US supreme court to decide on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity

Can a criminal act be a Presidential act?

 

Obama ordered a hit on an American citizen. That's a criminal act for everyone not named Obama.

The prosecution is arguing a President can be charged for any act that is not expressly defined as presidential in the Constitution. But they claimed Obama has a "public authority exception" for the murder of an American citizen. They claim there is no such exception for Trump's actions trying to contest the election. He would have been better off killing Biden, apparently. At least then according to Jack Smith and the DoJ attorneys he would have been immune from prosecution. But then we'd be stuck with Kamala Harris, so there's that...

 

I agree that is a criminal Act done by POTUS but in the interests of protecting USA sovereignty.

Nothing stops Congress from enacting a Law stating such an act is lawful, and then......Sam's yer Uncle!!

 

I’ve thinking about the psychological effect of the forthcoming SCOTUS ruling.

Nationally, both Biden and Trump are tied at 46%, and 65% of voters want a Jan 6 trial/verdict prior to November 5th, and there’s no doubt that a delay until after the election will infuriate millions of voters, and not just democrats.

My wanting a Jan 6 trial prior to Nov 5th isn’t political, I just believe that it should be NOW because if Trump wins, he’ll tell his DOJ to drop all charges, thus, if not now, a judicial proof will never be known.

 

If SCOTUS was going to provide a timely resolution, they would have taken up the request by Smith 1) in Nov/Dec last year to hear the immunity case
2) ruled on this like they did in the state ballot denial cases they ruled on in 6 days.

I agree with you but IMO, it's just not going to happen. IMO, it's possible they simple don't rule at all this cycle and leave to ponder into next year.

 

Your premise is correct. But a jury of his peers (whatever that is) will decide whatever they choose.

 

Cases of first impression rarely ever skip the appellate courts and go straight to the Supreme Court. They always want the input of the appellate courts. If the appellate court didn't ignore the law, like the district court, in their ruling there's a chance the SCOTUS would have declined to hear the case. But they clearly ignored the law and made a ruling with such atrocious precedent that it imperals the institution of the presidency to a degree that even the DoJ was willing to defend it. This is what happens when activist judges go rogue against politicians they dislike. They get appealed.

 

How was it "in the interest of protecting USA sovereignty" when those American citizens weren't even in America? No one, and no property, in the US was in any immediate danger by them. And they could have been detained the moment they stepped foot back on American soil and charged with aiding and abetting terrorists.

In the US a person may only be shot/killed in self defense when there is a need to based on immediate danger of life/limb. The same applies for any citizen abroad. IE: A citizen could be charged with murder for killing another citizen even if they were in another country, unless it was done in self defense. Which again, requires immediate danger of life/limb. As such it would have been illegal for Obama to order the hit, even if it was done at the suggestion of the DOJ et al.

If there was no immunity for Presidential Acts....

 

Correct. And the Obama administration admitted there was no immediate danger to anyone.

 

Aside from what @Kal'Stang said, even if they passed a new law, it would generally not be retroactive for past illegal activity.

 

But you are unable to address or counter the facts and timeline I posted however, just a partisan opine ignoring the context of the facts and the behavior of SCOTUS. IOW, a subpar deflection sans the actual facts and timeline in this action. No amount of partisan shining works on the obvious.

 

There is no immunity for Presidential criminal acts. Charge Obama, fine by me. Send him to prison for life, fine by me.

 

Any bit of legislation can be made retrospective.

 

Yes, which is why I said generally. When criminal codes are updated it's rare to give prior offenders a pass. You could include an amnesty, but imagine Democrats passing legislation to give Obama amnesty from murder charges while prosecuting Trump for political speech.

 

Your timeline is silly. The Colorado Supreme Court ruled Trump disqualified in December and overturning it was a simple 9-0 decision with little research required. The oral arguments were on February 8th and a ruling was issued in March.

That was also for a relatively recent case. Biden’s DOJ waited until Trump announced his candidacy nearly 2 years after January 6th events took place. And it took another 9 months to indict him. They slow walked it to interfere with the election. Now people are whining the Supreme Court allowed an appellate court ruling on a case of first impression coinciding with the typical due process? And you’re not complaining about the district and appellate courts butchering the rulings which is what forced the Supreme Court to get involved at all. Spare me.

Imagine if the SCOTUS agrees with the lower courts and lets it stand and Trump wins the election. They effectively claim there’s no such thing as a political prosecution and by virtue of prosecutors bringing a case it means it can be prosecuted. Obama and his attorneys go to prison for conspiracy to murder. On top of federal charges, the American he had killed was from NM. So a backwoods hick county DA prosecutes Obama for murder to get him in state prison. Republicans vote to take away his secret service protection. That’s the kangaroo banana republic Democrats are trying to create.

 

Except that he's not going to be charged. And I don't want him charged for it because I want a President able to do what needs to be done. Even if that means its "outside" the law. Situations often arise that demands immediate attention and we don't have time to wait on Congress to decide whether or not to make a law addressing that situation (in either direction).

Look, its real simple. Is what Obama did a Presidential Act? Yes or no? Is what Trump did a Presidential Act? Yes or no? That is all that needs to be decided. Pretty much everyone agrees that what Obama did was a Presidential Act. Fine. Immunity from prosecution. I have no problem with that. But if you're going to straight up claim that a President does not have immunity for Presidential Acts, then you damn well better charge all other past Presidents (the ones still alive at least) for the various actions that they took which could be considered as breaking the law along with Trump. This is an all or nothing deal. Or you can simply determine whether or not what Trump did was or was not a Presidential Act. And charge, or not charge him, based on that.

 

You cannot claim to be a civilised society if your Leader can do what he likes (including a Leader's act arguably in the interests of the tribe) with immunity UNLESS you, as that society, have made it legal for them to do so. Plain and simple. Just pass some legislation and there will be no quibble from me.

Stuff SCOTUS making Laws, That is not what it is for. It is there to interpret Law, not make it. You Americans do not elect SCOTUS so you should never tolerate them making Laws for you.

What were those blokes in Boston screaming..........something about no taxation without representation. Same deal with SCOTUS.

Reclaim the Law Team USA, do not leave it to a bunch of cloistered, isolated, highly politicised egos.

 

Obama?! Is that some trigger or mere flailing around?

My timeline and facts provide critical thinking context. What your post exemplifies is a hyper partisan deflection opine. That's as weak as it gets since nothing you've posted is timeline specific not backed by the actual facts I've simply provided. That's the weak sauce your position has rendered you. All that's left in your post is gas lighting and deflection opining.

The post I quoted easily dismantles itself off topic. Some folk really need to up their game. Good luck because, as I stated before, facts and the actual timeline I've posted provide the clear context that you still are unable to touch. Your spin, not so much.

 

Like I've said before, there's already law for it. Did you watch that video I provided earlier? It talks about it.

Also, SCOTUS doesn't make law. Never has.

 

Of course it does/has. It's one of the standard criticisms of your hopelessly corrupted SCOTUS.

 

No, it doesn't. Not when you view it objectively. The only ones that ever talk about it are those that are ignorant or those that don't like the verdict that they put out because it goes against their agendas.

 

Just one example.

Roe v Wade.
The case in which the current SCOTUS overturned Roe v Wade

Nixon Fitzgerald.

etc etc etc.

 

RvW did not make any laws. It struck down a law based on a right to privacy. And all that Dobbs did was uphold a law that was already in effect.

Nixon v Fitzgerald did not recognize anything new either (nor create law). In fact it relies on previous cases in which the courts have recognized that government employees and officials do have immunity for certain things. For example: Spalding v Vilas (1896).

Like I said, those that think SCOTUS makes law are either ignorant or only say so because the ruling went against their agenda.

 

Activism is the same as creating Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism

 

You're welcome to your opinion. But facts are facts. All RvW did was strike down a law, Dobbs upheld a law, and Fitzgerald relied on previous case law from the late 1800's, nothing new created.