Immunity decision out

I am very surprised the resident nuts havent turned this "Immunity" thread into another covid denial thread. Record for them.

 

Liars in black dresses.

 

Scotus is full of shit.

 

To be fair, if the roles were reversed and Trump had dementia, that wouldn’t change my vote. It’s about policy and competency for me.

It’s really as simple as if the policy appeal doesn’t work, and the Republican image for Joe Biden’s America isn’t selling for a significant group of people, sell the thing nobody can deny which also happens to be a tough pill to swallow.

But I don’t fault people for voting for Biden despite being senile, having dementia, etc. I fault people for voting for him despite being an atrocious President.

 

But how do you get the evidence? All of the people Trump spoke with were his advisors, and the opinion blocks the use of any such evidence. (I haven’t read the opinion yet, just articles, so I might be off on my understanding).

 

Maybe, I hadn’t seen anyone discussing that evidentiary limitations yet when I posted. Obviously that would be fundamentally ridiculous.

 

It’s possible I misunderstood the articles I’ve read (and hope you’re right). But what I thought I read, the. Kurt blocked the use of ANY evidence from this advisors.

 

Lawfare.

 

It’s more complicated. The order, under the SCt decision, is no longer illegal. The President now has absolute power, subject only to the impeachment powers of Congress.

 

Or …. Trump? Who said this about our country in the debate. Many times.

 

Wouldn’t it depend on whether the order is related to the president’s official duties? I can’t imagine the president being able to claim immunity if he orders people to go rob a bank for him, or bring him bars of gold from Fort Knox

 

Thanks to Newt and the other scoundrels who were bought by and in the pockets of Big Oil, we missed a golden opportunity to be largely fossil fuel independent and doing our part to preserve Mother Earth. The GOP, with the help of SCOTUS, and primarily in service only to business interests, is STILL opposing meaningful change by emasculating regulatory agencies. It borders on criminal, and is with respect to the impact it will have on our descendants.

 

This.

But we're going to sell out getting on the right track, energy-wise, in exchange for a lot of no-show bookings at our traitor future President's luxury hotel in the Middle East.

The most interesting thing to me is: who knew that the price of grift was actually so cheap?

 

I fear for my granddaughter, with all the climate deniers who put short-term profits over their grandkids futures.

 

With the GOP trembling with fear and cowering before their orange god, impeachment would never even be considered.

The compromised SCOTUS (i.e. SCROTUS) has left the American people with virtually no legal options for holding a rogue President accountable for his crimes. God help us.

 

They can high five each other all they want. Minority rule is not sustainable.

 

Dictator Biden has news conference to announce his official position on the SCOTUS immunity decision:

The White House on X: "Happening Now: President Biden delivers remarks on the Supreme Court's immunity ruling. https://t.co/fRmKLnFgN5" / X (twitter.com)

Speaks, err reads a teleprompter, and then walks away without fielding a single question. I'm surprised he did this much as it was past his bedtime.

Dictator Ly'n Biden at his hypocritical best. He has held himself above the law using lawfare against his political enemies and I don't just mean Trump.

No president is above the law. All of our laws spring from the constitution. No president can break the law as Biden is asserting and then claim it is a covered presidential act.

I find Dictator Ly'n Biden's attack on the SCOTUS to be in line with the fascist/communist path he has put the nation on under his poor leadership.

The stench of hair being set on fire here would be comical except that it is so totally pathetic.

 

No - the simple and correct response to "the President has absolute power." The left is twisting itself into a knot to argue that the USSC has somehow created and approved a dictatorship. That narrative is all about politics to sell to and scare the uninformed that Trump will be a dictator - wholly forgetting that he was already the President and did not do the things they claim he will do now. If any on the left is honest or applies any semblance of objective legal analysis, they may ask - how is this different from the qualified immunity provided to Sheriffs, police officers, MP's, Department of HUD, etc? It really isn't different. This is just the first time that a DOJ has attempted to prosecute a President for executive activities and thus the question of Presidential immunity has been presented to the Courts. Are those activities subject to an immunity defense? Yes, and the determination/disposition of that defense depends upon the circumstances/facts - and that is what this decision boils down to. Full stop.

Good grief, the nonsense from the left is infuriating. Why not celebrate that the charges obtain against Trump and a defense will have to be surmounted? Really, this decision is about as milk-toast as it could have been. From a sterile, non-partisan, and respect for legal precedent perspective, the bigger concern is that there are Justices who dissented with inapposite or diversionary arguments rather than address the legal analysis.

For those who want to besmirch the USSC as bought and paid for, please note that on the more significant cases over the last 50 years, the Republican appointees have sided with the Democrat appointees and NOT vice versa. Example: Roberts' protection of ACA. Or, to complete this absurd journey, does that mean that every time the Democrat appointees agreed with the Republican appointees (e.g., unanimous decision blocking CO's attempt to remove Trump from ballot) then those same Democrat appointees were bought and paid for?

There are many cases that I believe the USSC made the incorrect ruling. Reasonable minds may disagree. Are the rulings of certain Justices predictable? Of course they are. Do I believe that is because those Justices were tainted or "bought and paid for"? No, no, no. They simply had/have different judicial perspectives that are subject to debate. This does not contradict my statements above concerning how Democrat appointed Justices dissented in this case. I don't doubt their sincerity, I question their analysis. In a civil society, that is not only to be expected, but to be appreciated.

 

Chucky Schumer seems to be doing okay. He doesn't like the decision for obvious current political reasons, but he didn't threaten SCOTUS judges with violence as he did when Roe V. Wade was overturned.

 

Have to add congress and judges to the list. This decision should/could have been made when presidents were given immunity from being charged civilly.