United States Supreme Court Rules Donald Trump Is Immune For Official Acts And Is Not Immune For Unofficial Acts

[Revoltingest]

Willingly?

Nah.

The majority steers the boat.
Trump's cult is strong.
Majority?
Could be.

 

[Revoltingest]

If Biden was to force social media to black out Conservatives again....

Again?
When were cons or Magas ever
denied their right to rant & rail?
Loud they were & are.

 

[Quintessence]

To add, for those that don't understand why this decision is a problem, ask yourself a couple of things:

• If one person in the country has immunity from the law for acting in the interest of their "official duties" of their jobs, shouldn't this be extended to all citizens engaging "official duties" for their jobs?
• When you and all other citizens are granted immunity for doing anything related to the "official duties" of their jobs what will you and your fellow citizens do?

Basically, why should anyone follow any laws at all whatsoever, so long as it's "official duties" for something? What does a society look like that abandons rule of law or selectively permits only some of its citizens to be above the law? Here are some ideas of the ramifications;

• Good news, OB/GYNs - you can now provide abortions to any and all women because that's part of the official duties of your job and no forced birther laws can tell you otherwise.
  • But wait - it's part of the official duties of those employed by fake anti-abortion clinics to fight you, so what now?
• Good news, folks in higher ed - you can continue DEI programs that help close achievement gaps amongst minorities because that's part of the official duties of your job and no bigoted laws can tell you otherwise.
  • But wait - it's part of the official duties for those employed by the state to destroy you, so what now?
• Good news, folks in environmental protections - you can instantly shut down all coal plants across the country because they adversely impact human health and it's part of your official job duties to do so, forget what the laws say.
  • But wait - it's part of the official duties for those employed by coal plants and other fossil fuel companies to keep operating, so what now?

 

[Quintessence]

The majority steers the boat.
Trump's cult is strong.
Majority?
Could be.

No, it couldn't. Dumpster lost the popular vote. Both times. Unless you are suggesting the citizens sitting on their rear ends not voting would all somehow vote for an uncivil servant.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, it couldn't. Dumpster lost the popular vote. Both times. Unless you are suggesting the citizens sitting on their rear ends not voting would all somehow vote for an uncivil servant.

Such certainty in the face of Biden's dismal
performances of late, & his uncertain future.
At least I'm smart enuf to know that I know
nothing.

 

[F1fan]

I have just one fundamental question about all this:

Why is it necessary to give current and former presidents any sort of immunity from the law?

As far as I can tell, there are only two reasons to do this:

1. Reduce Domestic Discontent and Polarization. There is no question that prosecution of elected officials, especially presidents, is divisive to the nation in ways that further discontent and division. I doubt it is controversial too recognize this is a problem and that it can be for the good of the nation to put ugliness behind us in order to move forward. However, immunity also absolves officials from accountability which, in a democratic nation supposedly governed by rule of law, is a serious, serious problem, because it leads to...
2. Facilitate a Transition to Authoritarianism. When the president of a nation is given immunity from the law, that does more than merely crack a window open for authoritarianism, it opens up an entire gods damned door to it and starts rolling out the red carpet. It would not be difficult to selectively enforce "official acts" to give a free pass to a tyrannical minority to subdue and subvert the will of the people and the majority. This already happens in our governmental systems now, never mind this dramatic expansion of presidential power.

I've seen weak arguments along the lines of "but it helps the president make decisions without fear of reprisal or consequences" which is nonsense. If you are a president, you should be a level-headed, well-tempered, considerate, rational, thoughtful individual who has to think about the consequences of your actions not just for yourself but an entire nation if not the entire human world? You already have immunity while in office? Why would you need more? If you are a civil servant proper, why wouldn't you be willing to sacrifice your own career and yourself for the good of your country? Unless you weren't qualified to hold the office in the first place because you're an egomaniacal self-centered criminal and con artist?

What other case for the actual necessity of this is there? Genuinely asking.

I want NO president to have ANY immunity. To the point I do not even WANT a president anymore. The office should be dissolved.

The thing is this ruling has no impact on ethical presidents. We are worried because Trump isn’t ethical and will surely exploit the opportunity to commit criminal acts against whomever he sees as a threat.

The immunity was argued before like when Obama authorized attacks on terrorists and civilians were killed. That is what immunity means. It doesn’t mean that a president who lost an election can use his office to coerce and pressure election officials to add votes so he will suddenly win. Nor does it mean that a president can be part of a protest against an election he lost and motivate his supporters to commit crimes against the nation.

The SCOTUS is making odd rulings that appear to be helping Trump.

 

[fantome profane]

One has to keep in mind that Biden is the current President and will be the first to get this advantage, right before the election.

This is a really good point. Biden has this power right now, and will have if for months before the election. We will have an opportunity to see how Biden acts with this authoritarian power. We have already seen what Biden has had to say about this ruling, and we can compare it to what Trump has said about this ruling.

Biden understands that the President having this kind of immunity is undemocratic and un-American. It is absolutely imperative that if American is to remain a democracy you must elect a President who understands that no one is above the law, regardless of what the current supreme court has ruled. Not just in this election, but in every election from here on out till this somehow gets corrected. This is the most important issue.

 

[Watchmen]

To add, for those that don't understand why this decision is a problem, ask yourself a couple of things:

• If one person in the country has immunity from the law for acting in the interest of their "official duties" of their jobs, shouldn't this be extended to all citizens engaging "official duties" for their jobs?
• When you and all other citizens are granted immunity for doing anything related to the "official duties" of their jobs what will you and your fellow citizens do?

Basically, why should anyone follow any laws at all whatsoever, so long as it's "official duties" for something? What does a society look like that abandons rule of law or selectively permits only some of its citizens to be above the law? Here are some ideas of the ramifications;

• Good news, OB/GYNs - you can now provide abortions to any and all women because that's part of the official duties of your job and no forced birther laws can tell you otherwise.
  • But wait - it's part of the official duties of those employed by fake anti-abortion clinics to fight you, so what now?
• Good news, folks in higher ed - you can continue DEI programs that help close achievement gaps amongst minorities because that's part of the official duties of your job and no bigoted laws can tell you otherwise.
  • But wait - it's part of the official duties for those employed by the state to destroy you, so what now?
• Good news, folks in environmental protections - you can instantly shut down all coal plants across the country because they adversely impact human health and it's part of your official job duties to do so, forget what the laws say.
  • But wait - it's part of the official duties for those employed by coal plants and other fossil fuel companies to keep operating, so what now?

There is no absolute immunity for official acts. It’s presumptive immunity. Do you ken the difference?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no absolute immunity for official acts. It’s presumptive immunity. Do you ken the difference?

Yes, I ken the difference. But since almost all evidence respecting official acts is inadmissable in court, that provides de facto absolute immunity. Do you ken that?

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, I ken the difference. But since almost all evidence respecting official acts is inadmissable in court, that provides de facto absolute immunity. Do you ken that?

Wrong. It’s “presumptive.” It’s still possible to pierce the immunity, which actually supports the evidence coming in at the determination stage.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Wrong. It’s “presumptive.” It’s still possible to pierce the immunity, which actually supports the evidence coming in at the determination stage.

And determination without access to the evidence? How is that done?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I am honestly afraid for the country I tried to defend for 10 years as a military service member.

Never thought I'd watch my own country fall.

Yea it's always a joy to see who runs the least free and most oppressive states in the entire nation and there is nothing that can ever be done about it.

What makes a Marine Corps Combat veteran cry?

This.....

Semper Fi warrior.

 

[lukethethird]

6-3!? What the hell!

https://meidasnews.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-rules-donald-trump-is-immune-for-official-acts-and-is-not-immune-for-unofficial-acts

Link to ruling.

So, business as usual.

 

[Quintessence]

There is no absolute immunity for official acts. It’s presumptive immunity. Do you ken the difference?

The difference is whatever the court wants to make it, which can change from candidate to candidate based on the court's political interests. And given the court in this country is backwards compared to other nations - where those seated on the court are not appointed through a political process - there is a very high degree of probability that, as I have said, it is not a matter of if this will be abused, but when. Do you ken that?

 

[F1fan]

The difference is whatever the court wants to make it, which can change from candidate to candidate based on the court's political interests. And given the court in this country is backwards compared to other nations - where those seated on the court are not appointed through a political process - there is a very high degree of probability that, as I have said, it is not a matter of if this will be abused, but when. Do you ken that?

And the three Trump nominees were selected by the Federalist Society, not through some judicial review process that seeks the most moderate and fair judges. They were political picks. And since the confirmation only required 51 senate votes, which the republicans had, the confirmation process was little more than a formality. Given the serious role the SCOTUS plays in the USA by interpreting the Constitution i'm shocked the requirement isn't 2/3 of the Senate. Afterall, it takes a lot to make an amendment, why not a high standard for selecting those who interpret?

The SCOTUS is corrupt at this point, and their rulings on major issues were designed by selecting justices that are biased towards a political agenda. If Trump wins it's likely he will have the chance to appoint 2-3 more, albeit to replace the two most extreme members, and perhaps one of the liberals who has health problems.

 

[Watchmen]

The difference is whatever the court wants to make it, which can change from candidate to candidate based on the court's political interests. And given the court in this country is backwards compared to other nations - where those seated on the court are not appointed through a political process - there is a very high degree of probability that, as I have said, it is not a matter of if this will be abused, but when. Do you ken that?

That’s a particularly jaded view.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Just a thought, but as presidents are now immune for all 'official' acts, couldn't Biden just disqualify Trump from standing or something, 'officially', of course....?

Great question.

How about if in his official duties as President to protect the Constitution and the democracy from this Court, he walks into the Court and shoots six justices in the head, and then goes after Trump? Would those be considered crimes? Could he even be arrested or legally stopped from shooting if he weren't finished yet?

Something like that might save the nation from tyranny. The surviving justices and the replacement justices would probably revise that ruling pretty quickly.

ATTN MODS: I am not recommending committing a crime or shooting anybody. And that is not something that Biden or I would do. It's a hypothetical - could he be prosecuted if he did that? Maybe not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What they said in their Confirmation Hearings:

Brett Kavanaugh: no one is above the law in the united states, that is a foundational principle.​

​

Neil Gorsuch: Nobody is above the law in this country and that includes the President of the United States.​

​

Samuel Alito: No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.​

​

John Roberts: I believe no one is above the law under our system and that includes the President. The President is fully bound by the law, the constitution, and statutes.​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

These bozos have gone and tarnished the good name of Diana Ross and the rest of her group!

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What they said in their Confirmation Hearings:

Brett Kavanaugh: no one is above the law in the united states, that is a foundational principle.​

​

Neil Gorsuch: Nobody is above the law in this country and that includes the President of the United States.​

​

Samuel Alito: No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.​

​

John Roberts: I believe no one is above the law under our system and that includes the President. The President is fully bound by the law, the constitution, and statutes.​

Thanks for that. We already knew that the justices that voted to overturn Roe lied in their confirmation hearings. And they're all devoutly religious I believe, although I'm not sure about Roberts. Now watch them enable schools to post the Ten Commandments including the one they openly violate.