bob_sauve28

Colton Orr

The court just gave presidents freedom to do anything. This is so bad it is hard to get my head around. They just destroyed the Constitution https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immunity-supreme-court/ Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here: The immunity is absolute There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified,” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts. Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear. Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity. And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office. Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires. There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn’t as bad as all that. These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” and so they will say that everything is fine. But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says “unofficial” acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially”? Take the now-classic example of a president ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival. According to the logic of the Republicans on the Supreme Court, that would likely be an official act. According to their logic, there is also no way to prove it’s “unofficial,” because any conversation the president has with their military advisers (where, for instance, the president tells them why they want a particular person assassinated) is official and cannot be used against them. There will doubtless be people still wondering if Trump can somehow be prosecuted: The answer is “no.” Special counsel Jack Smith will surely argue that presenting fake electors in connection with his cadre of campaign sycophants was not an “official act.” Lower-court judges may well agree. But when that appeal gets back to the Supreme Court next year, the same justices who just ruled that Trump is entitled to absolute immunity will surely rule that submitting fake electors was also part of Trump’s “official” responsibilities.

I don't see us as a serious cup team next year, but point taken

It would be nice, of course, but the top six we have now, a little older, a step closer to their prime, and undeniably talented, could get the job done, imo

If you are happy with the top six (seven if you include Zucker) then I have to think you are happy with how this has gone. If you think Tage, Tuch, Benson, JJP, Quinn and Cozens are not good enough, then we are not better.

They look harder to play against, perhaps more mature and from what some posters are saying, faster. It's up to the core group we have to do their job

I wonder if these signings move us off the spot of youngest team in the league?

Malkin's line mate, that's a pretty good endorsement for him right there.

Playoff team yet? Top six should score some goals, bottom six looks solid, two good goaltenders and a defense that is above average and has depth Injuries to the top six could deflate this team pretty quick, but that's probably true of most teams They should make playoffs this coming year

My friend's cat was named Gilbert, she was a good kitty...

Something wrong with fax machine here?

We will be tougher to play against this year, I hope then

What do you like about him?

Not our money, so who cares!

Why can't he be a compliment to Greenway. No way we get rid of Greenway!

I’m usually better when scumbags don’t respond to my posts So you can make me happy, just don’t ever bother me again

I don’t love you at all, why the “too”? I think you are scum

You can eat sh it Happy for Erod, though Oh, the “expert” around here were happy to get rid of him

Barkov is such a poser He hit him in the chest

My father? Really?

Yes, monstrous crime against humanity! Maybe you should go take a dump on his grave

Congrats, you picks out an (almost) 50 year old typo. 👏

Not following

This one from '75 is a Sabres story, also. I had to blow it up and look for the name, but sure enough, Bob Sauve was drafted on this day by the Sabres! Good call Kevin Adams!