Total tangent here, but re-reading the ruling has got me wondering where in the Constitution the Originalists found this principle.

I would say the basic separation of powers. If you can drag the president before the courts for any act taken in office, then the president is not the executive; the court system is.

Lower courts decide they can’t determine

That is a nonsensical position. Perhaps a judge determines they are not capable, and recuses themselves or otherwise resigns from the case: the case is reassigned to another judge. But any nitwit can make some sort of decision and support it with some sort of rationale.

The trial court judge cannot “send it up the courts”. They render a decision, and one of the litigants - not the judge - petitions the appellate court, arguing that the trial court’s rationale was wrong.

And since they set no standards, can determine them on partisan lines.

That is, and always has been, a risk in the judicial system established by our constitution. The checks and balances the legislative and judicial branch have against the court are few and weak.

At best, If SCOTUS engages in such shenanigans, such shenanigans will be engaged against SCOTUS: court packing, etc. Ultimately, though, the only real limit on the court is the willingness of We The People to accept its decisions.

Personally, and this is off on a tangent, I think we are due for a fundamental change to the way we empanel the courts, to reduce the politicization of the court. Instead of fixing the size of the court at 9, I think we should ignore the size of the court entirely, and just appoint one new, life-term justice in the first and third year of each presidential term. Any justice who dies or resigns is not replaced. The courts composition shifts on a slow, but steady pace. It does not stagnate due to justices timing their retirements for when a favorable replacement can be made. Nor does it lurch wildly when a justice gets that timing wrong and dies with the wrong party in the white house.

Further, I would adjust the confirmation process. If the president nominates a candidate who has been previously confirmed to a circuit court, no additional confirmation is required. The president thus has a small pool of qualified candidates he can elevate to the court directly, without needing to involve a hostile Senate.

No catch-22.

“Admissibility” refers to what the jury can hear, not the judge. The judge gets to hear about the act, and rule on it. If he rules it official, the jury never heard about it. If he rules it unofficial, the prosecutor is free to present it as evidence at trial.

You just have to convince a judge that the act was outside of his official duties.

Correct. That’s all you have to do.

and by the way, the evidence that the act was outside of his official duties is not admissible in court.

Correct. If the judge rules the act was official, it cannot be used as evidence at trial. On the other hand, when the judge rules it is not an official act, it is admissible. So again, you just have to convince the judge it wasn’t an official act.

What crime is Trump accused of where the only evidence of criminality is an official act? Answer: none. Not one. If he had stuck only to “official” acts, there would be no cause to charge him.

he can appeal the ruling. All the way back to the Supreme Court.

You are not actually suggesting that an accused criminal should not have access to an appeals process, so that criticism is invalid.

He is only immune from acts that fall within his job description. If you want to criminally charge the president for one of his actions, you will have to convince a judge that the act was outside his job description.

SCOTUS didn’t grant his immunity requests. They sent the case back to the trial court and told them “make sure you specify that this action was outside the scope of his official duties before you make your ruling”.

That’s it. SCOTUS didn’t do him any favors.

Women have enough problems with unwanted male interaction, not to mention so many lies about women’s anatomy. This makes it so much worse.

In this hypothetical, men switch from having a sexual interest in women 52/52 weeks a year to 4/52 weeks a year. I would expect a >92% reduction in “unwanted male interaction”.

I’ll take the entrails of a priest.

Joenald Triden

Convince Biden to drop out of the race about a week before the Democratic National Convention, citing health reasons, and name a millennial candidate who grew up on a farm with wind turbines and solar panels, before enlisting for 2+ terms, and moving to a middle-class area of a blue state after separating. Turn the convention into a media frenzy, energizing the Democratic base.

Undercuts Trump among rural Americans and veterans. Reverses all of Trump’s old and senile attacks against Biden, as he suddenly becomes the geriatric candidate. Keeps all of Biden’s supporters, while stepping away from the “genocide” criticism.

Basically, if Biden backs out a week before the convention and names someone in their 40’s, they can run on a platform of “Ok, boomer” and reach 270.

Is there anything you have done for which, if I had done the same actions, I would be irredeemable?

Is there anything that you have done, for which if I had done, you would expect me to jump into the volcano?

Feel free to judge yourself just a tiny bit more harshly than you would judge others. But only slightly. Give yourself as much of a break as you would give me after expressing remorse for my actions.

I imagine we’ll synthesize whatever chemical is inhibiting the methane production and it’ll become a standard feed supplement.

Hopefully, it can be produced by some type of GMO grass and can be sown into hay fields.

https://caes.ucdavis.edu/news/feeding-cattle-seaweed-reduces-their-greenhouse-gas-emissions-82-percent

We The People do not recognize your small group as independent. You are living in our society, utilizing our roads, our government, industrial, and commercial infrastructure. Your declaration of independence is nonsensical so long as you are dependent on the rest of us.

We The People.

Some of y’all motherfuckers need to take a goddamn civics class.

Or, and hear me out on this: terrorist doesn’t mean “fucking anything ever”. The term actually only refers to those who use or threaten unlawful violence in an attempt to achieve an effect that could only be lawfully acquired through executive, legislative, judicial, or democratic processes.

If I wanted your clothes, I wouldn’t have left them at goodwill.

“Disrespectful” would be telling you that you in particular should continue to use windows or mac, and avoid Linux like the plague.

Do you actually want to run an application that doesn’t exist on Linux?

I use a virtual machines for the 2 or 3 times a year I need to use a couple garbage windows-only programs. Usually for configuring some arcane piece of proprietary hardware that people were getting rid of because it is incompatible with everything.

Well, yeah. I mean, help desk deals with users at their moment of peak incompetence. If 1 in 20 users can’t figure out that “Office” is now “Libre office”, help desk is going to be swamped.

The solution is to merge help desk and HR, so that something productive can be done about PEBCAK issues.

Uh huh.

I have zero doubt that you would call 911 should the “need” arise. So you’re a terrorist as well. As am I. There is literally zero distinction between you, me, and Mohamed Atta.

A puppy would qualify as a terrorist. A house cat. A sheep. A blackberry bush. An amoeba qualifies as a terrorist under this insane definition.