Supreme Court rules President is immune for “official acts”

[The Real timschochet 6,830]

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24/index.html
 

6-3 decision. 

Putting aside the specifics of the cases involving Donald Trump, I feel uncomfortable with this decision. Maybe it’s a good legal decision; I’m not knowledgeable enough to know one way or the other and I’m not going to claim that I am. But it sure feels like we’re giving the President way too much power. 

[Strike 5,570]

WINNING!!!!

[Hardcore troubadour 15,489]

Obama has to be relieved. 

[squistion 2,217]

Never have to wonder why some justices received gifts.

[seafoam1 3,069]

Trump, and real Americans win again over the obsessed liberals who have been attacking a political opponent like shlthole countries do. 

Buckle up Jack Smith, go get some rest. 

[squistion 2,217]

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1807789806430330924

READ: The final words in Justice Sotomayor's dissent:

"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

[seafoam1 3,069]

3 minutes ago, squistion said:

Never have to wonder why some justices received gifts.

Yeah, that brown jackson chick, not knowing what a woman is, wasn't gifted her seat on the court. 

[thegeneral 3,237]

Let’s make the office of the Prez even more powerful and unchecked. Great idea!

[squistion 2,217]

https://x.com/AhmedBaba_/status/1807792294830952479

The 6-3 right-wing Supreme Court establishing immunity for “official acts” places the presidency closer to authoritarianism then ever in history. If a judge (and SCOTUS if appealed) deems certain conduct official acts, then presidents can abuse their power without consequences.

The 6-3 right-wing majority is creating a new standard of “presumptive immunity” for acts alleged to be official and puts the burden on prosecutors to prove otherwise. They also say when courts are deciding whether an act is official or unofficial, judges can’t inquire into the motives of the president. This is insane.

[seafoam1 3,069]

5 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Let’s make the office of the Prez even more powerful and unchecked. Great idea!

This is you saying you have no clue what this about without you actually saying "I don't have any clue what this stuff means." 

Stupid liberals. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

16 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24/index.html
 

6-3 decision. 

Putting aside the specifics of the cases involving Donald Trump, I feel uncomfortable with this decision. Maybe it’s a good legal decision; I’m not knowledgeable enough to know one way or the other and I’m not going to claim that I am. But it sure feels like we’re giving the President way too much power. 

So you’re against this?  Then you would be ok with Obama being tried for murdering an American citizen 

[Strike 5,570]

Squis gets his legal advice from Twitter!   LOL.

[Strike 5,570]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

So you’re against this?  Then you would be ok with Obama being tried for murdering an American citizen 

He should be.

[thegeneral 3,237]

Just now, seafoam1 said:

This is you saying you have no clue what this about without you actually saying "I don't have any clue what this stuff means." 

Stupid liberals. 

What do you think this ruling means?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

6 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Let’s make the office of the Prez even more powerful and unchecked. Great idea!

How so?  He can still be impeached by congress. Once impeached he can then be charged 

[thegeneral 3,237]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

How so?  He can still be impeached by congress. Once impeached he can then be charged 

Congress is never going to impeach the Prez. There are too many hacks to reach those numbers. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

Just now, thegeneral said:

What do you think this ruling means?

It means that if the president makes a decision while in office he can’t be charged on it by an individual state. First they must be impeached and removed and then they can be tried for crimes 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

Just now, thegeneral said:

Congress is never going to impeach the Prez. There are too many hacks to reach those numbers. 

Says the guy who supported wasted impeachments for the last 8 years 

here I’ll spell it out for you. If Trump kills his political opponent he would be impeached 100-0

[seafoam1 3,069]

5 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

What do you think this ruling means?

It means the court is focking sick and tired of Jack Smith. 

And if you don't know what presumptive immunity is, why are you commenting on it?

[thegeneral 3,237]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

It means that if the president makes a decision while in office he can’t be charged on it by an individual state. First they must be impeached and removed and then they can be tried for crimes 

So let’s take Trump’s situation with Jan 6th. The argument in the Senate was that since Trump wasn’t actually Prez anymore then he couldn’t be impeached. So you get a nice little window there to do whatever you like if it’s “official”.

[Strike 5,570]

5 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

How so?  He can still be impeached by congress. Once impeached he can then be charged 

I don't think that's what this means at all.

[squistion 2,217]

From the Twitters:

Seal Team Six, stand back and stand by.

[thegeneral 3,237]

7 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Says the guy who supported wasted impeachments for the last 8 years 

here I’ll spell it out for you. If Trump kills his political opponent he would be impeached 100-0

So killing someone is where you do draw the line. That’s a start

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

So let’s take Trump’s situation with Jan 6th. The argument in the Senate was that since Trump wasn’t actually Prez anymore then he couldn’t be impeached. So you get a nice little window there to do whatever you like if it’s “official”.

huh?

Trump was impeached after he wasn't president anymore, not sure what you are saying, Obama could be impeached RIGHT NOW, if he was he could then be charged with murdering an American citizen

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

5 minutes ago, Strike said:

I don't think that's what this means at all.

Congress still oversees the rule of law under the executive branch

 

[The Real timschochet 6,830]

11 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

So you’re against this?  Then you would be ok with Obama being tried for murdering an American citizen 

I see your argument. I’m honestly not sure. I’m torn on this. As I wrote it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t know if I’m against it. 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

So killing someone is where you do draw the line. That’s a start

no I am just using libtard extreme position, they are worried about Trump killing and locking up political opponents

 

[thegeneral 3,237]

Just now, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

huh?

Trump was impeached after he wasn't president anymore, not sure what you are saying, Obama could be impeached RIGHT NOW, if he was he could then be charged with murdering an American citizen

Trump was acquitted by the Senate. The argument was IIRC based largely in that he was no longer Prez. It fell like 10 votes short.

[squistion 2,217]

https://x.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1807788604833308949

The Court has handed Trump, if he wins this November, carte blanche to be a "dictator on day one," and the ability to use every lever of official power at his disposal for his personal ends without any recourse.

This election is now a clear-cut decision between democracy and autocracy. Vote accordingly.

[RLLD 4,250]

I think the problem here is intent.

If anyone, to include a President, takes an action with intent to violate the law, then they clearly should be prosecuted. But if the intent was to do something "good", and yet violated the law, that is something different.

JMHO

[seafoam1 3,069]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I see your argument. I’m honestly not sure. I’m torn on this. As I wrote it makes me uncomfortable. I don’t know if I’m against it. 

Why are you torn on this? You want to handcuff the president from being a decision maker on matters that are part of the job description? You want to elect a person to make world changing decisions then press charges against him after he makes those decisions because you, an empty strip mall manager thinks he made the wrong one? 

Get over yourself. This is why we have term limits. And should have more of them 

[edjr 6,608]

 

[Mike Honcho 5,293]

16 minutes ago, squistion said:

From the Twitters:

Seal Team Six, stand back and stand by.

I know right.

Heck if I were Biden i'd tweet right now, "Hey DT, you thought when the FBI came to your house to retrieve documents, that it was an assassination attempt, well guess what, I'm OFFICIALLY telling seal team 6 to take you out, sucks to be you".  

[Strike 5,570]

2 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I think the problem here is intent.

If anyone, to include a President, takes an action with intent to violate the law, then they clearly should be prosecuted. But if the intent was to do something "good", and yet violated the law, that is something different.

JMHO

The ruling clearly says it applies to official acts, and that not all acts are official.

[thegeneral 3,237]

Nixon pulled his act a few decades too early.

[RLLD 4,250]

1 minute ago, Strike said:

The ruling clearly says it applies to official acts, and that not all acts are official.

Ahhh, a point I did not pick up on.....ok.....

[weepaws 3,202]

That’s BS. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,489]

As we all get older we should cut down on our salt intake. But liberal tears are hard to resist. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,871]

28 minutes ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1807788604833308949

The Court has handed Trump, if he wins this November, carte blanche to be a "dictator on day one," and the ability to use every lever of official power at his disposal for his personal ends without any recourse.

This election is now a clear-cut decision between democracy and autocracy. Vote accordingly.

What a beautiful time to be alive.  

[IGotWorms 4,058]

This should end well