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?
-
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.
-
-
The ridiculous thing is that today’s ruling only reaffirms decisions given by prior courts, including “liberal” courts.
-
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
-
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
@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.
-
Im not sure that I agree with this ruling.
I am guess that President Nixon would have not resigned in Watergate for example.
@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.
Then you don’t understand the ruling or are just reading what lies the useful idiots are spreading based on Sotomayor’s dissent.
The ruling DOES NOT give the President anything like blanket immunity. Only immunity on those actions that are strictly taken under the powers of the office and are official acts. Obama ordering a drone strike on an American citizen terrorist? Technically illegal but he’s granted immunity. Biden ordering a drone strike on Trump? Illegal.
In cases where it is clear that the actions weren’t under the powers or authority of the President, there is no immunity. So if it finally came out about Bill killing those trans hookers, he’s SOL.
On the gray area in between it is up to the lower courts to make the call about whether it was in the line of duty.
Trump ordering the Justice Department to investigate all the wacky claims of fraud? Perfectly in his capacity as President. Immune. Trying to convince Pence to not certify? Highly questionable, but not necessarily illegal. Trying to mastermind a fake elector scheme? Totally illegal and not ubder the auspices or powers given the presidency. He will face those charges. Moving documents to Mar A Lago while President? Totally in his capacity. Maintaining those documents afterward? Not legal.
The Brad
