And in the meantime, you have to make good on all your other debt, or the clock resets.

That's the "right" way, yes. I believe constitutional amendments also begin in Congress.

Would you agree that it's more accurate to say that Congress can't fix the system by reverting to the old law?

I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you explain?

No, Congress cannot pass legislation on this matter.

Sure they can. They can pass legislation that says "The President of the United States of America does not have criminal immunity from official acts taken as President."

Once that's done, a case would have to be identified and charged. The President would need to do something that would be considered a crime, and would be considered an official act, then be charged with that crime. Then it would follow its way through the legal process - district court, appeals court, en banc, eventually landing at the Supreme Court, who would decide whether that legislation was constitutional.

There are plenty of unconstitutional laws still on the books, especially at the state level, "atheists cannot hold public office" is a great example. Of course, those laws are "unenforceable" under normal circumstances; these are not normal circumstances. We've seen how the fascists abuse the legal system. It would not surprise me one bit for them to latch on to one of those "still on the books" unconstitutional laws and attempt to enforce it, because throwing wrenches into the machinery is the point.

Using the "atheists cannot hold public office" example, it would be elementary to cause harm to someone's campaign for elected office just by seeking to enforce an unconstitutional law. Drawing attention to the lack of religious belief in a candidate, forcing said candidate to defend themselves, getting the unwashed masses to go "Yeah! That's what the law says!" because they're too fucking stupid to understand that other court rulings have nullified that law.

Doesn't matter, that's not the point. Delay and chaos are the point.

Of course it wasn't; it was a set of private acts (a conspiracy) to retain personal political power in spite of a free and fair election. They already know this.

The point of this claim, as always, is delay. They do not intend to "win," they intend to stall any indictments by abusing the legal system, because SCOTUS has given them a clear path to do so. "Do anything you want, claim it was an 'official act,' enjoy the returns for that act while stymieing the ability of anyone to hold anyone accountable for anything. Lather, rinse, repeat."

It doesn't matter whether the things they do are "official acts" or not. They automatically have license to do anything they want while the world watches our justice system wring its hands for years. They will continue to use these delays to dismantle the democratic systems that are supposed to prevent these very efforts.

By calling for drone strikes on SCOTUS, yes.

Since we're talking about a SCOTUS ruling, it would be on Congress to pass legislation.

And to follow up on @[email protected]'s comment, the Democratic National Committee is a private party organization that supports Democratic candidates in elections. They have nothing to do with passing legislation.

Unless you’re president.

"Adult ostrich leg for scale."

I don't think it matters whether the exchange of value involves currency or not.

There are things that most people find to be unethical to "sell" (exchange for value in a transaction). Those include actual human beings (slavery), military or political influence (bribery), and murder.

I believe that sex work in often included in that list because of a lengthy deep history of protection of "bloodlines." Of course, there has always been sex work, but those who offered such services - especially women - were by definition unconcerned about their own "bloodline," which must then mean that their "bloodline" was not worth protecting. That meant that providers of sex work were necessarily "lower" people.

Today, and especially in the global West, the notion of "bloodlines" is more associated with bigotry than high status. That's why we're calling it "sex work" now instead of "prostitution," for example - and sex work is more socially acceptable now, even if it's not super high on that scale. Because that cultural thing about "bloodlines" is well-entrenched and runs very deep.

I initially thought Boeing was buying Spirit Airlines.

... the ABC entered "Miscellaneous Ad Interim Permits," which allow the facilities to continue serving alcohol until a hearing on the renewals is held.

So, still no consequences.

I'm gonna go with absolutely.

Sure but that would mean it would have to know anything.

It would have to know that it doesn’t know, and it doesn’t.

Carpet for your only hole

Wasn’t it already decided that police are not obliged to help anyone? How can this go anywhere?

Let’s see … seven letters, starts with an F, ends with a T …

Fuckwit?

That you know of.

Monk doesn't go that far, and it's still obvious. "Here's a joke before commercial!" Pause. Fade back in to a new scene. Pause. "Here's a little cliffhanger before commercial!" Pause. Fade back in to a new scene. Pause.