The President is Above the Law

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is the constitution never said it forbids abortion restrictions in 1972. Judges made it up.

Judges make stuff up I guess.

Such as Presidential Immunity. Not in the Constitution. Literally out of thin air.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd be fascinated to see how this court would rule under a radical progressive president who attempts to assassinate his opponents and openly take bribes. I am also tired of justices pretending they're historians and have any good thumb on the history of this country-follow plain text if you want to be originalists but don't conjure up convenient analyses of history

Neither of these actions is covered by this ruling. Those are not "official" duties. Those are crimes, regardless of who is doing them.

If a crime has no enforcement possibility then is it really a crime?

Crime absolutely has enforcement possibility.
Tell me exactly how assassinating Justices on SCOTUS is an official act.

The President can order the military to assassinate anyone - he is the Commander-in-Chief so any order he gives is an official act - and no one is allowed to look at the President's motive and the evidence of the official act is inadmissible.

How fascinating that Obama …asserted this same exact thing.

“The Obama administration today argued before a federal court that it should have unreviewable authority to kill Americans the executive branch has unilaterally determined to pose a threat… “Not only does the administration claim to have sweeping power to target and kill U.S. citizens anywhere in the world, but it makes the extraordinary claim that the court has no role in reviewing that power or the legal standards that apply.”

https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones

Perhaps, there is a difference between targeting a real terrorist who is an American citizen and targeting a political rival on the argument that he is a national security risk. Both are okay with the current Supremes.

And today's ruling helps the President even further but not requiring him to provide any motive, much less proof of the threat.

No, motive is not required or allowed for official acts. For unofficial acts, it is a permissible inquiry. And how do you know if it's an official or unofficial act? You challenge it in court

I understand why the Supreme Court tried to set the bar so high, to deter problematic prosecution. But I'm not sure it will work like they want it to.

So, the President should order the order of the Orange Man on national security grounds based on his intentional and deliberate refusal to turn over top secret documents and his showing of those documents to others. Official act, by all definitions. Motive, whether disclosed or not, is not relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seal Team 6? Ya'all are bat5h1t crazy! So extreme.

I know, he doesn't have to use Seal Team. Biden can do something less extreme and be just as effective.

Yep, Biden could have Trump vanished, and SCOTUS said it would be legal and he would be immune. Guess you idiots didn't think those decisions could apply to someone other than Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that one side is salivating at the thought that they could have a candidate be king while the other side is heartbroken because of what it means for democracy and this country is all you really need to know about who you should vote for this election.... I'm talking up and down the ticket not just the president.

Oh give it a rest. We’ve been rightly saying that the media and DNC has been lying about a lot of things over the past several years from Covid to Russia and now Biden’s state of mind. And we have been right. You say you fear for our democracy; well having a political party keeping such important information about Biden from voters is not democracy, it’s oligarchy.

Maybe start listening to the other side of the aisle and aim for some common ground instead of the dark demonization.

Nope. Never dance with the devil and his spawns.

Enjoy the loss.

You're so tunnel vision that you don't realize that nobody wins, at least not people who have to work for a living and have nowhere else to go. Maybe this doesn't apply to you and you can be so myopic.

The economy was significantly better under Trump. I enjoyed going to the grocery store in a pre inflation era.

You realize it's been happening worldwide, right?

You know that Biden insisted inflation was transitory right? And that he was warned he was adding money to quickly to the post Covid economy and it would lead to inflation, right? And that he ignored all of those warnings from economists and pundits, right? And that the fact that inflation around the world exists doesn’t mean that Biden’s policies didn’t make the US trajectory worse, right?

And, so, perhaps, Biden was wrong in that judgment. That is not a crime. And the Fatty One claimed that COVID would disappear quickly as well. But then you know that over 1Million Americans died for COVID. And that is a conservative number. While the Fatty One is a criminal, he is not criminal because he was wrong about COVID.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden is just as protected by this as Trump.

To the extent the Supreme Court rules that something is an "official act."

Something tells me the current Court would give Trump more latitude than Biden.

And something tells me they wouldn’t. You’re entitled to your opinion born of a court that disagrees with you, but that’s all it is.

The problem here, Bud, is that you have no evidence or data to support that view. We have dozens of decisions to support our view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump’s lawyers argued in court today that a President could order Seal Team 6 to murder a political opponent and he would be immune from criminal prosecution.

What type of argument is this? Didn’t we fight a war with Britain to get away from a king?

It's called executive immunity. Do you want every president from here on out looking over their shoulders for actions they took whilst in office?

You would get to a point of a feckless presidency that can't act in many cases. Would you like Biden to be prosecuted for killing 13 children in Kabul, Afghanistan in a missile strike that Biden concurred to? The precedent you would be setting is MADNESS.

Is that the best example you can come up with of an unlawful act that is necessary for the president to be able to commit in order to be president? Because it seems like a pretty wide gulf between a narrow exception for foreign policy and blanket immunity.

Oh, and if Trump killed someone overseas, not in furtherance of foreign policy but in furtherance of his business interests? I'd want him prosecuted.

There's no gulf there at all. Because you have a DOJ stocked with personnel chosen by the president. They are the decision makers. All you have to be is a former president in an opposition party.

Is this rocket science for you?

No. The President does not chose everyone at DOJ. There are hundreds of career prosecutors. You might also have forgotten that DOJ left in place the attorneys investigating Trump and Hunter. Donald would have done the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Presidents can pardon anyone (convicted of federal crime or facing conviction), so the president really is above the law. Or as Roberts said IS the law.

[Anonymous]

Adding - the decision to prosecute is at its core a political decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you ever took a civics class you would understand that a President has immunity for official acts, not private. The burden of proof is discerning official vs private. The SC got it right. This is nothing new. The sheeple are out in full force today,

No, it is new. And it is nowhere to be found in that famous document called the Constitution. The immunity given the MAGA Justices are really similar to the King. The only difference is that the King had unlimited power even outside whatever one might consider his core authority.

Incorrect. There are various types of immunity recognized in the United States, all of which flow from the concept of sovereign immunity. Would you have judges and prosecutors brought up on criminal charges when they carry out their official acts? So when a judge or prosecutor leaves office, can a new prosecutor go after them based on obstruction of justice or similar charge?

Judicial immunity is a form of sovereign immunity, which protects judges and others employed by the judiciary from liability resulting from their judicial actions. It is intended to ensure that judges can make decisions free from improper influence exercised on them, contributing to the impartiality of the judiciary and the rule of law. In modern times, the main purpose of "judicial immunity [is to shield] judges from the suits of ordinary people", primarily litigants who may be dissatisfied with the outcome of a case decided by the judge. Though judges may be immune to suits, in many constitutional democracies judicial misconduct or bad personal behavior is not completely protected – total impunity is considered contrary to the rule of law. Depending on the jurisdiction, they may be criminally charged for courtroom behavior unrelated to the decision-making process (for example, by shooting someone and committing a murder).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity

There is also the concept of prosecutorial immunity. For instance, a prosecutor cannot be sued for purposely withholding exculpatory evidence, even if that act results in a wrongful conviction. Absolute prosecutorial immunity also exists for acts closely related to the criminal process' judicial phase. However, the Supreme Court has held that prosecutors do not enjoy absolute immunity when they act as investigators by engaging in activities associated more closely with police functions. Further, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held in a 2019 decision that a prosecutor is not entitled to absolute prosecutorial discretion when performing purely administrative functions concerning a criminal prosecution. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit has ruled that a prosecutor is not immune from liability for fabricating evidence during pretrial investigations and then introducing that evidence at trial.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity#Prosecutorial_immunity

[Anonymous]

Biden could have expanded the SC, but he didn't despite them playing in our faces the last couple years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden could have expanded the SC, but he didn't despite them playing in our faces the last couple years.

How?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Biden could have expanded the SC, but he didn't despite them playing in our faces the last couple years.

I guess now he can - along with removing Alito and Thomas. The Supreme Court said whatever the President (and Biden is the President) does as an official duty is legal and he is immune from prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Presidents can pardon anyone (convicted of federal crime or facing conviction), so the president really is above the law. Or as Roberts said IS the law.

Except for himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Presidents can pardon anyone (convicted of federal crime or facing conviction), so the president really is above the law. Or as Roberts said IS the law.

Except for himself.

Why not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Biden could have expanded the SC, but he didn't despite them playing in our faces the last couple years.

How?

Have the senate write a bill outlining a justice for each circuit plus the chief justice, fund the additional staffs and pass it through.