SC rules presidents have immunity

[User]

58 minutes ago, Hodad said:

With no law capable of constraining the executive, the last barrier to dictatorship has fallen, along with all of John Roberts hopes for legacy. Instead, should the country survive to remember, this court will live in infamy.

Tell us you have no clue what you are talking about and clearly do not care to...

 

[CdnFox]

5 hours ago, West said:

This isn't good as Joe has been committing many human rights violations while President 

That is why elections matter

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

With no law capable of constraining the executive, the last barrier to dictatorship has fallen, along with all of John Roberts hopes for legacy. Instead, should the country survive to remember, this court will live in infamy.

What a joke.  That's why there is impeachment. 

And you on the left were the ones who weaponized the courts to go after your political opponents.  So i guess what you mean is "WHAT?!? NOW WE HAVE TO FIGHT FAIR?!?!!??!!?

LOL

[User]

6 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What a joke.  That's why there is impeachment. 

And you on the left were the ones who weaponized the courts to go after your political opponents.  So i guess what you mean is "WHAT?!? NOW WE HAVE TO FIGHT FAIR?!?!!??!!?

LOL

Don't even need impeachment. They did not rule he had any kind of absolute immunity across the board. 

 

[Hodad]

7 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

They haven't put limits in yet, all these things will come before the court and the court will decide whether they are immune or not. Not that you can just do whatever you want.

All they are saying that there has to be some level of immunity or every election the former President would be brought up on charges.

This has never been brought up by the courts but this is the first time you had a current administration going after a former President legally.

You are very confused. You suggest that potential crimes must come before the court to decide whether a President is immune or not, but that's entirely redundant. Criminal laws already exist, and the question of whether a person--any person--is guilty of and will be punished for transgressions of those laws has always come before the court, with every circumstance evaluated one at a time. Including and up through the SCOTUS. "Immunity" as you describe has always been decided on a case-by-case basis. 

Historically, the POTUS has always been subject to the same criminal laws--no one above the law. That was the case with Nixon. He broke criminal laws. He resigned and he was pardoned, an explicit acknowledgement that the POTUS was subject to the same criminal code as every other American. And couples with executive privilege, the possibilities are endless and hidden. If Watergate were to happen today, Nixon would have no need to resign. 

The answer to not being prosecuted is an easy one that has worked for 250 years: even presidents can't commit criminal acts. And it was a essential check against presidential misbehavior. And now, suddenly, this court imagines that the system hasn't been working? Trump is not a victim of persecution. He's received an unusual amount of post-presidential attention because his behavior was brazenly criminal, not even in the interest of the country, but in service of his own personal and political interests.

What this infernal court has done is, for the first time in our nation's history, and in direct contradiction of every intention of the founding fathers, is to re-create the presidency as an office above the law. And sure, they did it to shield someone you root for, but my goodness, unless you plan to have "your side" in power in perpetuity (which many do intend) think of the Pandora's box this opens. This is the privilege of position that Putin enjoys, gleefully and untouchably disposing of his enemies and rivals. And now this brand of "democracy" has come to America. It should be a sad day for all Americans, but too many will be celebrating. They are too busy celebrating a "team win" to recognize the general loss. 

[Hodad]

49 minutes ago, User said:

Tell us you have no clue what you are talking about and clearly do not care to...

 

I know it's hard for you to see the big picture with your head firmly up Trump's ass, but perhaps pull out, towel off and take a look at what this actually means for the future of America. 

[Legato]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I know it's hard for you to see the big picture with your head firmly up Trump's ass, but perhaps pull out, towel off and take a look at what this actually means for the future of America. 

We did. Now your turn.

[User]

22 minutes ago, Hodad said:

I know it's hard for you to see the big picture with your head firmly up Trump's ass, but perhaps pull out, towel off and take a look at what this actually means for the future of America. 

I see you are like many other liberals on social media today... really riled up. Go outside, breath some fresh air, maybe go talk to some normal people for a bit. 

Then, read the actual ruling. 

You seriously have no care about the truth here right now.

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Oh bullspit.

First, There still is and always has been checks and balances.

Second, impeachment is a thing.

Third, stop being such a baby. Just stop.

Impeachment? I think it's an open question what "high crimes and misdemeanors" even means when a POTUS is immune to crimes.

But let's be real, impeachment, at this point is an entirely political process. There is no honor or decency. Trump tried to trade American military aid for campaign help--as corrupt and blatant as it gets--and still Republican senators refused to hold him accountable. And these are the people you expect to keep criminal behavior in check? 

No, to keep that behavior in check we've always relied on the fact that the President was not above the law, that, like Nixon, the President must fear prosecution. No longer. Now the President need not fear. He or she is free to "act boldly" and criminally as their whims dictate.  

[User]

15 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Now the President need not fear. He or she is free to "act boldly" and criminally as their whims dictate.  

Stop posting on here. Just stop. Go read the ruling. 

Enough of your ignorance. 

[herbie]

Amazing!

Splinter Court of US and Splinters (1-6) all side with Splinter Prime....

[gatomontes99]

47 minutes ago, Hodad said:

Impeachment? I think it's an open question what "high crimes and misdemeanors" even means when a POTUS is immune to crimes.

But let's be real, impeachment, at this point is an entirely political process. There is no honor or decency. Trump tried to trade American military aid for campaign help--as corrupt and blatant as it gets--and still Republican senators refused to hold him accountable. And these are the people you expect to keep criminal behavior in check? 

No, to keep that behavior in check we've always relied on the fact that the President was not above the law, that, like Nixon, the President must fear prosecution. No longer. Now the President need not fear. He or she is free to "act boldly" and criminally as their whims dictate.  

High crimes and misdemeanors means high crimes and misdemeanors, as it always has. Impeachment is now, and has always been, a political process.

Literally nothing changed with this ruling, except the wackadoodle left can't be tyrants any more.

[West]

46 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

High crimes and misdemeanors means high crimes and misdemeanors, as it always has. Impeachment is now, and has always been, a political process.

Literally nothing changed with this ruling, except the wackadoodle left can't be tyrants any more.

Well many on the left are now calling on Biden to drone bomb the Supreme Court and assassinate Donnie. So they are saying to you "hold my beer". 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, User said:

Don't even need impeachment. They did not rule he had any kind of absolute immunity across the board. 

 

For sure.  This wouldn't include rape while in office for example ( Mr Clinton.  Staaaaaaaaare )

But even for something that it would cover if the house feels it's criminal or grossly inappropriate then they can impeach.  

And the thing about that is - if the dems refuse to impeach one of theirs for something,  then that means it'll be ok for the republicans to get away with it so they better watch out about protecting their own TOO much. 

[Hodad]

1 hour ago, User said:

Stop posting on here. Just stop. Go read the ruling. 

Enough of your ignorance. 

Oh, fark off, you phony. You haven't read it. Most of us will not go beyond the first 20 pages. It's neither well reasoned nor well written, and rather just drones on making excuses for granting absurd power to the executive which the founders certainly didn't include--or believe existed--in the Constitution. 

Once again, political convenience puts the lie to the self-styled "textualists" and "originalists" who are inventing "essential" new executive powers after functioning without then (and better for it) for nearly 250 years.

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

High crimes and misdemeanors means high crimes and misdemeanors, as it always has. Impeachment is now, and has always been, a political process.

Literally nothing changed with this ruling, except the wackadoodle left can't be tyrants any more.

Can you even "hear" yourself?

The logical pretzel that one must contort oneself into to claim that granting the executive immunity from criminal prosecution reduces tyranny, is astonishing. Laughable, if it weren't so tragic. 

I think Biden should go hotwire Clarence Thomas' bribemobile (oh, wait, now I suppose it's a gratuity mobile) and use it for official duties. After all, Biden is now immune from criminal and civil consequences for such an action. Thomas--and all the rest--should get to enjoy first-hand what they've inflicted on the rest of the country in their desperate eagerness to serve the Trump cult.

Edited July 2, 2024 by Hodad

[BeaverFever]

6 hours ago, User said:

Yet again, you are a victim of your own purposeful ignorance. Read the ruling. 

Nowhere did any of it allow for the President to order the military to assassinate someone... 

 

It said there is ground ls immunity as long as it is an “official act”.  So as long as it wasn’t a hit man he secretly hired off on the street but something he did as an official order of the POTUS…he is immune from prosecution.
 

Note that immune from prosecution doesn’t mean it’s legal, it means you can’t prosecute them. 

6 hours ago, West said:

No a sitting president cannot just order the assassination of a US citizen

If he does, he’s now immune from prosecution. The soldier who carries it out not so much but the POTUS can’t be prosecuted for it. 

[West]

39 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

It said there is ground ls immunity as long as it is an “official act”.  So as long as it wasn’t a hit man he secretly hired off on the street but something he did as an official order of the POTUS…he is immune from prosecution.
 

Note that immune from prosecution doesn’t mean it’s legal, it means you can’t prosecute them. 

If he does, he’s now immune from prosecution. The soldier who carries it out not so much but the POTUS can’t be prosecuted for it. 

This is nonsense. In fact the ruling is the opposite. 

Biden tried to act like a king by unilaterally setting up an office to target his political adversary. The SC said that's not constitutional

[herbie]

So if he orders the Secret Service officially to shoot a man down in the street cuz he doesn't like his face, he can't be prosecuted. Just like he said he could and now can.
And all his little sycophants can say, he can't be prosecuted so he didn't do anything illegal and is not a criminal so he's my hero... (sucking noises)

[BeaverFever]

41 minutes ago, West said:

This is nonsense. In fact the ruling is the opposite. 

Biden tried to act like a king by unilaterally setting up an office to target his political adversary. The SC said that's not constitutional

No your statement above is nonsense 

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

Amazing!

Splinter Court of US and Splinters (1-6) all side with Splinter Prime....

Oh I forgot -  if it's a ruling you like then court= fair and justice and independent and just following the law!  If it's a ruling you DON"T like then court = corrupt, evil, bias partisan hacks that are completely under the control of their master!!!

LOL

[West]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No your statement above is nonsense 

No it's fact. Your guy Biden is a disgusting human being who disowned his own granddaughter. Very sick person

2 hours ago, herbie said:

So if he orders the Secret Service officially to shoot a man down in the street cuz he doesn't like his face, he can't be prosecuted. Just like he said he could and now can.
And all his little sycophants can say, he can't be prosecuted so he didn't do anything illegal and is not a criminal so he's my hero... (sucking noises)

That's how Pinocchio Joe is spinning the ruling but he's also been known to disown his own grandchild so take it with a grain of salt

[herbie]

Courts said what he did was legal too

[gatomontes99]

8 hours ago, Hodad said:

Can you even "hear" yourself?

The logical pretzel that one must contort oneself into to claim that granting the executive immunity from criminal prosecution reduces tyranny, is astonishing. Laughable, if it weren't so tragic. 

I think Biden should go hotwire Clarence Thomas' bribemobile (oh, wait, now I suppose it's a gratuity mobile) and use it for official duties. After all, Biden is now immune from criminal and civil consequences for such an action. Thomas--and all the rest--should get to enjoy first-hand what they've inflicted on the rest of the country in their desperate eagerness to serve the Trump cult.

I think you are projecting.

The tyranny we are experiencing is through the unconstitutional and antidemocratic lawfare waged by the Biden administration. SCOTUS ended some of that. That is a good thing. Your hyperbolic arguments that Joe can do anything he wants now are absurd.

The only thing the SCOTUS did was reinstate things to pre2020.

[BeaverFever]

5 hours ago, West said:

No it's fact. Your guy Biden is a disgusting human being who disowned his own granddaughter. Very sick person

That's how Pinocchio Joe is spinning the ruling but he's also been known to disown his own grandchild so take it with a grain of salt

Its not fact and your silly non sequitur response proves it.