Don’t call Thomas, unless you have an RV he can have, and an expensive private jet ride to some far away place. Don’t call Alito, he’ll have to confer with his wife to see what he needs to do, or r see which flag she wants to fly protesting it. Don’t call Barrett. She won’t know what to do unless she gets her reply from Thomas, Alito, Gorsch, or Roberts. Dint call Roberts. He won’t be sober enough and will not be able to give you any opinion without finding out what Alito, Thomas are thinking.
And, be prepared to wait at least six months. It takes them that long to do anything. And then it’s wrong when they do do it. They have to wait to get the late night text from their King to figure out how to resound.
I have been a loyal Democrat all my adult life and will always vote Democratic. But whoever advises and advertises for Joe Biden should tell him to speak like the women above and advertise that way. If he can’t do that, we need someone younger to do so (younger than Robert De Niro for television).
Character, it's defined by what people actually do, and then, how they present in speech, relationships and commentary. If those don't match, you ain't got character. Biden's match. They can be counted on and he can be counted on, because his actual record shows both his intentions and the results. When we look past the stresses of his 90 minutes, which we should, we can see character shining brightly. And let's face it his overall health is much better than the other guy’s. Age isn't what it used to be, speaking as an 89-year-old, and you're much better off if you're dealing with that honestly within your own set of thoughts. If people are taken up with the distortions of MSM image-making or breaking and freaking out over it at the expense of reality of a deeper sort, we are not using our own character very well to discern the essential differences between speech and action. Speech is also action. That's something we all probably need to work on a bit harder, eh?
No, the Supreme Court did not give the President of the United States “unlimited power.” It ruled that he he has immunity from prosecution concerning any action taken within the scope of his official duties. It is, or ought to be, obvious that a president acting within the scope of his official duties cannot, by definition, be committing a crime. Admittedly there might be borderline cases, but that’s why the Constitution includes provisions for impeachment and judicial review of executive actions.
The absurd suggestion has been made that the SC’s ruling has empowered the President to order the assassination of political opponents. But the President is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Therefore any such order would be beyond the scope of his official duties—in fact a crime. No sworn federal law enforcement would obey such an order, nor would any member of the armed forces. Their oaths of office or enlistment require them to obey lawful orders only. And this stricture incorporates a positive duty to disobey unlawful orders, even if they come form the President.
It’s really irresponsible, indeed discreditable, of Democrats and progressives to be retailing such falsehoods as this frivolous claim that the Supreme Court has made the American presidency a dictatorship. The truth, I have no doubt, is that they’re mad at the SC for complicating their lawfare campaign against Donald Trump. Well, it isn’t the job of the judicial branch to facilitate that exercise. Novel theories of the law invite challenges, and due process requires time for argument and deliberation. Here, I will pass over the political impact of the lawfare campaign, except to note that it seems to have backfired, and that it’s not the responsibility of the judicial branch to clean up Jack Smith’s and Fani Willis’ messes.
You're looking at this much too narrowly. The obvious problem is that a President could claim that almost anything he or she does during their time in office is an "official duty." That, and Donald Trump's promise of "retribution" is what is getting people so concerned. Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing in 2005 said: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” It seems as if that, too has gone by the wayside. It's not the job of the judicial branch "clean up" these messes. It was Trump's duty as an American citizen not to get involved in these types of messes. He is not above the law and should be held accountable for the outrageous actions he has taken.
Once again, the Supreme Court did not pronounce that the President is above the law. Merely, it said that actions within the scope of his or her official duties conferred immunity, either absolute if the core powers of the presidency are involved, or presumptive when the issue is in dispute. In either case, presidential immunity claims are subject to judicial review. How is it that you cannot understand that? How is it that you continue to push the frivolous claim that the SC has created a presidential dictatorship? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you retail such malaraky—if I may borrow a word from Bidenspeak?
Liza - Glad I finally subscribed, but, as I guessed too late, I think the time you gave for your Zoom session was Eastern Daylight Time - correct? So, for future reference, those of us out here on the West coast should subtract three hours... I'll be there next time!
Love the cartoons..... especially the cat and mouse. Loved the commentary, too. It's so sad. "Someone with great character will know what is the right thing to do." Unfortunately, that's not the orange man. Is sleeping with a porn star while his wife is pregnant official or unofficial? Is inciting an insurrection that caused death official or unofficial? Is trying to find just a few more votes when he was losing official or unofficial? These SCers better be careful, though. They are in favor now, but if they slip up, they could incur the rath of the king and go the way of Anne Bolyn.
Liza, I love your artwork, and your analysis. You bring out some great points. One thing is for certain. If we all don’t get together and get our support behind our nominee, Trump will be back in office and we will all be screwed!
Everybody needs to take a ‘chill pill’ and calm the hell down. They need to think. If we put Trump back in office, our Democracy, Constitution, and all of our freedoms will be gone forever. He WILL do away with them. He WILL turn this into a communist dictatorship. And he WILL NOT leave office until he dies and you can bet one of his idiot offspring will step in and take his place, unless Putin wants someone else in there.
If we can get out candidate back in office, and something, God forbid, happens where he’s unable to perform his duties, we have an excellent next in line to take the helm. Vice President Harris will do a great job. She will continue with the agenda President Biden and her started 4 years ago, after they completely had to build half of the government agencies back.
That’s the bottom line. Yes, when we bite in November for Biden/Harris, we are voting to put Harris in as our president. I’m extremely comfortable with that. I’m confident she’ll do a great job fir whatever the remainder of the term is plus another term:
Americans are lacking in character. But they love jc.
RANDOM QUESTI0NS:
IF MY DOCTOR TAKES AN XRAY AND I CANT READ IT, SHOULD I SEND IT TO THE SUPREME COURT BECAUSE THEY ARE ACTING AS MEDICAL PEOPLE?
IF @#@?! IS ANNOINTED KING, WILL IT MESS HIS CURRENT HAIRDO?
Don’t call Thomas, unless you have an RV he can have, and an expensive private jet ride to some far away place. Don’t call Alito, he’ll have to confer with his wife to see what he needs to do, or r see which flag she wants to fly protesting it. Don’t call Barrett. She won’t know what to do unless she gets her reply from Thomas, Alito, Gorsch, or Roberts. Dint call Roberts. He won’t be sober enough and will not be able to give you any opinion without finding out what Alito, Thomas are thinking.
And, be prepared to wait at least six months. It takes them that long to do anything. And then it’s wrong when they do do it. They have to wait to get the late night text from their King to figure out how to resound.
I have been a loyal Democrat all my adult life and will always vote Democratic. But whoever advises and advertises for Joe Biden should tell him to speak like the women above and advertise that way. If he can’t do that, we need someone younger to do so (younger than Robert De Niro for television).
Incorporating the edict from the On High in our daily lives, excellent.
Brilliant, Liza⚡️💙🇺🇸💙👍
Thank you.
Character, it's defined by what people actually do, and then, how they present in speech, relationships and commentary. If those don't match, you ain't got character. Biden's match. They can be counted on and he can be counted on, because his actual record shows both his intentions and the results. When we look past the stresses of his 90 minutes, which we should, we can see character shining brightly. And let's face it his overall health is much better than the other guy’s. Age isn't what it used to be, speaking as an 89-year-old, and you're much better off if you're dealing with that honestly within your own set of thoughts. If people are taken up with the distortions of MSM image-making or breaking and freaking out over it at the expense of reality of a deeper sort, we are not using our own character very well to discern the essential differences between speech and action. Speech is also action. That's something we all probably need to work on a bit harder, eh?
LIZA, THANK YOU FOR SUCH AN INTERESTING ZOOM. IT WAS GOOD TO BE WITH MY PEOPLE
Glad to see you!! Thanks for coming.
No, the Supreme Court did not give the President of the United States “unlimited power.” It ruled that he he has immunity from prosecution concerning any action taken within the scope of his official duties. It is, or ought to be, obvious that a president acting within the scope of his official duties cannot, by definition, be committing a crime. Admittedly there might be borderline cases, but that’s why the Constitution includes provisions for impeachment and judicial review of executive actions.
The absurd suggestion has been made that the SC’s ruling has empowered the President to order the assassination of political opponents. But the President is the nation’s chief law enforcement officer and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Therefore any such order would be beyond the scope of his official duties—in fact a crime. No sworn federal law enforcement would obey such an order, nor would any member of the armed forces. Their oaths of office or enlistment require them to obey lawful orders only. And this stricture incorporates a positive duty to disobey unlawful orders, even if they come form the President.
It’s really irresponsible, indeed discreditable, of Democrats and progressives to be retailing such falsehoods as this frivolous claim that the Supreme Court has made the American presidency a dictatorship. The truth, I have no doubt, is that they’re mad at the SC for complicating their lawfare campaign against Donald Trump. Well, it isn’t the job of the judicial branch to facilitate that exercise. Novel theories of the law invite challenges, and due process requires time for argument and deliberation. Here, I will pass over the political impact of the lawfare campaign, except to note that it seems to have backfired, and that it’s not the responsibility of the judicial branch to clean up Jack Smith’s and Fani Willis’ messes.
You're looking at this much too narrowly. The obvious problem is that a President could claim that almost anything he or she does during their time in office is an "official duty." That, and Donald Trump's promise of "retribution" is what is getting people so concerned. Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing in 2005 said: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” It seems as if that, too has gone by the wayside. It's not the job of the judicial branch "clean up" these messes. It was Trump's duty as an American citizen not to get involved in these types of messes. He is not above the law and should be held accountable for the outrageous actions he has taken.
Once again, the Supreme Court did not pronounce that the President is above the law. Merely, it said that actions within the scope of his or her official duties conferred immunity, either absolute if the core powers of the presidency are involved, or presumptive when the issue is in dispute. In either case, presidential immunity claims are subject to judicial review. How is it that you cannot understand that? How is it that you continue to push the frivolous claim that the SC has created a presidential dictatorship? How do you expect to be taken seriously when you retail such malaraky—if I may borrow a word from Bidenspeak?
I'm just curious as to how you "Barry" a word?
Typo. Meant “borrow.” Corrected it.
Liza - Glad I finally subscribed, but, as I guessed too late, I think the time you gave for your Zoom session was Eastern Daylight Time - correct? So, for future reference, those of us out here on the West coast should subtract three hours... I'll be there next time!
Yes, EST. Great, look forward to seeing you.
💙 the cartoon ! 🐱🐱
Joyce Vance, law professor and former federal prosecutor,would agree with you on this.
⬇️
“The Supreme Court just gave the office of the Presidency unlimited power.”
Her Substack title today….”SCOTUS: Actually, Presidents Are Kings”
Joyce is brilliant and really gets into the weeds on stuff but also loves to post pics of her chickens,cat and dog.🐓🐈🐕🦺
Love the cartoons..... especially the cat and mouse. Loved the commentary, too. It's so sad. "Someone with great character will know what is the right thing to do." Unfortunately, that's not the orange man. Is sleeping with a porn star while his wife is pregnant official or unofficial? Is inciting an insurrection that caused death official or unofficial? Is trying to find just a few more votes when he was losing official or unofficial? These SCers better be careful, though. They are in favor now, but if they slip up, they could incur the rath of the king and go the way of Anne Bolyn.
Liza, I love your artwork, and your analysis. You bring out some great points. One thing is for certain. If we all don’t get together and get our support behind our nominee, Trump will be back in office and we will all be screwed!
Everybody needs to take a ‘chill pill’ and calm the hell down. They need to think. If we put Trump back in office, our Democracy, Constitution, and all of our freedoms will be gone forever. He WILL do away with them. He WILL turn this into a communist dictatorship. And he WILL NOT leave office until he dies and you can bet one of his idiot offspring will step in and take his place, unless Putin wants someone else in there.
If we can get out candidate back in office, and something, God forbid, happens where he’s unable to perform his duties, we have an excellent next in line to take the helm. Vice President Harris will do a great job. She will continue with the agenda President Biden and her started 4 years ago, after they completely had to build half of the government agencies back.
That’s the bottom line. Yes, when we bite in November for Biden/Harris, we are voting to put Harris in as our president. I’m extremely comfortable with that. I’m confident she’ll do a great job fir whatever the remainder of the term is plus another term: