Election 2024

https://topgadgetlife.com/products/6.3-inch-fruit-picker-head-basket
Politics· Fox News

After immunity ruling, actress from ‘Orange is the New Black’ tells Biden to assassinate Trump: ‘Take him out'​

An actress made famous by the show "Orange is the New Black" appeared to call for President Biden to use presidential immunity to assassinate former President Trump.

Well ?
Not to advocate any illegal act by anyone. But:

Could a commander in chief order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival and not face criminal prosecution? That is the provocative hypothetical raised by two Supreme Court justices in their dissents on the high court's ruling regarding former President Donald Trump's immunity case.
The Supreme Court on Monday said former presidents are entitled to some protections for "official" acts, though said there is no immunity for "unofficial" acts -- rejecting Trump's sweeping claim of "absolute" immunity from criminal prosecution in his federal election subversion case.
The blockbuster decision split the court along ideological lines. The 6-3 opinion was delivered by Chief Justice John Roberts, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.

https://abc30.com/post/extreme-hypotheticals-seal-team-6-assassination-resurfaces-immunity/15017793/

The obvious snag here:
Though U.S. military members are sworn to obey the U.S. president, would they obey that specific order? It's far from a done deal though perhaps it can't be ruled out.

It would seem to be, we may hope it is exceedingly unlikely. That's not the question. If this SCOTUS ruling would give such broad power to President Trump, does it not also accord the same broad powers to the Biden / Harris administration?

BONUS point to ponder:
If YOU were the battlefield commander also directly sworn to obey President Biden, what would you do if ordered to assassinate Trump?
Would you command your SEAL team to the task, knowing you as their commander might at some future date be charged?
 
Rampage said:
"Was Sotomayor sending Biden a hint?" R #322
Click to expand...
Hmmm
I would have doubted it. But the practical reality is:
- Donald Trump's specialty is unpredictability.
"I like conflict." Trump early March 2018
Click to expand...
It appears Trump has ALREADY tried to circumvent the Constitution regarding the 2020 election outcome.
And while President Biden's dismal debate performance has dominated the headlines, let us remember:
at that same debate Trump was asked directly, yes or no, will you accept the outcome of the 2024 election.
- In the 2016 race Trump was asked the same question and replied yes, "If I win."
- & in the 2024 Biden : Trump debate Trump conditioned his acceptance by the same parameters Trump criticized the 2020 election outcome, and his dozens of felony convictions.

In that context, rescuing the Constitution itself may be an opportunity only a very few retain the power to accomplish. And they may not retain it much longer.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< the horrid irony >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

There's more than only one option.
But if Biden were to order Trump killed (or neutralized in similar questionable fashion) despite Trump's well established record as a compulsive liar, & danger to our republic,
it would be the Democrats that would shoulder the burden of political extremist.

The stupendous, agonizing irony of this:
- The primary objection to Republicans is they prioritize partisanship above citizenship, an obvious detriment to our republic. B U T !!!
- If the Democrats fail to prevent Trump* from trashing our Constitution, ending our republic, are then the Democrats not also however ironically, paradoxically also prioritizing partisanship above patriotism?

* This window of opportunity remains open until November. Even more radical, arguably up until noon on inauguration day. More radical still in the JFK scenario, after that. Extreme? ABSOLUTELY ! Is it ever justifiable to have to break the law to preserve the law?

Note:
This topic, this post is not advocating any illegal act. This speech is well protected by the Constitution's First Amendment (for the moment).
The purpose of the views discussed here reflect a patriot's perspective sworn to uphold the Constitution. It's a service for public enlightenment, not mob riot (as in Jan 6).
 
HHZm6SY.png
 
Shiftless2 said:
#324
Click to expand...
I'm an enthusiastic fan of concise political cartoon, caricature.

But sometimes, as in the case of #324 the concise message may actually be disinformation.

It's undeniably true that during Biden's tenure more than one stock market index has reached record high. Biden's is not the first presidential administration for such record.

The insidious flaw in #324 is this superlative achievement if related to Biden's performance at all, is related to Biden's previous performance, not the issue in the -shall the Dems replace Biden- controversy.

Biden's tragic self-embarrassment in debate against Trump demonstrates substantial Biden mental decline.

The question voters must contend with this November: wadawe do now ?!

As charming, uplifting to Democrats as #324 may be, this cartoon obfuscates rather than clarifies.
 
Shiftless2 said:
Takei on Japanese American internment after Pearl Harbor #326
Click to expand...

Korematsu v. United States​

1944 U.S. Supreme Court case upholding the internment of Japanese Americans

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld the internment of Japanese Americans from the West Coast Military Area during World War II. The decision has been widely criticized, with some scholars describing it as "an odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry", and as "a stain on American jurisprudence". The case is often cited as one of the worst Supreme Court decisions of all time. Chief Justice John Roberts repudiated the Korematsu decision in his majority opinion in the 2018 case of Trump v. Hawaii.
In the aftermath of Imperial Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt had issued Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, authorizing the U.S. War Department to create military areas from which any or all Americans might be excluded. Subsequently, the Western Defense Command, a U.S. Army military command charged with coordinating the defense of the West Coast of the United States, ordered "all persons of Japanese ancestry, including aliens and non-aliens" to relocate to internment camps. However, a 23-year-old Japanese-American man, Fred Korematsu, refused to leave the exclusion zone and instead challenged the order on the grounds that it violated the Fifth Amendment.
In a majority opinion joined by five other justices, Associate Justice Hugo Black held that the need to protect against espionage by Japan outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry. Black wrote that "Korematsu was not excluded from the Military Area because of hostility to him or his race", but rather "because the properly constituted military authorities...decided that the military urgency of the situation demanded that all citizens of Japanese ancestry be segregated from the West Coast" during the war against Japan. Dissenting justices Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, and Owen J. Roberts all criticized the exclusion as racially discriminatory; Murphy wrote that the exclusion of Japanese "falls into the ugly abyss of racism" and resembled "the abhorrent and despicable treatment of minority groups by the dictatorial tyrannies which this nation is now pledged to destroy."
The Korematsu opinion was the first instance in which the Supreme Court applied the strict scrutiny standard of review to racial discrimination by the government; it is one of only a handful of cases in which the Court held that the government met this standard. Korematsu's conviction was voided by a California district court in 1983 on the grounds that Solicitor General Charles H. Fahy had suppressed a report from the Office of Naval Intelligence which stated there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were acting as spies for Japan. The Japanese-Americans who were interned were later granted reparations through the Civil Liberties Act of 1988.
More from Wikipedia

Note:
The major distinction is, despite Korematsu trampling the rights of Japanese Americans, it was as Wiki states above:
Associate Justice Hugo Black held that the need to protect against espionage by Japan outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese ancestry.
Click to expand...
it was however horrendously wrong-headed in 20:20 hindsight, a frightened attempt to preserve the union, the Constitution.

In stark contrast, the MAGA horde is a substantially greater danger to our Constitution than the emperor.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"Trump allies at Heritage [supporters of Project 2025] declare 2024 election illegitimate in advance" #332
Click to expand...
note:
During the CNN Biden / Trump debate Trump was directly questioned by moderator on this point, requesting a yes or no reply, about whether Trump would accept the outcome of the 2024 election.

Trump responded, but refused to reply as the moderator directed.

It's old news.
That was an issue in 2016. Trump's reply was he wouldn't make issue of it, "if I win".
 
Shiftless2 said:
- Trump is a scab and a billionaire - UAW

Trump didn't like it
Click to expand...

scab (skăb)
n.
5. a. A worker who refuses membership in a labor union.
b. An employee who works while others are on strike; a strikebreaker.
c. A person hired to replace a striking worker.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition copyright ©2022 by HarperCollins Publishers. All rights reserved.

Evidently I missed something.

I seriously doubt Trump's a billionaire, though he may wish we think so. I think Trump is a Potemkin village.

Shiftless2 said:
#338
Click to expand...
I get it.
More lies.
Trump is such a prolific liar, seems to me the headline would be if he told the truth. Not much risk of that evidently.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top