Elon Musk: Always A Douche

[Tamas]

If they open a loophole for Musk, Schwarzenegger must step into it.

[HVC]

If they open a loophole for Musk, Schwarzenegger must step into it.

A trump V Arnold debate would be a beautiful thing to behold.

[Caliga]

If they open a loophole for Musk, Schwarzenegger must step into it.

I would love it if Schwarzenegger took over from Musk.  He could toss him out by the seat of his pants and say "now GET YA ASS TO MAHS!"

[mongers]

My theory was the Gaza thread gave you a brain clot.

That was mine,too. Good to see you back m

Glad you and the other crew are still inhabiting this cool, dank place. 

[The Brain]

Everything suggests that Musk will be the next GOP president after Trump.

He can't before Trump suspends the constitution.

Or Musk just runs. Who would stop him?

[Grey Fox]

Everything suggests that Musk will be the next GOP president after Trump.

He can't before Trump suspends the constitution.

Or Musk just runs. Who would stop him?

Well, before it was the SCOTUS. Nowadays, you are right, no one.

[Barrister]

Have I said this before, or merely thought it?

The 6 conservative justices are definitely very ideological.  But they're not "in the bag" for Trump either.  They were Federalist Society hard-cores.

As such they will (and have) gone along with some very, lets call it controversial, decisions.  But just because those were in line with long-standing Federalist Society principles.

Don't put too much faith in the USSC (for example I'm not sure what they'd do with the birthright citizenship idea) but I don't think they'll just flatly ignore the language of the constitution either just because Trump says so.

[Razgovory]

SCOTUS also ruled that Trump isn't really bound by the law.

[Barrister]

SCOTUS also ruled that Trump isn't really bound by the law.

But again - long-standing Federalist Society thoughts.

It's why Bill Barr worked for Trump.  Bill Barr hates Trump.  But he saw being AG as a way to promote his ideas about a strong executive branch.

I'm not trying to argue that the USSC is going to save the world or anything.  But they're independent actors not always tied to Trump.

If you're (I dunno) AMy Coney Barrett - it's one thing to vote in favour of striking down Roe v Wade, or holding that the President is immune from criminal prosecutions while in office.  It's another to say the 22nd Amendment is invalid.

[HVC]

Striking the 22nd is pretty mild compared to the other two scenarios you mentioned. Well, the citizen part anyway.

[Barrister]

Striking the 22nd is pretty mild compared to the other two scenarios you mentioned. Well, the citizen part anyway.

22nd Amendment is what limits Presidents to 2 terms.

But the thing is - 22nd Amendment is absolutely clear about what it does.  Trying to read in a right to privacy / right to abortions into the Constitution is nowhere near so clear.  Yes, the Dobbs decision might be more meaningful to more Americans, but it's at least more understandable interpretation of the Constitution.

[The Minsky Moment]

SCOTUS also ruled that Trump isn't really bound by the law.

But again - long-standing Federalist Society thoughts.

No that is what was so shocking about that ruling.  The Fed Society favors the unitary executive, but that is a doctrine that respects, the separation of powers and is based in an orginalist conception of constitutional authority.  The notion of Presidential immunity from prosecution is fundamentally contrary to an originalist "tradition and history" approach, because the concept flagrantly contradicts original understanding, the very purpose of the American Revolution and constitutional system, the literal text, and two and half centuries of historical practice.

[The Minsky Moment]

But the thing is - 22nd Amendment is absolutely clear about what it does. 

So is 14th amendment birth citizenship yet apparently "scholars" can be found to say the words don't mean what they say.

[Admiral Yi]

No that is what was so shocking about that ruling.  The Fed Society favors the unitary executive, but that is a doctrine that respects, the separation of powers and is based in an orginalist conception of constitutional authority.  The notion of Presidential immunity from prosecution is fundamentally contrary to an originalist "tradition and history" approach, because the concept flagrantly contradicts original understanding, the very purpose of the American Revolution and constitutional system, the literal text, and two and half centuries of historical practice.

The only thing I see in the Constitution about president's committing crimes is the articles of impeachment.

[Barrister]

But the thing is - 22nd Amendment is absolutely clear about what it does. 

So is 14th amendment birth citizenship yet apparently "scholars" can be found to say the words don't mean what they say.

...and it'll be very interesting to see what the USSC does with such a case.  I don't think the outcome would be a foregone conclusion either way.