I’ve been wondering if anyone, during the it-might-be-ok-for-a-president-to-have-his-rivals-executed discussion at the Supreme Court asked whether a sitting president could have his opponent in an upcoming election executed, along with people that opponent may have appointed, for example, to the judiciary. How would Republicans feel about that?
I’ve been wondering if anyone, during the it-might-be-ok-for-a-president-to-have-his-rivals-executed discussion at the Supreme Court asked whether a sitting president could have his opponent in an upcoming election executed, along with people that opponent may have appointed, for example, to the judiciary. How would Republicans feel about that?
That would have been a brilliant question to ask of the Supreme Farce this week. I listened to all of it and that question phrased to include the justices, would have brought them up short, wouldn't it? And I would have loved to hear their attempts to explain the unexplainable.
I've found that until it becomes personal to those trying to dictate to others, and the reality that there could actually be adverse consequences to themselves, only then does reality smack them up side the head.
I’ve been wondering if anyone, during the it-might-be-ok-for-a-president-to-have-his-rivals-executed discussion at the Supreme Court asked whether a sitting president could have his opponent in an upcoming election executed, along with people that opponent may have appointed, for example, to the judiciary. How would Republicans feel about that?
That would have been a brilliant question to ask of the Supreme Farce this week. I listened to all of it and that question phrased to include the justices, would have brought them up short, wouldn't it? And I would have loved to hear their attempts to explain the unexplainable.
I've found that until it becomes personal to those trying to dictate to others, and the reality that there could actually be adverse consequences to themselves, only then does reality smack them up side the head.