And now on to the more serious question of immunity. . .

[Foxfyre]

You've resorted to a cheap tactic of trying to eliminate others who don't agree with you.

Shall I report you for trolling and trying to derail the thread since that is what you are accusing me?

 

[Donald H]

Congress has that responsibility. I think that, as with the most recent SCOTUS ruling, you are going to be very disappointed.

The only disappointment coming for Americans is when the tables are turned and it's their president with his ass in the wringer, my friend. Justice for an American president can only be carried out by resorting to 'Chop, Chop. Just like it was in England and France on account of the king being immune from justice.

May I suggest to you a good time to start?

 

[Foxfyre]

He’s not the president anymore. He’s a citizen. That means Congress is no longer required to remove him from office for criminal behavior.

I agree with you that impeachment is the only way to remove him and prevent him from running. But that’s not the issue here.

Try reading the OP again please. That is the WHOLE issue here.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This thread is not about the pros and cons of SCOTUS taking up the case for immunity, but it is to discuss the concept of presidential immunity at face value. This morning I listened to political pundits who think Trump will lose on this issue and more that believe he has a strong case.

The concept is whether Trump or Biden or any other President in office can be prosecuted after the fact for decisions, executive orders, policy edicts, negotiations, actions within the scope of Presidential powers. If he can be prosecuted by subsequent administrations or sued by the private sector, what President would not be vulnerable to being sued, persecuted, for pretty much any controversial action to prevent him/her from running for a second term or any other reason?
Example only and NOT intended to be another discussion on J6 or the border or the ACA or any other issue:

Let's assume Biden loses in 2024 but was physically capable of running again in 2028. What if the Trump DOJ decided to prosecute Joe Biden for failure to enforce immigration laws while serving as President and/or for encouraging millions of migrants to invade our country at massive expense and risk for American citizens? What President has not made some decision either domestic or in foreign relations that somebody has not declared illegal?

What if Obama had lost in 2012 and Romney's DOJ decided to prosecute him for lying to the American public and Congress about being able to keep their current doctor and not telling anyone how the ACA would reorganize the existing medical delivery system at great cost and inconvenience and often measurable harm to the American people?

There is good reason for the Constitutional provision that it is the prerogative of the American people via their elected representatives to remove a President for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' and that power is given to no other. The House of Representatives has already charged Trump with 'incitement of insurrection' by the House of Representatives but he was acquitted on the grounds of 'no merit to the case' by the U.S. Senate.

That should have ended the matter right there. Not only was the constitutional provision used and no other, not even a sitting President, is given power to overturn that process, but there could also be an issue of double jeopardy in play when the current administration just relabeled the original 'offense' as something else. SCOTUS should not allow that.

Summary:

In my opinion, the President, good or bad, right or wrong, competently or incompetently has to be able to make tough decisions within his Presidential powers that are going to be unpopular with many without worrying about the legal repercussions to himself personally after he leaves office. And further, once acquitted in the impeachment process, a President should not have his right to protection from double jeopardy removed by a new administration. That is how SCOTUS should rule.

NOTE: You can change your vote if the discussion changes your mind.

Well said! And that's the correct reasoning

 

[Donald H]

Shall I report you for trolling and trying to derail the thread since that is what you are accusing me?

Fill your boots if that's your only remedy!

 

[Marener]

Try reading the OP again please. That is the WHOLE issue here.

But it’s not. A federal criminal conviction doesn’t prevent him from running or even being elected.

 

[mudwhistle]

But a different discussion my friend. I don't care about any actions that happened outside the scope of the Presidency here. What illegalities, if any, Biden has committed as President should be addressed by Congress and no other. They have been doing that and so far have chosen not to take any further action above and beyond investigation.

When it came to Mayorkas, they (improperly in my opinion) impeached him for failure to comply with the law and violation of the public trust. The Senate will (properly in my opinion) acquit him of those charges.

The reason I think that impeachment was improper is that Mayorkas serves at the pleasure of the President. It in my opinion demonstrated a huge lack of character and common decency for him to carry out Biden's orders re the border, but it probably falls short of a high crime and misdemeanor for him to obey his superior in a way that he likely did not believe would cause any material or physical harm to anybody or certainly was likely not intended to cause any material or physical harm.

Probably nobody in government has not made a decision to not enforce some rule or regulation or law at some point. Sometimes the reason for that were valid, sometimes not. But it's just the way it sometimes is. I was appreciative when a police officer could have written me a ticket for a traffic violation but chose to let me off with just advice not to do that any more. The one time I inadvertently (and harmlessly) was speeding in a school zone the officer ticketed me but suggested I plead my case to the judge. He heard my explanation and voided the ticket. These kinds of things I deeply appreciate.

Congress did not make a case that the indefensible border policy was intended to harm America or Americans but they could rightfully impeach Biden for failure to comply with the law. That they chose not to do that as an exercise in futility as well as mostly politically unpopular was also their prerogative.

Likewise Presidential decisions/orders/actions, regardless of the consequences, so long as they are within the scope of Presidential powers, do not rise to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors unless there is clear evidence that the actions were either self-serving in a criminal way or were intended to harm Americans.

Toward that end, the prosecution of Donald Trump is more likely a criminal act as it is both self-serving to get Biden re-elected and is intended to not only harm a U.S. citizen but to disenfranchise perhaps more than half the country from being able to elect the candidate of their choice. But Congress for whatever reason has chosen not to impeach him for that.

And that should be in the argument for a President to be immune from prosecution for decisions that are unpopular or result in unintended bad consequences.

As soon as you said they improperly impeached Mayorkas....I tuned you out.

He swore an oath to faithfully protect and defend the constitution, and to obey and enforce the law. He has failed to do that. Not only that but his is criminally negligence in the performance of his duties. His job is to defend this country from foreign aggression, not expedite an invasion of our borders.

 

[Foxfyre]

Jerk and Smirk

The Founding Fodder were totally ignorant about real-life politics, and so conceited they thought their scheme would prevent the inevitable partisanship. Impeachment has become s purely political presentation of phalluses. That includes Andrew Johnson's White-Replacement prosecution, the "Bro Job."

We aren't debating Andrew Johnson or what happened back then though. I disagree that the Founders were ignorant about real life politics as they had to deal with them then as much as we do now. The advantage the Founders had though was that most Americans did support the Constitution and its intent and were far more cohesive in their basic values and concepts of right and wrong. They probably did not envision Americans becoming as hyper-partisan in an evil way as we see now, but they did take measures to prevent hyper-partisanship from being able to take away power from the people.

The President represents all the people, even those he might call Nazi's and white supremacists and existential threats to democracy. And that is why they wrote in a protection for the Chief Executive of the Country with the provision that the ONLY discipline for a President would be from the people he/she represents via their elected representatives.

SCOTUS's ruling should be that the protection doesn't end once the Chief Executive leaves office. If they do not all Presidents from now on will be vulnerable to prosecution by vindictive administrations for any and all decisions or actions that somebody declares to be a crime. Presidents will thus have their hands tied and be unable to do what they are elected to do.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Read my comments on why the American system has failed.

It was a brave attempt to better the British system of the king being above the law.

But the brave attempt failed and now the chickens have come home.

There's only one solution and that is to unequivocally abandon the British system! PERIOD!

The way that Britain and the colonies did it was to exclude politicians, while 'supposedly' keeping the immunity for the crowned head. It hasn't been tested recently and it likely won't.

The Road to Perdition Is Patrician

The worst Britishism was allowing hereditary power, which the British Empire had instituted here in order to make the most powerful colonials have contempt for the 99% so they would side with the HeirHead empire.

Showing how dishonest the ruling class's Constitution was is the bratty way they merely eliminated titles, pretending that was a significant attack on aristocracy. But that insult to logic was as irrelevant as the fact that the Romans never dared to call their Emperor-monarchs "kings."

 

[BS Filter]

Your ignorance is getting old, duck. Had Nixon not resigned, he would have been impeached without question. So much for your ignorance in this matter.

He also would have been convicted.

 

[Foxfyre]

As soon as you said they improperly impeached Mayorkas....I tuned you out.

He swore an oath to faithfully protect and defend the constitution, and to obey and enforce the law. He has failed to do that. Not only that but his is criminally negligence in the performance of his duties. His job is to defend this country from foreign aggression, not expedite an invasion of our borders.

Yes he did. But he also was required to act at the orders of the President. There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses the executive orders Biden has given or the words he has spoken that have created the current crisis at our southern border.

Too bad you tuned me out. I made a damn good argument for my position on that.

 

[Amie2345]

He also would have been convicted.

Yes, in the old days when committing crimes was viewed as wrong and immoral.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well said! And that's the correct reasoning

Thank you. I appreciate that a lot. I have been mulling this over for some time now to arrive at an opinion I felt I could justifiably defend.

I'm of the opinion that no opinion is worth having if you cannot defend it against all arguments.

 

[mudwhistle]

Yes he did. But he also was required to act at the orders of the President. There is nothing in the Constitution that addresses the executive orders Biden has given or the words he has spoken that have created the current crisis at our southern border.

Too bad you tuned me out. I made a damn good argument for my position on that.

I'm sorry, obeying illegal orders from the president is no excuse.

I spent 35 years in the federal government, and I know from countless briefings that just saying you were doing what you're told isn't an shield against prosecution for your illegal actions. He always had the option to refuse.

 

[Foxfyre]

The only disappointment coming for Americans is when the tables are turned and it's their president with his ass in the wringer, my friend. Justice for an American president can only be carried out by resorting to 'Chop, Chop. Just like it was in England and France on account of the king being immune from justice.

May I suggest to you a good time to start?

Except the President is NOT immune from justice. There is clear constitutional provision for dealing with an errant President but it has to be for high crimes and misdemeanors and not via a vindictive and self-serving political party who are terrified that somebody might interfere with their agenda.

 

[Foxfyre]

But it’s not. A federal criminal conviction doesn’t prevent him from running or even being elected.

It does if the conviction is for him committing insurrection which is the intent here. Or at least it certainly muddies the waters until it works through the court system. A person running for public office should not be subjected to prosecution for something he did within the scope of his office as President unless it is Congress doing the prosecuting.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

We aren't debating Andrew Johnson or what happened back then though. I disagree that the Founders were ignorant about real life politics as they had to deal with them then as much as we do now. They probably did not envision Americans becoming as hyper-partisan in an evil way as we see now,

All Republics Go Bananas

 

[Marener]

It does if the conviction is for him committing insurrection which is the intent here. Or at least it certainly muddies the waters until it works through the court system. A person running for public office should not be subjected to prosecution for something he did within the scope of his office as President unless it is Congress doing the prosecuting.

I don’t think it’s the intent here because he’s not even charged with insurrection.

You didnt say why they shouldnt be subject to prosecution. I find it a little weird to think that if you’re being prosecuted for committing crimes in office, all you have to do is run for office again and then you’re untouchable. That doesn’t seem right. Feels like an exploitable loophole with no discernible benefits to the country.

 

[Concerned American]

It’s a terrible argument

You only consider it a terrible argument because YOU don't agree with it. I suppose you thought the 9-0 SCOTUS decision today was a terrible decision as well, LOL.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You might try to read the ruling on student loans so you quit looking like such a moron.

I will look however I want, thank you very much...