User avatar
By eriknben10
Supreme Court decisions change and can be overturned by themselves. Nowhere does it state in law that every act has to be followed as written. I don't give two hoots what happens to her or Trump. I would love to see the trial.
Because someone is being investigated doesn't make them guilty of anything either. Personally I hope someone soon finds someone to lock up.
User avatar
By eriknben10
Phaedrus wrote:
eriknben10 wrote:Supreme Court decisions change and can be overturned by themselves.

In this context, that is a nonsense statement.

You might not like the Citizens United decision either but it is the law of the land, it too can be changed. You sight a law from 1941 and say it proves how it should be interpreted today. She broke a few laws and was never charged. I don't know which part you don't understand. But whatever you think is fine with me sugar.
I said it before, Trump might pass the Clinton's for conspiracy theories over the next 8 years.
User avatar
By Phaedrus
As I said, it is context - not random. What circumstances do you envision would cause it to change in relation to a possible charge against Clinton.

1. Perhaps you think the government could petition the Supreme Court to reverse that interpretation. What would be your argument? That you want to use it against a particular person? Or would you want to change it so that more people can be convicted of a crime for which they had no motive or intent? Why would the Supreme Court even act absent of an actual case?

2. Perhaps you think some trial judge somewhere would take up the case against Clinton and deliberately rule so as to precipitate a Supreme Court challenge. It would also have to go through Appeals which would have to rule that the 1941 ruling does not apply and uphold the lower court. Then the Supreme Court would have to take up the case and overturn the original ruling. And what possible motive would they have to do that? A desire to put Clinton in jail for nothing but animus?

No, what is happening here is your inability to back away from a ridiculous statement.
User avatar
By eriknben10
Thanks for outlining one way how it could be done. It solidifies my statement. LOCK HER UP!