Trumps Immunity.

Man...you can hear the yowling of those on the left about this ruling in even the remotest of areas. Simply amazing. For just a moment I'm going to gloat and say "I Told you so!". For months now I've been saying the same thing that SCOTUS just ruled as. A President has immunity for all official acts and none for non-presidential acts. Search my posts if you don't believe me.

So, did you all really think that the President DOESN'T have immunity for official acts? Seriously? Every LEO in the country has immunity for their official acts. Every single one of them. Yet this somehow doesn't apply to the President? And they're put in situations that involve the entire globe. Not just small sections of the US.

In addition we have ambassadors that have MORE immunity than the President. They can literally kill someone on main street and get away with it. Yet its hard for you all to understand that a President would have immunity for official acts?

President Obama literally killed a US Citizen on purpose without attempting to apprehend them and bring them to trial. A RIGHT held by every American Citizen. AND NO ONE IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BATTED AN EYE ABOUT IT. They made excuses for him. "But they were with terrorists and supporting terrorists!!!"

I read a part of Sotomayor's dissent. It read like a petulant child. "Immune immune immune immune!". Seriously...what judge repeats the same word in their rulings 4 times in a row? Doing that just showed me that she was not ruling based on anything BUT her feelings. Her political agenda. Quite frankly she should be impeached herself and thrown out for her judicial activism.

 

Sad, so sad.

 

You know this also applies to Biden and should trump, by a miracle, win in November, Biden could replicate what Trump did but this time successfully

 

Ho could but he won't. Not everyone is against the constitution.

 

No rebuttal? Nothing? Just a non-answer and a whataboutism?

 

Biden is well within his rights to challenge the election results. The 1st Amendment protects that right.

Be honest, do you not understand what the ruling really says, or are you misinterpreting it intentionally?

 

What changed?....... It has always been this way throughout our history... why is this "Trump's immunity"... it is ALL president's immunity...

there has never been a time in our history where a president, judge, congressman, etc. could go out and commit an official criminal act and not be touched......
as in drone strikes, or assassinating a foreign Osama bin Laden or starting wars from bad intel information, etc...

That same person can't personally walk out on the White House lawn and commit a criminal act..

Impeachment was ALWAYS the tool used to remove that person from office for personal criminal acts and then be prosecuted...
We just seen it with the state ballot removal crap...

I don't get it..... what changed?

What is the Democrat's bitchin' about... The Supreme Court majority has just made it harder to prosecute Biden for his offenses in office, starting with immigration and the special counsel's report. Daddy Biden's involvement in his son's foreign business "adventures"..... The Democrats should actually thank the Court.

 

Exactly! It has been this way since the beginning but then democrats thought lawfare was an acceptable practice so SC had to put the children back in their place!

 

In you own words, any size words of your choosing, what does the ruling really say?

 

What changed? Democrats lust for power has gone nuclear.

 

Democrats? LOL! It's not Democrats who gained a supermajority on the SC through lies and political maneuvering, so that this unelected supermajority can push through their extermist ideology from the bench. No, that's your side, the likes of Alito, Thomas etc, who are displaying their lust for power and disregard of ethics.

 

So who decides what is official and unofficial?

https://x.com/JackPosobiec

 

Seal Team Six, duuuhhhhhh.....

 

It's hilarious. Glorious . Delicious

 

The courts, on a case by case basis, starting at the bottom and working up to the Supreme Court.

 

Nope..... Congress....... impeachment on official or private acts... even then the president will be impeached and removed before prosecution..

NOTHING HAS CHANGED..... it has always been that way...

There is no way a sitting president walks out on the WH lawn and chops someone's head off and the Congress would not impeach first... and then prosecutions...

 

I don't think anyone argued they don't have any immunity. Bush had immunity for his official acts, which included misleading the Congress and the public to take US to war, torture etc, and even Obama said Bush had immunity. Trump had immunity when he assassinated the Iranian guy. Presidents always had immunity for carrying out their official duties. The question was always about Trump's involvement in Jan-6, which was not an official act.

You had to open 4th thread about the same topic........

 

Personally, I think the media is hyping this up more than what it is. The ruling gives absolute immunity for offical acts of President. The next logical question is what are the official acts of the president? The ruling said that official acts are those acts specifically prescribed in the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers as conclusive acts and preclusive acts. Preclusive acts are those acts shared with Congress. Unofficial acts are not immune and neither are private acts, acts in which the person who held office was not President either before or after.

The ruling does three things:
1. It gives Trump leverage to pretty much appeal to everything. Thus delaying any and all upcoming trials and his current sentencing.
2. It convolutes the ideas of impeachment, rule of law, and what are official acts as President.
3. It is giving media, both liberal and especially conservative, fake fodder to hype up the darkest thoughts on this ruling. I think the conservative justices were more political, trying to protect "their boy" than anything else. If the situation was reversed, they would not have made this decision the way it was, hands down.

 

What are you claiming that Biden can do successfully?

 

He can organize a riot, but that would not be an official act of the president, but a private one, hence no immunity. Same problem Trump has.

 

It says that a president has a certain amount of immunity. A significant amount of immunity, even. What it doesn't say is, a president has total immunity. No where in the ruling does it remotely suggest that a president has total immunity. I challenge you to show us the part of the ruling that says so.

 

Potentially? Have his VP declare him the winner of the next election no matter how people vote.

 

Elections have consequences.

 

Unless Trump has his way.

 

He can't do that. The VP doesn't have that power. He also isn't the VP, when he's the president of the Senate. That's a seperation of powers issue.