SCOTUS discusses immunity for the President

[Votto]

US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy on Thursday to the argument that presidents have some immunity against criminal charges for certain actions taken in office as it heard arguments over Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to undo his 2020 election...

www.yahoo.com

SCOTUS began questioning each other as to if and how a President or former President could be held to account legally for anything

Here is a taste.

Sauer raised three hypothetical examples of past presidents being charged for officials actions taken as president.

He asked whether George W. Bush could be prosecuted for obstructing an official proceeding for allegedly lying to Congress to justify the Iraq war, or Barack Obama charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strikes or Biden charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter country illegally, based on his border policies.

"The answer to all these questions is no," Sauer said.


But Trump can be prosecuted for paying money to a whore to keep their affair private or hold Presidential files Biden had as a Senator?

Hilarious!!

 

[kyzr]

I think "limited immunity" for official actions is fine. For criminal acts of a personal nature, then "no".
The supreme court can adjudicate. We don't want state or local courts charging and trying ex-presidents.

 

[Donald H]

prediction: The Scotus can't decide in favour of Trump this time, for fear of being laughed out of favour. There will be a qualified decision that won't quite satisfy Trump's needs.

And the decision is going to tell us where political momentum in America is headed.

The corrupt Scotus is going to need some time to justify their decision before the decision.

 

[Marener]

I think "limited immunity" for official actions is fine. For criminal acts of a personal nature, then "no".
The supreme court can adjudicate. We don't want state or local courts charging and trying ex-presidents.

Conservative justices will come up with some incredibly vague standard that they can use to limits Dems and let Reps do whatever they want.

 

[kyzr]

prediction: The Scotus can't decide in favour of Trump this time, for fear of being laughed out of favour. There will be a qualified decision that won't quite satisfy Trump's needs.

And the decision is going to tell us where political momentum in America is headed.

The corrupt Scotus is going to need some time to justify their decision before the decision.

How about the USSC just sends the case back to the lower courts until after November?

They need more information...

 

[martybegan]

Conservative justices will come up with some incredibly vague standard that they can use to limits Dems and let Reps do whatever they want.

The usual lawfare cheer-boi-cuck cheering on lawfare.

 

[kyzr]

Conservative justices will come up with some incredibly vague standard that they can use to limits Dems and let Reps do whatever they want.

Got examples, or are you talking thru your hyper-partisan ass?

 

[Marener]

Got examples, or are you talking thru your hyper-partisan ass?

Major questions doctrine.

No one has any idea what this standard applies to. But we do know that the conservative justices use it liberally against Democratic presidents and don't have the slightest clue what it is when it comes to Republicans.

It's incredibly vague, which is PERFECT for when you just want a tool to wield for partisan political purposes

 

[Marener]

The usual lawfare cheer-boi-cuck cheering on lawfare.

Turning SCOTUS into a political weapon is just perfect for wanna be fascists.

 

[kyzr]

Major questions doctrine.
No one has any idea what this standard applies to. But we do know that the conservative justices use it liberally against Democratic presidents and don't have the slightest clue what it is when it comes to Republicans.
It's incredibly vague, which is PERFECT for when you just want a tool to wield for partisan political purposes

We do know that you type partisan lies with no proof, no examples, just total nonsense.
You sound like on of those low-IQ democrats who think the moon is made of gas, and Guam can capsize.

 

[Donald H]

How about the USSC just sends the case back to the lower courts until after November?

They need more information...

Yes, I'm aware of the rumour, and it could work too!
But not based on needing more info. They themselves are obliged to supply the info, as it applies to the exceptions to the new rules.

It has to be sellable to the American people that stand in the majority.

After the election the Scotus will not be at any risk on making any wild and crazy decisions.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

prediction: The Scotus can't decide in favour of Trump this time, for fear of being laughed out of favour. There will be a qualified decision that won't quite satisfy Trump's needs.

And the decision is going to tell us where political momentum in America is headed.

The corrupt Scotus is going to need some time to justify their decision before the decision.

Nobody cares what a Canuck blabbers about the USA

 

[Marener]

We do know that you type partisan lies with no proof, no examples, just total nonsense.
You sound like on of those low-IQ democrats who think the moon is made of gas, and Guam can capsize.

I just gave you an example. Did you not read my post?

 

[martybegan]

Turning SCOTUS into a political weapon is just perfect for wanna be fascists.

LOL, progs have done that with things like Roe and Chevron.

 

[kyzr]

Yes, I'm aware of the rumour, and it could work too!
But not based on needing more info. They themselves are obliged to supply the info, as it applies to the exceptions to the new rules.
It has to be sellable to the American people that stand in the majority.
After the election the Scotus will not be at any risk on making any wild and crazy decisions.

Who says that they are obliged to do anything?
They can and should send it down.

 

[Donald H]

Turning SCOTUS into a political weapon is just perfect for wanna be fascists.

The Scotus will align with the next president. The next president can be predicting on account of the Scotus siding with him now. The only question is on who the HIM will be, but the decision will tell us that.

 

[Marener]

LOL, progs have done that with things like Roe and Chevron.

Ah yes, please tell us how fascist Roe is, a decision that explicitly limits the ability of government.

 

[kyzr]

I just gave you an example. Did you not read my post?

I think so, what post number do you think gives an example of a partisan USSC?

 

[martybegan]

Ah yes, please tell us how fascist Roe is, a decision that explicitly limits the ability of government.

It assumed federal supremacy without ANY legislation in a situation where the Constitution forbade such actions.

It belongs with the States, unless the Constitution is amended to make that not the case.

 

[Marener]

I think so, what post number do you think gives an example of a partisan USSC?

There really aren't that many posts here.

Major questions doctrine.

No one has any idea what this standard applies to. But we do know that the conservative justices use it liberally against Democratic presidents and don't have the slightest clue what it is when it comes to Republicans.

It's incredibly vague, which is PERFECT for when you just want a tool to wield for partisan political purposes