45th President Of The United States, Donald Trump (Vol. 14)
Discussion
Mortarboard said:
RustyMX5 said:
Mortarboard said:
Supreme Court ruling on Presidential immunity come out today.
While I think the correct ruling should be "core official acts are immune, privately motivated acts are not", I expect some sort of fudge along the lines of "legal mumble, send it to the lower courts so scotus can then adjudicate on a case by case basis"
M.
I, Donald J Trump, Elected President of the United States of America and acting within that capacity, hereby ban the Democratic party... would get around your suggestion. While I think the correct ruling should be "core official acts are immune, privately motivated acts are not", I expect some sort of fudge along the lines of "legal mumble, send it to the lower courts so scotus can then adjudicate on a case by case basis"
M.
Sorry
That's why I think they'll fudge it. Then scotus gets to choose what's "official"
M.
From a quick read it seems to be a way for the supreme court or kick the can down the road with the usual suspects hoping Trump gets back in to support them and their grifting.
They don't want to say that a president is immune as that means Biden can do what he wants to them. But by the same token they don't want to say Trump isn't immune as that means the court cases against him can go ahead.
So they've muddied the water by asking what is an "official act".
They don't want to say that a president is immune as that means Biden can do what he wants to them. But by the same token they don't want to say Trump isn't immune as that means the court cases against him can go ahead.
So they've muddied the water by asking what is an "official act".
fatbutt said:
If Trump wins, as some of you are so happy to predict, these are the key points I can see that will be a direct consequence within the first 12 months:
USA will withdraw most if not all support for Ukraine. Russia will take Ukraine then expand its offensive to Estonia, etc. leading to enormous tension within NATO. A multi country war in Eastern Europe will become a very real possibility.
USA will heavily relax sanctions, embargos, etc. with China and Russia creating enormous world trade tensions, increased foreign debt, accusations of bribery, etc.
USA will revise taxation to such an extent that the wealth gap passes its tipping point leading to a Oligarchy style of government (even more so than current)
USA will so strongly oppose immigration that the existing immigrants will effectively become economic slaves. They will be forced to to work for a pittance (which most already do), or move to one of the camps which will be for all intents and purposes be concentration camps
USA will revise its civil servant structure to make it nigh on impossible to stop those governing from passing whatever legislation they want. Democracy, which is sketchy at best in the USA, will cease to exist. And once its gone, its gone.
USA will have a marked increase in civil disobedience, mass shootings and riots. This will lead to more restrictive laws, civil segregation, etc.
Call it fear mongering all you like but I'd be more interested in someone giving a good argument to illustrate why some or all of the above won't happen.
I'm not happy to predict it, I just think it's going to happen.USA will withdraw most if not all support for Ukraine. Russia will take Ukraine then expand its offensive to Estonia, etc. leading to enormous tension within NATO. A multi country war in Eastern Europe will become a very real possibility.
USA will heavily relax sanctions, embargos, etc. with China and Russia creating enormous world trade tensions, increased foreign debt, accusations of bribery, etc.
USA will revise taxation to such an extent that the wealth gap passes its tipping point leading to a Oligarchy style of government (even more so than current)
USA will so strongly oppose immigration that the existing immigrants will effectively become economic slaves. They will be forced to to work for a pittance (which most already do), or move to one of the camps which will be for all intents and purposes be concentration camps
USA will revise its civil servant structure to make it nigh on impossible to stop those governing from passing whatever legislation they want. Democracy, which is sketchy at best in the USA, will cease to exist. And once its gone, its gone.
USA will have a marked increase in civil disobedience, mass shootings and riots. This will lead to more restrictive laws, civil segregation, etc.
Call it fear mongering all you like but I'd be more interested in someone giving a good argument to illustrate why some or all of the above won't happen.
I completely agree with the possibility of most of the things in your list happening, the problem is that a BIG chunk of the US electorate WANT them to happen.
Well, I that’s not what I expected. I don’t see how Roberts can conclude that the Supreme Court don’t have to list everything that is an official act by a President. The way I see it it’s uncharted, so the Courts would have to decide every time someone sues the Government because that person doesn’t think whatever the President did is an official act.
14 said:
Well, I that’s not what I expected. I don’t see how Roberts can conclude that the Supreme Court don’t have to list everything that is an official act by a President. The way I see it it’s uncharted, so the Courts would have to decide every time someone sues the Government because that person doesn’t think whatever the President did is an official act.
I read it (not a lawyer) as worse than that.According to Robert's, official acts, as defined per the constitution, have absolute immunity.
He didn't say the other acts didn't have some immunity.
Therein lies the fudge.
M.
Beati Dogu said:
Mortarboard said:
Remember when roe vs wade was "settled law?
I do. Fun times.
It was alway judicial overreach, which was why it was overturned. And now it has been left to the states to decide, which is the way it should be.I do. Fun times.
There were two prospective judges, who both declared under oath, versions of "roe is settled law", and "roe is precedent"
And then overturned it at the first opportunity.
At alito and Thomas to the equation, and that's four of nine justices that are in some way compromised.
M.
Mortarboard said:
14 said:
Well, I that’s not what I expected. I don’t see how Roberts can conclude that the Supreme Court don’t have to list everything that is an official act by a President. The way I see it it’s uncharted, so the Courts would have to decide every time someone sues the Government because that person doesn’t think whatever the President did is an official act.
I read it (not a lawyer) as worse than that.According to Robert's, official acts, as defined per the constitution, have absolute immunity.
He didn't say the other acts didn't have some immunity.
Therein lies the fudge.
M.
Where do I pick up my 'I'm immune' badge?
Bonefish Blues said:
Mortarboard said:
14 said:
Well, I that’s not what I expected. I don’t see how Roberts can conclude that the Supreme Court don’t have to list everything that is an official act by a President. The way I see it it’s uncharted, so the Courts would have to decide every time someone sues the Government because that person doesn’t think whatever the President did is an official act.
I read it (not a lawyer) as worse than that.According to Robert's, official acts, as defined per the constitution, have absolute immunity.
He didn't say the other acts didn't have some immunity.
Therein lies the fudge.
M.
Where do I pick up my 'I'm immune' badge?
pinchmeimdreamin said:
Bonefish Blues said:
Mortarboard said:
14 said:
Well, I that’s not what I expected. I don’t see how Roberts can conclude that the Supreme Court don’t have to list everything that is an official act by a President. The way I see it it’s uncharted, so the Courts would have to decide every time someone sues the Government because that person doesn’t think whatever the President did is an official act.
I read it (not a lawyer) as worse than that.According to Robert's, official acts, as defined per the constitution, have absolute immunity.
He didn't say the other acts didn't have some immunity.
Therein lies the fudge.
M.
Where do I pick up my 'I'm immune' badge?
You DO have to separate things somewhere. Unfortunately with politics as it is a hard ruling either way is bad.
No immunity at all. That would mean Trump if he wins can go after Biden for revenge for loads of things that were part of the job.
Immunity for everything. That would mean Presidents could be openly corrupt, order political killings and so on.
Their judgement is basically correct, the issue will now go down to lower courts each time there is a new example.
No immunity at all. That would mean Trump if he wins can go after Biden for revenge for loads of things that were part of the job.
Immunity for everything. That would mean Presidents could be openly corrupt, order political killings and so on.
Their judgement is basically correct, the issue will now go down to lower courts each time there is a new example.
Skeptisk said:
If the US were still run by adults then it would be fairly straightforward:
President doing something in the interests of the country? Assumed immunity. President doing something for his own personal gain and against the interests of the US/against the constitution: no immunity.
In theory that’s what they have done now. The issue will be what is personal gain versus against the country. Particularly in the US. Even the ‘left’ wing people like Nansy Pelosi have been defending stuff like being invited on holidays with billionaires and the like as being part of the job rather than the obvious bribery it is. Even outside the politics that will be at play here it makes it very tricky to split illegal personal gain versus part of the job. President doing something in the interests of the country? Assumed immunity. President doing something for his own personal gain and against the interests of the US/against the constitution: no immunity.
A fudge by the SCOTUS as expected. This probably kills the worst of trump's Jan 6 insurrection case, but he's screwed in the classified documents case. He did all that whilst a private citizen, not whilst President.
Jack Smith now needs to focus on the classified docs case by firstly getting Judge Cannon booted for clear bias, and then throw the book at him. There is absolutely no argument for presidential immunity over this one now. None.
Jack Smith now needs to focus on the classified docs case by firstly getting Judge Cannon booted for clear bias, and then throw the book at him. There is absolutely no argument for presidential immunity over this one now. None.
As I posted a few days back...
Anyone excitedly awaiting Trump getting jailtime or similar is in for a disappointment.
Last week was as clear an indication as you can get Trump is going to be the 47th POTUS, and all appetite for further legal actions, prosecutions etc shall seriously diminish if not so already.
Anyone excitedly awaiting Trump getting jailtime or similar is in for a disappointment.
Last week was as clear an indication as you can get Trump is going to be the 47th POTUS, and all appetite for further legal actions, prosecutions etc shall seriously diminish if not so already.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff