Supreme Court rules President is immune for “official acts”

[thegeneral 2,300]

1 minute ago, seafoam1 said:

You are lost. 

Make sure to support your King!

[GutterBoy 2,896]

4 minutes ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

that would count as an impeachable and criminal act prior to and after this ruling

 

And if congress didn't want to impeach Biden for it, then he's immune.

[seafoam1 2,417]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

Make sure to support your King!

Make sure to support your dictator creepy joe!

 

[TBayXXXVII 2,337]

2 hours ago, RaiderHaters Revenge said:

no I am just using libtard extreme position, they are worried about Trump killing and locking up political opponents

 

You mean like liberals and Biden are doing to Trump in NY?

[squistion 1,468]

Just now, TBayXXXVII said:

You mean like liberals and Biden are doing to Trump in NY?

Biden has absolutely nothing to do with the NY State prosecution. 

[TBayXXXVII 2,337]

2 hours ago, squistion said:

https://x.com/AshaRangappa_/status/1807788604833308949

The Court has handed Trump, if he wins this November, carte blanche to be a "dictator on day one," and the ability to use every lever of official power at his disposal for his personal ends without any recourse.

This election is now a clear-cut decision between democracy and autocracy. Vote accordingly.

That's awesome!  So, how long do you think he'll rule... like 20 years?  That would be great.  What laws do you think he'll enact without Congress approval?

[thegeneral 2,300]

2 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

Make sure to support your dictator creepy joe!

Creepy Joe can really try to push the boundaries of this ruling. Want does he have to lose?

[TBayXXXVII 2,337]

Just now, squistion said:

Biden has absolutely nothing to do with the NY State prosecution. 

That's funny you think that... or sad.

[Hardcore troubadour 13,792]

I’m looking forward to the firing squads come January. I’d say the concentration camps might take till next spring. Damn environmentalists. 

[RLLD 3,821]

14 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

There will def be a lot of political hay made out of this and the other rulings they have shot out this past week or so. I do agree this is the way it is though, but yeah politicians going to make political arguments. 

Along with Clarence traveling all over the place as unreported “gifts”, Alito and Clarence’s wives showing their asses on Jan 6th, etc. Been a bit of a rough couple months for the SC. Coupled with how we got to such a wide majority with Mitch’s chicanery is pretty brutal.

This court would not look like this if past mistakes were avoided. Maybe a different court would rule differently.

When Reid eliminated the filibuster for the selection process there were those (such as myself) who noted that it might feel like a victory today, but at what cost later?  Obama knew the danger, tried to get Ginsburg to retire, and she should have. And then that POS McConnell made up some trite nonsense to avoid allowing Obama to appoint; that is less of a mistake that just general political BS.

I mention this because its happening again.  Democrats with their idiotic impeachments, and lawfare....might think they are doing the right/nest thing today.....but at what cost?  Doing all this just to prevent Trump is foolish...... and WILL lead to this being revisited back upon them later.

It is really bad.....all these things they do.....and later....the next generation of Democrats might find it coming home to roost.

[IGotWorms 3,856]

It is a very bad decision. Remove Trump and Biden fully from the equation and it’s absolutely clear.

Stated another way, let’s say we got President Harris in 2028 (not that I want that). Would you Geek Club righties be comfortable with the idea that, as long as it’s couched in the right way, she could never be held responsible for any act whatsoever, period?

Of course not. That’s a horrible horrible idea.

[thegeneral 2,300]

5 minutes ago, RLLD said:

This court would not look like this if past mistakes were avoided. Maybe a different court would rule differently.

When Reid eliminated the filibuster for the selection process there were those (such as myself) who noted that it might feel like a victory today, but at what cost later?  Obama knew the danger, tried to get Ginsburg to retire, and she should have. And then that POS McConnell made up some trite nonsense to avoid allowing Obama to appoint; that is less of a mistake that just general political BS.

I mention this because its happening again.  Democrats with their idiotic impeachments, and lawfare....might think they are doing the right/nest thing today.....but at what cost?  Doing all this just to prevent Trump is foolish...... and WILL lead to this being revisited back upon them later.

It is really bad.....all these things they do.....and later....the next generation of Democrats might find it coming home to roost.

Using this “chickens coming home to roost” thing you always fall back on I have to think you don’t agree with this ruling. 

[IGotWorms 3,856]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

This court would not look like this if past mistakes were avoided. Maybe a different court would rule differently.

When Reid eliminated the filibuster for the selection process there were those (such as myself) who noted that it might feel like a victory today, but at what cost later?  Obama knew the danger, tried to get Ginsburg to retire, and she should have. And then that POS McConnell made up some trite nonsense to avoid allowing Obama to appoint; that is less of a mistake that just general political BS.

I mention this because its happening again.  Democrats with their idiotic impeachments, and lawfare....might think they are doing the right/nest thing today.....but at what cost?  Doing all this just to prevent Trump is foolish...... and WILL lead to this being revisited back upon them later.

It is really bad.....all these things they do.....and later....the next generation of Democrats might find it coming home to roost.

So let me get this straight: it’s Democrats’ fault that an uber-right wing Supreme Court screwed the pooch?

I mean, I get what you’re saying, but your effort to deflect from the obvious primary culprit is hysterical

[jerryskids 5,944]

43 minutes ago, RLLD said:

AOC: We Must ‘Very Seriously Consider’ Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices

 

Translation : The decision did not meet her expectations, so they must be eliminated....only that which AOC thinks is true and right can be allowed.

Nothing says "protecting democracy" other than impeaching SCOTUS justices for decisions you don't like.  Unless it's discussions of stacking the court, or using lawfare against your political opponent, or leaving the border open.

And the Democrats wonder why Trump polls higher on the subject of protecting democracy.  

[seafoam1 2,417]

3 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

So let me get this straight: it’s Democrats’ fault that an uber-right wing Supreme Court screwed the pooch?

I mean, I get what you’re saying, but your effort to deflect from the obvious primary culprit is hysterical

Liberals never fail to amaze how stupid they are. 

[Hardcore troubadour 13,792]

Can Trump throw lgbtq- p off the roof of the White House now? 

[RLLD 3,821]

5 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Using this “chickens coming home to roost” thing you always fall back on I have to think you don’t agree with this ruling. 

I am speaking to the inclination of Democrats to "over do" things because it scratches that itch today.....and the things they choose to do setup problems for them later.....

Mark my words, all these foolish things they have been trying.....will be done back to them as a group at some later date.....

[jerryskids 5,944]

1 hour ago, Engorgeous George said:

Many of you must be fast readers, and even faster at appreciating waht you read.  This over 100 page opinion wiht concurrances and dissents seems nuanced.  I have yet to get to the conbcurrances or the dissents.  After i do i am sure i will have to read the whole thing at least a second time to feel comfortable comenting, yet it seems we have a few here who are comfortable arguing the matter.  i congratualte them all on their fast reading and superior comprehension.

This is where I am, and I'm not a lawyer.  I read a review from a right-leaning site which basically said the decision clarified what is and isn't protected, and kicked it back down to the lower courts.  I read the definitions and was  that's above my pay grade.

The biggest oof to the democrats is that this will cause delays in their lawfare against Trump which will inhibit more prosecutions before the election.  Perhaps that is the real reason they are acting so butt hurt?   

[RLLD 3,821]

6 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

So let me get this straight: it’s Democrats’ fault that an uber-right wing Supreme Court screwed the pooch?

I mean, I get what you’re saying, but your effort to deflect from the obvious primary culprit is hysterical

Correct.  Reid setup the problem, and what is now happening is exactly what some of us predicted. It was mind-numbingly foolish.

I am animated about it because I support abortion, and that focking retard Reid setup the method for the Republicans to eventually load the court, and eliminate it....

So yeah, I am annoyed by the impetuous stupidity of Democrats on occasion.

[IGotWorms 3,856]

Just now, jerryskids said:

This is where I am, and I'm not a lawyer.  I read a review from a right-leaning site which basically said the decision clarified what is and isn't protected, and kicked it back down to the lower courts.  I read the definitions and was  that's above my pay grade.

The biggest oof to the democrats is that this will cause delays in their lawfare against Trump which will inhibit more prosecutions before the election.  Perhaps that is the real reason they are acting so butt hurt?   

I don’t give a sh1t about that, personally. My own belief is that it’s all over but the crying.

No, this is a very bad precedent for the future. Democrat or Republican, doesn’t matter

[IGotWorms 3,856]

Just now, RLLD said:

Correct.  Reid setup the problem, and what is now happening is exactly what some of us predicted. It was mind-numbingly foolish.

I am animated about it because I support abortion, and that focking retard Reid setup the method for the Republicans to eventually load the court, and eliminate it....

So yeah, I am annoyed by the impetuous stupidity of Democrats on occasion.

lol, this is just ridiculous. You are funny

[RLLD 3,821]

5 minutes ago, jerryskids said:

Nothing says "protecting democracy" other than impeaching SCOTUS justices for decisions you don't like.  Unless it's discussions of stacking the court, or using lawfare against your political opponent, or leaving the border open.

And the Democrats wonder why Trump polls higher on the subject of protecting democracy.  

Yeah, notice no one calling her out as a "threat to Democracy".  Can you imagine the media/political response if say.....Ted Cruz said that sh!t?

This all further highlights the BS

[Engorgeous George 1,634]

52 minutes ago, RLLD said:

AOC: We Must ‘Very Seriously Consider’ Impeachment for Supreme Court Justices

 

Translation : The decision did not meet her expectations, so they must be eliminated....only that which AOC thinks is true and right can be allowed.

Did she cite the power under which this would be done?

[Strike 4,560]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

lol, this is just ridiculous. You are funny

You're ignorant.

[Engorgeous George 1,634]

Looking forward to some pundit analyzing the attempt to impeach Myorkas in light of this decision.

[TheNewGirl 1,171]

43 minutes ago, RLLD said:

I do not always agree with SCOTUS decisions.  I will not suggest they need to be removed however.

This is their MO. 

Goes against their decisions and they just want them removed. Trump's impeachments that cost who knows how much over the last four years and have essentially done nothing, getting rid of House Speakers, and now impeachment of SCOTUS. 

 

[RLLD 3,821]

2 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

lol, this is just ridiculous. You are funny

This might not feed your notions, but its real. Learn from it.....

[thegeneral 2,300]

4 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Yeah, notice no one calling her out as a "threat to Democracy".  Can you imagine the media/political response if say.....Ted Cruz said that sh!t?

This all further highlights the BS

The other side is always a threat to democracy. I am pretty sure both candidates will repeat this about 5 times a week in their political speeches. 

[TheNewGirl 1,171]

7 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Correct.  Reid setup the problem, and what is now happening is exactly what some of us predicted. It was mind-numbingly foolish.

I am animated about it because I support abortion, and that focking retard Reid setup the method for the Republicans to eventually load the court, and eliminate it....

So yeah, I am annoyed by the impetuous stupidity of Democrats on occasion.

I think you and I actually agreed on this some years back. 

The Dems kept trying to push all this stuff forward, not recognizing that it would indeed come back to shoot them in the foots. And now here we are. 

[RLLD 3,821]

7 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Did she cite the power under which this would be done?

Its bluster......but I recall when "rhetoric" was "dangerous"

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,939]

38 minutes ago, GutterBoy said:

And if congress didn't want to impeach Biden for it, then he's immune.

as has it has always been, congrats

 

[jerryskids 5,944]

12 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

I don’t give a sh1t about that, personally. My own belief is that it’s all over but the crying.

No, this is a very bad precedent for the future. Democrat or Republican, doesn’t matter

I'm not a lawyer.  From Squissy's Ahmed Baba guy on page 1 of this thread:

Quote

The 6-3 right-wing majority is creating a new standard of “presumptive immunity” for acts alleged to be official and puts the burden on prosecutors to prove otherwise.

As I read this, it does not seem bad.  How is this bad?  Honest question.  

[thegeneral 2,300]

2 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

I think you and I actually agreed on this some years back. 

The Dems kept trying to push all this stuff forward, not recognizing that it would indeed come back to shoot them in the foots. And now here we are. 

Like when Clinton was impeached over a blowie after years of investigations into loans? Like how Obama was investigated for Solyndra and Fast and Furious gun shipments, Hillary for the emails and Benghazi, Biden has been under investigation for years by various committees in Congress?

I’m sure those are 100% on the up and up. Nothing political ever entered into those

[Engorgeous George 1,634]

1 hour ago, The Real timschochet said:

Which is why I wrote I’m unsure and uncomfortable. I also don’t understand exactly what is and what is not an official act. 

For example: Nixon authorizes  a bunch of thugs to break into the Watergate hotel Democratic headquarters. I assume that is NOT an official act. But then, when the attorney general (Elliot Richardson) calls for an investigation, Nixon fires him- I assume that IS an official act. Yet the latter act was just as corrupt as the former act- perhaps more so. So based on this ruling Nixon gets away with Watergate? I don’t know, just asking. 

I am unsure where that might have lead.   If Richardson is fired and it is an official act, which it seems clear it would be, the question then devolves to whether congress or a prosecutor could have made him talk (or maybe he wanted to talk) and whether that is covered by Presidential Immunity.  Clearly Richardson was the people's attorney and not the President's, but under the logic of the present decision it seems clear the Presidential immunity goes to his thoughts in making hiring and firing decisions so Richardson could not talk, even if he wanted to, or at least him talking could not be used as evidence in court.  What that would have meant for any impeachment or prosecutions is an open question.  There were lots of talkers as I recall, though not immediately.  I suspect a strong case could still have been made, particularly once the Rosemary Wood tapes were divulged.  As I recall Liddy and Colson were real chatty after a bit of time. This does to some extent bring back the Nixon claim t\aaht if the Presdient does it it is not illegal, or perhaps more properly accountable due to immunity.

 

In the end this present Court seems to have correctly analyzed the little precedent before them and seems to have taken a cautious approach with their remand.  I know some are upset at where that leaves Jack Smith's case prior to the election but he could very easily have not overcharged.  He could have proceeded on just Trump's interactions with the state actors and he would seem to have been alright.  Who knows, Smith may yet determine to do so

[zsasz 333]

28 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

So let me get this straight: it’s Democrats’ fault that an uber-right wing Supreme Court screwed the pooch?

I mean, I get what you’re saying, but your effort to deflect from the obvious primary culprit is hysterical

In the world of the clown RRLD...the woman is at fault because her man beat her up 

[seafoam1 2,417]

Just now, zsasz said:

In the world of the clown RRLD...the woman is at fault because her man beat her up 

Ohhh...Your man beat you. Dang...Sad. 

[RLLD 3,821]

14 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

The other side is always a threat to democracy. I am pretty sure both candidates will repeat this about 5 times a week in their political speeches. 

These recent acts are new.   All good.  But if it were me, I might reach out to my elected officials and urge restraint.

[Mike Honcho 4,545]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

Like when Clinton was impeached over a blowie after years of investigations into loans? Like how Obama was investigated for Solyndra and Fast and Furious gun shipments, Hillary for the emails and Benghazi, Biden has been under investigation for years by various committees in Congress?

I’m sure those are 100% on the up and up. Nothing political ever entered into those

Not to mention that entire reason Reid removed the filibuster rule on judicial nominees was because  McConnell  as matter of practice, hamstringing then entire judiciary.  This after they the Bipartisan Gang of 14 negotiations to end the shenanigans on judicial nominees.  But let's overlook that.

[RLLD 3,821]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Not to mention that entire reason Reid removed the filibuster rule on judicial nominees was because  McConnell  as matter of practice, hamstringing then entire judiciary.  This after they the Bipartisan Gang of 14 negotiations to end the shenanigans on judicial nominees.  But let's overlook that.

That is how the process was intended.  It allowed for moderation in the selection of judges, which Reid refused....so....sure....setup the situation to get what you wanted that day.....and fock over the women today.....great job. 

[Tree of Knowledge 1,316]

1 hour ago, Sean Mooney said:

Just to go to an extreme here- if Joe Biden came out on July 4th and said "In order to protect democracy and the American way of life- I'm ordering that Donald Trump be eliminated permanently"- would that count as an official act? (Yes there are issues of contracting a hit and it would be the dumbest thing to do in every single way- but as a hypothetical)

He’s already trying to put him and other MAGA supporters in jail. He has threatened 2nd Amendment supporters with fighter jets on multiple occasions.  Nothing should surprise us.