SCOTUS discusses immunity for the President

[BackAgain]

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.

No disrespect here. But I think you’re just a bit confused. And you’re not alone.

We are actually discussing limited immunity. The confusion stems from the misbegotten addition of the term “absolute” immunity.

Putting it in a finer focus: the immunity which is being discussed is indeed limited to the official actions of the President within the ambit of his official duties. However, once that action is determined to have been undertaken WITHIN those official duties, it is absolute in the sense that it cannot be taken away.

So to answer some of our sillier liberals:

No. A President would not be immune from criminal prosecution for the commission of an act of murder which isn’t related to his official duties.

This is not to say that, in a given case, it would not be appropriate to raise the question whether an official -- even a President -- had acted within the scope of the official's constitutional and statutory duties. The doctrine of absolute immunity does not extend beyond such actions.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (Burger, CJ concurring, at fn 2/4). [My emphasis added.]​

 

[kyzr]

1. Nothing can even start to be investigated till he is out of the White House. We all know the POTUS is off limits while serving.
2. If they are nothing but show trials then he will be found not guilty in them all and it will only make him stronger. What are you people afraid of?

1. Bullshit. Alvin Bragg and Letitia James ran on "getting Trump". You know that they were working on that goal from day-1.
2. Afraid of unfair "show trials" like in NYC and DC where the jurors are 95% democrat. If the trials were in TX or FL I'd be all for them. Why not change the venue to ensure fairness?

 

[kyzr]

No disrespect here. But I think you’re just a bit confused. And you’re not alone. We are actually discussing limited immunity. The confusion stems from the misbegotten addition of the term “absolute” immunity.

Putting it in a finer focus: the immunity which is being discussed is indeed limited to the official actions of the President within the ambit of his official duties. However, once that action is determined to have been undertaken WITHIN those official duties, it is absolute in the sense that it cannot be taken away.

So to answer some of our sillier liberals: No. A President would not be immune from criminal prosecution for the commission of an act of murder which isn’t related to his official duties.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (Burger, CJ concurring, at fn 2/4). [My emphasis added.]​

On FNC they were naming about 10 cases regarding "presidential immunity". Their prediction is that this important and complex issue will be decided well after the November election.

 

[IM2]

Funny thing how we see references to the past being argued over and over again in this situation. If the past is irrelevant now, why are things from the past being argued in this case?

 

[IM2]

1. Bullshit. Alvin Bragg and Letitia James ran on "getting Trump". You know that they were working on that goal from day-1.
2. Afraid of unfair "show trials" like in NYC and DC where the jurors are 95% democrat. If the trials were in TX or FL I'd be all for them. Why not change the venue to ensure fairness?

Trump got his damn self.

 

[IM2]

On FNC they were naming about 10 cases regarding "presidential immunity". Their prediction is that this important and complex issue will be decided well after the November election.

Fox news doesn't know any case of immunity that covers what was done on 1-6, or for trumps holding secret documents. They will parade a bunch of false equivalences and people like you will think as you do now.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

You seem a bit lost.

Trump's illegal business filings to cover up his pornstar prostitution were not official acts.

And the orange pile of shit is not being prosecuted simply for possessing classified materials.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Bullshit. Alvin Bragg and Letitia James ran on "getting Trump". You know that they were working on that goal from day-1.
2. Afraid of unfair "show trials" like in NYC and DC where the jurors are 95% democrat. If the trials were in TX or FL I'd be all for them. Why not change the venue to ensure fairness?

They are held where the crimes took place.

Look, we get it. Trump could be found guilty of rape and murder and you would still vote for him. These trials are not for people like you, or like me who will not vote for Trump (or Biden) no matter what.

But those people that are still undecided deserve to know the outcome of these trials before they vote.

 

[kyzr]

Fox news doesn't know any case of immunity that covers what was done on 1-6, or for trumps holding secret documents. They will parade a bunch of false equivalences and people like you will think as you do now.

Actually Barrett read the various J6 charges and Trump's lawyer admitted that they were private actions not presidential.
Trump held classified docs, Biden stole classified docs, Pence held classified docs, Sandy Berger actually stole classified docs...
I think that the November election should decide who the next president is, not Biden's "Banana Republic" Kangaroo Courts.

 

[kyzr]

They are held where the crimes took place.
Look, we get it. Trump could be found guilty of rape and murder and you would still vote for him. These trials are not for people like you, or like me who will not vote for Trump (or Biden) no matter what.
But those people that are still undecided deserve to know the outcome of these trials before they vote.

Point being that these Bragg charges are total bullshit. So says law professor Turley:

The Trump Trial in Manhattan is an Indictment of the New York Legal System

Below is my column in the New York Post on the start of the Trump trial today in New York. I have long been critical of the case as a clear example of the weaponization of the criminal justice syst…

jonathanturley.org

A kangaroo court where 95% of the jurors are democrat proves nothing.
In a political trial the jury should be comprised of 4-GOP, 4-Dems, and 4-Indys to ensure politics is balanced.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Point being that these Bragg charges are total bullshit. So says law professor Turley:

The Trump Trial in Manhattan is an Indictment of the New York Legal System

Below is my column in the New York Post on the start of the Trump trial today in New York. I have long been critical of the case as a clear example of the weaponization of the criminal justice syst…

jonathanturley.org

A kangaroo court where 95% of the jurors are democrat proves nothing.
In a political trial the jury should be comprised of 4-GOP, 4-Dems, and 4-Indys to ensure politics is balanced.

It is not a political trial, it is a criminal trial.

I heard on the TV today that Pecker had agreed to help the DA before Bragg was even elected. Seems it was not all Bragg.

Did they ask the jurors their political affiliation?

 

[martybegan]

Just like I said. Roe limited government intervention into private affairs.

And that's fascist because?

Dred Scott, Plessey limited individual rights. So did Dobbs.

They have more in common than they do with Roe.

Roe limited State government intervention but also allowed it to intervene at a set limit.

Dobbs removed the limits on both ends, giving the States more power at the expense of the federal government.

Dobbs didn't do anything of the sort, it settled a federal/State argument.

And abortion is not a right.

 

[Marener]

Roe limited State government intervention but also allowed it to intervene at a set limit.

Dobbs removed the limits on both ends, giving the States more power at the expense of the federal government.

Dobbs didn't do anything of the sort, it settled a federal/State argument.

And abortion is not a right.

Uh, nonsense. Dobbs didn’t limit federal government power. It expanded that government power exactly like it expanded state power.

It removed the limits for which they can regulate abortion.

Abortion used to be a right. Now it’s not. Dobbs took away rights from people and gave it to the government. That’s a fact.

 

[martybegan]

Uh, nonsense. Dobbs didn’t limit federal government power. It expanded that government power exactly like it expanded state power.

It removed the limits for which they can regulate abortion.

Abortion used to be a right. Now it’s not. Dobbs took away rights from people and gave it to the government. That’s a fact.

It said the previous court erred in saying it had the authority to override State legislatures, i.e. the will of the people of the States.

The SC is part of the federal government, you dunderhead.

Abortion was a made up right. Not enumerated, but made up.

 

[kyzr]

It is not a political trial, it is a criminal trial.
I heard on the TV today that Pecker had agreed to help the DA before Bragg was even elected. Seems it was not all Bragg.
Did they ask the jurors their political affiliation?

1. It is a political trial, falsifying business records is a misdemeanor.
2. Pecker got a pass from prosecution for testifying.
3. NYC is 95% registered democrat, they do not ask jurors for political affiliation.
4. On CNN last night a law professor ripped Bragg's case apart.
There is no "Bill of Particulars" detailing the crimes being charged (Kangaroo Court)
There were other legal issues, like no other case remotely like this Trump witch hunt.

 

[Marener]

It said the previous court erred in saying it had the authority to override State legislatures, i.e. the will of the people of the States.

The SC is part of the federal government, you dunderhead.

Abortion was a made up right. Not enumerated, but made up.

Lots of problems here.

Roe limited state legislatures AND federal legislatures. Now there is no limit, meaning Dobbs expanded the authority of the government to tell the people what they can and can’t do.

Insofar as Roe limited “rights”, it was a limit on the rights of the government to tell the people what to do.

All the cases you cited expanded the rights of people and limited government.

Except Dobbs. You can twist and turn anyway you want, but it’s just a fact.

 

[martybegan]

No disrespect here. But I think you’re just a bit confused. And you’re not alone.

We are actually discussing limited immunity. The confusion stems from the misbegotten addition of the term “absolute” immunity.

Putting it in a finer focus: the immunity which is being discussed is indeed limited to the official actions of the President within the ambit of his official duties. However, once that action is determined to have been undertaken WITHIN those official duties, it is absolute in the sense that it cannot be taken away.

So to answer some of our sillier liberals:

No. A President would not be immune from criminal prosecution for the commission of an act of murder which isn’t related to his official duties.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) (Burger, CJ concurring, at fn 2/4). [My emphasis added.]​

And even then the immunity would not be absolute because he could be impeached and then removed from office for his transgression.

 

[martybegan]

Lots of problems here.

Roe limited state legislatures AND federal legislatures. Now there is no limit, meaning Dobbs expanded the authority of the government to tell the people what they can and can’t do.

Insofar as Roe limited “rights”, it was a limit on the rights of the government to tell the people what to do.

All the cases you cited expanded the rights of people and limited government.

Except Dobbs. You can twist and turn anyway you want, but it’s just a fact.

Roe created a "right" out of thin air. Dobbs fixed that mistake.

Plessey increased the rights of people?

Are you that fucking dumb?

 

[Marener]

Roe created a "right" out of thin air. Dobbs fixed that mistake.

Plessey increased the rights of people?

Are you that fucking dumb?

Plessey has more in common with Dobbs than Roe.

Plessey gave the state legislatures the authority to segregate institutions. After all, it was the "will of the people". To the justices, integration of institutions was like was a "right" created out of thin air.

Dobbs and Plessey expanded government authority. Roe and Brown limited it.

 

[martybegan]

Plessey has more in common with Dobbs than Roe.

Plessey gave the state legislatures the authority to segregate institutions. After all, it was the "will of the people". To the justices, integration of institutions was like was a "right" created out of thin air.

Dobbs and Plessey expanded government authority. Roe and Brown limited it.

Plessey was in direct opposition to the 14th amendment. Roe was made up bullshit.

Plessey removed ACTUAL rights from US citizens. Equal protection under the law.

Not the made up right to abortion.