Trump immunity case

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Same way impeachments are always done.

Don't forget, congress controls the purse strings as well. It's hard to run a dictatorship when you don't have the money for it.

You are assuming the system has not been changed and that everything continues as normal

Let us play a game.

Supposing a newly sworn in president removes from the SCOTUS any individual who is not supportive of his/her presidency and replaces them with a supporter. Under this ruling what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that?
Supposing a newly sworn in president temporarily suspends the Constitution? Under this ruling what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that? And with a tame SCOTUS who would challenge that temporary suspension?
Supposing a newly sworn in president removes from Congress all those who oppose her/his administration? Under this ruling and with a tame SCOTUS what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that?

[CivilDiscourse]

You are assuming the system has not been changed and that everything continues as normal

Let us play a game.

Supposing a newly sworn in president removes from the SCOTUS any individual who is not supportive of his/her presidency and replaces them with a supporter. Under this ruling what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that?
Supposing a newly sworn in president temporarily suspends the Constitution? Under this ruling what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that? And with a tame SCOTUS who would challenge that temporary suspension?
Supposing a newly sworn in president removes from Congress all those who oppose her/his administration? Under this ruling and with a tame SCOTUS what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that?

Oh, I see, you are just making up imaginary scenarios with no basis in reality and saying I need to answer "what now" to them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh, I see, you are just making up imaginary scenarios with no basis in reality and saying I need to answer "what now" to them.

At present they are hypotheticals but unless you or others here can demonstrate otherwise, this ruling potentially opens the way to making such hypothetical a possibility.

[CivilDiscourse]

At present they are hypotheticals but unless you or others here can demonstrate otherwise, this ruling potentially opens the way to making such hypothetical a possibility.

So, your stance is you can make up any wild theory you want, and it's your opposition who has to disprove them?

[seer]

No one in this thread has said they think Trump himself will shoot anyone.

But he could have someone killed, and get away with it. Given the Supreme Court ruling, the only things keeping the President in line are his conscience, and his party. So a president without a conscience, whose party leaders have demonstrated that they don't have the backbone to keep him in line, would be extremely dangerous to the country and all of its citizens.

You mean like Obama droning American citizens without due process?

https://www.politifact.com/factcheck...trikes-3-were/

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So, your stance is you can make up any wild theory you want, and it's your opposition who has to disprove them?

I put forward some examples of potentially possible scenarios that this ruling would permit. I am asking you, a US citizen, how any such potential scenarios could be dealt with, given this recent ruling.

From my reading about it this ruling opens the way for a sitting President to be effectively immune from, and above, the law. You are welcome to show me where I am mistaken.

[CivilDiscourse]

I put forward some examples of potentially possible scenarios that this ruling would permit. I am asking you, a US citizen, how any such potential scenarios could be dealt with, given this recent ruling.

From my reading about it this ruling opens the way for a sitting President to be effectively immune from, and above, the law. You are welcome to show me where I am mistaken.

I merely put forward the possibility that there is a teapot floating around the sun within the orbit of earth. I am asking you, to prove that I am wrong.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I merely put forward the possibility that there is a teapot floating around the sun within the orbit of earth. I am asking you, to prove that I am wrong.

Evidently I expected more from you than you are able to provide.

[CivilDiscourse]

Evidently I expected more from you than you are able to provide.

You offered a scenario that the president would suspend the constitution. You might as well ask how the German Government would respond to a successful invasion by Russia that dissolves the German Government.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You offered a scenario that the president would suspend the constitution. You might as well ask how the German Government would respond to a successful invasion by Russia that dissolves the German Government.

I put forward a potential hypothetical situation where the Constitution is temporarily suspended. That hypothetical situation was one among others.

However, you have ably demonstrated that you are unable to sensibly address my points and so there is an end to our exchange.

[CivilDiscourse]

I put forward a potential hypothetical situation where the Constitution is temporarily suspended. That hypothetical situation was one among others.

However, you have ably demonstrated that you are unable to sensibly address my points and so there is an end to our exchange.

Offer up rational scenarios next time instead of whatever fanciful work of fiction comes to your head and expect others to defend it.

[Mountain Man]

He can certainly order the justices' numerous "gratuities" be ruthlessly investigated by the DOJ for potential tax violations, using whatever intrusive means the DOJ deems necessary. Thomas' RV "loan" would be as good as any to plant an "official conduct" flag.

Of course, the justices have left themselves room to ultimately determine what is and is not protected as an official act. And that's the trick: we're faced with the prospect of a despotic president because the justices have established themselves as an imperial court.

-Sam

Come on, dude, you can't be serious. Official duties of the president are those that are explicitly described in the Constitution. This idea that any arbitrary thing the president does is now protected by this ruling as an "official duty" is stupid.

[CivilDiscourse]

Come on, dude, you can't be serious. Official duties of the president are those that are explicitly described in the Constitution. This idea that any arbitrary thing the president does is now protected by this ruling as an "official duty" is stupid.

I mean look at this utter stupidity from H_A:

Supposing a newly sworn in president removes from the SCOTUS any individual who is not supportive of his/her presidency and replaces them with a supporter. Under this ruling what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that?

Let's see, he "removes from SCOTUS". How? He doesn't have impeachment power. So, obviously it would have to be assassination. Then "replaces them with a supporter". The only way to do that would be an already compliant congress willing to overlook such an assassination. At which point, the whole scenario is moot because there wouldn't bee checks and balances to begin with.

Scenario: Unrealistically stupid.

Supposing a newly sworn in president temporarily suspends the Constitution? Under this ruling what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that? And with a tame SCOTUS who would challenge that temporary suspension?

The constitution is suspended...There's no longer a functioning government. After all, if there's no longer a constitution, the courts no longer have any authority or power.

Scenario: Unrealisticly stupid

Supposing a newly sworn in president removes from Congress all those who oppose her/his administration? Under this ruling and with a tame SCOTUS what legislation could be invoked to prevent a president doing that?

"Removes from congress" Again. President has no authority, only congress can remove one of their own. Oh, it requires a "tame SCOTUS." In other words, already no checks and balances. Plus, the president can't "replace" the members. That's up to governors and the electorate. If all of those people are already willing to support him AFTER assassinations and obvious corrupt behavior, everything is already going to hell in a handbasket.

Scenario: Unrealistically stupid.


She's simply making up stupid scenarios and pretending that those have to be defended against.

[Ronson]

Says who? Biden would have presumptive immunity when he claimed that the documents were destroyed for an official purpose. He could pardon whomever he tasked with doing the deed and a future DOJ could not compel senior aides who could testify as to Biden's intent.

"That wouldn't be an official act!" presumes to know conclusively not just what constitutes an "official act" but who gets to decide what's an official act and who if anyone can have access to evidence that would prove otherwise.

The courts would decide. If Trump destroyed similar tapes it would obviously be a self-serving act, and the same with Biden. The devil is in the details.

Just out of curiosity, what "official" explanation would there be to destroy such a tape? Especially when Congress is asking for access to it?

[Ronson]

Again, the president can claim something is an official act and Roberts' ruling for all intents and purposes precludes an investigation from determining otherwise.

Say that Trump gets offered $15 billion from a Saudi-connected firm to have an exclusive Build The Wall contract. The Saudi firm's bid is $400 billion over the next highest bidder but Trump chooses it anyway, securing himself a nice $15b bribe. Trump claims that this was an official act and that the Saudi firm's contract was in the best interest of the United States. Border security is firmly within the president's "job description".

Let's float the unlikely scenario that Trump is impeached and convicted in the Senate for his obvious graft. Great, now he's not president anymore. But his bribe was part of an official act that is, according to the Roberts court, totally immune from future prosecution.

What's to stop any president from taking such a bribe on their way out the door?

I see what you're saying, but Trump wouldn't get to put $15 billion in his bank account.