Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

[Hume]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

 

[Hume]

Vice President Kamala Harris, who is running against Trump in the November election, said earlier this week the reforms are needed because “there is a clear crisis of confidence facing the Supreme Court.”

 

[zymurgy]

odd name considering they are coronating Harris without a single person voting for the cackling witch

 

[Hume]

odd name considering they are coronating Harris without a single person voting for the cackling witch

Nonetheless, parties control who their nominee is.

 

[Uncensored2008]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will introduce legislation Thursday reaffirming that presidents do not have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

Schumer’s No Kings Act would attempt to invalidate the decision by declaring that presidents are not immune from criminal law and clarifying that Congress, not the Supreme Court, determines to whom federal criminal law is applied.

In an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court's immunity decision, Schumer introduces the No Kings Act

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has introduced legislation reaffirming presidents don't have immunity for criminal actions, an attempt to reverse the Supreme Court’s landmark decision last month.

apnews.com

Grandstanding lies.

The court never conferred immunity for criminal acts.

You Marxists are desperate.

 

[ExpressLane]

odd name considering they are coronating Harris without a single person voting for the cackling witch

TRUTH!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Nonetheless, parties control who their nominee is.

The Stalinists can't overturn the Constitution.

Schmucky is playing at theater and hoping America is too stupid to see through his shit.

No different that Biden's handlers open assault on the Court,

 

[ExpressLane]

Nonetheless, parties control who their nominee is.

DEMOCRACY!!!! How can we trust a party that does not believe in Democracy with OUR Democracy?

 

[Hume]

DEMOCRACY!!!! How can we trust a party that does not believe in Democracy with OUR Democracy?

Your party supports fascism and the violent overthrow of government.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Schumer has no power to rewrite the Constitution.

 

[Hume]

Schumer has no power to rewrite the Constitution.

Nor does he intend to.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Nor does he intend to.

what part of the SCOTUS decision does Schumer intend to override and what Constitutional reasoning the SCOTUS come to that decision?

 

[Hume]

what part of the SCOTUS decision does Schumer intend to override and what Constitutional reasoning the SCOTUS come to that decision?

The Constitution says nothing about the President being immune for prosecution for criminal acts.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The Constitution says nothing about the President being immune for prosecution for criminal acts.

SCOTUS says differently. you'll have to accept that i'm not going to take your view of the Constitution over theirs.

 

[Hume]

SCOTUS says differently. you'll have to accept that i'm not going to take your view of the Constitution over theirs.

I was not trying to convince you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I was not trying to convince you.

yet you are trying to say that Schumers 'no kings law' isn't changing the Constitution. you're either trying to convince me, or you simply don't care about convincing anyone, you just want to control the SCOTUS by any means necessary

 

[Hume]

yet you are trying to say that Schumers 'no kings law' isn't changing the Constitution. you're either trying to convince me, or you simply don't care about convincing anyone, you just want to control the SCOTUS by any means necessary

Just because the Supreme Court says something does not make it the final act of government.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Just because the Supreme Court says something does not make it the final act of government.

that sounds very different from most of the left on other decisions. Are you saying that SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what the Constitution means?

 

[Hume]

that sounds very different from most of the left on other decisions. Are you saying that SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of what the Constitution means?

No. Saying Congress can make new laws.

 

[RB 60]

Nonetheless, parties control who their nominee is.

It used to be the people...