Read The Supreme Court Ruling On Presidential Immunity

[Procrustes Stretched]

or sending an angry mob to congress.

the president's duty, in art 2, is to "faithfully carry out the law. "

if he is outside the law it can not be an official act.

The dissent by Justice Sotomayor is quite the stuff. Reading it now I see where she is arguing about the broader aspects of the ruling outside of how they apply to the Trump most everyone here is focused on.

Each point in her dissent should be looked into before making judgments on the ruling and how it applies to constitutional principles, history, etc...

Something I thought of myself was how this ruling would apply to the impeachment and removal of a President, and the interpretations of the US Constitution's wording on criminal prosecutions of impeached and removed ex-Presidents.

 

[rampart]

The dissent by Justice Sotomayor is quite the stuff. Reading it now I see where she is arguing about the broader aspects of the ruling outside of how they apply to the Trump most everyone here is focused on.

Each point in her dissent should be looked into before making judgments on the ruling and how it applies to constitutional principles, history, etc...

Something I thought of myself was how this ruling would apply to the impeachment and removal of a President, and the interpretations of the US Constitution's wording on criminal prosecutions of impeached and removed ex-Presidents.

if the president is immune, what kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" were the founders babbling about?

 

[MarathonMike]

Go away trollboi

But let some of us here read the actual ruling, and use that for discussion, conversation, arguments.

I provided a perfect topic for discussing Presidential Immunity and you ran like a scared rabbit. Not a good look Dante!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity​

July 1, 2024

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/58e874be6164060e/df3181b1-full.pdf

Read the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immunity

The court rules that former presidents have absolute immunity for core constitutional powers, and are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for official acts.

www.nytimes.com

As with most of the Trump legal issues, the World Wide Web and sites like USMB have comments and narratives that stray from what is fact, what is truthful. It's human nature to do what people have been doing with these contentious issues. Mr. Trump must love the attention. He will certainly get more than a few paragraphs in future history books.

But let some of us here read the actual ruling, and use that for discussion, conversation, arguments.


June 1, 2024
Dante

The ruling blows

My legal team was ready to file charges against Dubya, Obama, Clinton and Biden

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

If you can't post serious comments based on reality, please retire back to the conspiracy forum.

MarathonMike lives in unlikelyville, yes.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

if the president is immune, what kind of "high crimes and misdemeanors" were the founders babbling about?

Interesting - yet to be determined.

And what most people are ignorant of is what "high crimes and misdemeanors" actually meant, back when the US Constitution was ratified.

and this is from the conservative side in America:

The Original Meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," Part I - Michael Stokes Paulsen

In understanding what the Constitution means by "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," we should look to original meaning, not matters of intent.

lawliberty.org

and of course -- Bowman:

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

MarathonMike lives in unlikelyville, yes.

pest

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The ruling blows

My legal team was ready to file charges against Dubya, Obama, Clinton and Biden

Funny how many Magadonians aren't following (because no talking points out there yet), how this affects most all their arguments against Biden et al.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

For me, of course there would always be disturbing parts in Roberts' opinion. I agree with some of his opinions, while knowing that if I were on the Court I'd write an occurring/dissenting in parts opinion.


Live Updates: Supreme Court Gives Trump Substantial Immunity From Prosecution
Read our Supreme Court correspondent’s report on the ruling.
Live Updates: Supreme Court Gives Trump Substantial Immunity From Prosecution
By Adam Liptak
Reporting from Washington

The chief justice’s opinion recounted the events surrounding the assault on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an understated, almost antiseptic summary, while the dissents called them a singular threat to democracy. And where the chief justice stressed the importance of protecting “all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy or party,” the dissents focused on the former president.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to sift through the evidence and to separate protected conduct from the rest. “That analysis,” he wrote, “ultimately is best left to the lower courts to perform in the first instance.”

But he issued guideposts for Judge Tanya S. Chutkan, of the Federal District Court in Washington, who is overseeing the case.

[DISTURBING]: Mr. Trump, the chief justice wrote, is “absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”

He added that Judge Chutkan should determine whether prosecutors can overcome Mr. Trump’s presumed immunity for his communications with Vice President Mike Pence.

Supreme Court Says Trump Is Partly Shielded From Prosecution

The practical effect of the ruling raises the likelihood of further delay of the case against the former president on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.

www.nytimes.com

It's conduct part that disturbs.

 

[MarathonMike]

If you can't post serious comments based on reality, please retire back to the conspiracy forum.

You invited discussion and now you cower from discussion? Allow me to get the ball rolling. Let's say the families of the 13 dead Marines bring a class action law suit against Biden for Wrongful Death based on his decision to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan against his military staff advisors. Does Biden have Presidential Immunity?

I say yes he has immunity because his decision was an official act as President. It can be argued his decision to withdraw was terrible and motivated by political optics and INDIRECTLY caused the deaths of those Marines but Biden would be immune from those charges IMO.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You invited discussion and now you cower from discussion? Allow me to get the ball rolling. Let's say the families of the 13 dead Marines bring a class action law suit against Biden for Wrongful Death based on his decision to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan against his military staff advisors. Does Biden have Presidential Immunity?

I say yes he has immunity because his decision was an official act as President. It can be argued his decision to withdraw was terrible and motivated by political optics and INDIRECTLY caused the deaths of those Marines but Biden would be immune from those charges IMO.

"Wrongful death" in that situation?
another nonsensical commentary

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Yes, Biden would have immunity.

 

[MarathonMike]

"Wrongful death" in that situation?
another nonsensical commentary

You didn't read what I wrote, did you Dante? You are too emotional to write threads like this.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

OK Dante, should Citizen Biden be tried for manslaughter for the deaths of the 13 Marines killed during the Afghanistan withdrawal? Why or Why not?

You invited discussion and now you cower from discussion? Allow me to get the ball rolling. Let's say the families of the 13 dead Marines bring a class action law suit against Biden for Wrongful Death based on his decision to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan against his military staff advisors. Does Biden have Presidential Immunity?

I say yes he has immunity because his decision was an official act as President. It can be argued his decision to withdraw was terrible and motivated by political optics and INDIRECTLY caused the deaths of those Marines but Biden would be immune from those charges IMO.

It's nonsensical. In what court? Who would have standing? You people have lived with all kinds of crazed accusations before and for so long you people believe that shit has legs.

Nonsensical? A case like that would never make it into the courts, for a myriad of reasons. Try and keep up. Your whack-a-doodle-doo conspiracy theories, and the crazed narratives you expound daily here @ usmb are nonsensical hypotheticals based on irrelevant and crazed views of reality..

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yes, Biden would have immunity.

If you are replying to the crazed shit from mike, I suggest you step back and think over wtf you're getting into.

His faulty attempts at posing hypotheticals fails here: assumed or entertained as a theoretical possibility.

Theoretically, his suggestion is a non starter. Theoretically impossible.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

That's our MarathonMike, and it is fun to gig him. And hook him.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

From the decision: "The parties before us do not dispute that a former President can be subject to criminal prosecution for unofficial acts committed while in office."

USMB comments and narratives that stray from what is fact, must deal with this first.

So, now the judge will rule that a specific act was a official act. Trump will appeal. The next higher court will hear it, if they agree with the judge it will work its way to the SCOTUS. This could take up to a year since they will not need to hurry as Trump will either be the POTUS or will have lost the election.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Funny how many Magadonians aren't following (because no talking points out there yet), how this affects most all their arguments against Biden et al.

it’s hard for Biden to claim that he’s laundering money for Ukraine in his official capacity as President

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So, now the judge will rule that a specific act was an official act. Trump will appeal. The next higher court will hear it, if they agree with the judge it will work its way to the SCOTUS. This could take up to a year since they will not need to hurry as Trump will either be the POTUS or will have lost the election.

The Judge would have to make the convoluted ruling that it was NOT an official act

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Judge would have to make the convoluted ruling that it was NOT an official act

Dude, you are a Trump worshiper, he could shoot someone on 5th ave and you would call it an official act.