What's new
By:

Donald is about to go through some things...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 365
  • Start date Start date
Al-O-Meter said:
Not at all. This ruling created three tiers of activities: Core powers, non-core duties, and private activities.

For core powers there is immunity. If you as a private citizen ordered that someone overseas be killed then you'd be prosecuted, but if the President ordered a drone to kill a terrorist in Yemen then he's immune.

For non-core duties, there is presumptive immunity. For citizens there is presumptive innocence, but that doesn't mean you can go out an commit crimes without consequence. It means the prosecution must prove your guilt and if they don't prove it then you are not guilty. You don't need to prove your innocence because you have presumptive innocence. For non-core duties, a US President has presumptive immunity.

For private activates, the US President is no different from you, me, or any American citizen who has a billion dollars for defense attorneys.

The ruling from the Supreme Court is actually pretty common sense and mild, but Sotomayor used it as an excuse to crank out political propaganda which left-leaning media is running with.

That said, even in Sotomayor's fever dream world, a US President could be held to account by the Legislative Branch. They have the power to impeach, convict, remove Secret Service protection, and continually report the former President's whereabouts. That world's former President likely wouldn't make it a week. Luckily our reality is not the one Sotomayor painted and Trump is not free and clear. He is still going to get prosecuted by Jack Smith.
Click to expand...
For the president there is immunity

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Al-O-Meter said:
...against his main political rival. This ruling makes it harder for Biden to weaponize the DOJ against his main political rival. Jack Smith is still going to prosecute Trump, but many of the avenues Smith was seeking are now closed by this ruling, and other he will have to prove more than he otherwise would have if not for Presidents have presumptive immunity.
Click to expand...
The supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity not that presidents can't go after their political rival.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
For the president there is immunity

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I would find it very interesting to watch Biden and his imaginary boogeyman crime family exercise this immunity and hold into the presidency using the military and just pre-empt an election entirely. Blanket pardons all around. Hell, have Trump and his family rounded up, just like the imaginary **** the right spews about him trying to do just that. Make it a reality and see how long it takes the supreme court to muster up a case they can use to reverse that decision. See, they trust that only republicans will use that immunity to hold onto power. What happens when the other side does just that? So ****ing stupid. What a farce. Most corrupt supreme court we have ever seen in the history of the country, to borrow a turn of phrase from Convicted Felon and Rapist Donald "I never slept with a porn star" Trump.
 
fishonjazz said:
The supreme Court ruled that presidents have immunity not that presidents can't go after their political rival.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yep, they made it immeasurably easier for Biden to do exactly that and go after his political rival for no reason at all. Let's see the mental gymnastics the right will go through to spin this one around.
 
fishonjazz said:
For the president there is immunity
Click to expand...
For the president there is immunity for some actions, there is presumptive immunity for some other actions, and there is no immunity for some actions.

The claims the President how has blanket immunity to do whatever he pleases is not correct. It is scaremongering. That is NOT what the Supreme Court decided. Donald Trump is still being prosecuted for actions he took while he was President.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
For the president there is immunity for some actions, there is presumptive immunity for some other actions, and there is no immunity for some actions.

The claims the President how has blanket immunity to do whatever he pleases is not correct. It is scaremongering. That is NOT what the Supreme Court decided. Donald Trump is still being prosecuted for actions he took while he was President.
Click to expand...
He isn't being prosecuted for anything actually.
He is just campaigning.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Yep. That judge is politically motivated in favor of Trump just like the supreme court is.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you're talking about. The take-away is this: Trump, and US Presidents in general, weren't given immunity to do whatever they want. Trump is still being prosecuted. Trump doesn't have blanket immunity for acts he committed while he was in office. The entire narrative is a lie. It makes me sad for humanity to see how much of society is completely uncritical of the information they take in.
 
Despite what some would have you believe, this is no small matter.

news.berkeley.edu

High court ruling on presidential immunity threatens the rule of law, scholars warn - Berkeley News

Berkeley experts say the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling could allow presidents to commit crime under the guise of official business. One called the decision "dangerous."
news.berkeley.edu news.berkeley.edu

“In effect, the scholars said, the court put the president largely above the law in a way that was never written into the U.S. Constitution or established in more than 200 years of legal precedent. That could precipitate a crisis in the near term, they said, if former President Donald Trump wins re-election in November and uses the new protections with impunity to pursue his political opponents…..

“Berkeley political scientist Terri Bimes, a scholar in the history and operation of the U.S. presidency, called the court’s ruling “dangerous.” “The decision seems to permit the president to use the power of the office to commit acts that are illegal, that are criminal,” Bimes said. “The fact that these actions are being taken in the name of the presidency, that they’re official acts, makes them immune from prosecution. That is really problematic.”….

“Broadly considered, they said, the Supreme Court’s ruling could fundamentally change the presidency, dramatically increasing its power and making the nation more vulnerable to authoritarian leaders who might pursue power by any means necessary”.

www.huffpost.com

Conservative Legal Icon Condemns Trump Immunity Ruling In No Uncertain Terms

J. Michael Luttig said the decision represented the "unsouling" of America.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
I have no idea what you're talking about. The take-away is this: Trump, and US Presidents in general, weren't given immunity to do whatever they want. Trump is still being prosecuted. Trump doesn't have blanket immunity for acts he committed while he was in office. The entire narrative is a lie. It makes me sad for humanity to see how much of society is completely uncritical of the information they take in.
Click to expand...
Sounds like the supreme Court had no need to make any rulings then.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
Red said:
Despite what some would have you believe, this is no small matter.

news.berkeley.edu

High court ruling on presidential immunity threatens the rule of law, scholars warn - Berkeley News

Berkeley experts say the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling could allow presidents to commit crime under the guise of official business. One called the decision "dangerous."
news.berkeley.edu news.berkeley.edu

“In effect, the scholars said, the court put the president largely above the law in a way that was never written into the U.S. Constitution or established in more than 200 years of legal precedent. That could precipitate a crisis in the near term, they said, if former President Donald Trump wins re-election in November and uses the new protections with impunity to pursue his political opponents…..

“Berkeley political scientist Terri Bimes, a scholar in the history and operation of the U.S. presidency, called the court’s ruling “dangerous.” “The decision seems to permit the president to use the power of the office to commit acts that are illegal, that are criminal,” Bimes said. “The fact that these actions are being taken in the name of the presidency, that they’re official acts, makes them immune from prosecution. That is really problematic.”….

“Broadly considered, they said, the Supreme Court’s ruling could fundamentally change the presidency, dramatically increasing its power and making the nation more vulnerable to authoritarian leaders who might pursue power by any means necessary”.

www.huffpost.com

Conservative Legal Icon Condemns Trump Immunity Ruling In No Uncertain Terms

J. Michael Luttig said the decision represented the "unsouling" of America.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
Click to expand...
According to some here Jan. 6th was no big deal.

I continue to see things differently.
 
fishonjazz said:
Sounds like the supreme Court had no need to make any rulings then.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court took the case because the Biden administration was using the DOJ in a way that had never been used, so they wanted to provide a framework for how the government would proceed with the prosecution of Trump. That is it. The ONLY reason this ruling is a big deal is because the left-of-center media apparatus was desperate to find anything to talk about that wasn't Biden's cognitive decline. They latched on to this nothing story and spun it to absurdity. We don't now have a king. The President can't assassinate political rivals. Trump is still being prosecuted, but now the prosecution has to go through the extra step of arguing over events being official acts or non-official acts. Oh noes.
 
Red said:
Despite what some would have you believe, this is no small matter.
Click to expand...
Why believe your own lying eyes as you watch the election go on as before, and the prosecution of Trump go on as before when there are paid shills who peddle a fantasy?
 
Red said:
Despite what some would have you believe, this is no small matter.

news.berkeley.edu

High court ruling on presidential immunity threatens the rule of law, scholars warn - Berkeley News

Berkeley experts say the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling could allow presidents to commit crime under the guise of official business. One called the decision "dangerous."
news.berkeley.edu news.berkeley.edu

“In effect, the scholars said, the court put the president largely above the law in a way that was never written into the U.S. Constitution or established in more than 200 years of legal precedent. That could precipitate a crisis in the near term, they said, if former President Donald Trump wins re-election in November and uses the new protections with impunity to pursue his political opponents…..

“Berkeley political scientist Terri Bimes, a scholar in the history and operation of the U.S. presidency, called the court’s ruling “dangerous.” “The decision seems to permit the president to use the power of the office to commit acts that are illegal, that are criminal,” Bimes said. “The fact that these actions are being taken in the name of the presidency, that they’re official acts, makes them immune from prosecution. That is really problematic.”….

“Broadly considered, they said, the Supreme Court’s ruling could fundamentally change the presidency, dramatically increasing its power and making the nation more vulnerable to authoritarian leaders who might pursue power by any means necessary”.

www.huffpost.com

Conservative Legal Icon Condemns Trump Immunity Ruling In No Uncertain Terms

J. Michael Luttig said the decision represented the "unsouling" of America.
www.huffpost.com www.huffpost.com
Click to expand...
Legal precedent... You fascist are the first ones in history to pull Hitler tactics up and arrest political opponents. The Christian hater speech cult are the ones setting insane precedents. Us Republicans want to protect every president not just Trump. You guys just want to stop Trump at any cost whether it be illegally taking him of ballots or arresting him for alleged crimes that multiple AG's and even the FEC has denied there were crimes.

So you're saying Biden should be in jail for breaking the law for his illegal vaccine mandates? Shouldn't Biden be prosecuted for allowing millions of illegals in? Shouldn't Biden be arrested for illegally paying off student loans? Every one of you hypocrites better answer yes to this and push for his immediate arrest.
 
Last edited:
Al-O-Meter said:
Why believe your own lying eyes as you watch the election go on as before, and the prosecution of Trump go on as before when there are paid shills who peddle a fantasy?
Click to expand...
You’re obviously free to do what you wish with your time, but you’re wasting it trying to persuade me of your nonsense. My go-to analysts in the SC decision on presidential immunity include Neal Katyal, Andrew Weismann, J. Michael Guttig, Lawrence Tribe, among others. I find them far more persuasive than anything you’ve offered. I find your spin to be ludicrous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top