SCOTUS Ruiling

[Bigbrog]

Big implications from the ruling today by the SCOTUS around presidential immunity.  Wonder how many charges will be dropped on Trump now?

[Bigbrog]

Yes I know I misspelled ruling in the title...thanks WKN.

Is there a way to edit titles of threads?

[braves121]

The court really didn’t rule on anything they just are punting it because it was presumed every president has immunity. Now they will need to distinguish in courts what they believe is official and unofficial acts. In my opinion the overturning of chevron and the fact that the SC ruled that they can receive kickbacks for rulings present far greater implications for the country as a whole than this case

Edited July 1 by braves121

[ionel]

19 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

Yes I know I misspelled ruling in the title...thanks WKN.

Is there a way to edit titles of threads?

Bob gave you 15 minutes, C'mom Man! 

[braves121]

Conversely trumps lawyers argued that ordering an assignation of a political opponent would be an official act, Biden has an opportunity to try something 

[braves121]

So Biden can not be prosecuted for the border stuff like everyone’s calling for now since they were all official acts correct?

[VakAttack]

Super excited to be back in a monarchy system again, and on the week of July 4th!  All Hail the Leader and his many wise and unassailable "official acts"!

[uncle bernard]

What's to stop Biden from ordering a drone strike on Trump now that he has immunity for all official acts? Just say we have "intelligence" that he was in the presence of a suspected Hamas militant. 

[Bigbrog]

LOL...you guys crack me up.  Glad once again most of you can't have a civil conversation and would rather use the extreme emotional rhetoric instead.  This DOES NOT mean we are back to a monarchy system, it DOES NOT mean Biden can kill Trump, nor will Trump assassinate anyone.  

Honestly I am torn based on how I understand it.  I'd like to know more about what an "official act" is and/or isn't.

[braves121]

1 minute ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL...you guys crack me up.  Glad once again most of you can't have a civil conversation and would rather use the extreme emotional rhetoric instead.  This DOES NOT mean we are back to a monarchy system, it DOES NOT mean Biden can kill Trump, nor will Trump assassinate anyone.  

Honestly I am torn based on how I understand it.  I'd like to know more about what an "official act" is and/or isn't.

An official act is going to be whatever the lawyers say is an official act we have seen this happen before in other countries…

[uncle bernard]

9 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL...you guys crack me up.  Glad once again most of you can't have a civil conversation and would rather use the extreme emotional rhetoric instead.  This DOES NOT mean we are back to a monarchy system, it DOES NOT mean Biden can kill Trump, nor will Trump assassinate anyone.  

Honestly I am torn based on how I understand it.  I'd like to know more about what an "official act" is and/or isn't.

Trump's lawyers explicitly argued that a political assassination is an "official act."

[Wrestleknownothing]

6 minutes ago, uncle bernard said:

Trump's lawyers explicitly argued that a political assassination is an "official act."

Not exactly. They argued that it depended on the circumstances. A technicality, perhaps. But still less strong an argument than a blanket "is an official act."

[Bigbrog]

I long for the day when people could discuss a topic without their R or D glasses on.  If this discission was made and it was a democrat involved it would have been cheered by a lot of you, but since it was Trump you claim presidents are going to kill each other now and we are going to turn into a monarcy....SMH

I understand the need for immunity for the president based on some of the things they need to do and the decisions they need to make, but there has got to be a line in what that covers.  And who knows if that line will ever be able to be defined.

[headshuck]

It might be appropriate for these people to get a visit from the secret service.

[braves121]

7 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

I long for the day when people could discuss a topic without their R or D glasses on.  If this discission was made and it was a democrat involved it would have been cheered by a lot of you, but since it was Trump you claim presidents are going to kill each other now and we are going to turn into a monarcy....SMH

I understand the need for immunity for the president based on some of the things they need to do and the decisions they need to make, but there has got to be a line in what that covers.  And who knows if that line will ever be able to be defined.

This decision opens a can of worms. Trumps lawyers literally argued that political assassinations could be views as official acts so why are you acting that it is an impossibility? Theoretically this does in fact make the president a monarch because he has immunity with “ official acts” Biden could go ahead and have the fbi lock up trump for any reason and say it’s an official act. Biden could say is suspending all elections as an official act. It’s not about R v D it’s about recognizing this is no good lol

Edited July 1 by braves121

[Bigbrog]

1 minute ago, braves121 said:

This decision opens a can of worms. Trumps lawyers literally argued that political assassinations could be views as official acts so why are you acting that it is an impossibility? Theoretically this does in fact make the president a monarch. Biden could go ahead and have the fbi lock up trump for any reason and say it’s an official act. Biden could say is suspending all elections as an official act.

LOL...wow...you conflating this whole thing.  It doesn't say the president can single handily make all decisions in a vacuum...we still have the checks and balance of our government...so please stop with this nonsense.  And bringing up assassinations is a weak scare tactic you and others are trying to infuse in this conversation.  As I am sure you already know but refuse to be honest about, Trumps lawyers were using political assassinations in a much broader context.  

[braves121]

9 minutes ago, Bigbrog said:

LOL...wow...you conflating this whole thing.  It doesn't say the president can single handily make all decisions in a vacuum...we still have the checks and balance of our government...so please stop with this nonsense.  And bringing up assassinations is a weak scare tactic you and others are trying to infuse in this conversation.  As I am sure you already know but refuse to be honest about, Trumps lawyers were using political assassinations in a much broader context.  

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”
 

“That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.

what is the much broader context that trumps lawyers were using?

Edited July 1 by braves121

[ionel]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Super excited to be back in a monarchy system again, and on the week of July 4th!  All Hail the Leader and his many wise and unassailable "official acts"!

Lawyers who don't understand the law.  

[braves121]

1 minute ago, ionel said:

Lawyers who don't understand the law.  

What would you call it when a leader gets a dangerous amount of power and is unable to be held accountable?

[braves121]

When the party of small government applauds at giving the government even more power

[VakAttack]

Ahhh, I see some of my fellow plebes have noted the slight snafu in the legal proceedings. What is an official act?  Who knows?!??!  It's not really for us mere serfs to know.  Eventually I'm sure the trust magistrates will deign to defining them for us.  Could they have told us in this ruling?  Sure, if they so chose, but why should they?  Who are we to ask?  They will surely do what is best and provide for us as needed.  I mean, sure, they decided SOME of the acts were privileged, but then said "these others...we have no opinion, somebody else decide so that we can later decide whether that new decision was a good decision", but again, who are we lowly peasants to ask?

[braves121]

7 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

Ahhh, I see some of my fellow plebes have noted the slight snafu in the legal proceedings. What is an official act?  Who knows?!??!  It's not really for us mere serfs to know.  Eventually I'm sure the trust magistrates will deign to defining them for us.  Could they have told us in this ruling?  Sure, if they so chose, but why should they?  Who are we to ask?  They will surely do what is best and provide for us as needed.  I mean, sure, they decided SOME of the acts were privileged, but then said "these others...we have no opinion, somebody else decide so that we can later decide whether that new decision was a good decision", but again, who are we lowly peasants to ask?

They also stated that the plebes who are experts in their fields are no longer qualified to regulate government agencies such ans the fda and osha,  only people who are elected like those who couldn’t name the 3 branches of the government. Asbestos in water and child labor are back on the menu for us plebes gotta love it

[Lipdrag]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Super excited to be back in a monarchy system again, and on the week of July 4th!  All Hail the Leader and his many wise and unassailable "official acts"!

I see this as the SC simply endorsing the principle of qualified immunity enjoyed by every government worker from dog catcher to judges to DAs.  Seems like a very pedestrian, benign, and uncontroversial decision if one accepts the QI concept.  Why the hysteria ( disguised as snark)?

[VakAttack]

4 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

I see this as the SC simply endorsing the principle of qualified immunity enjoyed by every government worker from dog catcher to judges to DAs.  Seems like a very pedestrian, benign, and uncontroversial decision if one accepts the QI concept.  Why the hysteria ( disguised as snark)?

Well, given that decision uses the phrase "absolute immunity" and not "qualified immunity", some of my fellow lesser beings may feel that those are two different things given that they are two different things.

[Lipdrag]

6 minutes ago, VakAttack said:

the phrase "absolute immunity" and not "qualified immunity",

Does not the term "official acts" become the qualifier of the absolute?

Edited July 1 by Lipdrag