My Dream For White Liberals

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

if you'd stop blaming everyone else maybe you'd do better in life...

I only blame myself. If I was obsessed with having the perfect life, I would be miserable. More so. All I need is love. One hour at a time.

[winn dixie]

Just a heads up.. Lets not draw unneeded attention to our forum. We all have gone a little too far in the past few days..

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Just a heads up.. Lets not draw unneeded attention to our forum. We all have gone a little too far in the past few days..

Well, it has been a pretty monumental week. A shitload of fiscal legislation. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the POTUS' hidden income case. The POTUS had a Twitter beef with a sixteen-year-old environmental activist. The POTUS calls our FBI scum. Oh, and he was adjudicated to have lied when he swore the oath of office.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Well, it has been a pretty monumental week. A shitload of fiscal legislation. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the POTUS' hidden income case. The POTUS had a Twitter beef with a sixteen-year-old environmental activist. The POTUS calls our FBI scum. Oh, and he was adjudicated to have lied when he swore the oath of office.

what hidden income? the hidden income the IRS hasn't found in 30+ years of auditing Trump's returns or some other hidden income?


the Supreme Court has ruled on this before. and it favors Trump over Congress.



The Fight Over Trump’s Tax Returns Will End Up in the Supreme Court – Here’s Why

https://www.heritage.org/courts/comm...ourt-heres-why


"In a 1957 case, Watkins v. U.S., the Supreme Court told the House Un-American Activities Committee that “there is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure” and especially not the “private affairs” of individuals."


"Furthermore, according to the high court, Congress can’t use its investigation to act like a “law enforcement or trial agency” – or, as Consovoy put it in a follow-up letter to the Treasury Department Monday, like “a junior-varsity IRS, rerunning individual examinations or flyspecking the agency’s calculations.”


even Politico knows Congress won't get them


Why Congress Might Not Get Trump's Tax Returns

https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...returns-226571


"First, the law. While it is true that IRS Code 6103(f) appears to give the committee the power to get tax returns, the statute must be exercised in a way consistent with Congress’ constitutional authority. The Supreme Court has said Congress has broad authority to conduct inquiries but that its authority is not unlimited. In the 1881 case Kilbourn v. Thompson, the Supreme Court held that Congress can’t use its powers to delve into someone’s private financial matters unless there is a proper legislative purpose. In 1957, the Supreme Court held in Watkins v. U.S. that a congressional information demand must relate to a “legitimate task of the Congress” and noted that Congress is not a “law enforcement agency” that can seek information to uncover or expose crimes.


So the legal question will be: Is Congress’ purpose in seeking the president’s tax returns legitimate? As an initial matter, Congress cannot plausibly argue that it is exercising its impeachment authority, since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic leaders have explicitly disclaimed that the House is conducting an impeachment inquiry."


this is settled by the Court. what makes you think they'll change their minds now especially with a conservative majority?

[eccieuser9500]

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1981/79-1738

Nixon v. Fitzgerald

Facts of the case

In 1968, Fitzgerald, then a civilian analyst with the United States Air Force, testified before a congressional committee about inefficiencies and cost overruns in the production of the C-5A transport plane. Roughly one year later he was fired, an action for which President Nixon took responsibility. Fitzgerald then sued Nixon for damages after the Civil Service Commission concluded that his dismissal was unjust.

Question

Was the President immune from prosecution in a civil suit?

Conclusion

Yes. The Court held that the President "is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts." This sweeping immunity, argued Justice Powell, was a function of the "President's unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of separation of powers and supported by our history."

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what hidden income? the hidden income the IRS hasn't found in 30+ years of auditing Trump's returns or some other hidden income?


It's hidden, dork.




this is settled by the Court. what makes you think they'll change their minds now especially with a conservative majority?

First, they agreed to hear the case. So it's not settled. There is still a dispute. Second, he has to answer the emoluments question. Last, and most important, this is the case that will narrow the definition of separation of powers.

The Judicial branch has to tell the Executive branch that he is not above the Legislative branch. Seperate but equal. So to speak. Oooohh! Highfalutin stuff! You have to think basic sometimes. Basic civics. Don't overthink it.

The Supreme Court Should Tell Trump He Is Not Above the Law

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/o...eme-court.html

Mr. Trump’s lawyers cite in their defense of absolute immunity the Supreme Court ruling in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which said the president was entitled to “absolute immunity” from damages in civil suits on matters that pertain to a president’s official duties. But the tax matter before the court involves a criminal investigation, not a lawsuit, and focuses on hush-money payments made to two women just before the 2016 presidential election, when Mr. Trump was a private citizen.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

First, they agreed to hear the case. So it's not settled. There is still a dispute. Second, he has to answer the emoluments question. Last, and most important, this is the case that will narrow the definition of separation of powers.

The Judicial branch has to tell the Executive branch that he is not above the Legislative branch. Seperate but equal. So to speak. Oooohh! Highfalutin stuff! You have to think basic sometimes. Basic civics. Don't overthink it.

The Supreme Court Should Tell Trump He Is Not Above the Law

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/15/o...eme-court.html

if you say so.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

if you say so.

Actually, I looked up the Supreme Court case after I made mine. So . . . .

No, if the Supreme Court says so.















Eat that!

Still double liking your own posts?

[eccieuser9500]

My dream for all man: be liberal.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Actually, I looked up the Supreme Court case after I made mine. So . . . .

No, if the Supreme Court says so.



Eat that!

Still double liking your own posts?

yes, maybe ..

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

My dream for all man: be liberal.

what happens when you wake up?

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

what happens when you wake up?

I realize the world isn't my oyster. It's just everyone's clam. No pearl. And I have to share the smell of the sea.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Mr Turd has a point whether you want to admit it or not. all things "White" is under attack. do you believe that "white privilege" exists? that every white person who is successful has done so solely by "white privilege"? that this vast "white culture" exists that "decides" who becomes successful and who does not?

let me give you an example of how "white privilege" worked for me. i never lived a poor day in my life, unlike my mom and dad, both of whom grew up poor during the great depression and WWII. my dad turned 15 in 1945 at the end of WWII. i don't think i need to tell you or anyone else what a golden era that was for the United States.

my granddad was a house painter, carpenter and handyman. he worked hard just to get by and didn't have the money to send my dad to UofL, which at the time was a private university. imagine trying to send a kid to a private university in the late 40's and early 50's on a handyman's earnings. not gonna happen. so my dad put himself through UofL on academic scholarships and other means. he learned to play the clarinet, taught himself to get a music scholarship to UofL by way of being in the Band. he played at the football games during the season. he raised and trained Collies for show.

so that's how he put himself through the University of Louisville. in high school he was first in his class, at UofL he was second in his class for his BA. then a little thing called Korea happened. he got two deferments to graduation then he had to join the Army for two years.
then he used some Army benefits and again academic scholarships to go to Law school at UofL, graduated first in his class and won an award called the Grawemeyer Book Award.


so what would you call that? "white privilege" or hard work?

I would call it hard work and an example of what used to make America great.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

Just a heads up.. Lets not draw unneeded attention to our forum. We all have gone a little too far in the past few days..

I wouldn't worry about it. I think about ten to twenty people read this forum on a regular basis.

Nobody cares.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

I wouldn't worry about it. I think about ten to twenty people read this forum on a regular basis.

Nobody cares.

clearly not. I don't think there is the slightest amount of moderation here. this place makes a KKK Rally look tame.

[oeb11]

or, an Anti-Fa rally??

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

clearly not. I don't think there is the slightest amount of moderation here. this place makes a KKK Rally look tame.

says heir tranny