• 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

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Voting, or lack of, has consequences. SCOTUS is corrupt to the core at this point.
America has fallen so far because of the Trump presidency
I agree that the SCOTUS is corrupt, but I doubt that Trump himself is responsible for this corruption. I think that rich donors have bribed them. I can think of no other explanation. It has been established for some of them that rich people have been doing them favors, such as Clarence Thomas. How many are getting bribes, but it hasn't been detected? There is no way right now to hold them accountable for that, and Republicans in Congress will of course make sure that the congress can do nothing about Supreme Court corruption, but right now that is in their interests as a party. It's also been evident for a while to me, that the Supreme Court iis not an independent branch of government, because Presidents nominate them and Congress confirms them. The process needs to be changed, if that is possible, so that those branches of government have nothing to so with Justices being put on that court. I don't know if that is possible to change that under the constitution. If it is not possible, then the framers of the constitution made a mistake.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's unclear to me right now if the Supreme Court did not define what "official duties" are for the President. I don't think they did, though.
 

Pogo

Well-Known Member
How does this ruling demonstrate that SCOTUS is corrupt?
They behaved within the letter of the law, but not the spirit. They should not have taken the case and referred it back to the lower court for clarification which is all they ended up doing after delaying the decision by accepting it in the first place and as was obvious, delaying it till its outcome becomes moot.
Proof of corruption would be difficult, but not necessarily questionable.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
They behaved within the letter of the law, but not the spirit. They should not have taken the case and referred it back to the lower court for clarification which is all they ended up doing after delaying the decision by accepting it in the first place and as was obvious, delaying it till its outcome becomes moot.
Proof of corruption would be difficult, but not necessarily questionable.
So they’re corrupt because, in your words, “They behaved within the letter of the law.” Got it.
 

Watchmen

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I agree that the SCOTUS is corrupt, but I doubt that Trump himself is responsible for this corruption. I think that rich donors have bribed them. I can think of no other explanation. It has been established for some of them that rich people have been doing them favors, such as Clarence Thomas. How many are getting bribes, but it hasn't been detected? There is no way right now to hold them accountable for that, and Republicans in Congress will of course make sure that the congress can do nothing about Supreme Court corruption, but right now that is in their interests as a party. It's also been evident for a while to me, that the Supreme Court iis not an independent branch of government, because Presidents nominate them and Congress confirms them. The process needs to be changed, if that is possible, so that those branches of government have nothing to so with Justices being put on that court. I don't know if that is possible to change that under the constitution. If it is not possible, then the framers of the constitution made a mistake.
Is it only Republican appointed justices who corruptly take bribes?
 

Wirey

Fartist
Biden should pardon him, right now, and announce that the US has better things to do, like going after the real architects of the attempted coup, the people who give Trump his marching orders, and then bury all the schmucks who stood on stage with him.
 

Truthseeker

Non-debating member when I can help myself
Read it again.
I haven't had time to read it, sorry. It just happened. The ruling is 119 pages long, I see. Someone needs to point out where there did or did not define what "official duties" are. How about you, if you've found that section?
 
Last edited:

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Read it again.
And you read the dissent from Sotomayor et al:

"Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now 'lies about like a loaded weapon' for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. 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 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 answer then was yes, based in part upon the President’s vulnerability to 'prosecution in the common course of law.' 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.​

"With fear for our democracy, I dissent."​
 
Last edited:
Top