The American judiciary, including the Federal Supreme Court, must be reformed. The judiciary’s absolute loyalty must be to America alone, not to the American president. What happened in the past hours is considered a farce and a clear and flagrant violation of the American Constitution.
Relax, it was only a couple steps back toward having a “balance” of power, to compensate for the weaponization of the DOJ that is/was in progress and the level of election interference that all these bogus indictments were intended to create. You will see as more and more of these indictments are thrown out or dismissed that this “reigning-in” of the Authoritarian regime that has assumed control of America was and is necessary. They forced the Supreme Court to make this decision, the actions of this administration are unconscionable. Thank God for the Supreme Court!!! 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸GOD BLESS AMERCA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸UNDO THE BLUE🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸B4 WE’RE THROUGH🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Constitution, Article - 2, Section - 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. All elected officers have a right to a trial by their peers, which is Congress. The lower courts have no jurisdiction over officers elected by the people. This restriction ensures the part of the government that is not elected but stays in the system can not control the intent of the people served by the elections. The purpose of impeachment is to prevent a deep state from forming. These people are part of the existing deep state.
@@alialssenaid43 Not if you consider that the weaponized DOJ brought a bunch of bogus charges to interfere with an election. Then the SCOTUS made a proper ruling to maintain the balance of powers.Their ruling was forced to be made to counter the injustice of Biden’s DOJ. Too bad you can’t see it for what it is. The charges against Trump are falling like flies and the amount of prosecutorial misconduct occurring while they desperately try to bolster their cases is their own demise. The truth comes out. Try to realize that you and many others have been duped..it’s not your fault, take out your aggression on those who deserve it, the ones who’ve been lying to everyone, while pretending they are angels.
@@rmdlgarcia The important part of the Constitution Article 2, Section 4 that you chose to disregard is, the CONVICTION part. Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything, that wouldn’t have been thrown out in aAppeals. Hasn’t Judge Murchan declared a mistrial in Trumps case because of a leak by the jury or something? Do you see how they get so wound up about “nailing Trump”, brought on by fabricated, negative propaganda broadcast on mainstream media. They can’t contain themselves, they have to be the next to throw their unwarranted stone, in the process they blow it, not that the case was going to hold up anyway. The hooker testified that nothing happened. Cohen admitted to paying her the money. Why does Trump need to falsify documents? He’s convicted of nothing criminal. There’s no law against giving hookers money, unless prostitution is involved, which SHE denied. Remember for one second, this guy is a billionaire and a past President of the United States of America. If we allow this injustice to go through and it become precedent for future rulings. What will you or anyone do when some thinks you are guilty of prostitution because an acquaintance of yours gave some hooker money? It’s absurd to give credence to this nonsense. That is nothing related to the pursuit of justice. That is injustice. Like burning people because you’re trippin balls from eating ergot and thought you saw something…Yup, witch hunts 1692 Salem, Massachusetts. Are we really taking the precedent of law back to there? “Come On man!” It’s just a bad trip, you’ll be ok, have a beer!
@@rmdlgarcia I wish Alito/whoever had mustered the courage in oral argument to quote Brandon's call to arms (as sitting prez, against his likely opponent). Not to mention the more recent "crosshairs" comment. Technically, he said "bull's-eye" but that is not what the first part of that comment goes with
Our Constitution is one of checks and balances. The Court has removed a check on the Executive office when performing prescribed "official" duties illegally. How about when the president conducts action (officially) that poses a national security threat and becomes a national security threat himself? No longer can those who support this ruling say no one is above the law. The president is now above the law as long as he is conducting "official" duties. The Court takes an originalist position on 2nd Amendment rights yet throws it out on presidential immunity and "invents" law like any other judicial advocacy case purported conservatives have long detested. Those who support this decision take neither a conservative or an originalist view of the Constitution.
These are the guys to hold the Supreme Court. accountable. They. know. the. Congress won’t. Don’t just tell us. Bring it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn’t above. Constitutional law. either. Congress is not going to up its game. Harold Koh knows what’s going on. Harold Koh should appeal to the Supreme Court.
This Supreme Court is horrible. Could constitutional scholars think of something for Biden to do, while he is in power, that is egregious under this new ruling, sparking an appeal? Would that work? Otherwise how can we deal with the new KING powers given to the President. Saddest 4th of July in my life.
Biden needs to appoint 4 new justices now and get them confirmed during the recess. The Jack Smith can appeal the immunity ruling and get it reheard in the next session.
@@chuckhall5347 Yeah, violate some more laws and create more injustice, might as well tear the Constitution, that was created to protect We The People, to shreds. Letting the autocratic tyrants have their way has always created better countries in the end These power grabbing DemonicRats brought this on themselves, by weaponizing the DOJ and bringing a bunch of bogus indictments against a political rival. Jack Smith has already compromised his case by not maintaining the integrity of the evidence. Just waiting for the mistrial declaration. Wake up people. What’s the point of following these bums down the hole that they’re digging?
@@RoundMtGenerations Victor Davis Hanson and Jon Woo are pretty scholarly in all things Constitutional, They see the DemonicRats power grab as a means to an end of our rights and freedoms. Just wait until slo-mo Joe realizes that these immunities apply to him also the tyranny hairs on his neck will stand up like a stegosaurus.(they’re the same age ya know. lol)
I found this town hall very interesting. I do have my reservations as to why these esteemed scholars seemed to doubt the wisdom of the Supreme Court. I wish that Ms Pearlstein would have gone one more step in her opinion of justice Sotomayor’s dissent and that would have been to explain where the “presumtive Immunity” (and the accountability involved with it) would be realized and enforced? Why wouldn’t the Attorney General in her opinion have a responsibility to take a whistle-blower/ mandatory reporter roll that would still be a checks and balances. Her discussion about “cannibalism” and Presidents going after doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially if taken in comparison to how the Congress is responsible for “weeding out” bad actors and their actually performing this function, it is “a loyalty among thieves” situation, that protects itself, and not the American citizens that is supposed to be their mission. Mr Koh could have made an example of exactly how President Trump was considered a National Security threat. Why wouldn’t official acts that are outside the rule of law, or outside the best interest of the USA then revert to “private acts”? These are the checks and balances. Instead his professional opinion sinks to the level of all the other allegations looming around the former President. There is an evident bias being presented in each of these esteemed scholars’ opinions, unfortunately. This misleading of what the Supreme Court ruling actually would or would not allow doesn’t benefit our nation any. If anything it only creates more doubt, and an un-necessary, unfounded “chicken little” scenario, again unfortunately. I ask Mr Koh, what happened to the two supposed bombs that were found outside the DNC and RNC head-quarters on Jan 6? There is so much unknown, covered up, falsified, and fortified with 18 months of televised propaganda about that event, it is hard to believe a scholar such as yourself would even speak of it, or present it as an example of a national security threat. Allowing the Speaker, that is directly responsible for the security of the Capitol, “excusing herself” from an investigation that she initiated, into the so-called riotous breach of a public building that rarely has it’s doors locked, is simply blatant neglect and not any type of viable investigation of anything, except how to propitiate a lie.Resulting ultimately in election interference. A Congress such as this definitely doesn’t need to be given MORE power. They aren’t supposed to have any power, they are supposed to represent WE THE PEOPLE. This politicization of now even esteemed scholars’ UA-cam town halls is just sad.
I was going to comment along these same lines. I love these conversations but unfortunately you have to pick through the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) of academia and the never ending what if's. Hongju Koh gets to the heart of it and history of some of it and setting aside the TDS, he fails, as does Pearlstein at the context of what brought this to the court in the first place.; a complete an utter weaponization of the judicial process against one man and anybody that was associated with him. Keeping it short, there is absolutely no precedent for what transpired during his run for president, his 4 years as such and then the pursuit that continues today. The media and I include everything worked in a concerted effort to undermine his presidency, the grotesque theater that was 2 impeachments, a TV network devoted entirely to Trumps destruction and the circumvention of the bill of rights, rule of law and the constitution itself. It's been a long 8 years and to have none of this presented into context of the courts decision, well maybe that's another show. But as always excellent work my friend! 💪👏✌
I was going to respond, indepth to each of your points, but why bother? You are not a serious commentor about the discussion if you want to talk about bias but omit your own. This supreme court is the WORST in the history of the United States. Hamilton, Jefferson and Washington are flipping over in their graves at the destruction of separation of powers and a representative government. An unethical President can now be like Putin, eliminate his competition and remain in office and hide it under he thinks it as an official act because of his "beliefs" and can't be questioned on it.
These guys are definitely liars. They chase Case Law instead of following the Constitution. The impeachments failed because there was nothing. These people who are lying can't talk about the applicable parts of the Constitution. Constitution, Article - 2, Section - 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. All elected officers have a right to a trial by their peers, which is Congress. The lower courts have no jurisdiction over officers elected by the people. This restriction ensures the part of the government that is not elected but stays in the system can not control the intent of the people served by the elections. The purpose of impeachment is to prevent a deep state from forming. These people are part of the existing deep state.
@@euphegenia These guys are liars. They chase Case Law instead of following the Constitution. The impeachments failed because there was nothing. These people who are lying can't talk about the applicable parts of the Constitution. Constitution, Article - 2, Section - 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. All elected officers have a right to a trial by their peers, which is Congress. The lower courts have no jurisdiction over officers elected by the people. This restriction ensures the part of the government that is not elected but stays in the system can not control the intent of the people served by the elections. The purpose of impeachment is to prevent a deep state from forming. These people are part of the existing deep state.
@@CasualWarriorGhost maybe bias knows no bounds over there in Timbuktu, but here in America... The "seal team six" thing shows bias because acts are not automatically labeled official without considering the act itself. It's a silly argument that flies right over that point
The American judiciary, including the Federal Supreme Court, must be reformed. The judiciary’s absolute loyalty must be to America alone, not to the American president. What happened in the past hours is considered a farce and a clear and flagrant violation of the American Constitution.
Relax, it was only a couple steps back toward having a “balance” of power, to compensate for the weaponization of the DOJ that is/was in progress and the level of election interference that all these bogus indictments were intended to create. You will see as more and more of these indictments are thrown out or dismissed that this “reigning-in” of the Authoritarian regime that has assumed control of America was and is necessary. They forced the Supreme Court to make this decision, the actions of this administration are unconscionable. Thank God for the Supreme Court!!!
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸GOD BLESS AMERCA 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸UNDO THE BLUE🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸B4 WE’RE THROUGH🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Constitution, Article - 2, Section - 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
All elected officers have a right to a trial by their peers, which is Congress. The lower courts have no jurisdiction over officers elected by the people. This restriction ensures the part of the government that is not elected but stays in the system can not control the intent of the people served by the elections. The purpose of impeachment is to prevent a deep state from forming. These people are part of the existing deep state.
@@alialssenaid43 Not if you consider that the weaponized DOJ brought a bunch of bogus charges to interfere with an election. Then the SCOTUS made a proper ruling to maintain the balance of powers.Their ruling was forced to be made to counter the injustice of Biden’s DOJ. Too bad you can’t see it for what it is. The charges against Trump are falling like flies and the amount of prosecutorial misconduct occurring while they desperately try to bolster their cases is their own demise. The truth comes out. Try to realize that you and many others have been duped..it’s not your fault, take out your aggression on those who deserve it, the ones who’ve been lying to everyone, while pretending they are angels.
@@rmdlgarcia The important part of the Constitution Article 2, Section 4 that you chose to disregard is, the CONVICTION part. Trump hasn’t been convicted of anything, that wouldn’t have been thrown out in aAppeals. Hasn’t Judge Murchan declared a mistrial in Trumps case because of a leak by the jury or something? Do you see how they get so wound up about “nailing Trump”, brought on by fabricated, negative propaganda broadcast on mainstream media. They can’t contain themselves, they have to be the next to throw their unwarranted stone, in the process they blow it, not that the case was going to hold up anyway. The hooker testified that nothing happened. Cohen admitted to paying her the money. Why does Trump need to falsify documents? He’s convicted of nothing criminal. There’s no law against giving hookers money, unless prostitution is involved, which SHE denied. Remember for one second, this guy is a billionaire and a past President of the United States of America. If we allow this injustice to go through and it become precedent for future rulings. What will you or anyone do when some thinks you are guilty of prostitution because an acquaintance of yours gave some hooker money? It’s absurd to give credence to this nonsense.
That is nothing related to the pursuit of justice. That is injustice. Like burning people because you’re trippin balls from eating ergot and thought you saw something…Yup, witch hunts 1692 Salem, Massachusetts. Are we really taking the precedent of law back to there? “Come On man!” It’s just a bad trip, you’ll be ok, have a beer!
@@rmdlgarcia
I wish Alito/whoever had mustered the courage in oral argument to quote Brandon's call to arms (as sitting prez, against his likely opponent). Not to mention the more recent "crosshairs" comment. Technically, he said "bull's-eye" but that is not what the first part of that comment goes with
By far the most thoughtful consideration I’ve come upon! Thank you.
So necessary
Our Constitution is one of checks and balances. The Court has removed a check on the Executive office when performing prescribed "official" duties illegally. How about when the president conducts action (officially) that poses a national security threat and becomes a national security threat himself? No longer can those who support this ruling say no one is above the law. The president is now above the law as long as he is conducting "official" duties. The Court takes an originalist position on 2nd Amendment rights yet throws it out on presidential immunity and "invents" law like any other judicial advocacy case purported conservatives have long detested. Those who support this decision take neither a conservative or an originalist view of the Constitution.
A so-called Republican who says SotoMayor, Kagan, and Jackson are correct and the opposing six are all incorrect... That's funny, dude
These are the guys to hold the Supreme Court. accountable. They. know. the. Congress won’t. Don’t just tell us. Bring it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court isn’t above. Constitutional law. either. Congress is not going to up its game. Harold Koh knows what’s going on. Harold Koh should appeal to the Supreme Court.
This Supreme Court is horrible. Could constitutional scholars think of something for Biden to do, while he is in power, that is egregious under this new ruling, sparking an appeal? Would that work? Otherwise how can we deal with the new KING powers given to the President. Saddest 4th of July in my life.
Biden needs to appoint 4 new justices now and get them confirmed during the recess. The Jack Smith can appeal the immunity ruling and get it reheard in the next session.
Impeach SCOTUS
@@chuckhall5347 Yeah, violate some more laws and create more injustice, might as well tear the Constitution, that was created to protect We The People, to shreds. Letting the autocratic tyrants have their way has always created better countries in the end These power grabbing DemonicRats brought this on themselves, by weaponizing the DOJ and bringing a bunch of bogus indictments against a political rival. Jack Smith has already compromised his case by not maintaining the integrity of the evidence. Just waiting for the mistrial declaration. Wake up people. What’s the point of following these bums down the hole that they’re digging?
@@RoundMtGenerations Victor Davis Hanson and Jon Woo are pretty scholarly in all things Constitutional, They see the DemonicRats power grab as a means to an end of our rights and freedoms. Just wait until slo-mo Joe realizes that these immunities apply to him also the tyranny hairs on his neck will stand up like a stegosaurus.(they’re the same age ya know. lol)
need to learn how to use punctuation...
🇺🇸 Harris/Shapiro 2024 🇺🇸
Harris/Buttigieg 2024
@@ГлебВерховский-п2р Harris covered in Bootyjuice
@@rmdlgarcia Your comment shows the moral degeneracy of trumpists
I found this town hall very interesting. I do have my reservations as to why these esteemed scholars seemed to doubt the wisdom of the Supreme Court.
I wish that Ms Pearlstein would have gone one more step in her opinion of justice Sotomayor’s dissent and that would have been to explain where the “presumtive Immunity” (and the accountability involved with it) would be realized and enforced? Why wouldn’t the Attorney General in her opinion have a responsibility to take a whistle-blower/ mandatory reporter roll that would still be a checks and balances. Her discussion about “cannibalism” and Presidents going after doesn’t make a lot of sense, especially if taken in comparison to how the Congress is responsible for “weeding out” bad actors and their actually performing this function, it is “a loyalty among thieves” situation, that protects itself, and not the American citizens that is supposed to be their mission.
Mr Koh could have made an example of exactly how President Trump was considered a National Security threat. Why wouldn’t official acts that are outside the rule of law, or outside the best interest of the USA then revert to “private acts”? These are the checks and balances. Instead his professional opinion sinks to the level of all the other allegations looming around the former President.
There is an evident bias being presented in each of these esteemed scholars’ opinions, unfortunately. This misleading of what the Supreme Court ruling actually would or would not allow doesn’t benefit our nation any. If anything it only creates more doubt, and an un-necessary, unfounded “chicken little” scenario, again unfortunately.
I ask Mr Koh, what happened to the two supposed bombs that were found outside the DNC and RNC head-quarters on Jan 6? There is so much unknown, covered up, falsified, and fortified with 18 months of televised propaganda about that event, it is hard to believe a scholar such as yourself would even speak of it, or present it as an example of a national security threat. Allowing the Speaker, that is directly responsible for the security of the Capitol, “excusing herself” from an investigation that she initiated, into the so-called riotous breach of a public building that rarely has it’s doors locked, is simply blatant neglect and not any type of viable investigation of anything, except how to propitiate a lie.Resulting ultimately in election interference. A Congress such as this definitely doesn’t need to be given MORE power. They aren’t supposed to have any power, they are supposed to represent WE THE PEOPLE.
This politicization of now even esteemed scholars’ UA-cam town halls is just sad.
I was going to comment along these same lines. I love these conversations but unfortunately you have to pick through the TDS (Trump Derangement Syndrome) of academia and the never ending what if's. Hongju Koh gets to the heart of it and history of some of it and setting aside the TDS, he fails, as does Pearlstein at the context of what brought this to the court in the first place.; a complete an utter weaponization of the judicial process against one man and anybody that was associated with him. Keeping it short, there is absolutely no precedent for what transpired during his run for president, his 4 years as such and then the pursuit that continues today. The media and I include everything worked in a concerted effort to undermine his presidency, the grotesque theater that was 2 impeachments, a TV network devoted entirely to Trumps destruction and the circumvention of the bill of rights, rule of law and the constitution itself. It's been a long 8 years and to have none of this presented into context of the courts decision, well maybe that's another show.
But as always excellent work my friend! 💪👏✌
I was going to respond, indepth to each of your points, but why bother? You are not a serious commentor about the discussion if you want to talk about bias but omit your own. This supreme court is the WORST in the history of the United States. Hamilton, Jefferson and Washington are flipping over in their graves at the destruction of separation of powers and a representative government. An unethical President can now be like Putin, eliminate his competition and remain in office and hide it under he thinks it as an official act because of his "beliefs" and can't be questioned on it.
These guys are definitely liars. They chase Case Law instead of following the Constitution. The impeachments failed because there was nothing. These people who are lying can't talk about the applicable parts of the Constitution.
Constitution, Article - 2, Section - 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
All elected officers have a right to a trial by their peers, which is Congress. The lower courts have no jurisdiction over officers elected by the people. This restriction ensures the part of the government that is not elected but stays in the system can not control the intent of the people served by the elections. The purpose of impeachment is to prevent a deep state from forming. These people are part of the existing deep state.
Yes, thanks for reminding me. Of course the determination of whether it's an official act would have something to do with the act itself... lol
0:26 "...on a non partisan basis" 😂😂
He's reading the words right out of H.R. 1939 which Congress passed in order to establish the National Constitution Center
@@euphegenia it's funny and ironic because the panelists are far from non partisan
@@euphegenia These guys are liars. They chase Case Law instead of following the Constitution. The impeachments failed because there was nothing. These people who are lying can't talk about the applicable parts of the Constitution.
Constitution, Article - 2, Section - 4: The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
All elected officers have a right to a trial by their peers, which is Congress. The lower courts have no jurisdiction over officers elected by the people. This restriction ensures the part of the government that is not elected but stays in the system can not control the intent of the people served by the elections. The purpose of impeachment is to prevent a deep state from forming. These people are part of the existing deep state.
I was hoping for non-partisan and no bias. Oh well.
No, you were hoping for something closer to your bias.
@@CasualWarriorGhost
maybe bias knows no bounds over there in Timbuktu, but here in America... The "seal team six" thing shows bias because acts are not automatically labeled official without considering the act itself. It's a silly argument that flies right over that point
Your all ignorant, i will unsub.
I doubt you got through the first 10 minutes anyway.
Newsmax will be glad to have you back.
* you're
@@cindym.1618
Ever read Alito's dissent in Bostock v. Clayton County?