|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1001
|
All-In [47741]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31224
Joined: 8/11/15
|
"Presidents have always had immunity in office"
1
1
Jul 2, 2024, 1:17 PM
|
|
We have also (for the most part) had presidents who we could trust to put the country ahead of themself and do what's best for the USA.
Except one.
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [9725]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 10144
Joined: 4/27/13
|
Re: "Presidents have always had immunity in office"
Jul 2, 2024, 1:18 PM
|
|
one problem is that congress got lazy and gave too much power to the executive branch
now you have someone like biden who believes they are above the law
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14083]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15073
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Ukraine > our own border. Your guy.***
1
Jul 2, 2024, 1:21 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2846]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3581
Joined: 7/3/07
|
whats new is this presumption of immunity such that
2
Jul 2, 2024, 1:27 PM
|
|
officials acts not being admissible even to evaluate legality of non-immune acts. So how do you prove motive or intent?
Good luck getting anything in front of a judge,
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20772]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11905
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: whats new is this presumption of immunity such that
Jul 2, 2024, 1:31 PM
|
|
Well, you can always just impeach the guy first. Even though he's committed no crime. Which we know, because it was an official act, and of course we can't even ask if an official act might be, you know, actually unofficial. So of course, well, we're back to: we can't impeach if there's no crime proven to be committed. And around and around it goes...
Nifty.
But of course, no president would ever lie about something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2846]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3581
Joined: 7/3/07
|
The prior 248 years of ambiguity served a purpose.
1
Jul 2, 2024, 1:43 PM
|
|
It prevented the worst instincts from being realized. Now they’ve given those instincts some plausible legal cover. As if the expansion of Executive power over the last 75 years needed an extra boost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22737]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31545
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Justice Barrett makes a forceful argument that the Constitution does not support
2
Jul 2, 2024, 1:38 PM
[ in reply to whats new is this presumption of immunity such that ] |
|
the expansive view of immunity that the majority opinion opines.
She also disagrees strongly with the Majority opinion that a Presidents motives cannot be examined by the Court to determine whether or not an act is an unofficial and possibly illegal acts. As she states "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable."
The Majority has drastically overstepped its authority to the point of political hackery.
Some people need to take their own advice and read the #### opinion.
Message was edited by: Chuckston T-Man®
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2846]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3581
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Yeah, she actually surprised me in a good way
Jul 2, 2024, 1:49 PM
|
|
By seeing this huge mistake in the majority opinion.
It’s gong to go down in history as one of the most egregious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22737]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31545
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It won't last.
Jul 2, 2024, 1:52 PM
|
|
The Supreme Court will reconsider this opinion at some future date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [43335]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 39001
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Yep... completley ignoring that...
Jul 2, 2024, 1:38 PM
|
|
This president who wants immunity is wanting it for his ### clown, law breaking endeavors that were entirely self-serving. We're not talking about Reagan deciding to redecorate Gaddafi's bedroom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4755
Joined: 10/6/03
|
So whats your problem with the ruling
1
Jul 2, 2024, 2:11 PM
|
|
It remmands the case to the lower court to decide which conduct was official and which was personal
Honestly, that's my biggest problem with the decision and where Barrett was correct in her partially concurring opinion.
The court should have gone a step further to propose what constitutes the personal and official conduct of a sitting president, because this case is going to end right back in the Supreme Court again as they take each count and make that determination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4179]
TigerPulse: 68%
Posts: 8502
Joined: 12/9/01
|
Re: So whats your problem with the ruling
Jul 2, 2024, 2:19 PM
|
|
As of today, "official acts", according to MAGA, include installing fake electors and paying off pron stars. 😆 🤣 😂
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22737]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31545
Joined: 11/30/98
|
while telegraphing their belief that most, if not all, were official actions
Jul 2, 2024, 2:35 PM
[ in reply to So whats your problem with the ruling ] |
|
"within the outer sphere of Constitutional authority."
Judge Thomas also threw a bone to Judge Cannon that she can rule the special council is not legal in the classified documents case.
The Court should have said that Presidents do not enjoy absolute immunity and sent it back to the lower courts to adjudicate many months ago. Jack Smith asked for it in November of last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4448]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4755
Joined: 10/6/03
|
Re: "Presidents have always had immunity in office"
Jul 2, 2024, 1:50 PM
|
|
After the Supreme Court ruled unfavorablely in Worcester v. Georgia, Andrew Jackson said "John Marshall (Chief Justice of the SCOTUS) has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
Then at his direction the US Army promptly initiated the Trail of Tears, forcibly relocating over 15,000 Native Americans from Georgia to Oklahoma. Over 4,000 lost their lives.
It's hard to conceive of anything worse than that. But he was not charged and convicted because the constitution has not and does not provide for it. And this bull crap that “there has never been cause to charge a president with a crime before Trump” is TOTAL BS.
Every president has done things in their official capacity that any other ordinary citizen would be arrested and convicted for if they endevoured under their personal enterprise.
Ignorant people make this ruling out to be some extreme and radical opinion. It's been the constitutional law of land for 235 years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11450]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15469
Joined: 8/6/10
|
LOL***
Jul 2, 2024, 2:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 14
| visibility 1001
|
|
|
50
