Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Breaking News Trump Found Guilty of All 34 Counts In 'Hush Money' Trial | Update: Supreme Court Rules Trump Has ‘Absolute Immunity’ From Criminal Prosecution

ChicagoFigure said:
He would still have to convince the court that his actions were reasonable. He doesn't have unilateral power to get away with it bc he said so and no one does anything about it.

Presidents can still be impeached and held accountable with this ruling.
Click to expand...

And who picked the judges from these lower courts?? If it's Trump appointed judges then...

The "fear mongering" is not unjustified
 
ChicagoFigure said:
I'm not an expert here but doesn't the rule kinda keep in place what's already been?

Like, trump got convicted of something, and im all for corrupt politicians being held accountable, but why then do presidents get away with war crimes over and over again?

The question is more "what are official acts vs unofficial"
Click to expand...
One of the first things I thought of was the Iraq War. I don't remember the specifics, but Bush went over a lot of heads to deploy troops. I'm sure each wartime president got something on his jacket that would land him in the chair.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
What's your specific interpretation of it?
Click to expand...
For me it's too much of a grey area with the lower courts able to decide what's an official or unofficial act. Supreme court left it wide open

Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.
Click to expand...
apnews.com

Sotomayor's dissent: A president should not be a 'king above the law'

The Supreme Court is allowing a president to become a “king above the law,” in the use of official power, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a biting dissent that called the majority opinion on immunity for former President Donald Trump “utterly indefensible.”
apnews.com apnews.com
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military 30 TRUMP v. UNITED STATES SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. * * * The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing] to show” that the Executive designed by the Constitution “combines . . . all the requisites to energy,” Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a republican sense, a due dependence on the people, a due responsibility?” The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Library ed. 2009). The answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the common course of law.” Ibid. The answer after today is no. Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
Click to expand...
Page 96
 
mike030270 said:
For me it's too much of a grey area with the lower courts able to decide what's an official or unofficial act. Supreme court left it wide open


apnews.com

Sotomayor's dissent: A president should not be a 'king above the law'

The Supreme Court is allowing a president to become a “king above the law,” in the use of official power, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said in a biting dissent that called the majority opinion on immunity for former President Donald Trump “utterly indefensible.”
apnews.com apnews.com

Page 96
Click to expand...
mike030270 said:
Click to expand...

Official acts are outlined as a president's constitutional duties.

And just bc trump does something illegal and wants to claim it was an official act, doesn't mean he can't be brought to trial and prosecuted.

People keep missing this point. There is no unilateral power given here. The president is still subject to investigation, impeachment, trial and possible prosecution
 
Y'all are really going with the logic that a majority conservative supreme court just gave all this unilateral power to the current president of the U.S. who isn't trump, and isn't a Republican.

Just think about it a lil bit.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Y'all are really going with the logic that a majority conservative supreme court just gave all this unilateral power to the current president of the U.S. who isn't trump, and isn't a Republican.

Just think about it a lil bit.
Click to expand...
He brought the case to them to avoid being tried for Jan 6.
 
ChicagoFigure said:
Y'all are really going with the logic that a majority conservative supreme court just gave all this unilateral power to the current president of the U.S. who isn't trump, and isn't a Republican.

Just think about it a lil bit.
Click to expand...
No one said the maga cult was smart

Also this would play into project 2025 if trump were to win

But this is all just fear mongering lol
 
mike030270 said:
No one said the maga cult was smart

Also this would play into project 2025 if trump were to win

But this is all just fear mongering lol
Click to expand...
If that last tweet u posted is what u think is actually happening then yes, u are being fear mongered

Now I'm not saying he isn't dumb/corrupt enough to attempt that, what I am saying is the SC ruling today doesn't automatically grant him immunity the way people are scared into thinking
 
ChicagoFigure said:
If that last tweet u posted is what u think is actually happening then yes, u are being fear mongered

Now I'm not saying he isn't dumb/corrupt enough to attempt that, what I am saying is the SC ruling today doesn't automatically grant him immunity the way people are scared into thinking
Click to expand...
100% believe trump would say whatever he's doing is an official act. Have you seen his tweets? Did you not see what he was saying about the classified documents just laying around? Lol

His ego believes he's above everything. That's not fear mongering. That's just stating the fact lol
 
mike030270 said:
100% believe trump would say whatever he's doing is an official act. Have you seen his tweets? Did you not see what he was saying about the classified documents just laying around? Lol

His ego believes he's above everything. That's not fear mongering. That's just stating the fact lol
Click to expand...
Lol bruh you're still missing it.

It doesn't matter what he says. The courts decide whether it's an official act, not him.
 
I mean whats stopping Biden from using that same Immmunity right now? Go ahead just kill Trump.

this is a joke but im halfway serious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top