tvc184

If you are just making an opinion statement, sure. If you are talking a legality, not so much. In that case the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

That pesky First Amendment sfain…..

Biden would have to withdraw from the race and release his delegates. Each state has its own laws on if they allow releasing of delegates. I am just guessing that a majority of states would allow delegates to be released by the candidate. If Biden is formally nominated at the convention, only he can call it off by his own resignation. Then the DNC decides on a replacement without delegates.

Mine expires this month so one last time. Since the fees are the same it just saves 15 minutes but that’s a pain in the butt we won’t have to worry about. What a brilliant move by the state.

Two political opponents pointing to each other and calling each other a liar….. Is like two roosters fighting and then pointing to the other and calling him a chicken.

Trump was indicted for his activities on January 6. He appealed the indictment to the District Court (trial court) and the way I read it, they pretty much said he has no immunity, period. So he appealed to the Circuit Court which is not a trial court, but is a constitutional court one step below the US Supreme Court. Both the District Court and the Circuit Court denied even reviewing the case. I believe they simply said that a former president has no such immunity. The US Supreme Court then took up the case on a constitutional basis. Remember at this point there has been no trial so no facts of the case have come out. It has been only appeals on the constitutionality of immunity. The Supreme Court ruling today said that the president has absolute immunity for constitutional authority (conclusive and preclusive). What that means to me is, if it’s something the Constitution gives him the authority to do, he absolutely cannot have charges filed against him. An easy example that I can think of is the Constitution makes him the commander-in-chief of the military. So if a president authorizes the military to do something such as Reagan authorizing the bombing of Libya in retaliation for terrorist attacks, the president cannot be sued or held to criminal charges because some civilians in Libya got killed. That is his authority as commander-in-chief and protection of the country. The Supreme Court then ruled that the president has presumed official acts immunity. A presumption under law in a case such as this means that it is assumed that the person accused, such as a president, is not guilty. The presumption is that he followed the law. The presumption does allow however for the prosecution to try and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the presumption does not exist. The person accused does not have to prove anything. The president does not have to prove that he had immunity. The prosecution has to prove that more likely yes than no that he didn’t have immunity. So technically there’s an opening to prosecute but you start out with the presumption that the person accused is not guilty with nothing to prove. As an example, the president has wide authority in many areas including issuing some executive orders. Those are authorities as official acts. If the president was to do something like order the unjustified jailing of a political opponent in an upcoming election and order the opponent held in Gitmo to keep from campaigning, that would not be included under an official act immunity. So it is possible to overcome the presumption of immunity but it will take quite a bit of work. The president has no immunity whatsoever that is outside of constitutional authority or an official act. As an example of the president gets drunk and manages to sneak past his Secret Service bodyguard. He gets in the car and drives DWI and kills someone. That is not covered under an official act so he could be held accountable for a homicide. So…. For constitutional authorities, the president has absolute immunity. For an official act, he has presumed immunity. Anything outside of a constitutional or official act, such as driving DWI, has no immunity. In this ruling the Supreme Court vacated the indictment because the District Court, and the Circuit Court did not even consider immunity. The Supreme Court did not clear Trump because at this point they have not even heard the evidence. All they issued was a constitutional ruling that the lower courts have to at least consider immunity under the rule that they just established. Therefore the case goes back to the prosecution to bring a case at the trial court level and try to prove that whatever Trump is accused of, it was not an official act. Certainly the DOJ could read this Supreme Court ruling and drop the case, saying that they cannot overcome immunity. I’m not going to hold my breath, waiting for the DOJ to come to that conclusion. Simply disagreeing with a president actions does not disprove immunity. I disagreed with some of the things that Biden did such as ordering vaccines for some workers. Some of that was appealed and the courts threw out some of those mandates, especially under OSHSA. I don’t think Biden could be prosecuted however for issuing an executive order to one of his federal agencies because that is probably covered under an official act immunity. Not liking it does not automatically qualified as a crime. Therefore…. Can the DOJ try to again get an indictment against Trump and try to prove in court that he is not covered by one of the immunities listed? Yes. The Supreme Court has stated that under their ruling absolute immunity must be taken into consideration for a constitutional act and presumed immunity must be taken into consideration for an official act. Let’s just say that the DOJ pushed this case again and convince the trial court and the appeals court that Trump has no immunity and they get a criminal conviction. At their discretion, the Supreme Court can take this case up again since the trial would have been held and the Supreme Court could see how the lower courts came to their conclusion. The Supreme Court could agree that with the lower courts that there was no immunity and a conviction stands or they could say, y'all weren't paying attention to our ruling and they can throw the whole case out. If you don’t want to read all of that…… To date the ruling is, yes a former president has immunity from what he did in office and by law that must be taken into consideration under the rules that the Supreme Court just set. The rest will play out in the future.

The DNC push to install (not elect) Hillary as the heir apparent is what started the chain of elections since 2012. It will finally play out this year. In 2028 we won’t have a bunch of 80 year olds fighting for a spot. Had 2016 been a completely fair primary from the DNC, Hillary would not have been the Democrats’ nominee. Anyone but Hillary would have beaten Trump but they wanted their female president and a Clinton at that. So they installed one of the worst candidates ever. That have Trump his stunning victory which in turn started TDS, ABT, etc.

Trump and a player to be named later.

I didn’t read your comment before I posted. I thought that Virginia was the test case for at birth abortions but it failed.

That is because Virginia attempted to pass a law that allowed a single physician to allow an at birth abortion for as little as the mental health of the mother. I believe the current law reads that three doctors had to concur that there was substantial risk of death to the mother before a third trimester abortion could be performed. The change would have made it up to birth, a single physician signing off on it and as little as the mental health of the mother. It failed but the “want to” was clearly out there from Democrats.

There are so many laws on ballots that it could probably be a degree course. Some say things like, you have to declare your party before January 1 each election year (so in the previous year) and you can’t change. So a potential candidate can’t declare to be a Democrat in December 2023 and then in May 2024 decide to file paperwork to run as a Republican. Each state is different though on dates (including actually different dates on “major” and “minor” parties), appeals, party affiliations, changes to the ballot by any means and so on. The Nevada alone for the 2023-2024 elections season is 9 pages with links to other pages. The states combined might have thousands of pages of election information. The Texas Election Code has about 160…. Chapters. I could understand where a person could read a line or two and say, “Aha! That’s the answer” and ignore 567 pages.

Maybe you think that the Nevada Secretary of State, who has to certify the election, is wrong? I didn’t notice any links to your Kirk article. Is anything posted to back this up or is it simply a claim?

This is what the Nevada Secretary of State shows for ballot deadlines on the last Friday in June: June 28, 2024 CHALLENGE OF CANDIDACY - (not later than 5 p.m. on the 4th Friday in June) Last day for filing with the appropriate filing officer challenge of qualification of an independent candidate for a partisan office. SO IT’S THE LAST DAY!! …. to file an appeal of qualifications of an “independent candidate” for any partisan office. I don’t think we are discussing independent candidates.

Yes.

The “too late” for Biden or anyone is approaching but in all states likely 6-10 weeks away. That isn’t long but has almost certainly the date to be on the ballot has not passed for any state.

I forgot to add, I think that Kirk is misguided in his conclusions.

Fact: The deadlines exist. Fact: The candidate doesn’t have to be named by the deadline. I read the Wisconsin law and didn’t bother with the rest when I posted. It listed the fourth Friday at 5pm as the deadline to submit for the filing of the party. Under the name of the candidate it stated something like (I don’t feel like looking it up again at this moment), “To be determined by the party’s procedures at a later date”. So it says that you have to submit that your party wants to place a candidate on the ballot by the date listed. It goes on to say basically, to be determined by the party at a later date. There are other dates for the party to actually name the person. I believe it was yesterday that I saw a video (unconfirmed by me) that Ohio had to have the ballot complete by August 7(?). I only bring that one up to show that there are definitely deadlines for the actual name on the ballot. Just now I pulled up Nevada. In the OP it shows Midnight on the fourth Friday to remove Biden. This is what I found from the Nevada Secretary of State official website: September 3, 2024 LAST DAY FOR MAJOR POLITICAL PARTIES TO PROVIDE SECRETARY OF STATE NAMES OF PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES - Each major political party must provide the names of the party's respective candidates for President and Vice President of the United States to the Secretary of State by not later than 5 p.m. on the first business day of September of the year of a presidential election. So the SoS official Nevada website shows September 3, 2024 (first business day since September 2 is Labor Day) as the final day that major political parties can submit a presidential and vice presidential candidate for the ballot. That doesn’t exactly square with the claim in the OP where the deadline passed last night.

I will note that you started a thread this week on why the presidential debate when the candidates weren’t know. Correct so how could a state demand an unknown person?

Thoughts… Nonsense and taken way out of context. There are ballot deadlines but this is not talking about the final ballot deadline for a specific person on the November general election. Those deadlines I believe are for political parties to submit to the state that the party intends to put up a candidate. It isn’t for naming the candidate. So the DNC and RNC have until those listed dates to say, we plan to put our candidate on the ballot in November. It doesn’t require naming the candidate. That date will come later but there are no conventions ever held that early with almost all DNC and RNC conventions being held in July and August. How could a state demand a name when no one knows the name in June in most presidential elections years. So the dates are correct but the context is absolutely false in my opinion.

Miracle recovery.

Obviously It is listed in the link that you copied. There were over 1,000 defendants and the link in the OP said over 350 were affected. The government made up a part of a law that didn’t exist or wildly misinterpreted the law.

Regulations? Probably. Fees? Probably not. If Congress enacted a fee or if they gave an agency that authority to regulate a fee, it would probably be lawful. It is like if Texas passed a law (which I think they did) that said the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission has the authority to set the length and possession limits on fish, then they can do so because the legislature gave them that specific authority. If they were not given the specific authority, it would be unlawful. In this case a federal law was passed that the inspectors had to be on the fishing boats to regulate the commercial fishing catch. The law did not say who would pay for the federal inspectors to ride on the boats. They were federal employee so you would assume the federal government would pay their salary like any employer. The federal agency controlling fishing however, decided to make the commercial fishing fleet pay the salaries of the federal agents. Nothing in the law said that and nothing in the law gave the agency the authority to force a salary on a private company. Under the Chevron case from 1984, the Supreme Court (stupidly in my opinion) ruled that if there was any ambiguity in the law, a federal agency could basically fill in the blanks. Now they have to use the rule of lenity or strict construction. If a law is ambiguous or not clear, the courts should rule in favor of the person accused. The federal agency can’t make up their own opinion as law.

Huge case. Federal agencies can’t make up their own rules and definitions.

That was certainly the spin from MSNBC and CNN. I watched both after the debate. Biden looked terrible…. it was a poor performance… BUT he hit hard with facts … blah blah. So apparently they believe (as MSNBC and CNN said), Biden hit them with facts! Really, like Biden closed the border? Does anyone believe the border was ever secured under Biden? Or perhaps when Biden said in the debate, I am the only president in this century to not have troops dying anywhere in the world. Hmm… like maybe the ones killed during the disastrous quick abandonment of Afghanistan where 13 soldiers, Marines and sailors were killed? There were more than 20 others killed including in a recent drone attack. I wonder what the families of over 30 service men and women think about Biden saying that they weren’t killed with several from his pullout orders? Biden, the Border Patrol union supported me! No, they didn’t and went on the television after the debate to dispute the claim Biden, Black unemployment is the lowest it’s been in a long time. No, it’s currently at 6.1%. It was 5.6% under Trump in May 2020 before Covid put a substantial percentage of people out of work. In the middle of 2019 under Trump it was at 5.5% for Blacks in total and Black females at 4.4%. Trump has always been an exaggerator and blow hard narcissist and everything he did was always “the best”. To suggest however that Trump’s comments were lies and ignore the lies by Biden is silly.

Both MSNBC and CNN are about to have Harris on live. Any chance that she comes in and says what a great job he did? 🤣🤣🤣 Chris Wallace just said, Biden has sunk his campaign.