No Kings Act

[squistion 1,855]

Looking forward to the debate on this. 

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1818985106729832807

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce the No Kings Act today — an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision.

The No Kings Act would make clear that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarify that Congress — not the Supreme Court — determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

[lickin_starfish 1,859]

Good. Bush, Hussein, and Potato need to be held accountable for their crimes.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,185]

23 minutes ago, squistion said:

Looking forward to the debate on this. 

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1818985106729832807

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce the No Kings Act today — an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision.

The No Kings Act would make clear that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarify that Congress — not the Supreme Court — determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

we already have a no kings act, but you dummies buy the propaganda hook line and sinker

 

presidents are not immune from criminal law even with the new decision, Presidents can be impeached and charged for ANY CRIME they commit

 

lets start with Obama blowing up Americans

 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,632]

Sounds like the Democrats don’t like this separation of powers thing anymore.  

[BrahmaBulls 628]

Just now, Tree of Knowledge said:

Sounds like the Democrats don’t like this separation of powers thing anymore.  

End of Democracy

[Tree of Knowledge 1,632]

  “ Fire Island” Kyle Griffin reporting for duty. 

[weepaws 3,112]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

Looking forward to the debate on this. 

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1818985106729832807

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce the No Kings Act today — an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision.

The No Kings Act would make clear that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarify that Congress — not the Supreme Court — determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

Hope it happens, let’s lock up the criminal like biden, trump. 

[squistion 1,855]

https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/1819020992645042401

The Founders were explicit: no man in America shall be a king.

But the MAGA Supreme Court threw out centuries of precedent and anointed Trump and subsequent presidents as kings above the law.

That's why I'm introducing the No Kings Act to crack down on this dangerous precedent.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,185]

26 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/1819020992645042401

The Founders were explicit: no man in America shall be a king.

But the MAGA Supreme Court threw out centuries of precedent and anointed Trump and subsequent presidents as kings above the law.

That's why I'm introducing the No Kings Act to crack down on this dangerous precedent.

so trump is running as king?  wow, I am definitely voting for him now

 

[Hardcore troubadour 14,703]

Imagine being a leftist cuck and always falling for the latest nonsense . This is very serious legislation Schumer is proposing. 

[BrahmaBulls 628]

55 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/SenSchumer/status/1819020992645042401

The Founders were explicit: no man in America shall be a king.

But the MAGA Supreme Court threw out centuries of precedent and anointed Trump and subsequent presidents as kings above the law.

That's why I'm introducing the No Kings Act to crack down on this dangerous precedent.

This idiot is in Congress.  Oof.

[cyclone24 1,912]

4 hours ago, squistion said:

Looking forward to the debate on this. 

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1818985106729832807

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce the No Kings Act today — an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision.

The No Kings Act would make clear that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarify that Congress — not the Supreme Court — determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

What a surprise that they want the Congress, who the left typically have control of, to be the ones in power to decide things. Completely surprised.

Democracy or something 

[IndyColtsFan 325]

There should be a No Queens Act to minimize how many tranny threads can populate a lightly trafficked, low-rent message board.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 3,715]

1 hour ago, IndyColtsFan said:

There should be a No Queens Act to minimize how many tranny threads can populate a lightly trafficked, low-rent message board.

It's never a tranny thread until you show up in it.  HTH.

[RLLD 4,125]

5 hours ago, lickin_starfish said:

Good. Bush, Hussein, and Potato need to be held accountable for their crimes.

THIS.  Will it be retroactive? I think it would be suitable to bring in both Bush and Obama and prosecute them criminally for some of their decisions.

In true liberal form, they are thinking only in the immediate moment....and have no concept of what they are setting themselves up for later with this insipid maneuver. 

[squistion 1,855]

Just now, RLLD said:

THIS.  Will it be retroactive? I think it would be suitable to bring in both Bush and Obama and prosecute them criminally for some of their decisions.

In true liberal form, they are thinking only in the immediate moment....and have no concept of what they are setting themselves up for later with this insipid maneuver. 

If it is it will have nothing to do with Bush or Obama. 

[RLLD 4,125]

Just now, squistion said:

If it is it will have nothing to do with Bush or Obama. 

That is unfortunate.  Oh well.  Later, then the Republicans turn this weaponization back on to them, I am sure they will be apoplectic of course.  

[squistion 1,855]

Just now, RLLD said:

That is unfortunate.  Oh well.  Later, then the Republicans turn this weaponization back on to them, I am sure they will be apoplectic of course.  

They can try but it won't get anywhere since it is ancient history. Republicans didn't make a big deal of it at the time and will look really foolish bringing that up now, not to mention it would be completely laughable. 

[RLLD 4,125]

1 minute ago, squistion said:

They can try but it won't get anywhere since it is ancient history. Republicans didn't make a big deal of it at the time and will look really foolish bringing that up now, not to mention it would be completely laughable. 

Later, it will be a different set, and none of them are exactly getting "better".  Not unlike the previous attempts to subvert our systems, this one too will come back to haunt them.....I guarantee it.

[IndyColtsFan 325]

5 hours ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It's never a tranny thread until you show up in it.  HTH.

Hilarious!

[5-Points 3,302]

11 hours ago, squistion said:

Looking forward to the debate on this. 

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1818985106729832807

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce the No Kings Act today — an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision.

The No Kings Act would make clear that presidents and vice presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarify that Congress — not the Supreme Court — determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

So you think a president should be charged with murder when they authorize an air strike that kills a terrorist leader? 

 

Also, fock Schmuck Schumer thinking Congress gets to decide which laws apply to whom. Congress passes laws. They don't get to decide who has to abide by them or not. He thinks Congress is both the legislative and judicial branch. He's a focking pos. 

[squistion 1,855]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

So you think a president should be charged with murder when they authorize an air strike that kills a terrorist leader? 

 

Also, fock Schmuck Schumer thinking Congress gets to decide which laws apply to whom. Congress passes laws. They don't get to decide who has to abide by them or not. He thinks Congress is both the legislative and judicial branch. He's a focking pos. 

Or like send Navy Seals to kill Bin Laden? 

Answer is no.

[5-Points 3,302]

27 minutes ago, squistion said:

Or like send Navy Seals to kill Bin Laden? 

Answer is no.

So as long as it's an official act as potus, they should be immune from prosecution? 

Then you agree with SCOTUS' decision. Because that's exactly what they said. 

HTH

[seafoam1 2,702]

Liberals are so stupid. 

[Drizzay 692]

I am excited for when this backfires on liberals, then they cry foul.

[squistion 1,855]

1 hour ago, 5-Points said:

So as long as it's an official act as potus, they should be immune from prosecution? 

Then you agree with SCOTUS' decision. Because that's exactly what they said. 

HTH

No of course not. 

[5-Points 3,302]

7 hours ago, squistion said:

No of course not. 

You can't have it both ways.

Either presidents can be charged with murder, or maybe more accurately, conspiracy to commit murder, for taking out terrorists or not.

You can't pick and choose which official acts you want to charge and which ones you don't. Or, as the democrats want to do, pick and choose which presidents you want to charge and which ones you don't. 

 

[squistion 1,855]

https://x.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1819374352376180910

New presidential immunity hypo: if (& of course it's entirely theoretical) a POTUS directed a coverup of crimes committed before taking office via comms with his AG, is that an official act?

[Tree of Knowledge 1,632]

11 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/JoyceWhiteVance/status/1819374352376180910

New presidential immunity hypo: if (& of course it's entirely theoretical) a POTUS directed a coverup of crimes committed before taking office via comms with his AG, is that an official act?

How about a VP that participated in  cover up of a President incapable of performing duties in office?

[RLLD 4,125]

19 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

How about a VP that participated in  cover up of a President incapable of performing duties in office?

Meh, of course she lied....she is not the first and wont be the last.  Let's not pretend politics isnt not one big group of narccissitic liars who serve their personal interests above all else. 

Leave it to the liberals to deify their political masters..... and avoid it assiduously for ourselves. 

[Mike Honcho 4,961]

3 hours ago, 5-Points said:

You can't have it both ways.

Either presidents can be charged with murder, or maybe more accurately, conspiracy to commit murder, for taking out terrorists or not.

You can't pick and choose which official acts you want to charge and which ones you don't. Or, as the democrats want to do, pick and choose which presidents you want to charge and which ones you don't. 

 

What if the president orders the DOJ to bring false charges against a political rival? That would be an official act.

[Hardcore troubadour 14,703]

Obama is acting very kingly. He gets to pick who gets the nod now 

[supermike80 1,755]

I like the name though

[F1erce 88]

The far left is now showing their true colors. They can’t win normally so they want to change it to where they can be the ONLY ones making & enforcing laws. This is EXTREMELY dangerous and literally sets up Nazism. The Supreme Court is the one making decisions on law. NOT congress. Remember these are the SAME ppl who refuse to give up power and blatantly lie to your face. That one dem senator that missed multiple months only to come back & claim she’s never missed a single day especially in the last few months. They fall asleep during talks. They don’t listen either. If they’re a Dem then they’re voting Dem. They don’t need to hear the other side. Their ONLY job is to vote a certain way 

[5-Points 3,302]

7 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

What if the president orders the DOJ to bring false charges against a political rival? That would be an official act.

In my mind, and what I believe scotus meant is, an "official act" is something that a potus would do during the course of their duties as potus. Ordering the DOJ to bring false charges against someone wouldn't fall within those parameters. 

 

[RLLD 4,125]

Note that this entire line of thought was never an issue until the left lost its mind and sought to eliminate a political opponent...by any means necessary....

[seafoam1 2,702]

Just now, RLLD said:

Note that this entire line of thought was never an issue until the left lost its mind and sought to eliminate a political opponent...by any means necessary....

10 years now and as ongoing as ever. 

TDS is REAL. 

[Cdub100 3,786]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Note that this entire line of thought was never an issue until the left lost its mind and sought to eliminate a political opponent...by any means necessary....

Democrats and those who vote for ANY Democrat are threat to our Republic and put our country at risk.

[squistion 1,855]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Note that this entire line of thought was never an issue until the left lost its mind and sought to eliminate a political opponent...by any means necessary....

What are you suggesting by that? Who has said that a political opponent should be eliminated by "any means necessary"

[RLLD 4,125]

3 minutes ago, Cdub100 said:

Democrats and those who vote for ANY Democrat are threat to our Republic and put our country at risk.

To a certain extent, I think the real problem is the tendency of Democrats to employ actions to passify their radicals.  Really....reallly...bad ideas that only hurt....that is the biggest problem.