(07-02-2024, 10:41 AM)Jaguarmeister Wrote:

(07-02-2024, 10:32 AM)StroudCrowd1 Wrote: There will come a time when the SCOTUS is packed with 9 people who think like this justice.  It won't be our lifetime or our kids lifetime, but when that time comes, America will be over.

They made a movie about it.  A soldier and a prostitute took part in some military operation that that put them each in stasis inside a capsule where they woke up hundreds of years in the future and society had been doomed by stupid people breeding at a much faster pace than smart people. 

Brawndo, it's got what plants crave.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAqIJZeeXEc

Water?  Like out the toilet?


Great comedy movie by the way.

(07-02-2024, 12:34 PM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(07-02-2024, 12:28 PM)mikesez Wrote: Right, taking a payment or donation for anything other than his salary would be an unofficial act.
But the pardon would be an official act. 
And under this decision, because it was an official act, they could not even be introduced into evidence if there was a trial over the bribe payment.
So I think we would agree that the payment would not be shielded from prosecution, but how would the prosecutor prove that it was a bribe, if the prosecutor is not allowed to introduce the pardon as a piece of evidence?

What is this, Harvard Law School?  I don't know that the prosecution is not allowed to bring up the pardon as a piece of evidence.  Just because he can't be prosecuted for an official act, that doesn't mean the official act can't be introduced as part of the evidence at the trial.  Unless you know different...