• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

F

F1fan

Veteran Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
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.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing that your hypothetical doesn't say is that we all know and trust that Biden would order no such thing. But how confident are we that Trump wouldn't? We have testimony from former Trump cabinet members who stated how Trump wanted to do many illegal acts while president and the only reason they weren't done is due to ethical standards by the cabinet officials. We have reason to believe that Trump won't make this mistake again and will select loyal cabinet members who will follow orders. Will there be executions of enemies of Trump? It really isn't easy to doubt. I can imagine certain members of congress have sudden deaths that have strange causes, much the way certain putin enemies get poisoned with various agents. It's more likley that Trump enemies get arrested, as he has already threatened. What charges, what evidence? Well there doesn't have to be any evidence that is actually credible, the arrests will serve the purpose of intimiidation. Even when the charges are later dropped (because not all courts will have Trump loyalists) it will cause fear and chaos.

We really have no idea how far Trump is willing to go, and no idea if those he installs will follow orders without question. Trump will have immunity, and the power to pardon. That means a president with zero accountability.
 
bobhikes

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
6-3!? What the hell!


Link to ruling.
Click to expand...
This actually makes sense to me. The president can order the CIA and Military to correct security issues by killing people. It's his job to protect the country and enforce the laws. The only issue I would have is how to separate official acts from unofficial acts. They didn't make that clear.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
bobhikes

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
Killing political opponents? Trump has endorsed calls to convene military tribunals for the likes of Liz Cheney and others political opponents.
Click to expand...
The president needs to act in the best interest of the country. The best interest of the country is not always aligned with the best for all individuals. In my opinion in acting in best interest of the country he is outside the law. If he does something that is deemed an overreach, we have the impeachment process. This applies to both Biden, Trump and every sitting President. The Alternate party or foreign governments should not be able to put the President up on charges for doing official acts.

The problem we have today is that our congress is broken and does not work. In years previously Trump would have already been impeached and there would be no issue. Making the Supreme Court take on the role of Congress is also wrong but that's where we are right now.
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
bobhikes said:
The president needs to act in the best interest of the country. The best interest of the country is not always aligned with the best for all individuals. In my opinion in acting in best interest of the country he is outside the law. If he does something that is deemed an overreach, we have the impeachment process. This applies to both Biden, Trump and every sitting President. The Alternate party or foreign governments should not be able to put the President up on charges for doing official acts.

The problem we have today is that our congress is broken and does not work. In years previously Trump would have already been impeached and there would be no issue. Making the Supreme Court take on the role of Congress is also wrong but that's where we are right now.
Click to expand...
What prevents a president from arresting people who he thinks will impeach him?
 
bobhikes

bobhikes

Nondetermined
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
What prevents a president from arresting people who he thinks will impeach him.
Click to expand...

Generally, they have a desire to make the country better and they would be embarrassed to be caught, but if they thought they could get away scott free not much. They would have to frame it as an official duty and drum up some type of crime, but it would not be hard. It's always been like this but only since we got a narcissistic, money-grubbing president, who doesn't care about the United States, or its people has it been a problem.
 
It Aint Necessarily So

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
F1fan said:
The interesting thing that your hypothetical doesn't say is that we all know and trust that Biden would order no such thing. But how confident are we that Trump wouldn't?
Click to expand...
I'm confident that Trump would be as vicious and violent as he thought he could get away with being, and now, he probably thinks that nothing would be illegal to him if he regains the White House. Look at the violence and mayhem he spawned when it WAS illegal for him to incite a riot. It didn't hold him back at all.

Maybe you see more decency in him that I do, but I literally see not one bit. He is never kind, never grateful, never remorseful, and ever vengeful. Here's how his former chief-of-staff Kelly describes Trump:

“What can I add that has not already been said?” Kelly said in October 2023. Referring to his former boss, Kelly added, “A person that thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them.’ A person that did not want to be seen in the presence of military amputees because ‘it doesn’t look good for me.’ A person who demonstrated open contempt for a Gold Star family — for all Gold Star families — on TV during the 2016 campaign, and rants that our most precious heroes who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’ and wouldn’t visit their graves in France.

“A person who is not truthful regarding his position on the protection of unborn life, on women, on minorities, on evangelical Christians, on Jews, on working men and women,” Kelly continued. “A person that has no idea what America stands for and has no idea what America is all about. A person who cavalierly suggests that a selfless warrior who has served his country for 40 years in peacetime and war should lose his life for treason — in expectation that someone will take action. A person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law."
bobhikes said:
The only issue I would have is how to separate official acts from unofficial acts. They didn't make that clear.
Click to expand...
I'd say that it would have to be decided by judges or a grand jury. Of course, this Court may just go ahead and specify that it is the president himself that decides that.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
bobhikes said:
This actually makes sense to me. The president can order the CIA and Military to correct security issues by killing people. It's his job to protect the country and enforce the laws. The only issue I would have is how to separate official acts from unofficial acts. They didn't make that clear.
Click to expand...
Yea that would certainly need addressing. No argument on that front.

There needs to be recognizable parameters outlined so that official and unofficial acts can be clearly determined.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
Wandering Monk said:
SCOTUS has declared that Trump is NOT immune for unofficial acts. Anything he has done since he was booted out on Jan 21 is fair game for prosecutors. This includes hiding classified documents.
Click to expand...
According to my understanding of the SCOTUS ruling, Trump is only immune for what was done while he was the sitting President.

Nothing before and nothing after has immunity.
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Wandering Monk said:
6-3!? What the hell!
Click to expand...
I'm reminded of when Obama sent the hit squad in to get Osama bin Laden, who was holed up in a country with which the US was at peace. The hit was therefore illegal at international law, in particular as an assassination and generally as a trespass on another country's soil.
 
F

F1fan

Veteran Member
McBell said:
According to my understanding of the SCOTUS ruling, Trump is only immune for what was done while he was the sitting President.

Nothing before and nothing after has immunity.
Click to expand...
The court ruled that official acts are immune, not unofficial acts. So now the issue is: what is official and what is unofficial? Trump will certainly claim that any illegal act he did was official.
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
F1fan said:
The court ruled that official acts are immune, not unofficial acts. So now the issue is: what is official and what is unofficial? Trump will certainly claim that any illegal act he did was official.
Click to expand...
Yes, I have no doubts he will also try to slip in some acts that occurred OUTSIDE his sitting president restriction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top