Gary Marcus

Rank 27 of 47

Score 46

-8

@PeterDjerf Stuff your condescension. I already read that bit and the quoted bit from Sotomayor. There is nothing I said that is wrong. Anything that can be construed as an official act is protected. And almost anything can be.

7/1/2024, 4:17:11 PM

In reply to:

Peter Djerf

@PeterDjerf

115d

@GaryMarcus Reading is important, but when we allow our emotions to rev up we tend to struggle. Stay calm and read the details, that is not what was ruled.

Anna Matson

@AnnaRMatson

116d

The Supreme Court ruled that the President does not have blanket immunity for everything in a 6-3 vote along ideological lines.

“Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from…

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

115d

The decision that SCOTUS just made re: immunity is one of the darkest and most insane self-inflicted wounds in American history.

Sotomayor’s dissent will be remembered for centuries.

Adam Klasfeld

@KlasfeldReports

116d

Sotomayor's dissent:

"Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

The statement by @PeterDjerf constitutes public discourse as it engages in a substantive debate about a Supreme Court decision and its implications for presidential immunity. The tone is confrontational and dismissive, which impacts the quality of the discourse.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement does not strive to do no harm, as it includes a dismissive and confrontational tone, which can escalate tensions rather than promote understanding. [-2]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement does not respect the dignity of others, as it includes condescending language and a dismissive attitude towards the other participant. [-2]
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it is more focused on dismissing the other person's viewpoint rather than engaging constructively. [-2]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it resorts to personal attacks and dismissive language rather than addressing the argument substantively. [-2]