Idea for Biden to consider

[EvilCat Breath]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

Good. Really an excellent opportunity. Then the law might be clarified for you.

 

[BULLDOG]

There is no blanket immunity, shitforbrains.

Stop reading the same BS that made you all shocked Biden’s got dementia.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.

 

[Weatherman2020]

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.

Under his job description, Dufus.

 

[BULLDOG]

Ummm no he cant. Where did you get that idea?

Such an order would be an official act.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf

 

[otto105]

No the president doesn’t have total immunity. Once again

A President has to have total immunity

 

[Weatherman2020]

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.

Dufus

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclu-
sive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presump-
tive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

 

[Couchpotato]

Such an order would be an official act.

https://d3i6fh83elv35t.cloudfront.net/static/2024/07/scotus_immunity-7-1.pdf

No it isnt. There is such a thing as an illegal order. Just because someone in authority tells you to do something doesn't make it legal.

 

[FA_Q2]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

This may be the only real solution, for a president to openly challenge the ruling with an asinine act.

Of course, that will not work with the current court though AND you have the problem that he cannot openly do the act because the court already ruled, by accident IMHO, that would negate his immunity.

From the ruling:
"JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act."

IOW, if Biden announces his intention to break the law and then does he can be prosecuted with that as evidence. The ONLY way for a president to be prosecuted for 'official acts,' which refers to almost everything, is for them to openly confess. Is it rather ironic as it seems it may not be possible for the ruling to be challenged in any way to limit it's scope because anything discoverable that may be illegal is not allowed to be admitted to the court.

 

[BULLDOG]

Dufus

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclu-
sive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presump-
tive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.

Acts as president are official acts. Ask trump.

 

[Lastamender]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

MSN

Biden is not capable of considering anything.

 

[BULLDOG]

No it isnt. There is such a thing as an illegal order. Just because someone in authority tells you to do something doesn't make it legal.

It does when the supreme court says it does.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Acts as president are official acts. Ask trump.

Lord you Leftards are stupid.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

hahha yeah we heard that before, and well, he wasn't. In fact a record number of Americans were better off then they after 3.6 years of Xiden/Harris

That’s why the Court’s conservative majority ruled in favor of presidential immunity, consistent with unitary executive dogma, giving presidents virtually unlimited, unchecked powers – that future Republican presidents can rule as authoritarian despots and dictators without the fear of being subject to criminal prosecution once they leave office.

 

[Couchpotato]

It does when the supreme court says it does.

When the SCOTUS says that we can have that discussion.

 

[Lastamender]

That’s why the Court’s conservative majority ruled in favor of presidential immunity, consistent with unitary executive dogma, giving presidents virtually unlimited, unchecked powers – that future Republican presidents can rule as authoritarian despots and dictators without the fear of being subject to criminal prosecution once they leave office.

They are a separate and EQUAL branch of government. They are capable of making their own reforms when they see fit. Democrats are going after the Constitution by doing this. They are the threat to democracy.

 

[Dragonlady]

Under what authority could a President snatch someone off the street and toss him in jail? And again I can list the parts of the Constitution that would violate.

Trump has already done that in Portland in 2020.



I assumed at the time that it was a practice session to see how that would go in future.

 

[Couchpotato]

Trump has already done that in Portland in 2020.



I assumed at the time that it was a practice session to see how that would go in future.

Trump had the military drag people off the street and put them in jail? Link?