Immunity decision out

if Joe Biden had Donald Trump assassinated by seal team 6 because he is a threat to American Democracy and the senate refused to convict via impeachment would Biden be immune?

 

I saw a clip of Mike Johnson giving the world this very re-assurance. I think this argument carries about as much weight even from the Speaker of the House, as Kavenaugh or Gorsuch sternly reassuring everyone that Roe was the law of the land. Forgive me if I give your assurance substantially less weight than the people in actual positions of power, who I already give zero credence to. These people are all beyond the pale liars with zero credibility.

Especially comical calling it hysteria, when on the very same day as this “nothing to see here” re-assurance, the actual candidate (and criminal) in question re-tweets some crazy shit about military tribunals for Liz Cheney and some others including Mike Pence. Would this Supreme Court, after long deliberation and legal briefings, uphold an unconstitutional tribunal targeted against individuals? Perhaps not. The problem is when you give that kind of power and deference to the authoritarian figure, it may be too late or the judiciary itself may simply not have any co-equal branch power left for itself… like what would the justices do if Trump hypothetically convinced enough of his own sycophants in the government and military to defy their rulings… just resign in protest? LOL..

 

I wish for the day that all children are fed with nutrient rich lollipops distributed by eco-friendly unicorns. Wouldn't that be great?

Seriously. Yes, there are plenty of scoundrels to be pilloried who profit from any number or energy sector (gas, electrical, wind, solar, nuclear, etc.) schemes. Why you don't put the Chinese, Russians, Iranians, Brazilians, etc. at the top of your list is more telling than anything else.

You scream for massive change, but do you really know what that means? What supplies energy to the batteries in your Prius or Tesla? How does the water get delivered to your neighborhood? What are your clothes made out of? If your answers didn't include coal, oil, and plastics, you are delusional and should be sent to the a quiet place at some university to explore your chakras.

Just like man had to cut down entire forests to build hovels and feed/warm their families for thousands of years (causing massive environmental damage of course), it will take time to find/develop the alternative means to support civilization and to replace "evil" fossil fuels. If you have a better answer than the ambitious, money-grubbing entrepeneurs looking to benefit from the answer, then, by all means, feel free to share.

 

RTFR! Read the F'ing Ruling. That said, if Biden "assassinated" (note that "assassination" of state heads is already considered a crime under US law), then there is potential criminality regardless of the impeachment process. As I and others have stated numerous times, that is exactly the situation vis-a-vis the current charges against Trump. I truly don't understand the compulsion to posit these outrageous hypotheticals as if they prove or support any point of debate.

 

It comes down to whether it’s an official act. If it is deemed an official act, then he has immunity correct?

 

I have no conclusion other than "yes, you are hysterical." I can appreciate that Trump's rhetoric irritates and even alarms - I'm not a fan of that sort of persona and chalk it up to Yankee crassness. So, as a counter example of your fears, what exactly and actually happened to the "lock her up" chants about Hillary?

 

Justice Roberts reminded the "wise Latina" that she is not so wise with her silly dissent... not knowing about the Constitution and the separating of powers. And she is doing nothing more than fearmongering. She was definitely a DEI placement on the bench.

 

I thought Roberts was a RINO?

 

So did I... I guess he woke up? There is a good (not too lengthy) article on his exact words about the dissenters response. I'll find it and post it for you and other to read.


OUCH! Supreme Court Majority ZINGS Sonia Sotomayor in Blistering Opinion | The Gateway Pundit | by Cristina Laila

 

So how is Trump falsifying his personal business records an official act? Now anything and everything a president does will be called an official act.

Donald Trump’s lawyers are seeking to vacate his New York hush money conviction based on Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/02/trump-sentencing-delay-supreme-court-ruling/

 

This “hey, it’s not like he locked up Hillary” is what your legal eagle mind is going with? The rickety bridge didn’t collapse when a pickup crossed it, so let’s test it with a fully loaded semi?

Unlike this flippant attitude about the checks and balances holding the first time around, the reasoning for a new level of concern should be quite obvious.

When we examine who Trump had in his 1st administration, he had at least a good number of legitimate people who pushed back. “No Mr. President, that would be illegal”. In a hypothetical 2nd term, there would be loyalty oaths replacing experienced pros and a purging of career civil servants. No pushback. The MAGA extremists have stated their intent, and the Supremes likely go along with these plans. Considering the reason we avoided a much more serious constitutional crisis basically came down to the singular actions of Mike Pence, I find your confidence in the future political stability of the U.S. to be greviously misplaced.

 

Can you remind me again what he is on trial for?

 

You could read the Justice’s actual dissent on the breadth of immunity, or you can trust the Keyboard Justices to get a keen understanding of the breadth of immunity.

(look at pts 29-30 of Sotomayer’s dissent, where she lays out this precise analogy— a President is not immune for assassinating a political rival, taking bribes for pardons, organizing a military coup to stay in power — all “immune, immune, immune.”)

 

Has ordering the extrajudicial killing of American citizens on U.S. soil ever been understood to be within the scope of the official duties of the American presidency? That would, notwithstanding the hysterics (both here and from Justice Sotomayor), seem to be a pretty easy case.

(The closest analogues I can come up with are Obama’s Afghan drone strikes and I guess maybe Waco and/or Ruby Ridge? And while neither seem remotely analogous, to the extent you think they are that immunity apparently already existed since, despite the far left thinking the drone strikes were clearly inappropriate and the far right thinking the ATF/FBI raids were, there has never been any serious suggestion of prosecuting Obama, Bill Clinton, or Janet Reno.)

It clearly isn’t, his lawyers are just trying to waste time.

 

There is an analysis of what constitutes an official act. If that analysis demonstrates an event/activity/decision to be an official act, then yes there is immunity.

A similar example to consider - a city council decides to install a traffic light at an intersection. An accident occurs at the intersection. May the city council be held liable for the accident? Short answer is "no." The decision to install the light is immune from liability. However, if the city installed the light in a manner that made it operate in a negligent manner, then the City may be found liable. Does that help?

But it doesn't end there. What if the injured party discovers that the city council had expressly concealed/rejected information demonstrating that installing a light at the intersection would be a hazard? That evidence may rebut the presumption of immunity.

See how this ruling works. It provides a guide for analyzing the claims and applying the various defenses. It does not create an absolute barrier one way or the other. All this nonsense about "the President is above the law," "Trump can kill someone as long as he says its for official business," etc. is just that - nonsense.

If you and others can't set aside your fantasies, that's on you. Find something else to fret over that has real meaning in your life.

 

You scream “hysterics,” but let’s remember that this decision embodying judicial legislation comes from the same court that overruled Roe because a Court should not legislate. Sotomayer correctly points this out at pgs 4-6 of her dissent. Whose words should we take as to the breadth of the decision?

 

It’s an absurd hypothetical maybe to consider a President ordering a “hit” on someone, but i’m not so sure any accountability measure is actually there as you suggest there is.

We know the DOJ won’t allow prosecution of a sitting President (and the mechanics of that are probably impossible either way).

So truly the limiting factors on a President seem to now be:

1)Can the President find people to do the act for him.
2)Would Congress impeach for that act.

Considering the shameful party politics and failure to impeach over 1/6 (and the now shoddy reasoning as to how the legal system would be able to do its job), I simply cannot buy these arguments.

 

Honest question because I don't know the answer. But couldn't the president just officially name someone a terrorist? Seems like that could withhold legal scrutiny now, even if failing morality.

 

Okay, so who ultimately decides if an act is official? Why do you think the Supreme Court didn't actually lay out a procedure by which to declare something an official act, since they were creating this new legal test? Do you think it is perhaps because they want to create a two-tiered standard based upon the desired outcome for the justices themselves?

The problem is that you are presuming good faith here. There is nothing to suggest that this presumption is accurate, especially given the nature of partisan political decisions before the court. They could have easily set up a standard by which something is considered an "official act." They chose not to do so.

 

I don’t think the decision changes the mechanics of governance. It merely says that a President identifying a person as a terrorist cannot be grounds to charge the President as a criminal.