SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity

[Horace]

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.

[AndyD]

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?

[Jolly]

No. Trump is a U.S. citizen and that would be murder, which is illegal.

Which is why Barry breathed a sigh of relief this morning. Let this crap stand and Obama could be brought up on murder charges tomorrow.

[Horace]

@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.

[Copper]

@AndyD said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

does he now have immunity for that assassination?

I don't know about president Biden, but certainly president Obama would have immunity.

[Mik]

@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.

[George K]

@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]

@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.

[Axtremus]

What will Team Biden do with this new immunity?

[George K]

@Axtremus said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

What will Team Biden do with this new immunity?

[Copper]

So long Mr. Trump.

[Mik]

Hyper-hyperbole.

[Horace]

That will be a very common reaction to this ruling amongst the TDS rabble. But they don't actually understand the ruling.

[Mik]

There's no real immunity IF there is consensus in Congress. As it was intended.

[Horace]

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.

[Mik]

Yes, I'd agree on that. They have demonstrated remarkable good sense thus far.

[George K]

Has Trump been charged with incitement of an insurrection?

Has he been charged with treason?

Remember when Schumer threatened the Court during a rally? "You will pay the price." Sounds incitement-ey to me.

Sandy plans on filing articles to impeach.

Which ones, Sandy? The ones you disagree with?

[LuFins Dad]

The ridiculous thing is that today’s ruling only reaffirms decisions given by prior courts, including “liberal” courts.

[taiwan_girl]

Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.

I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.

[Horace]

@taiwan_girl said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.

I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.

He was going to be impeached in a slam dunk. Impeachments are still a thing, even with criminal immunity. That’s yet another reason why this is much ado about nothing.