Edman85 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 So if you plot to murder somebody on fifth Avenue, so long as you do your plotting with executive branch appointees, you can get away with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Unless others can convince me, I'm not as worked up on this as I expected to be. As I spend 3 minutes trying to decide on official vs non official acts.... assasination isn't legal. A president is charged with faithfully executing the laws. Often Presidents are faced with 2 bad choices and they have to decide which is worse. If a policy harms 2000 people vs the alternative that might have harmed 3000 people..... with no immunity for official acts could a group go after the POTUS when they picked the first option? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
romad1 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 12 minutes ago, Edman85 said: So if you plot to murder somebody on fifth Avenue, so long as you do your plotting with executive branch appointees, you can get away with it. The crux of the matter is that someone is so shameless that they think they can argue that. And the courts have delayed the resolution of that banana republic nonsense. And the media has not shouted from the rooftops enough about that banana republic nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Yikes. I just realized that about four times now I’ve written 8-0 instead of 9-0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMRivdogs Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 It’s a kickback to the district court. More delay. I do think the overall ruling makes sense, however Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyBlue Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 (edited) Edited July 1 by SkyBlue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 59 minutes ago, smr-nj said: Yikes. I just realized that about four times now I’ve written 8-0 instead of 9-0 If ethics mattered it shoulda been 8-0 or more like 7-0 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 I very cautiously agree with the notions presented by CMRiv and Oblong that the ruling kinda sorta makes sense and could be OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 It's very possible that we've effectively been living under presumptive immunity for official acts for quite a while. The Obama drone strike example leveraged in the oral arguments is an example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, romad1 said: Elections not official acts. I think the thing they've argued before is that election integrity is an official act/policy area. It's obviously a stretch that they're engaged in election integrity work but with these courts who knows. No doubt it will be litigated and thus delay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 6 minutes ago, pfife said: I very cautiously agree with the notions presented by CMRiv and Oblong that the ruling kinda sorta makes sense and could be OK The ruling will be fine under most Presidents. There is one person who will abuse it. But he doesn't follow laws anyway, so it might not make a difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 7 minutes ago, pfife said: I very cautiously agree with the notions presented by CMRiv and Oblong that the ruling kinda sorta makes sense and could be OK Someone said that Nixon's quote that "when the President does it, it's not illegal" now applies and that's not true. I mean... the flip side to this is they had said no immunity for anything then a President's life after office could be filled with litigation for their official acts that people didn't care for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewsieg Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I try not to freak out on SCOTUS rulings until i've heard legal minds discuss them. Not that Oblong is a legal mind, but just based on his posts above, I think that leaves me a little more reserved as well, but still, why so ****ing long to get this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smr-nj Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Just now, ewsieg said: I try not to freak out on SCOTUS rulings until i've heard legal minds discuss them. Not that Oblong is a legal mind, but just based on his posts above, I think that leaves me a little more reserved as well, but still, why so ****ing long to get this? Delay. delay. Delay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edman85 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 They probably did have to be very careful here to leave it so some rogue Ken Paxton type can't prosecute Biden for allowing an abortion or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pfife Posted July 1 Author Share Posted July 1 4 minutes ago, ewsieg said: I try not to freak out on SCOTUS rulings until i've heard legal minds discuss them. Not that Oblong is a legal mind, but just based on his posts above, I think that leaves me a little more reserved as well, but still, why so ****ing long to get this? Well let's not get crazy. This may be the exception to the rule lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigeraholic1 Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, oblong said: Unless others can convince me, I'm not as worked up on this as I expected to be. As I spend 3 minutes trying to decide on official vs non official acts.... assasination isn't legal. A president is charged with faithfully executing the laws. Often Presidents are faced with 2 bad choices and they have to decide which is worse. If a policy harms 2000 people vs the alternative that might have harmed 3000 people..... with no immunity for official acts could a group go after the POTUS when they picked the first option? Agreed, this really is not that big of a ruling. Media got everybody foaming at the mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 I don’t know, it seems like they opened up an avenue to commit crimes and Trump will exploit it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 1 hour ago, CMRivdogs said: It’s a kickback to the district court. More delay. I do think the overall ruling makes sense, however I don't know if I agree it makes sense. I would opt for a stricter view of what a president is immune from, basically, just about nothing, under the idea that a president is a 24/7/365 job and that no action he takes in public that has any consequence can be divorced from that. I don't think he can be prosecuted for governmental actions he enacts that are strictly within the realm of service to the public, but I do think he should be held liable for governmental actions he enacts that can be shown to have enriched him personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motown Bombers Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichiganCardinal Posted July 1 Share Posted July 1 Stood outside SCOTUS starting at 5am to get a front row ear to the opinions today. I think what will stick with me the longest is Roberts' saying "I wrote the opinion in Trump v. United States" and the deafening sound of a hundred people leaning up in their chairs, moving to a fresh notepad, and clicking their pens. FWIW, I don't think this is the affront to democracy that the dissent makes it out to be. What if Trump had directed the DOJ to prosecute Obama for conspiracy to commit murder on day one, on account of his drone strikes? There just has to be some level of criminal immunity provided to the commander in chief. The question at the end of the day will be how far the periphery of that presumptive immunity will go, which almost has to be anecdotal and case-by-case in nature, because (hopefully) so few Presidents are getting indicted and charged with crimes. At the end of the day, voters are who should be holding elected officials accountable for their official acts. That being said, if the Court comes back next term after a Biden victory in November and says "sorry, but a President inciting a violent mob and violating RICO in an attempt to overthrow an election is within that umbrella of an official act", then that's a different conversation, and the dissent will be right to be livid. I don't think they'll have the five votes to get that far though, especially when the political pressure of an election is removed. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.