers never conceived of since they went to extreme lengths to limit the actual powers of the President.

   • Embed this notice
     ランファン (leyonhjelm@breastmilk.club)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 10:41:44 JST ランファン

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • GenesRus
     @Humpleupagus
     
     The president is basically immune to every federal law except in cases of literal impeachment. And that’s not a criminal trial. It’s essentially an HR incident
     
     @caekislove @GenesRus
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Friday, 26-Apr-2024 10:45:09 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • ランファン
     • GenesRus
     Plus, the president fulfills the exact same roles as king while in office — diplomacy, military, execution of laws, and veto power. Thus, it should be presumed that they intended sovereign immunity to apply, as it does against kings, because they would have said otherwise if they wanted a different rule. They were not unaware of existing law.