@Great-Big-Stees saidIt definitely was.
Was two, too many?🤔
We'll be lucky to emerge from this intact.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidYou mean this corrupt Court?
you left part of it out...
the Court con-
cludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the
Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from
criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter
of his official responsibility.
you dont understand the meaning of "absolute"
oR YOU HAVE TO LIE ABOUT IT TO MAKE YOUR CLAIM
Is that the Court you mean?
@vivify said"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters" is a famous statement made by Donald Trump during a campaign rally in Sioux Center, Iowa, on January 23, 2016.
What point do you think you're making?
SCOTUS refused to define what that includes, leaving it open to broad interpretation. Does this mean the president can use his power order a hit on political opponents? How about to commit election interference?
They also refused to define what constitutes "official" vs "unofficial" presidential acts. In fact, Trump's lawyer sa ...[text shortened]... hat he cannot be prosecuted for assassinating political opponents.
So again: what's your point?
@vivify saidJust like if they approved of removing birthright citizenship, such a blatant ignoring of the Constitution would give reason to investigate them with a mind towards removal. Their job is to decide unconstitutionality. They also take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
Yes. But if Trump chooses to run again that will be challenged in the Supreme Court. Should the Court choose, there's nothing stopping them from allowing it.
True, they might not rule in favor of a 3rd term...but this is the same court that overturned abortion federal abortion rights; and one Justice openly invited gay marriage to be overturned in the opinion for that same ruling. So it's hard to have faith they'd do the right thing.
Controlling the way we interpret the highest law of the land is a solemn and awesome responsibility. There should be punishments, up to removal, for abusing it and corrupting it.
2 edits
@Rajk999 saidYour post is about removing dictators.
The world needs a US president like Trump. Many of the previous ones were just lame bigmouth failures.
Obama killed Ghaddafi, Bush Jr. ousted Hussein, Clinton removed a military Junta in Haiti, Bush Sr. removed Noriega, Reagan helped remove several dictators....
In short, we don't need Trump to do what previous presidents have already done.
@vivify saiddoes the presidents official responsibility include killing political opponents?
What point do you think you're making?
SCOTUS refused to define what that includes, leaving it open to broad interpretation. Does this mean the president can use his power order a hit on political opponents? How about to commit election interference?
They also refused to define what constitutes "official" vs "unofficial" presidential acts. In fact, Trump's lawyer sa ...[text shortened]... hat he cannot be prosecuted for assassinating political opponents.
So again: what's your point?
damn fool
@vivify saidYou left out Sleepy Joe, and there are far more to remove.
Your post is about removing dictators.
Obama killed Ghaddafi, Bush Jr. ousted Hussein, Clinton removed a military Junta in Haiti, Bush Sr. removed Noriega, Reagan helped remove several dictators....
In short, we don't need Trump to do what previous presidents have already done.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidIt doesn't include election interference either, yet Trump was recorded pressuring Georgia election officials to swing the results in his favor.
does the presidents official responsibility include killing political opponents?
damn fool
It also doesn't include taking boxes of classified documents and storing it in his bathroom. Nor does using military aid as a bargaining chip to force a foreign government into digging up dirt on political opponents.
The list goes on.
Trump doesn't care about "official responsibility". Especially after his own lawyer said in court he shouldn't be prosecuted for killing political opponents.
2 edits
@vivify saidOMG, finish the sentence:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
"Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution".
"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. "
Personally I think the case is wrongly decided and contrary to an express provision in the Constitution i.e.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
Article I, Section 3
Impeachment is for acts done in one's official capacity, so it's clear the Framers did not mean for any Federal official to have any type of immunity including the President.
Nonetheless, your description of the case is hysterical nonsense:
vivify: SCOTUS also ruled the president has "absolute immunity" for all acts committed while president, giving Trump a free pass to commit any crime.
No, they didn't:
" The President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them."
Roberts' majority decision, Section 2.
@vivify saidYou are a fool posting nonsense 🤡
It doesn't include election interference either, yet Trump was recorded pressuring Georgia election officials to swing the results in his favor.
It also doesn't include taking boxes of classified documents and storing it in his bathroom. Nor does using military aid as a bargaining chip to force a foreign government into digging up dirt on political opponents.
The li ...[text shortened]... ially after his own lawyer said in court he shouldn't be prosecuted for killing political opponents.
@Pianoman1 saidHe ruled by proxy through Mike Johnson during the years when Biden was president. He could do it again through Vance if Vance were to become president.
@vivify
Trump 3rd Term?
Please, there is enough madness already in this world.
Not happening. Never. Not even THE GREAT DONALD ORANG(E) UTAN could manipulate that Machiavellian plot.