Supreme Court rules President is immune for “official acts”

[Mike Honcho 5,281]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

That is how the process was intended.  It allowed for moderation in the selection of judges, which Reid refused....so....sure....setup the situation to get what you wanted that day.....and fock over the women today.....great job. 

No, the process was never intended to include a filibuster(I'm glad it's gone and it should be in all forms). That is 100% historically wrong and I shown that time and time again in various threads(check the Constitution). And in the case of Reid, there was no moderation in the selection of judges--- McConnell absolutely was blocking each and everyone based on them being a Obama nominee. 

 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

Biden removed classified documents as a senator and got a pass.  Now Libtards are concerned about the law. 

[RLLD 4,230]

12 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

No, the process was never intended to include a filibuster(I'm glad it's gone and it should be in all forms). That is 100% historically wrong and I shown that time and time again in various threads(check the Constitution). And in the case of Reid, there was no moderation in the selection of judges--- McConnell absolutely was blocking each and everyone based on them being a Obama nominee. 

 

The filibuster worked, it ensured that neither side of the isle could put someone too far out there into the court, it was arduous but so what.....

So fine, if you are happy with the outcome, great.... I am not....

[Tree of Knowledge 1,859]

Once Trump wins by a landslide in November, he can use that mandate to establish a Trump monarchy, imprison dissenters and trannies and deport all illegals and there is NOTHING you haters can do to stop him!!!!!

WIN WIN WIN

MAGA 4 EVER

[Sean Mooney 1,983]

1 hour ago, RLLD said:

Yeah, notice no one calling her out as a "threat to Democracy".  Can you imagine the media/political response if say.....Ted Cruz said that sh!t?

This all further highlights the BS

No one takes AOC seriously. 

[IGotWorms 4,058]

AOC does tend to say some irresponsible/not well thought out things, but how is it a threat to democracy to follow the process laid out in the Constitution?

I mean, she didn’t rather a bunch of her supporters together, whip em up into a frenzy, and then send them off to sack the Supreme Court or anything

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

While I continue to be unsure about this decision, I can say this: the reaction to it, here and elsewhere, sucks. Because it’s become part of the stupid game. Basically almost everyone who is on Trump’s side likes this decision. Almost everyone who is opposed to Trump hates this decision. 
 

This goes for Trump himself. He says he strongly approves of what the Court did. But we all know that he has no real clue exactly what it did, only that it favors him. And if the shoe was on the other foot he would damn the decision of course. But that’s to be expected because he’s so transactional. Unfortunately so many others are too. 
 

AOC really pisses me off too. She wants to impeach SC justices because she disagrees with them? Fock her. I’ve defended her a lot in the past but this is ridiculous. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,546]

3 hours ago, squistion said:

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

FIFY

[Mark Davis 398]

11 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

While I continue to be unsure about this decision, I can say this: the reaction to it, here and elsewhere, sucks. Because it’s become part of the stupid game. Basically almost everyone who is on Trump’s side likes this decision. Almost everyone who is opposed to Trump hates this decision. 
 

This goes for Trump himself. He says he strongly approves of what the Court did. But we all know that he has no real clue exactly what it did, only that it favors him. And if the shoe was on the other foot he would damn the decision of course. But that’s to be expected because he’s so transactional. Unfortunately so many others are too. 
 

AOC really pisses me off too. She wants to impeach SC justices because she disagrees with them? Fock her. I’ve defended her a lot in the past but this is ridiculous. 

We agree for once, about reactions and how it would play on either side.  I think you have to give the President leeway in able to take actions, specifically military strikes where innocents or collateral damage can occur.  It's hard to ever know intent.  It's a serious issue and it's a difficult one, but impossible in today's partisan environment.  It's always dependent on which person is looking at it as "my side".

[RLLD 4,230]

46 minutes ago, Sean Mooney said:

No one takes AOC seriously. 

I think most people do not, so yeah, would agree.  Just wish the voters in her area would not  

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

45 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

AOC does tend to say some irresponsible/not well thought out things, but how is it a threat to democracy to follow the process laid out in the Constitution?

I mean, she didn’t rather a bunch of her supporters together, whip em up into a frenzy, and then send them off to sack the Supreme Court or anything

What would be the constitutional provision allowing for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice?

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

The court has ruled.  Just like with the 2020 election. Quit yer bellyaching. 

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

4 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

I think you have to give the President leeway in able to take actions, specifically military strikes where innocents or collateral damage can occur.  It's hard to ever know intent.  

I agree with this. On the other hand, both Trump and Biden have been accused of pressuring foreign leaders to do things for personal corrupt reasons. Suppose either accusation is correct: should they be immune from prosecution because these acts were “official”? I would say not. 
 

And what happens if a President orders real war crimes or crimes against humanity? Not collateral damage from bombing but the real thing? Suppose a future President decides to order torture, or false imprisonment? Suppose AOC becomes President, doesn’t like Fox News, and orders its top journalists arrested? Woodrow Wilson did it 100 years ago. So did Abe Lincoln. Putin and Victor Orban do it. Should there be no consequence? 
 

As you wrote these are tough questions and I don’t have good answers. 

[Engorgeous George 2,331]

Samuel Chase is the only Justice to ever be impeached, if I remember correctly.  His impeachment was not based upon disagreement with a sound ruling but his complete lack of judicial temperment.  As many barriers have been broken down in the last decade I suppose this barrieer is susceptible as well.

[Mark Davis 398]

9 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I agree with this. On the other hand, both Trump and Biden have been accused of pressuring foreign leaders to do things for personal corrupt reasons. Suppose either accusation is correct: should they be immune from prosecution because these acts were “official”? I would say not. 
 

And what happens if a President orders real war crimes or crimes against humanity? Not collateral damage from bombing but the real thing? Suppose a future President decides to order torture, or false imprisonment? Suppose AOC becomes President, doesn’t like Fox News, and orders its top journalists arrested? Woodrow Wilson did it 100 years ago. So did Abe Lincoln. Putin and Victor Orban do it. Should there be no consequence? 
 

As you wrote these are tough questions and I don’t have good answers. 

Perhaps it's a decision the court revisits in the future if some of the more severe examples you cited come about.  I'm no attorney, all I know about is some of the basic law classes I took in college.  However, I think in today's environment where every decision is seen as partisan, we diminish the standing of the court and perhaps we may need it as a safeguard to our own viewpoints down the road.  In my view most people have lost sight of this, whether the decision of the day is in our favor or not.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

13 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

What would be the constitutional provision allowing for impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

This is not a controversial statement

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

2 minutes ago, Mark Davis said:

Perhaps it's a decision the court revisits in the future if some of the more severe examples you cited come about.  I'm no attorney, all I know about is some of the basic law classes I took in college.  However, I think in today's environment where every decision is seen as partisan, we diminish the standing of the court and perhaps when we may need it as a safeguard to our own viewpoints, whether the decision of the day is in our favor or not.

But see the partisan thing is part of the problem. No true impeachment  is possible because the Senate is too partisan; you’ll never get 67 votes. But McConnell told us don’t worry about it because, in the case of Trump, the courts would take care of it. Now the courts tell us no they won’t take care of it, impeachment is the way to take care of it. It seems to me that everyone is passing the buck. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,433]

I hope they are hosing down the cages and getting them ready for January. 

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

It seems to me that the fear of prosecuting a former President for political reasons is valid, but ultimately solved by the system in place. My argument is that if Trump or Biden or whoever is prosecuted for what are clearly political reasons a jury of 12 will acquit them. 

[Mark Davis 398]

1 minute ago, The Real timschochet said:

But see the partisan thing is part of the problem. No true impeachment  is possible because the Senate is too partisan; you’ll never get 67 votes. But McConnell told us don’t worry about it because, in the case of Trump, the courts would take care of it. Now the courts tell us no they won’t take care of it, impeachment is the way to take care of it. It seems to me that everyone is passing the buck. 

Impeachment going forward is a political tool one party is using against the other.  Sooner or later they'll figure out it only helps the other party.  I'm not arguing in favor of the current state, but that's just the way it is.

[IGotWorms 4,058]

11 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Samuel Chase is the only Justice to ever be impeached, if I remember correctly.  His impeachment was not based upon disagreement with a sound ruling but his complete lack of judicial temperment.  As many barriers have been broken down in the last decade I suppose this barrieer is susceptible as well.

Well okay, that’s a good point. So maybe Thomas and Alito can be impeached but no so much the others 

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

1 minute ago, Mark Davis said:

Impeachment going forward is a political tool one party is using against the other.  Sooner or later they'll figure out it only helps the other party.  I'm not arguing in favor of the current state, but that's just the way it is.

It is. But it creates a precarious situation because, at least IMO, we’re about to elect a President who is quite willing to break the law in order to pursue corrupt goals. I know you disagree with me about this as regards to Trump, and believe my description better describes Biden. But suppose either of us are right? Hasn’t the SC just removed the guardrails? 

[Maximum Overkill 1,989]

 

 

[Mark Davis 398]

12 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

It is. But it creates a precarious situation because, at least IMO, we’re about to elect a President who is quite willing to break the law in order to pursue corrupt goals. I know you disagree with me about this as regards to Trump, and believe my description better describes Biden. But suppose either of us are right? Hasn’t the SC just removed the guardrails? 

I honestly don't know that answer.  I've read differing opinions, not shockingly depending on the side of the author.  I've seen a few crossing that line in their opinions but given that I don't really know enough about the law in that area to have an opinion, I'd have to look at it more before I would feel comfortable.

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

4 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

It appears you're the only guy that listens to Olbermann anymore.   He's as relevant as yesterday's dog sh#t in the yard.

[Maximum Overkill 1,989]

2 minutes ago, EternalShinyAndChrome said:

It appears you're the only guy that listens to Olbermann anymore.   He's as relevant as yesterday's dog sh#t in the yard.

Naa, Pedocrats love him 

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

35 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I agree with this. On the other hand, both Trump and Biden have been accused of pressuring foreign leaders to do things for personal corrupt reasons. Suppose either accusation is correct: should they be immune from prosecution because these acts were “official”? I would say not. 
 

And what happens if a President orders real war crimes or crimes against humanity? Not collateral damage from bombing but the real thing? Suppose a future President decides to order torture, or false imprisonment? Suppose AOC becomes President, doesn’t like Fox News, and orders its top journalists arrested? Woodrow Wilson did it 100 years ago. So did Abe Lincoln. Putin and Victor Orban do it. Should there be no consequence? 
 

As you wrote these are tough questions and I don’t have good answers. 

Tim, you are looking at this pretty objectively and I appreciate this

under your first comment, the president is still held in account by congress, and was before and after this ruling.  Congress can at anytime pull up charges of high crimes and misdemeanors still.  And any congressman can draw up those articles as they see fit.  We still have checks and balances, this ruling changes nothing (IMO).  What it does do is not allow states to bring charges against a sitting president for something they feel is wrong

 

[Maximum Overkill 1,989]

I know you Pedocrats are really spun out but it's definitely the right call. It's always been that way according to the constitution. It has nothing to do with Trump. 

Snowflake out Snowflakes  

[The Real timschochet 6,765]

1 minute ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

Tim, you are looking at this pretty objectively and I appreciate this

under your first comment, the president is still held in account by congress, and was before and after this ruling.  Congress can at anytime pull up charges of high crimes and misdemeanors still.  And any congressman can draw up those articles as they see fit.  We still have checks and balances, this ruling changes nothing (IMO).  What it does do is not allow states to bring charges against a sitting president for something they feel is wrong

 

I did address this. 67 votes are required to remove a President under impeachment. I believe this is an impossible goal. 

[Patented Phil 1,469]

3 hours 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?

No, I wasn’t ok with Trump doing any of that.  many of the election changes were completely unfair and I warned about it at the time.  But once the courts ruled, that ship had sailed and Trump should have accepted the result.  But there’s a difference between Trump being a dunk and a sore loser, and Trump being indicted as a criminal for challenging the election.  God if that’s the standard then we’d have a lot more Liberals in jail than Republicans.

The Left overplayed their hand (as usual) and it backfired on them, just as we all warned it would.

[Maximum Overkill 1,989]

4 hours ago, thegeneral said:

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

Or going after your Political opponents? 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

3 minutes ago, The Real timschochet said:

I did address this. 67 votes are required to remove a President under impeachment. I believe this is an impossible goal. 

It's the goal Congress set for themselves, no?  I would say it's probably good because then any side could just remove a president willy nilly. 67 at least requires them to REALLY have an airtight case.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 4,350]

Just now, The Real timschochet said:

I did address this. 67 votes are required to remove a President under impeachment. I believe this is an impossible goal. 

and if the president commits a crime, no matter what side, I expect that to be easily passed

I am not talking "crimes" like russia russia russia, or paying a hooker, I am talking serious crimes

put it this way, Obama killed an American by drone strikes in Yemen, a country we are not at war with, under this he was acting to take out a target and could not be charged afterwards, under the clarification of the justices decision today, technically prior to today, he would have been able to be charged.  Now an impeachment conviction would have to occur

 

[thegeneral 3,214]

14 minutes ago, Maximum Overkill said:

Or going after your Political opponents? 

I notice you didn’t answer the questions. It’s ok, I know you’d fill your pants if say Obama did what Trump did.

[thegeneral 3,214]

14 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

and if the president commits a crime, no matter what side, I expect that to be easily passed

I am not talking "crimes" like russia russia russia, or paying a hooker, I am talking serious crimes

put it this way, Obama killed an American by drone strikes in Yemen, a country we are not at war with, under this he was acting to take out a target and could not be charged afterwards, under the clarification of the justices decision today, technically prior to today, he would have been able to be charged.  Now an impeachment conviction would have to occur

 

What makes you believe this?

[thegeneral 3,214]

20 minutes ago, Patented Phil said:

No, I wasn’t ok with Trump doing any of that.  many of the election changes were completely unfair and I warned about it at the time.  But once the courts ruled, that ship had sailed and Trump should have accepted the result.  But there’s a difference between Trump being a dunk and a sore loser, and Trump being indicted as a criminal for challenging the election.  God if that’s the standard then we’d have a lot more Liberals in jail than Republicans.

The Left overplayed their hand (as usual) and it backfired on them, just as we all warned it would.

Are you saying the Left forced the SC to do this but you don’t agree with this ruling the majority gave?

[CaptainObvious1 368]

6 hours ago, squistion said:

Never have to wonder why some justices received gifts.

Maybe Canada is a better place for you

[Mike Honcho 5,281]

Former federal prosecutor does a deep take---

 

[EternalShinyAndChrome 4,106]

Just now, CaptainObvious1 said:

Maybe Canada is a better place for you

Nah.  they're still too conservative for him. Cuba or North Korea is his Utopia.  Heck, too bad the USSR isn't around anymore because that would be even better for him!

70+ purple haired lesbians love that stuff.

[Fnord 2,272]

4 hours 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.

Your guy got beat fairly at the polls four years ago, you're still butthurt, and you're chastising ME about this? MAGAMOOKS gonna mook.

I'll just state that this suddenly all-important push for presidential immunity wasn't needed for the first 250 years of our nation, but today, because of Lord almighty Trump, it's a NECESSITY, dammit!

Every one of the guys defending Trump for the last 10 years would already be in a hot war against liberals if Obama had pulled half the shite Trump has, but it's all good. Nothing to see here.