So Court ruling on Immunity?

[MountaineerWV]

Help me out. Their ruling, what does it actually mean? Hypothetical situation:

POTUS considers his rival and political party to be a threat to national security. He orders him/her to be murdered. So the political rival is arrested and executed. Would that be covered? We've had presidents give the approval to have other nation's leaders "taken out", so I was wondering about this situation.

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[MountaineerWV]

You didn't answer my question. Would that scenario be covered under "official" immunity?

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[MountaineerWV]

Ok, you can fill this thread up with more tweets if you like, but the Court's ruling is very vague and confusing. Excerpt:

Roberts argued that “the president is not above the law,” writing that “the president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the president does is official.”

So who defines "official" and "unofficial" acts? Are we at the point where this ruling is like the Court's ruling on pornography and art in which "you'll know it when you see it"?

 

[WVU82]

 

[MountaineerWV]

WVU82, can you seriously just ONE TIME answer a question. I'm not making this a "Trump" thing. It could be Biden that says "screw it, arrest and execute Trump". Is that an "official" act by the POTUS? I'd like to know who is going to define "official" and "unofficial" acts.

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[WVU82]

 

[roadtrasheer]

WVU82, can you seriously just ONE TIME answer a question. I'm not making this a "Trump" thing. It could be Biden that says "screw it, arrest and execute Trump". Is that an "official" act by the POTUS? I'd like to know who is going to define "official" and "unofficial" acts.

laws are confusing by design.
I'm gonna say some court with 60 lawyers 30 per side will hash out over 6 months what's " official and "unofficial " each time something comes up .

 

[WVU82]

 

[dave]

Help me out. Their ruling, what does it actually mean? Hypothetical situation:

POTUS considers his rival and political party to be a threat to national security. He orders him/her to be murdered. So the political rival is arrested and executed. Would that be covered? We've had presidents give the approval to have other nation's leaders "taken out", so I was wondering about this situation.

Good grief. Are you really this stupid?

Anyone who followed that order would be as guilty as the president

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Help me out. Their ruling, what does it actually mean? Hypothetical situation:

POTUS considers his rival and political party to be a threat to national security. He orders him/her to be murdered. So the political rival is arrested and executed. Would that be covered? We've had presidents give the approval to have other nation's leaders "taken out", so I was wondering about this situation.

You sound like Sotomayor and the rest of the liberal justices.

No, what it means is Biden can’t be prosecuted for droning an innocent man and his family in Kabul. Obama can’t be prosecuted for killing an American citizen without due process.

 

[dave]

You sound like Sotomayor and the rest of the liberal justices.

No, what it means is Biden can’t be prosecuted for droning an innocent man and his family in Kabul. Obama can’t be prosecuted for killing an American citizen without due process.

Nothing brings out full retard more than a court telling a moron libtard they can't run everyone's lives.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Nothing brings out full retard more than a court telling a moron libtard they can't run everyone's lives.

Reality is, none of what Trump is charged with falls within official acts IMO, but the legal maneuvering on it is going to delay anything past the election.

The only thing that’s positive on this for Trump is Clarence Thomas effectively eliminating Jack Smith.

 

[dave]

Reality is, none of what Trump is charged with falls within official acts IMO, but the legal maneuvering on it is going to delay anything past the election.

The only thing that’s positive on this for Trump is Clarence Thomas effectively eliminating Jack Smith.

The only thing Trump was being charged with that had anything close to legitimacy was the case in NY and the prosecution and judge botched the hell out of it and it will be overturned on appeal. The J6 and presidential records cases were complete and utter nonsense if you looked at the evidence and how they had been charged

 

[dave]

The SCOTUS ruling on the Chevron case is why the left is fantasizing about bombing the supreme Court. That ruling just took all the teeth from the administrative state and forced lawmaking back to Congress. The dickless fukwads at every federal agency can't rewrite law to fit their agenda now and that is a good thing.

 

[cam_blev]

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

The only thing Trump was being charged with that had anything close to legitimacy was the case in NY and the prosecution and judge botched the hell out of it and it will be overturned on appeal. The J6 and presidential records cases were complete and utter nonsense if you looked at the evidence and how they had been charged

I think they’re all bullshit, but, none of them would fall within official acts.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

View embedded media

All those things have been done already, perhaps, that’s the point of his post. The reality is, that’s going to fly right over most liberals’ heads.

 

[cam_blev]

All those things have been done already, perhaps, that’s the point of his post. The reality is, that’s going to fly right over most liberals’ heads.

Ya that's the point presidents been breaking laws without consequences since forever. This court ruling makes no real difference

 

[MountaineerWV]

You sound like Sotomayor and the rest of the liberal justices.

No, what it means is Biden can’t be prosecuted for droning an innocent man and his family in Kabul. Obama can’t be prosecuted for killing an American citizen without due process.

You missed the point as usual.

 

[cam_blev]

Help me out. Their ruling, what does it actually mean? Hypothetical situation:

POTUS considers his rival and political party to be a threat to national security. He orders him/her to be murdered. So the political rival is arrested and executed. Would that be covered? We've had presidents give the approval to have other nation's leaders "taken out", so I was wondering about this situation.

No that would not be covered

 

[MountaineerWV]

Who defines official and unofficial? In retrospect, would this ruling cover Nixon’s actions in the Watergate coverup? The refusal to turn over the tapes? The editing of the tapes?

This is about the most important position in our government and shouldn’t be vague.

 

[cam_blev]

Who defines official and unofficial? In retrospect, would this ruling cover Nixon’s actions in the Watergate coverup? The refusal to turn over the tapes? The editing of the tapes?

This is about the most important position in our government and shouldn’t be vague.

The constitution

 

[MountaineerWV]

The constitution

Dur........and why do we have a Supreme Court? Oh, to INTERPRET the vagueness at times of the Constitution. It's very thorough with the explicit powers, but it also has IMPLIED powers of the offices. That is my point.

 

[cam_blev]

Dur........and why do we have a Supreme Court? Oh, to INTERPRET the vagueness at times of the Constitution. It's very thorough with the explicit powers, but it also has IMPLIED powers of the offices. That is my point.

and if you have to ask if murdering your political opponent is part of the official duties of the office you shouldnt be allowed to vote

 

[MountaineerWV]

and if you have to ask if murdering your political opponent is part of the official duties of the office you shouldnt be allowed to vote

Ok.....stop counting your hocus-pocus currency and understand what my point was with that example. For anyone to take that to be a literal example, well, that shows your ability to analyze hypotheticals.

Go back to 9th grade and study up on civics, especially implied powers and the elastic clause.