The New York Times ‘ Michael Barbaro deserves praise for always making the most of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the president’s resistance. Or more probable, fail to.
On Tuesday’s release of the Times ‘” Daily” radio, Barbaro and Supreme Court journalist Adam Liptak mulled over the decision, and at the very end of the season, Barbaro had his awakening. Another way to consider this decision, he said, is that the Supreme Court has a saying that, dear National people, you have to accept that the Constitution gives them a lot of energy and constitutional longitude to kind of do what they want.
Barbaro was cooking. You may feel it.
He continued his discovery. Because of this, voters need to consider very carefully who they want to have this level of immunity because we, the Supreme Court, are going to render it quite difficult to hold that leader illegally accountable for their actions, he said.
I can picture Barbaro swelling with delight over effectively pursuing that natural course of thought. He did it! He actually succeeded!
I merely wish the rest of his media and Democrat Party colleagues would do the same.
Democrats and leftist triflers scurried to the Internet to profanity claim that the court had just given American presidents the authority to kill babies and rape nuns immediately following the ruling, which held that a president who discharged his constitutional duties cannot be held criminally liable for them once they are in office ( duh ).
Hmm, I do n’t see anything in Article II that says that. Sometimes I’m missing anything.
They speculated that presently President Biden may be able to attack Donald Trump.
The court’s decision was certainly ambiguous, to the level that lower courts were ultimately tasked with determining what constitutes “official” perform by the president. However, it was made obvious that no one who spoke to the president’s office during his administration’s discussions is subject to prosecution. In essence, anyone who wants to bring charges against a former leader must be able to demonstrate with absolute certainty that it was done for a just cause and not simply because, say, they were hungry.
This was accepted for the past 230 times and was more or less implied. Then 2016, and because Democrats refused to accept the benefits of an election, they decided it was time to see how far this nation you stretch before it fails. You are aware of this, just like the real guards of morality and politics.
The court expressly stated what it did because there is no other way to make this system work if we do n’t elect people we can trust to do the right thing to keep it going. You learn a lot about who is currently in power when you even try to mingle with the notion that it would be appropriate to illegally prosecute a former elected official, let alone a former U.S. president, for challenging election results. And that their answer to the decision was n’t,” Yeah, even we took it too far”, but,” So we can legally attack Trump, best”? says the remainder.
They either do n’t understand it, or they’re ready to end it.
I’m happy Michael Barbaro at least comprehends it.
