Laugh all you want. But facts are facts. The only time such is claimed is because SCOTUS ruled in a way that the person saying it disagrees with...
Guess I'll be "that guy". I'm not trying to be rude, but it will no doubt come off as such. There's some inconsistencies in your narrative....
SCOTUS doesn't make law. Never has.
That is what needs to be determined.
I see you have yet to quote directly where anyone is arguing for wanting a king. I'll take that as an admission that your are just expressing your...
I have. Have you? You'll see that I've posted the video of the arguments in post 209, you're free to listen in. And through out the thread I've...
Yep, nowhere does any of the arguments mention "wanting a king". Nor do I want one. So, try again.
Mind showing me people saying that they want a king?
Do you think our system of Justice should be swayed by such?
You need to listen to more than just one line. The "absolute immunity" that is being talked about is only in relation to a President acting in...
Again, what is being argued before SCOTUS has nothing to do with "absolute immunity". Maybe instead of listening to a talking mouth you should...
Irrelevant to what is actually before SCOTUS. So when you said.... ...you were wrong...going by your own words.
There is far more evidence of rogue prosecutors than there is of rogue Presidents. That isn't even debatable. And its not the system that makes...
About the only time I could see it applying is if POTUS is incapacitated and the VP is temp-Prez (or fully becomes Prez). Under normal...
Separate names with a comma.