SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 14:55 last edited by
This one requires some thought.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 14:59 last edited by
Limited Immunity? So it’s another mRNA vaccine?
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 15:23 last edited by
I have a hard time accepting that Trump refusing to accept his election defeat is an official act, but what do I know?
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 15:43 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 15:54 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 16:18 last edited by
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?
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 16:27 last edited by
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.
-
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?
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 16:31 last edited by@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.
-
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?
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 16:41 last edited by@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.
-
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.
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 16:49 last edited by@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.
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 17:24 last edited by@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.
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 19:04 last edited by@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.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:34 last edited by
What will Team Biden do with this new immunity?
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:37 last edited by
@Axtremus said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
What will Team Biden do with this new immunity?
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:44 last edited by
So long Mr. Trump.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:48 last edited by
Hyper-hyperbole.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:48 last edited by
That will be a very common reaction to this ruling amongst the TDS rabble. But they don't actually understand the ruling.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 20:57 last edited by
There's no real immunity IF there is consensus in Congress. As it was intended.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 21:05 last edited by
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.
-
wrote on 1 Jul 2024, 21:12 last edited by
Yes, I'd agree on that. They have demonstrated remarkable good sense thus far.