Supreme Court's Decision Concerning Presidential Immunity (1 Viewer)

[Steve R.]

Trump Wins: Supreme Court Says Presidents Covered by Immunity for 'Official Acts'

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump, holding in a 6-3 decision that presidents are covered by limited immunity,

www.breitbart.com

The long awaited decision is out. Since it was just released, I have not read it. My off-the-cuff remark on this case based on the variety of lawfare lawsuits the Democrats have filed against Trump, is that the Democrats are "destroying" our legal system for the demented purpose of "getting Trump". That is third world lawfare. Democrats have no ethics, the ends justify the means, even if it undermines long established legal principles.

Ironically, Democrats should be thankful that they "lost". Had they "won", the next conservative administration would be able to easily put Obama and Biden (if still alive) in jail.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Biden and democrats should be rubbing their hands,

Take out five members of the supreme court and replace them
Declare the current GOP a terrorist organization and ban all assemblies and political representation, using riot police and prison sentences as required, make belonging to it a crime.
Shut down Fox news and declare all broadcasters enemies of the USA and arrest them.
Rescind the rule where a president can only serve two terms and install Obama or Clinton as successor
Retire before any impeachment is possible
Sit back and enjoy the good work done by Scotus
Slowly rebuild the USA's failing legal and political constitution.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I sincerely hope your sarcasm was showing, @Space Cowboy - if any of those things ACTUALLY occurred, I think the civil war would start.

 

[Space Cowboy]

Tongue in cheek, but it seems to me that that is how bananas things could get.

 

[Mike Krailo]

Justice Roberts stated: The president is not above the law. Should have been a unanimous decision.

(e) This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office. Pp. 41–43. 91 F. 4th 1173, vacated and remanded.

So where are they getting the idea that the president can do anything he wants to? This is very perplexing logic on behalf of the currently raging democrats and now after Joe's teleprompter tirade. Clearly none of them have any respect for the law at all and they use this fear mongering approach to make it seem like they magically invented something new here that creates king like powers. The president has always had this immunity and the reasoning was clearly to prevent petty political persecution. When is the last time a president was indicted? Never.

The point of the decision is clearly to protect that branch of government from outside influence that would interfere with the offices duties. If laws are broken AKA high crimes and misdemeanors, then there is articles of impeachment. They have already used this against trump already and apparently they will again be looking to do the same exact thing again because, they only like the democracy where they are in power.

This attack against the court for essentially upholding the constitution but now making a distinction between core powers, official acts, or unofficial acts is leaving the door open for those unofficial acts. I'm pretty sure taking out your political opponent with a drone strike is not an official or core duty. There is one weird situation though where in science fiction movies those shape shifter people take on the appearance of the president, if that ever became a reality, then it might just be that the president would be officially taking out himself. I hope that never happens.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Shut down Fox news and declare all broadcasters enemies of the USA and arrest them

That is sooooo yesterday. I guess you haven't gotten the memo about Fox. Their ratings are in the toilet and no real conservative watches them any more.

 

[Mike Krailo]

The whole reason we are talking about this is because of faux outrage about a supposed insurrection that even Joe's DOJ could not prove and therefore no charges were brought for that crime. Yet they purported this in the media's propaganda machine non-stop creating an illusion that insurrection had occurred. Since they had nothing legally, instead of dropping the case right there, they decided to dig into the criminal code and look for a crime against one whole branch of government. They did not find any, except by stringing together unrelated Enron laws and obstruction of congress laws, they found a theory. A wild theory that puts the magnifying glass onto the last few words of the Enron law in question and conflate it as being obstruction of justice. There was nothing clear about how this was actually done though. So they just continued to talk about it as if it was an absolute fact, over and over again. Lie often, lie confidently, and maybe the sheeple will believe it. They bought it hook line and sinker and pushed it through the propaganda machine yet again. This caused all the faux outrage to turn into real outrage by the left and even on the right. Lying works wonders when your on team Darth Vader.

There never was a clear cut and dry case against the president, never. It was just a creative way to go after him and drum up hatred against him. Let's look at the Enron law they used.

Section 1512 of the criminal code (Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) otherwise known as the Enron act. At the time, Enron knew they were in trouble and began massively destroying documents because they knew congressional oversight would be coming soon. This law when you actually read it, is focused on destruction of documents, evidence, being obstruction. But at the end, it says "OR OTHERWISE". The DOJ thought in their infinite wisdom that otherwise could mean ANYTHING they want it to mean out of context of the actual law itself. It has nothing to do with J6, but joe's DOJ thought so enough to focus in on the OR OTHERWISE as a tool to make that connection. They couldn't find any other statutes they could use so they went with this one. Jack Smith then used this as two of the four charges against the president (whole branch of government). Now ask yourself, what did trump do to obstruct the proceeding? Go and march peacefully, is now obstruction? He has every right to talk to his VP about what he should do or discuss it with him.

Bottom line, the high court of the land ruled 6-3 NO on obstruction. This should have been 9-0 all day long, but we have activist court members ruled by emotion and not the constitution or law.

Now they will continue to comb through the code looking for anything, just one little slice of something they can get him on. That's why the hammer dropped down on this decision, because that's not something an entire branch of government should ever have to worry about while serving the people, especially the commander in chief. Is he above the law, no but in the capacity of president he cannot be bullied with political hit jobs by the opposing party. The thing about the electors (attempted overthrow of 2020 election), yet has to be hashed out so I will not comment on that. I honestly don't know all the facts surrounding that other than the president absolutely should be able to prepare for possible scenarios that present themselves in the case of unusual circumstances happening. I'll wait for more details to surface on this.

 

[AccessBlaster]

The reason we're here is because liberals got a little too zealous in their prosecution(s). As usual they piled on a lot bogus facts mixed in a little bit of confusion and added a pinch of reality.

Joe's comments last night were essentially a call to arms. I won't be surprised when another left leaning lunatic takes up Joe's call.

 

[Mike Krailo]

That speech was definitely a call to Jack Smith and involved judges to make the trial happen before the election. Lawfare is in full speed mode. The supreme court shutdown Joe's decisions to break the law at least five times already. So clearly a president is not above the law unless they break the law anyway as in the case of the student loan forgiveness crap he tried to pull on us. Need to fight every crime this guy ever committed, especially when he was VP. This guy is totally out of control. The only reason he isn't indicted now is because he is a sitting president. After he leaves, game on as those charges have nothing to do with his current presidency. If he's competent enough to make threats during his public addresses, then he's good enough to stand trial for his crimes for squirreling away classified documents as a VP. That's a perfect example of how he is in fact currently above the law.

 

[AccessBlaster]

...If he's competent enough to make threats during his public addresses, then he's good enough to stand trial for his crimes for squirreling away classified documents as a VP. That's a perfect example of how he is in fact currently above the law.

Yup, and release the recordings

 

[Steve R.]

H'mm.
We're looking at this incorrectly. The Supreme Court ruled that a president is immune from prosecution for official acts. Those on the left immediately jumped on that concept to hysterically assert that Trump, if elected, would go after them.

Democrats Warn: Immunity Decision Will Let Presidents Go After Political Opponents

Democrats implied Monday that former President Donald Trump could pursue his political opponents, legally, if he returns to the White House.

www.breitbart.com

Sotomayor says the president can now 'assassinate a political rival' without facing prosecution

The liberal Supreme Court justice issued a blistering dissent to the conservative majority's ruling that presidents have immunity for official acts.

www.businessinsider.com

Well, Biden is president now. Not Trump. That means that Biden has just been given the green-light to takeout his political opponents. So why are the Democrats so upset?

 

[Space Cowboy]

Democrats seem to think that dropping to that level is beneath them, what they do not realize is that in any dirty fight you have to drop to that level, get your retribution in first and ONLY then can they re-write the rules and set the moral standard. I think that it will take a generation to rid the country of extremism. it will not happen overnight. I do not think that appealing to human kinds most base instincts is ever the way forward. In the not to distant future we are going to need a world government not an assemblage of individual despots. I hope that America takes up the challenge and pray that the planet does not go up in smoke before it can be achieved.

 

[Mike Krailo]

H'mm.
We're looking at this incorrectly. The Supreme Court ruled that a president is immune from prosecution for official acts. Those on the left immediately jumped on that concept to hysterically assert that Trump, if elected, would go after them.

Democrats Warn: Immunity Decision Will Let Presidents Go After Political Opponents

Democrats implied Monday that former President Donald Trump could pursue his political opponents, legally, if he returns to the White House.

www.breitbart.com

Sotomayor says the president can now 'assassinate a political rival' without facing prosecution

The liberal Supreme Court justice issued a blistering dissent to the conservative majority's ruling that presidents have immunity for official acts.

www.businessinsider.com

Well, Biden is president now. Not Trump. That means that Biden has just been given the green-light to takeout his political opponents. So why are the Democrats so upset?

Because they are very short sighted and only want to prevent trump from running in the current 2024 election, so they resort to fear mongering. They will now shift away from the poor debate performance to trump will be a king above the law and kill us all (if elected) fear mongering and keep talking about the ridiculously unbalanced dissenting hypotheticals. I don't like to say anything bad about woman and this trait is not necessarily innately bad so I'll just make the observation that the majority of woman are highly social balls of emotion and emotion can easily cloud anyone's judgement. If you focus in on your emotions entirely, you will not likely make good decisions. The three dissenters are you guessed it, emotionally unbalanced. That's not to say that men cannot act overly emotional too.

I still think this decision has far reaching implications that some could actually use in an evil way if they pull all the right levers and have the support to do so. The big question is why would anyone vote for evil in the primary and evil in the main election? Answer, power. Power to change the court, power to change the laws, power to rule over us, power to devalue our currency, power to kill babies and devalue human life, power to censor anyone that would oppose said power and ultimately ruin the country assuming their motives are selfish and evil and will lie, cheat, and steal to get there.

If on the other hand, the elected officials and leaders are truly serving the people and the nation to strengthen it in a selfless way, to enable us all to earn and keep what we make through hard work, be fiscally responsible, be ethical, unite the people by way a truthfully addressing the peoples grievances, and working to pass laws that benefit the people in general (no special interests or pay to play) but at the same time not over burdening the people with too much regulation making it impossible to globally compete economically (getting rid of overbearing laws), then we can say we did a great job electing good leaders that made a difference.

Balance and unity is the key. The things I'm reading in all the comments on this subject in other social media is highly disturbing. It's easy to see the high level of emotional rush to judgment against the highest court. I don't think they understand what was already there prior to this decision and thought they could bully a sitting president that they don't like (hate with a passion). Because of the emotional lopsided energy, they would rather lie about the reality of the current presidents cognitive decline, and blame the high court for there inability to carry out their obvious lawfare against their political opponent. Joe said it himself right after the decision "the American people deserve to have the trump trial before the election". We are in dangerous dystopian waters unless we can get back to being united again and be honest with one another.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I hope that America takes up the challenge and pray that the planet does not go up in smoke before it can be achieved.

Tell that to the brownshirts of Antifa and BLM when Trump wins.

 

[Space Cowboy]

I bet you 10$ that Trump doesn't win, evens.
Though you should give me 11/8 as trump is ahead in all known polls.
Any charity of your choice or mine.

 

[Mike Krailo]

I bet you 10$ that Trump doesn't win, evens.
Though you should give me 11/8 as trump is ahead in all known polls.
Any charity of your choice or mine.

Just donate to trumps campaign, I'm sure he'll appreciate it and you'll look like you knew what you were doing.

 

[Isaac]

Space cowboy, while we may have different opinions, I do (sort of secretly) admire how you have come right out and admitted that you believe the Democrats may need to do some questionable things in order to restore normalcy and goodness.

I (sort of secretly) think the same thing, except in the other direction. I hope it doesn't come to this, but if Trump needs to do something a bit authoritarian to restore normalcy and get the country going back in the direction of decent values and freedom prior to restoring normalcy, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it and a part of me thinks it may be necessary.

The things the supreme court is reversing, zero of it has surprised me whatsoever. All the things they reversed are the same things conservatives discuss among themselves all their lives as bad things that shouldn't have been that way. From the administrative state to a "constitutional right to an abortion" (which never of course existed), etc. etc. etc. They are just undoing the damage that years of stupid Democrat policies did to erode our freedoms.

 

[Pat Hartman]

trump is ahead in all known polls.

Kamala seems to be ahead of Trump. Who knew