Trump immunity case

[Slave4Christ]

?

Please provide your evidence that I am liberal then. I haven't made any untrue accusations about you nor do I think I've even conversed with you in the couple days since I joined here.

[Slave4Christ]

The point is Presidents have always had a certain degree of immunity.


ArtII.S3.5.1 Presidential Immunity to Suits and Official Conduct

Finally, with respect to civil liability, the Court held in Nixon v. Fitzgerald that the President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the outer perimeter of his official duties.¹⁵ The Court’s close decision was premised on the President’s unique position in the constitutional scheme, that is, the Court conducted a kind of ‘public policy’ analysis of the policies and principles that may be considered implicit in the nature of the President’s office in a system structured to achieve effective government under a constitutionally mandated separation of powers.¹⁶ Although the Constitution expressly afforded Members of Congress immunity in matters arising from speech or debate and was silent on presidential immunity, the Court nonetheless considered immunity to be a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.<sup>17

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-5-1/ALDE_00013392/</sup>

And that's a problem when the president is using his official powers to execute American citizens with drones, especially now with a SCOTUS decision that seems to be saying that would be acceptable and protected.. Doesn't matter if the president is a Republican or a Democrat. That's wrong.

[firstfloor]

According to who?

Everyone.

[firstfloor]

Everyone.

Also, all the legal cases currently running against Trump will now fail or grind to a halt.

[Mountain Man]

Yeah but it only counts if a conservative POTUS has them. Especially Trump. Then it's "Katy bar the door!" - it's the beginning of a dictatorship! End of Democracy!!!!

After Trump won the election in 2016, my wife's friends were genuinely terrified that he was going to send immigration agents to their house to forcibly remove their legally adopted Vietnamese children. And I mean they were dead serious. They really believed it was going to happen. It baffles me how liberals can be so stupid, but I guess if they weren't so stupid, then they wouldn't be liberals.

[Mountain Man]

1. I'm not a liberal
2. Per Trump's own lawyer, if a president considered his rival to be a traitor to the country, terrorist, etc., and exercised his core duties as commander in chief to order said military to drone strike him, that would be an official act. So......

Let's see an actual quote from Trump's lawyers saying that, because I have feeling that something is being lost in translation.

But, no, a president can not arbitrarily declare that his rival is a traitor and then have him assassinated as an "official duty".

[firstfloor]

And that's a problem when the president is using his official powers to execute American citizens with drones, especially now with a SCOTUS decision that seems to be saying that would be acceptable and protected.. Doesn't matter if the president is a Republican or a Democrat. That's wrong.

It is wrong, I agree. You live in a New United States and there is no going back from this. SCOTUS also binned ‘Chevron deference’ - an old school power grab with horrendous consequences down the road.

[Slave4Christ]

Let's see an actual quote from Trump's lawyers saying that, because I have feeling that something is being lost in translation.

SOTOMAYOR: “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”

SAUER: “That could well be an official act."

But, no, a president can not arbitrarily declare that his rival is a traitor and then have him assassinated as an "official duty".

He can't? But he can do so with regular Americans?

[Mountain Man]

Everyone.

You'll have to be more specific. Who is this "everyone" claiming that "official duties are not limited to those set out in the Constitution"?

[Slave4Christ]

It is wrong, I agree. You live in a New United States and there is no going back from this. SCOTUS also binned ‘Chevron deference’ - an old school power grab with horrendous consequences down the road.

Well, thank you for the agreement, but your second half of your post seems to be highly confused. The Chevron Defense is, in fact, a perfect case study in how Democrats will abuse this 'official acts immunity' defense, and it is good that it is gone and that the government is not given more power in that case (just like it is bad that it is being given more power here under this immunity decision).

[Mountain Man]

SOTOMAYOR: “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”

SAUER: “That could well be an official act."



He can't? But he can do so with regular Americans?

Sauer's answer is that it could be an official act, but, as he clarified, "It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act."

In other words, there needs to be more to it than the president waking up one day and arbitrarily deciding that his political rival is a traitor in need of killin'.

[CivilDiscourse]

Sauer's answer is that it could be an official act, but, as he clarified, "It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act."

In other words, there needs to be more to it than the president waking up one day and arbitrarily deciding that his political rival is a traitor in need of killin'.

Oh come on now. You've seen the rhetoric. Trump could run a child prostitution ring out of the Little Stars day-care center, while doing lines of coke off of a strippers back, and all he'd have to do is say "official act" and viola! can't pre prosecuted.

[Mountain Man]

Oh come on now. You've seen the rhetoric. Trump could run a child prostitution ring out of the Little Stars day-care center, while doing lines of coke off of a strippers back, and all he'd have to do is say "official act" and viola! can't pre prosecuted.

I think the liberal lunatics really believe this.

[Ronson]

After Trump won the election in 2016, my wife's friends were genuinely terrified that he was going to send immigration agents to their house to forcibly remove their legally adopted Vietnamese children. And I mean they were dead serious. They really believed it was going to happen. It baffles me how liberals can be so stupid, but I guess if they weren't so stupid, then they wouldn't be liberals.

Maybe they were confusing Trump with Little Castro up north. If he doesn't like your politics, he just freezes your bank account.

But hey, it's OK because he's a liberal.

[Ronson]

Just because Brgg doesn't oppose it doesn't mean Merchan will agree to delay sentencing, especially when you consider the fact that Merchan has been openly biased against President Trump throughout this entire case. Could this be a play by Bragg to appear magnanimous while knowing that Merchan will deny the request?

I suspect Bragg upheld his campaign pledge/promise/insinuation that he would prosecute Trump. And he even got convictions. He can use that in his next campaign so he may have less interest in the whole thing now.

Yeah, Merchan is the one that really seems to have a bug up his ... pant leg.