pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 70,665
- 27,307
- 2,210
No it doesn't and read my link.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Trump is entitled to some immunity in Jan. 6 case
- Thread starter DigitalDrifter
- Start date
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
Please fill out and return.Mitch...it is up the courts to try Trump
the courts....it is up to the Senate to convict.
How very convenient
- Jan 22, 2020
- 13,762
- 12,402
- 2,290
You’re not very bright.At least we won't have to listen to MAGAts whining anymore about Joe "weaponizing his Justice Department for election interference" because the SCOTUS just ruled that's ok.
Completely acceptable and legal.
Not your call, leftard.Because everyone knows he is guilty as fuck.
The Irish Ram
LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough
He always has been. In essence, you can't sue the King:Scathing Sotomayor dissent: "The President is now a king above the law
Sovereign immunity was derived from British common law doctrine based on the idea that the King could do no wrong. In the United States, sovereign immunity typically applies to the federal government and state government, but not to municipalities
Weatherman2020
Diamond Member
Can we convict Obama for bombing a wedding?Oh snap!!!
View attachment 969963
5 min ago
Scathing Sotomayor dissent: "The President is now a king above the law"
Justice Sonia Sotomayor did not hold back in her dissent.
“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”
“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.”
“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.”
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #287
9 min ago
Here’s a look at the key takeaways from Monday’s historic Supreme Court ruling that granted Donald Trump partial immunity from special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case and handed the former president a significant win during his reelection bid.
Trump got a bigger win than expected: For starters, the Supreme Court ruled that for “core” presidential activity, Trump has the absolute immunity he had sought. The majority said that Trump’s conversations with the Justice Department – his efforts to try to get officials on board with his effort to overturn the election – were covered with absolute immunity. For other official actions and more routine powers held by the president, the court said there is at least some immunity and it largely deferred to lower courts to sort that out. That’s a process that could take weeks or even months. Perhaps even more important, the majority made clear that official acts cannot be considered at all as evidence in a potential trial, which could make it much harder for Smith to prevail.
What’s next in the federal case against Trump? The next steps are likely to be more hearings, written arguments and even proceedings with witness testimony and debates over evidence before US District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. Once Chutkan works through the legal issues, it’s possible that more appeals of her preliminary decisions could put the case on hold again – adding in significant delay.
Liberals tear into majority for creating “a king above the law”: The nation’s long-held principle that no one is above the law was washed away by a ruling that means that in “every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said as she took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench on Monday in a move that underscored how aggrieved the liberal bloc of the court is. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she wrote at the end of her 30-page dissent.
Trump’s nominee Barrett pushes for a swift trial: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s last appointee to the high court before leaving office, expressed frustration with how the court was sending the case back to lower courts for more proceedings and more delay in a short concurrence that failed to gain support from any of her colleagues.
Posterity vs. Trump: There was a clear tension through the course of the case between justices who wanted to limit the decision to the facts surrounding Trump’s effort to overturn the election and the broader concerns about presidential immunity for all future presidents. In the end, Roberts repeatedly framed the court’s decision as one made for posterity rather than any single president. The immunity, he wrote, “applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”
Key takeaways from the Supreme Court’s historic decision granting Donald Trump immunity
From CNN's John Fritze, Tierney Sneed and Devan ColeHere’s a look at the key takeaways from Monday’s historic Supreme Court ruling that granted Donald Trump partial immunity from special counsel Jack Smith’s election subversion case and handed the former president a significant win during his reelection bid.
Trump got a bigger win than expected: For starters, the Supreme Court ruled that for “core” presidential activity, Trump has the absolute immunity he had sought. The majority said that Trump’s conversations with the Justice Department – his efforts to try to get officials on board with his effort to overturn the election – were covered with absolute immunity. For other official actions and more routine powers held by the president, the court said there is at least some immunity and it largely deferred to lower courts to sort that out. That’s a process that could take weeks or even months. Perhaps even more important, the majority made clear that official acts cannot be considered at all as evidence in a potential trial, which could make it much harder for Smith to prevail.
What’s next in the federal case against Trump? The next steps are likely to be more hearings, written arguments and even proceedings with witness testimony and debates over evidence before US District Judge Tanya Chutkan in Washington, DC. Once Chutkan works through the legal issues, it’s possible that more appeals of her preliminary decisions could put the case on hold again – adding in significant delay.
Liberals tear into majority for creating “a king above the law”: The nation’s long-held principle that no one is above the law was washed away by a ruling that means that in “every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said as she took the rare step of reading her dissent from the bench on Monday in a move that underscored how aggrieved the liberal bloc of the court is. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” she wrote at the end of her 30-page dissent.
Trump’s nominee Barrett pushes for a swift trial: Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s last appointee to the high court before leaving office, expressed frustration with how the court was sending the case back to lower courts for more proceedings and more delay in a short concurrence that failed to gain support from any of her colleagues.
Posterity vs. Trump: There was a clear tension through the course of the case between justices who wanted to limit the decision to the facts surrounding Trump’s effort to overturn the election and the broader concerns about presidential immunity for all future presidents. In the end, Roberts repeatedly framed the court’s decision as one made for posterity rather than any single president. The immunity, he wrote, “applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.”
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #288
19 min ago
A close look at the majority opinion, the concurrences and dissents — which span nearly 120 pages in total — show how Donald Trump’s boundary-pushing tenure forced the nation’s highest courts to grapple with how much power our presidents should have.
On nearly 20 occasions, the opinions cite previous Trump-related rulings that addressed questions about his susceptibility to state criminal investigations, congressional probes about his personal, and his potential civil liability for the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Vance — a landmark 2020 case that said state prosecutors can subpoena a sitting president as part of a criminal investigation — is mentioned at least 11 times in Monday’s opinions. That case stemmed from Trump’s efforts to resist a subpoena in the New York state inquiry into his business dealings.
The majority on Monday cited the Vance case to point to the “unrivaled gravity and breadth” of the presidency, and that “the independence of the Executive Branch” might be undercut if it was routinely under criminal scrutiny. They raised these points while concluding that Trump has some immunity in his federal election subversion indictment.
The justices’ opinions repeatedly brought up Trump v. Mazars, another Supreme Court ruling about Trump’s efforts to resist a congressional subpoena. They also referenced a consequential DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision about Trump’s potential liability for January 6, in civil cases brought by police officers and lawmakers.
All of these cases helped define the bounds of presidential immunity from legal scrutiny.
Supreme Court's decision shows how justices had to grapple with extent of presidential immunity
From CNN's Marshall CohenA close look at the majority opinion, the concurrences and dissents — which span nearly 120 pages in total — show how Donald Trump’s boundary-pushing tenure forced the nation’s highest courts to grapple with how much power our presidents should have.
On nearly 20 occasions, the opinions cite previous Trump-related rulings that addressed questions about his susceptibility to state criminal investigations, congressional probes about his personal, and his potential civil liability for the January 6, 2021, insurrection.
The Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Vance — a landmark 2020 case that said state prosecutors can subpoena a sitting president as part of a criminal investigation — is mentioned at least 11 times in Monday’s opinions. That case stemmed from Trump’s efforts to resist a subpoena in the New York state inquiry into his business dealings.
The majority on Monday cited the Vance case to point to the “unrivaled gravity and breadth” of the presidency, and that “the independence of the Executive Branch” might be undercut if it was routinely under criminal scrutiny. They raised these points while concluding that Trump has some immunity in his federal election subversion indictment.
The justices’ opinions repeatedly brought up Trump v. Mazars, another Supreme Court ruling about Trump’s efforts to resist a congressional subpoena. They also referenced a consequential DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision about Trump’s potential liability for January 6, in civil cases brought by police officers and lawmakers.
All of these cases helped define the bounds of presidential immunity from legal scrutiny.
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #289
38 min ago
Federal prosecutors and courts need to keep “moving forward” with the election subversion case against former President Donald Trump, even with the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina said on Monday.
“Now, I understand that the court is sending us back to some determination to be made as to what is or is not private action, as opposed to public action. But I think it is pretty clear to see what is not public in this particular instance. And so I’m all for us moving forward on all fronts taking the Supreme Court decision into account,” the lawmaker and a top ally of President Joe Biden said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his presidency in a decision that will likely further delay a trial on federal election subversion charges pending against him.
Trump's election subversion case needs to keep "moving forward" despite SCOTUS ruling, Clyburn says
From CNN's Ali MainFederal prosecutors and courts need to keep “moving forward” with the election subversion case against former President Donald Trump, even with the Supreme Court’s immunity decision, Democratic Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina said on Monday.
“Now, I understand that the court is sending us back to some determination to be made as to what is or is not private action, as opposed to public action. But I think it is pretty clear to see what is not public in this particular instance. And so I’m all for us moving forward on all fronts taking the Supreme Court decision into account,” the lawmaker and a top ally of President Joe Biden said.
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his presidency in a decision that will likely further delay a trial on federal election subversion charges pending against him.
DigitalDrifter
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #290
54 min ago
Former January 6 Committee chairman Bennie Thompson called the Supreme Court “lawless and corrupt,” stating that the court has “chosen partisanship over their duty to do impartial justice.”
“By granting a twice-impeached felon absolute immunity for many of his acts that sought to undermine the legitimate results of the 2020 Presidential election, such as weaponizing the Department of Justice to do his campaign’s bidding, these extreme Justices clearly put the ex-President above the law. Further, they have granted criminal defendant Trump even more delays — which is not only what he desperately wanted but will also deny the American people justice before a critical election,” the Mississippi Democrat said in a release.
As chairman of the select committee, Thompson played an integral role in dissecting Donald Trump’s involvement in the Capitol insurrection following his electoral loss.
Former January 6 Committee chairman calls Supreme Court "lawless and corrupt"
Former January 6 Committee chairman Bennie Thompson called the Supreme Court “lawless and corrupt,” stating that the court has “chosen partisanship over their duty to do impartial justice.”
“By granting a twice-impeached felon absolute immunity for many of his acts that sought to undermine the legitimate results of the 2020 Presidential election, such as weaponizing the Department of Justice to do his campaign’s bidding, these extreme Justices clearly put the ex-President above the law. Further, they have granted criminal defendant Trump even more delays — which is not only what he desperately wanted but will also deny the American people justice before a critical election,” the Mississippi Democrat said in a release.
As chairman of the select committee, Thompson played an integral role in dissecting Donald Trump’s involvement in the Capitol insurrection following his electoral loss.
TroglocratsRdumb
Diamond Member
- Aug 11, 2017
- 37,089
- 48,091
- 2,915
Trump celebrates 'BIG WIN' at Supreme Court while Dems sound alarms
Former President Donald Trump is celebrating his Supreme Court 'big win' on presidential immunity while Democrats started melting down.
By SARAH EWALL-WICE, SENIOR U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM IN WASHINGTON, DC
President Donald Trump is celebrating his Supreme Court 'big win' on presidential immunity while Democrats started melting down.
The conservative 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court ruled a president does have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in a monumental decision Monday.
The six-three decision is a major blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith's cases against the ex-president.
'Big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!' Trump wrote on Truth Social immediately following release of the Supreme Court decision on Monday.
The majority on the country's highest court ruled the president does have immunity from prosecution for official acts in office. The president does not have immunity for unofficial acts, the majority concluded.
The three liberal justices dissented and raised concerns about what the decision means for democracy arguing the constitution does not 'shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts.'
Comment:
Well of course a president has immunity, otherwise he would never be able to operate in his job.
BTW, so does congress and federal judges.
The Radical Left Democrats have been defeated by reality and the constitution again.
AOC says that she is going to impeach the Supreme Court judges.
The Left Wing Knuttjobs Sotomayer and Jackson or worried that if the dirty Democrats are not allowed harass Trump with bogus indictments, then it will destroy our "democracy".
WorldWatcher
Gold Member
Biden has been impeached and he is not in prison.
H.Res.57 - Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the ...
View attachment 970019
Congress.gov
https://www.congress.gov › bill › house-resolution
Summary of H.Res.57 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, for abuse of power by enabling bribery and ...
From your link.
When did the house vote to impeach?
Your link shows it was referred to committee which is not impeachment until it clears the committee and laid before the house for a full vote.
WW
yes, this obvious ruling, simply starts the process of normalizing our nation after this demafasicst regime is out of power.Trump celebrates 'BIG WIN' at Supreme Court while Dems sound alarms
Former President Donald Trump is celebrating his Supreme Court 'big win' on presidential immunity while Democrats started melting down.www.dailymail.co.uk
By SARAH EWALL-WICE, SENIOR U.S. POLITICAL REPORTER FOR DAILYMAIL.COM IN WASHINGTON, DC
President Donald Trump is celebrating his Supreme Court 'big win' on presidential immunity while Democrats started melting down.
The conservative 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court ruled a president does have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts in a monumental decision Monday.
The six-three decision is a major blow to Special Counsel Jack Smith's cases against the ex-president.
'Big win for our constitution and democracy. Proud to be an American!' Trump wrote on Truth Social immediately following release of the Supreme Court decision on Monday.
The majority on the country's highest court ruled the president does have immunity from prosecution for official acts in office. The president does not have immunity for unofficial acts, the majority concluded.
The three liberal justices dissented and raised concerns about what the decision means for democracy arguing the constitution does not 'shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts.'
Comment:
Well of course a president has immunity, otherwise he would never be able to operate in his job.
BTW, so does congress and federal judges.
The Radical Left Democrats have been defeated by reality and the constitution again.
AOC says that she is going to impeach the Supreme Court judges.
The Left Wing Knuttjobs Sotomayer and Jackson or worried that if the dirty Democrats are not allowed harass Trump with bogus indictments, then it will destroy our "democracy".
WorldWatcher
Gold Member
Biden has not been impeached, are you this fucking stupid. There has to be trial in the House for him to be impeached. But your beloved party has not done that.
And then, he would have to be found guilty in the Senate for the legal system to be able to do anything to him. Something that has never happened in our history.
The trial occurs in the Senate. The House is more like a Grand Jury with the Senate being the Trial Court.
WW
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 61,071
- 54,396
- 3,600
To whom it may concern. In your face you traitorous cowards. Trump wins.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,149
- 52,402
- 2,290
That depends on whether an action is considered "official." With a MAGA Supreme Court to help.
It isn't a MAGA Supreme Court, it is an actual Court.........with 3 democrat party members sitting on the court ruling against all that is good, and holy .....ruling against the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Freedom...
Lastamender
Diamond Member
- Dec 28, 2011
- 61,071
- 54,396
- 3,600
Both houses are failed lynch mobs.The trial occurs in the Senate. The House is more like a Grand Jury with the Senate being the Trial Court.
WW
The speech on J6 was an official act.That depends on whether an action is considered "official."
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 95,966
- 70,863
- 3,645
I wasn't.Okay, so why are you arguing with me?
Why are you arguing with nobody?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 90
- Replies
- 15
- Views
- 202
- Replies
- 41
- Views
- 820
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 890
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 75
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8383
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 477
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-