Idea for Biden to consider

[OKTexas]

There is now. The Supreme Court has recently legalized all manner of bullshit. Anything a President does that's an official duty, is now immune, meaning that the President can "sell" pardons and ambassadorships, and have his enemies assassinated. As long as it's an official duty, he's in the clear.

Gerrymandering is now legal if it's done for "partisan reasons". Gerrymandering for "racial reasons" is still illegal. How they came up with the idea that gerrymandering for ANY reason is legal is beyond comprehension.

And government officials can now receive "tips" from contractors they award municipal contracts to. As long as they "tips" are paid AFTER the contract is awarded. It's still a bribe if it's paid before the contract is awarded.

I know it reads like stuff people are making up, but this is what the SC has done this year.

You stupid foreign commie bitch, ambassadorships have gone to big donors for more than 100 years, they don't call them patronage positions for nothing.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Have you? The SCOTUS decision doesnt give President blanket immunity. Dont believe me though believe the Chief Justice of SCOTUS

"A former president is entitled to "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

• The former president is entitled to "presumptive immunity" for other official acts but "no immunity for unofficial acts," he added.
• It is now up to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — who is overseeing Trump's Jan. 6 case — to determine whether the acts Trump is accused of in the indictment are "official" or not.

Zoom in: Roberts wrote that Trump is "absolutely immune" from prosecution for any conduct in the indictment involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

• Roberts wrote that Trump's alleged attempts to get then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the electoral college votes "involve official conduct."
• Trump is "at least presumptively immune" from allegations that he pressured Pence, he continued. However, Roberts said it was up to the district court to make the final decision on whether that pressure was outside of the scope of Trump's "official" duties."

You should have made the commie bitch prove its claims.

.

 

[OKTexas]

"blanket immunity" does not exist. IDK why you people keep fucking lying about it.

The same reason they're lying about kneepads being the border czar, commie propaganda.

.

 

[OKTexas]

According to the supreme court ruling, nothing a sitting president does using his presidential authority is illegal. He has the legal authority to scoop trump up and drop him in Gitmo, or some unknown base where he will never be heard from again.

You really need to get off the crack.

.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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.

I warned everyone this is where we were headed if the court was allowed to set policy like the overturning of the travel ban, ...well here we are, watching you trying to figure out how it all went so wrong without admitting your own culpability in this mess...
The courts are no longer doing your bidding, get used to it if trump should win this thing, after all you applauded this type of behavior by the court in the past.
You know longer have your gate keeper, your worst nightmare has come true, you may actually have to come out from behind your minority shield and do for yourself now.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

You are wrong because you have not bothered to read the decision.

Yes the order would be illegal. The problem is it cannot be prosecuted because the order itself is assumed immune. IOW, if Biden orders the military to kill Trump the people carrying out the order could, in theory, be prosecuted but the order itself is not discoverable because it was a communication to the military, a core constitutional power the president. If you understand what assumed immunity means, that order cannot be entered into evidence. Anything the president said to the team sent to kill Trump would be inadmissible. This makes it impossible to prosecute. Anything that would implicate the president in the killing would be assumed protected.

What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties."

^ right there - the order is 100 percent immune. What is there to prove the president did anything - it was just a rouge team that got things wrong. no evidence that can connect the president to the actual order is allowed in any shape or form. None of that order would be 'public record.'

And he can just pardon them afterward.

If you think otherwise, you would have to point out where in the actual decision such an communication would not be protected. We know for a fact it is immune because the court ruled directly on this very thing with communications between Trump and the DOJ.

You are basing this off of idiot pundits. The cold hard fact is the court had directly ruled the action protected. This is why the majority decision ignores this problem entirely, they are aware there is no way out of it. It is also why Roberts appeals to the 'public record,' which would not exist with orders to the military or DOJ, to try and refute the problem with bribery. Again, if a president told someone they could be pardoned for any crime if they just gave them a million dollars that communication, clearly illegal, would be protected. Roberts says that DIRECTLY.

Read. The. Decision.