SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity
-
This one requires some thought.
-
Limited Immunity? So it’s another mRNA vaccine?
-
I have a hard time accepting that Trump refusing to accept his election defeat is an official act, but what do I know?
-
Smith just needs to fold his tent...I think 3/4 of his case is now dead.
And it should be. A mechanism exists for removing Presidents. Lawfare hamstrings governance. Do what the Constitution says.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
I think the net effect of this ruling (which was 6-3 along tribal lines, again) will be to reduce frivolous politically motivated lawfare against sitting presidents. This ruling will come in very handy for both parties, I am sure. The public is going to want all the lawfare it can get, and it'll be nice to nip all that nonsense in the bud.
Education is extremely important.
-
So if Joe officially commands a Seal Team to assassinate, say for example, Donald, because he honestly deems him a threat to the Country, does he now have immunity for that assassination?
-
So if Joe officially commands a Seal Team to assassinate, say for example, Donald, because he honestly deems him a threat to the Country, does he now have immunity for that assassination?
@AndyD said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
So if Joe officially commands a Seal Team to assassinate, say for example, Donald, because he honestly deems him a threat to the Country, does he now have immunity for that assassination?
The question of whether an act is or is not within the core responsibilities of a president would be left to the courts.
If Trump was leading a violent military style insurrection, I guess it would be within the responsibilities of a president to end that insurrection with violence. That would be one end of a continuum. The opposite end would be to assassinate a peaceful political rival. We will leave it to the courts to determine where on that continuum an act lies.
I do understand that the TDS contingent will allow their imaginations to run wild about this ruling, but infants gonna infant.
Education is extremely important.
-
So if Joe officially commands a Seal Team to assassinate, say for example, Donald, because he honestly deems him a threat to the Country, does he now have immunity for that assassination?
-
I think the net effect of this ruling (which was 6-3 along tribal lines, again) will be to reduce frivolous politically motivated lawfare against sitting presidents. This ruling will come in very handy for both parties, I am sure. The public is going to want all the lawfare it can get, and it'll be nice to nip all that nonsense in the bud.
@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
I think the net effect of this ruling (which was 6-3 along tribal lines, again) will be to reduce frivolous politically motivated lawfare against sitting presidents. This ruling will come in very handy for both parties, I am sure. The public is going to want all the lawfare it can get, and it'll be nice to nip all that nonsense in the bud.
Amen.
-
Smith just needs to fold his tent...I think 3/4 of his case is now dead.
And it should be. A mechanism exists for removing Presidents. Lawfare hamstrings governance. Do what the Constitution says.
@Jolly said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Smith just needs to fold his tent.
Thomas, in his comments, said that the appointment of Smith is illegal.
-
@Jolly said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Smith just needs to fold his tent.
Thomas, in his comments, said that the appointment of Smith is illegal.
@George-K said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
@Jolly said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
Smith just needs to fold his tent.
Thomas, in his comments, said that the appointment of Smith is illegal.
A beam of light in the darkness.
-
The way I read it, the first threshold to prosecute a president will be to establish that the act was outside his core responsibilities as president. I don't think a president's core responsibilities include assassination of political opponents, but I know the TDS rabble can easily frame it like the protection of the US, and therefore within those responsibilities. Luckily, SCOTUS decisions are not internet arguments. I'm comfortable with how SCOTUS would rule on the issue.
