mspart Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 32 minutes 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 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 An official act outside the constitution is not an official act. I think your example is going too far. A President cannot lock up a person without due process. A President cannot suspend elections. Those are extra constitutional and would not be covered by the decision. If this is incorrect, then this is a bad decision. I believe this applies to making law by fiat without input from Congress. mspart 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Leftists: The GOP are fascists also leftists: NOW WE CAN ASSASSINATE THOSE MF'ers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VakAttack Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Just now, Lipdrag said: Does not the term "official acts" become the qualifier of the absolute? Nay, good sir. Under the old legal system, when we were a Constitutional Republic, despite it's reputation, qualified immunity was not a COMPLETE shield against any prosecution or law suit. The protections were broad but not complete. Ahh the dark days before the ascension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VakAttack Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 minute ago, Scouts Honor said: Leftists: The GOP are fascists also leftists: NOW WE CAN ASSASSINATE THOSE MF'ers Whatever wise decision is reached by the Leader, who are we to question it or try to hold them accountable? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Scouts Honor said: Leftists: The GOP are fascists also leftists: NOW WE CAN ASSASSINATE THOSE MF'ers I think it’s more so that trumps lawyers argued that assassinating a political rival is an official act and now the sc rules that as an official act is immune to law.just using the same arguments trumps lawyers used for this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 17 minutes ago, mspart said: An official act outside the constitution is not an official act. I think your example is going too far. A President cannot lock up a person without due process. A President cannot suspend elections. Those are extra constitutional and would not be covered by the decision. If this is incorrect, then this is a bad decision. I believe this applies to making law by fiat without input from Congress. mspart There is no wording about congress at all regarding an official act. Official act" for the purposes of Section 201(b) and (c) is defined to mean: "Any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.” https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-2044-particular-elements in the ruling they just use the words “ core constitutional power” but according to this ruling the president has immunity so he could theoretically sign an executive order giving him extra powers and legally there’s nothing could be done because that had nothing to do with congress it was done by executive In theory Biden could sign an EO suspending habeas corpus and that’s within his new immunity rights Edited July 1 by braves121 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 hours ago, braves121 said: Conversely trumps lawyers argued that ordering an assignation of a political opponent would be an official act, Biden has an opportunity to try something Please tell us what an assignation is. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 minutes ago, Paul158 said: Please tell us what an assignation is. Same thing as a ruiling 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, Scouts Honor said: Leftists: The GOP are fascists also leftists: NOW WE CAN ASSASSINATE THOSE MF'ers It's called hyperbole. It's a rhetorical tool to demonstrate how stupid something is. In this case, the idea that the president can break the law because he's president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uncle bernard Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Can any of the conservatives on here defending this explain why they think a US citizen should be able to break the law without consequence? I thought you were the law and order guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 14 minutes ago, braves121 said: Same thing as a ruiling Assignation ,Definition : An appointment to meet someone in secret, typically one made by lovers. So as a president that would fall under official business would it not? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrestleknownothing Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Just now, Paul158 said: Assignation ,Definition : An appointment to meet someone in secret, typically one made by lovers. So as a president that would fall under official business would it not? I thought this was @ionel's job. Don't let the union foreman find out. 1 1 Drowning in data, but thirsting for knowledge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 20 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: Can any of the conservatives on here defending this explain why they think a US citizen should be able to break the law without consequence? I thought you were the law and order guys? We are the party of law and order!!! Oh wait our guys a convicted felon? Nvm Back the blue! Except for the fbi defund them! my body my choice!! Except for women wanting to get abortions Lock her up!!! We shouldn’t use the legal system to go after political opponents we are the party of small government! Gives the president the most power anyone has ever had in this country they say one thing and mean other Edited July 1 by braves121 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bigbrog said: Big implications from the ruling today by the SCOTUS around presidential immunity. Wonder how many charges will be dropped on Trump now? I think this ruling will cut down on bringing frivolous lawsuits. Which would be a good thing. The President has to have the freedom to make very difficult decisions ( national security interests,etc.) without the fear of the opposing party or special interest groups bringing lawsuits against him. Edited July 1 by Paul158 missed a word 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 hours ago, braves121 said: What would you call it when a leader gets a dangerous amount of power and is unable to be held accountable? By all accounts he had the same power before as after. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 4 hours ago, Bigbrog said: Big implications from the ruling today by the SCOTUS around presidential immunity. Wonder how many charges will be dropped on Trump now? Jack Smith will have a difficult road now to prosecute Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 2 hours ago, braves121 said: When the party of small government applauds at giving the government even more power The Supreme Court is not big government, it is one of our 3 branches- checks & balance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) 2 minutes ago, ionel said: The Supreme Court is not big government, it is one of our 3 branches- checks & balance. The Supreme Court saying the president now has “absolute immunity” instead of “qualified immunity” is giving him more power and believe it or not that goes against the concept of small government :0 Edited July 1 by braves121 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 4 minutes ago, Paul158 said: Jack Smith will have a difficult road now to prosecute Trump. It’s going to be hard to argue that trump holding classified documents at mar a lago is an official act that doesn’t help him personally lmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 22 minutes ago, Paul158 said: Assignation ,Definition : An appointment to meet someone in secret, typically one made by lovers. So as a president that would fall under official business would it not? 21 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said: I thought this was @ionel's job. Don't let the union foreman find out. I've been traveling. When it comes to secet meetings with lovers Paul's got my back. Dont ask why I was traveling. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ionel Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 4 minutes ago, braves121 said: The Supreme Court saying the president now has “absolute immunity” instead of “qualified immunity” is giving him more power and believe it or not that goes against the concept of small government :0 Not if he already had the immunity and it didn't increase size of govt. We had one President before and one President after. No one has yet created a new Department of Immunity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul158 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 3 minutes ago, braves121 said: It’s going to be hard to argue that trump holding classified documents at mar a lago is an official act that doesn’t help him personally lmao I believe it will have more to do with the process that Jack Smith is trying to use. Just a few violations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
braves121 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 3 minutes ago, ionel said: Not if he already had the immunity and it didn't increase size of govt. We had one President before and one President after. No one has yet created a new Department of Immunity. The president did not have “absolute immunity” before this ruling. That is giving a government official literally more power than had before it’s comical you can’t see that is big government lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, VakAttack said: Whatever wise decision is reached by the Leader, who are we to question it or try to hold them accountable? noted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scouts Honor Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 50 minutes ago, uncle bernard said: It's called hyperbole. It's a rhetorical tool to demonstrate how stupid something is. In this case, the idea that the president can break the law because he's president. i used it to show how stupid leftists are 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Ramirez Walnut, California Class of 2025 Committed to Oklahoma State Projected Weight: 125, 133
Landon Robideau St. Michael-Albertville, Minnesota Class of 2025 Committed to Oklahoma State Projected Weight: 149, 157
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now