SC rules Trump and all Presidents have absolute immunity

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2024, 12:25 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: It has been a very rough week for Biden and the DNC.

That seems a bit short-sighted.  Even if/when Trump wins in 2024 as you keep pointing out, he's not going to do anything crazy and he's going to leave office peacefully in 4 years like a normal politician so shouldn't conservatives worry that a democrat is going to win in 2028 or eventually and use this ruling for evil?

I don't see why "the president" being immune to anything is being spun as a victory for Trump, particularly from people who keep telling me he doesn't break the law and he's not going to stay in power beyond his one term allotted and that Biden is already unjustly exerting his influence to do criminal things from rigging elections to trying to have his opponents and critics jailed.

If Biden and other democrats are corrupt and Trump isn't, how is the president being granted immunity a win for Trump and a loss for Biden/democrats?

[HarleyDog]

Careful now. Biden is inciting a riot. 

[Luvnit2]

(07-01-2024, 02:21 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Seems like a very reasonable ruling, which won't stop partisans from claiming something it isn't.

"Presumed immunity", which is a key distinction from blanket or absolute immunity, simply sets a high bar for going after a POTUS for official acts.  Ordering the assassination of a political rival isn't going to be immune, because committing crimes is not a power delegated to the POTUS.  By definition, an illegal act can't be an official act, so enough with that BS.  Where this comes into play is bombing a suspected terrorist is immune from prosecution, but shooting Biden on 5th Ave would not be.

And "official acts" also has specific meaning.  This seems to exclude Trump's actions as a candidate.  No impact on the GA or NY cases, nor on the documents case.  It may impact part of the Jan. 6 case, but IMO that was always impeachable for dereliction of duty, but not criminal.  And you can't prosecute someone for exercising their free speech, ESPECIALLY when a political candidate.  But the whole "insurrection" thing was always LOL BS, and the SCOTUS has pretty much slammed that door shut with another ruling that would clearly identify those events for what most reasonable people saw with their own eyes - a riot, not a rebellion.

Trump did not become a candidate until 2022. He left office in late January 2021. So, anything while he was in office may be considered the POTUS (all of them) have immunity. 

[Luvnit2]

(07-01-2024, 07:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That seems a bit short-sighted.  Even if/when Trump wins in 2024 as you keep pointing out, he's not going to do anything crazy and he's going to leave office peacefully in 4 years like a normal politician so shouldn't conservatives worry that a democrat is going to win in 2028 or eventually and use this ruling for evil?

I don't see why "the president" being immune to anything is being spun as a victory for Trump, particularly from people who keep telling me he doesn't break the law and he's not going to stay in power beyond his one term allotted and that Biden is already unjustly exerting his influence to do criminal things from rigging elections to trying to have his opponents and critics jailed.

If Biden and other democrats are corrupt and Trump isn't, how is the president being granted immunity a win for Trump and a loss for Biden/democrats?

You may be furthest leaning leftist in the forum. Take a trip down memory lane and share with all of the Presidents and former Presidents who were indicted. Maybe then you have the answer to your question if you wanting to be rationale and non partisan.

[FormerlyBengalRugby]

(07-01-2024, 08:54 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Careful now. Biden is inciting a riot. 

He is a sympathetic, forgetful old man so it is not worth taking it to trial.




But he is still good to be president...

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2024, 08:59 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: You may be furthest leaning leftist in the forum.

I don't know if you are intentionally trying to convince me that actually asking you questions is a waste of time or you are just this damn good at convincing anyone who isn't lock-step with you to completely disengage and give up.

Standard stuff, I can't ask you a question without you thinking I'm trying to trap you or trick you, so you just state that I'm insanely liberal and then use that as an excuse to not give a direct answer.  I rather wish you'd just get all your insults and insinuations out of the way so we can actually discuss things, though you're likely to just assume I'm voting straight democrat and always have and lied about my political affiliation for years rather than consider that there are people out there who can disagree with you yet actually be open to assaying your views on something.

Maybe it's the internet.  I'm actually able to discuss things with people I disagree with in real life and I've even changed my views and political leanings multiple times in my life.

[Dill]

(07-01-2024, 12:06 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Where all the ledge jumpers?

(07-01-2024, 12:08 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: They're coming.

This one is waiting to read the decision and dissents.

On the face of it, this looks like a complement to the Chevron decision, which increased the court's power to decide regulatory issues.
And both these decisions prep the way for Project 2025.  

In the meantime, I'll just say that 1) it's very interesting that "originalists" have concluded that presidents need such enhanced power, and 

2) I'm very surprised that limited government conservatives--if ye be such--are happy about this gift to Trump, which appears to place him
above the law, to blunt the separation of powers, and to undermine checks and balances intended to limit presidential power.

3) first impression--more consequential than Dobbs.  So till tomorrow . . . .

[Mike M (the other one)]

(07-01-2024, 08:54 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Careful now. Biden is inciting a riot. 

Make sure he doesn't tell people to protest peacefully. It's like an Auto-Jail card these days