Supreme Court rules President is immune for “official acts”

[Gepetto 1,371]

53 minutes ago, squistion said:

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.

Well, if AhmedBaba says so,

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

Liberals putting things in front of a conservative court they know they are going to lose. It’s almost like they are doing it on purpose for political gain. 

[squistion 2,216]

https://x.com/kylegriffin1/status/1807806493498159577

Flag: In a footnote, the conservative Supreme Court appears to say the federal cases against Trump cannot continue if he returns to the White House.

John Roberts: "In the criminal context … the Justice Department 'has long recognized' that 'the separation of powers precludes the criminal prosecution of a sitting President.'"

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

The Chevron ruling is far more important.  

[IGotWorms 4,058]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

The Chevron ruling is far more important.  

That one does fock a lot more sh1t up. Will take a decade to fully address it.

But at least it made more legal sense, as a ruling 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,484]

5 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That one does fock a lot more sh1t up. Will take a decade to fully address it.

But at least it made more legal sense, as a ruling 

When someone like Granholm is making decisions based on zero expertise, it’s another case of the left abusing what could considered a reasonable policy in the pursuit of efficiency and speed and just abusing the Fock out of it for their political ideology.  

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Many of you must be fast readers, and even faster at appreciating what you read.  This over 100 page opinion with concurrances and dissents seems nuanced.  I have yet to get to the concurrances or the dissents.  After I do i am sure i will have to read the whole thing at least a second time to feel comfortable commenting, yet it seems we have a few here who are comfortable arguing the matter.  I congratualte them all on their fast reading and superior comprehension.

[zsasz 369]

I think this is one that, years later; when Donald Trump has been reduced to the history books, the country will regret and be very wary of. Too many of his detractors want "To NaIL HiM At All COStS!!!!!".  Too many of his supporters are "heh-heh...Liberal tears taste great".  They're not thinking clearly.  

[seafoam1 3,059]

Which focking dopes on the supreme court voted against thos?

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

24 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Liberals putting things in front of a conservative court they know they are going to lose. It’s almost like they are doing it on purpose for political gain. 

Trump is the one who appealed it to the court, is he the liberal? 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

10 minutes ago, zsasz said:

I think this is one that, years later; when Donald Trump has been reduced to the history books, the country will regret and be very wary of. Too many of his detractors want "To NaIL HiM At All COStS!!!!!".  Too many of his supporters are "heh-heh...Liberal tears taste great".  They're not thinking clearly.  

This is my thinking on it too. This is a ruling that will cut both ways and now that the gate is opened it won't be an easy one to close. 

They basically chose to place the President above the law in some circumstances....that isn't the way to go about this. 

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

18 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

When someone like Granholm is making decisions based on zero expertise, it’s another case of the left abusing what could considered a reasonable policy in the pursuit of efficiency and speed and just abusing the Fock out of it for their political ideology.  

Granholm heads and agency staffed with experts who provide her with the information to make those informed decisions. IF you don't like those decisions you can vote out the administration that appointed her, and let the new administration appointment someone to make different decisions.

Judges are appointed(BASED on their political ideology), given lifetime tenure and generally have no expertise in these matters(EPA FDA...).  Yeah, that's a much better system. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

44 minutes ago, Gepetto said:

Well, if AhmedBaba says so,

Ban this mf’er already.  He pollutes the forum with random thoughts from dipshitts on X.  ALL DAY LONG.

Mike - get rid of this clown!

[Tree of Knowledge 1,868]

4 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

This is my thinking on it too. This is a ruling that will cut both ways and now that the gate is opened it won't be an easy one to close. 

They basically chose to place the President above the law in some circumstances....that isn't the way to go about this. 

45 Presidents were already above the law. This only became an issue when the torches and pitchforks were brought out on Trump. 

[Fnord 2,280]

7 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Ban this mother focker already.  He pollutes the forum with random thoughts from dipshitts on X.  ALL DAY LONG.

Mike - get rid of this clown!

You'll be a good little stormtrooper for father Trump in his next term, won't you? Always ready to shut down speech you don't like, aren't you? A third world nation run by an autocratic leader "elected" by like-minded fools will be such a treat for you. Shall I pack my bags in anticipation of exile, or are you just going to insist on putting libs to death for not supporting your deity Trump?

[seafoam1 3,059]

6 minutes ago, Fnord said:

You'll be a good little stormtrooper for father Trump in his next term, won't you? Always ready to shut down speech you don't like, aren't you? A third world nation run by an autocratic leader "elected" by like-minded fools will be such a treat for you. Shall I pack my bags in anticipation of exile, or are you just going to insist on putting libs to death for not supporting your deity Trump?

[The Real timschochet 6,819]

33 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Many of you must be fast readers, and even faster at appreciating waht you read.  This over 100 page opinion wiht concurrances and dissents seems nuanced.  I have yet to get to the conbcurrances or the dissents.  After i do i am sure i will have to read the whole thing at least a second time to feel comfortable comenting, yet it seems we have a few here who are comfortable arguing the matter.  i congratualte them all on their fast reading and superior comprehension.

Which is why I wrote I’m unsure and uncomfortable. I also don’t understand exactly what is and what is not an official act. 

For example: Nixon authorizes  a bunch of thugs to break into the Watergate hotel Democratic headquarters. I assume that is NOT an official act. But then, when the attorney general (Elliot Richardson) calls for an investigation, Nixon fires him- I assume that IS an official act. Yet the latter act was just as corrupt as the former act- perhaps more so. So based on this ruling Nixon gets away with Watergate? I don’t know, just asking. 

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

16 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

45 Presidents were already above the law. This only became an issue when the torches and pitchforks were brought out on Trump. 

No- it's an issue because the Supreme Court has granted it now. I don't give a who the President is when it goes into effect- it's not good. 

And I bet you and your ilk would be crying like crazy if this judgement came from a liberal court following Biden's term. 

[squistion 2,216]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

Which is why I wrote I’m unsure and uncomfortable. I also don’t understand exactly what is and what is not an official act. 

For example: Nixon authorizes  a bunch of thugs to break into the Watergate hotel Democratic headquarters. I assume that is NOT an official act. But then, when the attorney general (Elliot Richardson) calls for an investigation, Nixon fires him- I assume that IS an official act. Yet the latter act was just as corrupt as the former act- perhaps more so. So based on this ruling Nixon gets away with Watergate? I don’t know, just asking. 

Listening to the legal experts of NBC/MSNBC, yes.

Remember Nixon said something to the effect of "If the President does it, then it’s not illegal" (and this ruling seems to confirm that).

[Strike 5,565]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

Which is why I wrote I’m unsure and uncomfortable. I also don’t understand exactly what is and what is not an official act. 

For example: Nixon authorizes  a bunch of thugs to break into the Watergate hotel Democratic headquarters. I assume that is NOT an official act. But then, when the attorney general (Elliot Richardson) calls for an investigation, Nixon fires him- I assume that IS an official act. Yet the latter act was just as corrupt as the former act- perhaps more so. So based on this ruling Nixon gets away with Watergate? I don’t know, just asking. 

Nixon got away with Watergate because he stepped down.  Congress could have impeached him, a new President appoints a new AG, and that AG prosecutes him.  But back then we didn't just prosecute Presidents and ex Presidents willy nilly.   Starting with Trump the Dems set the precedent.  

[Patented Phil 1,469]

12 minutes ago, Fnord said:

You'll be a good little stormtrooper for father Trump in his next term, won't you? Always ready to shut down speech you don't like, aren't you? A third world nation run by an autocratic leader "elected" by like-minded fools will be such a treat for you. Shall I pack my bags in anticipation of exile, or are you just going to insist on putting libs to death for not supporting your deity Trump?

Oh quit your crying little Leftist snowflake.  Fortunately for you, Trump isn’t the lunatic you think he is.  The real authoritarians in this country are Leftusts like you and the dissenting diversity hires on the Supreme Court.  Governmental Immunity is not a “power grab” and it’s not a new concept.  You can’t prosecute people questioning the fairness of an election.  Toughen up, act like a man, and beat them fairly at the polls.  But keep crying for a little while longer.  It’s very amusing.

[Patented Phil 1,469]

2 minutes ago, squistion said:

Listening to the legal experts of NBC/MSNBC, yes.

[Sean Mooney 1,984]

Just to go to an extreme here- if Joe Biden came out on July 4th and said "In order to protect democracy and the American way of life- I'm ordering that Donald Trump be eliminated permanently"- would that count as an official act? (Yes there are issues of contracting a hit and it would be the dumbest thing to do in every single way- but as a hypothetical)

[seafoam1 3,059]

1 minute ago, Sean Mooney said:

Just to go to an extreme here- if Joe Biden came out on July 4th and said "In order to protect democracy and the American way of life- I'm ordering that Donald Trump be eliminated permanently"- would that count as an official act? (Yes there are issues of contracting a hit and it would be the dumbest thing to do in every single way- but as a hypothetical)

So he's declaring war on his own citizens? 

Sounds like a dictator to me. 

What a dope. 

[thegeneral 3,236]

10 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

Oh quit your crying little Leftist snowflake.  Fortunately for you, Trump isn’t the lunatic you think he is.  The real authoritarians in this country are Leftusts like you and the dissenting diversity hires on the Supreme Court.  Governmental Immunity is not a “power grab” and it’s not a new concept.  You can’t prosecute people questioning the fairness of an election.  Toughen up, act like a man, and beat them fairly at the polls.  But keep crying for a little while longer.  It’s very amusing.

Biden beat Trump fairly.

Are you saying you are ok with a Prez after being told it’s illegal to pressure his VP to not certify the election?

Are you ok with the Prez telling DoJ to say the election was corrupt, after they had not uncovered any evidence, and to then leave the rest to the Prez?

[seafoam1 3,059]

33 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Biden beat Trump fairly.

Are you saying you are ok with a Prez after being told it’s illegal to pressure his VP to not certify the election?

Are you ok with the Prez telling DoJ to say the election was corrupt, after they had not uncovered any evidence, and to then leave the rest to the Prez?

It was corrupt. So you are wrong again.

Hell, you don't even know that this ruling covers obamas and bidens collective ass. 

No liberals do, so you have company. 

[thegeneral 3,236]

1 minute ago, seafoam1 said:

It was corrupt. So you are wrong again.

Hell, you don't even know that this ruling covers obamas and bidens collective ass. 

No liberals do, so you have company. 

Who said it was corrupt? You

I guess the difference I am seeing is go ahead and go after any Prez you like if they broke the law. They aren’t kings. This just seems to give this job, that already has seemingly unlimited power, even more. 

 

[RLLD 4,243]

AOC: We Must ‘Very Seriously Consider’ Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices

 

Translation : The decision did not meet her expectations, so they must be eliminated....only that which AOC thinks is true and right can be allowed.

[Mike Honcho 5,287]

 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court said that that Trump’s pressure campaign on Vice President Mike Pence to help him overturn the election is “presumptively” immune, and put the burden on the prosecutors to rebut the presumptive immunity.

As for Trump’s state-level efforts to overturn the results, including the fake electors scheme, the high court told lower courts to analyze what of that conduct was an official act and what was not.

Roberts said that analysis will require an “assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons.”

 

That's an official act? 

Chief Justice Roger B. Taney of the historical Dred Scott case, you have company now. 

[thegeneral 3,236]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

AOC: We Must ‘Very Seriously Consider’ Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices

 

Translation : The decision did not meet her expectations, so they must be eliminated....only that which AOC thinks is true and right can be allowed.

I am surprised you think this is a good decision. Give the Prez more power. What could go wrong!

[squistion 2,216]

From Congressman Adam Schiff:

https://x.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1807829849144254856

Today’s Supreme Court decision on Donald Trump’s immunity claim is far worse than anything I imagined...

Effectively giving a president immunity for any crimes committed while in office as long as that president can plausibly claim the action was taken in some form of official capacity.

It must now be presumed that the president, as king, is immune from accountability.

The rule of law applies to everyone except the most powerful person on Earth.

It would be difficult to overstate how much this opinion shifts the balance of power away from Congress and towards the presidency, and how unshackled a corrupt president will now be. The Court gives the president absolute power, and it will corrupt him, absolutely.

As Justice Sotomayor says so powerfully, this new immunity ‘now lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.’

The Court holds that when a president acts within his ‘core’ authority, he is fully immune.

And when he acts outside his core authority, but in an official capacity, the presumption of immunity is so strong as to be nearly absolute.

Even if he acts in a purely personal capacity, and the Court majority gives no indication of when that would be, his statements while acting officially may not be used as evidence, and his motives may not be questioned.

Having taken up a case they never should have, having waited until the last day to issue the opinion, having known it was the defendant’s strategy to deny justice by delaying it, the Court now remands the case for further proceedings of indeterminate length, ensuring there will be no accountability for Trump’s insurrectionist crimes before the election.

During his abortive coup attempt, Trump told his acting attorney general and other top Justice Department officials to ‘just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.’

Now the Supreme Court says he is immune from ordering his Justice Department to lie, and the evidence of his malice, his very words, may not be used as evidence against him.

Under this ruling, a president can order the assassination or jailing of their political rival, and be immune. They can take a bribe in exchange for an official act, and still be immune. They can organize a military coup to hold onto power, and still be immune. If that sounds mad, that’s because it is.

This is a day that will live in legal infamy.

When justices on the Court that bears Roberts’ name, paid back their appointment by a corrupt president with an opinion that provides immunity to all corrupt presidents, and weakened our democracy and the rule of law for the ages.

Our only remedy is the ballot box, a new congress, and a new Court — that has more reverence for the Constitution than the lust for power.

[RLLD 4,243]

4 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

I am surprised you think this is a good decision. Give the Prez more power. What could go wrong!

I do not always agree with SCOTUS decisions.  I will not suggest they need to be removed however.

[Beaker15 242]

Adam Schiff is the biggest blow hard and liar in Congress.  I stopped reading after the first sentence.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

This is my thinking on it too. This is a ruling that will cut both ways and now that the gate is opened it won't be an easy one to close. 

They basically chose to place the President above the law in some circumstances....that isn't the way to go about this. 

the President is already above the law, Obama was legally allowed by his office to murder americans

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

Squisy still posts INSURRECTION!!!!!!!!!@$@^%$!#$^#^&#%$&!#%$&! 

Adam Schiff is a focking idiot

 

[squistion 2,216]

From Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe (with a 2:25 MSNBC interview clip at link).

https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1807832150420643921

On re-reading the decision, I’m all the more convinced that the blow is a devastating one — a “5-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-government,” to quote Justice Jackson’s powerful dissent.

[thegeneral 3,236]

1 minute ago, RLLD said:

I do not always agree with SCOTUS decisions.  I will not suggest they need to be removed however.

There will def be a lot of political hay made out of this and the other rulings they have shot out this past week or so. I do agree this is the way it is though, but yeah politicians going to make political arguments. 

Along with Clarence traveling all over the place as unreported “gifts”, Alito and Clarence’s wives showing their asses on Jan 6th, etc. Been a bit of a rough couple months for the SC. Coupled with how we got to such a wide majority with Mitch’s chicanery is pretty brutal.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

39 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

Just to go to an extreme here- if Joe Biden came out on July 4th and said "In order to protect democracy and the American way of life- I'm ordering that Donald Trump be eliminated permanently"- would that count as an official act? (Yes there are issues of contracting a hit and it would be the dumbest thing to do in every single way- but as a hypothetical)

that would count as an impeachable and criminal act prior to and after this ruling

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,356]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

From Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe (with a 2:25 MSNBC interview clip at link).

https://x.com/tribelaw/status/1807832150420643921

On re-reading the decision, I’m all the more convinced that the blow is a devastating one — a “5-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-government,” to quote Justice Jackson’s powerful dissent.

calling Jackson, Justice jackson is a devastating blow in itself

 

[seafoam1 3,059]

22 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Who said it was corrupt? You

I guess the difference I am seeing is go ahead and go after any Prez you like if they broke the law. They aren’t kings. This just seems to give this job, that already has seemingly unlimited power, even more. 

 

You are lost.