Challenging the federal prosecution stemming from his attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, Donald Trump argued that former presidents can be prosecuted for "official acts" only if they are first impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate based on the same conduct. The Supreme Court today rejected that claim, which is based on an implausible reading of the constitutional text. At the same time, the Court held that a former president enjoys "absolute" immunity for "actions within his exclusive constitutional power," "presumptive" immunity for other "official acts," and no immunity for unofficial acts.
MORE
The democrats dont have to worry anyway. The republicans dont have a spine between them to press any charges.
ReplyDeleteThese people are total idiots. Trump is right in that he must first be impeached, per the Constitution. The SCOTUS has rewritten law again, so that any "unofficial" act can be prosecuted. Who will decide what is official and unofficial? They just encouraged lawfare with that decision.
ReplyDeleteTwo edged blade. This means all the grift and illegal shit they all do leaves the legal remedy moot. Stop voting...you are not in their club and never will be, you're just their to be fleeced.
ReplyDeleteHappy Independence Day!
ReplyDeleteFunny how things change when viewed from the other side. In math we're taught that the equation a=b is the same as b=a. But demonrats day a=b & b<a. Algore looses = selected not elected. Billory looses she was cheated, Comie’s intervention; Russia and WikiLeaks!
Triumph & all of us see ballot harvesting, box stuffing, cases filled with ballots under the counting tables closing then reopening. We want this looked into = sedition! Compare Feb6-30 with any LBM (left back mvmt) or AntiFar or any of the ProPantine the 1st was riot & sedition the rest peaceful protests. b<a. I always flip what a libtard says and check for equality. I don't remember ever finding it.
Starker was here
What the SCOTUS did was akin to the slack cut for police and firemen breaking the speed limit to respond to a call. That slack DOES NOT include the cop killing a suspect because he believes the perp should die, or the firefighter stealing a guitar collection while putting out a fire at a rock star's home. The latter actually happened when a firefighter threw a bunch of Grace Slick's guitars into the trunk of his car when her house burned in Marin County, CA.
ReplyDeleteIt is NOT a blank check!!!
This abuse of power can only happen if you dont read and follow the entire Constitution. Acts outside the powers and limits assigned in the Constitution are not "official acts". Remeber the Constitution is to limit the power of goverment not control the individual. The thought experiment of using Seal Team 6 on an American would be outside the constitutional Official Acts and becomes a criminal act done under the "color of authority"
ReplyDeletePicture the following: Biden is reinstalled this fall and a horrible black swan event happens shortly thereafter, something like a 9/11 style attack. He mobilizes his minions and they begin rounding up patriots under the excuse that it was people like them who aided and abetted the "terrorists". Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of patriots disappear in the name of "protecting the homeland", never to be seen again.
ReplyDeleteFast forward a few years and the truth comes to light about what really happened. It is made known that the regime used the cover of the "attack" to round up it's political enemies and a nationwide cry is heard to bring those perpetrated this to justice. The regime will go to court and argue that there was a national emergency and that they were acting officially in what they then believed to be in the best interests of the country, to prevent further harm from happening to the American people. As written, they would be shielded from prosecution under this latest ruling.
...you think that after they violently consolidated power and killed millions, they'd go to court over it? What's the point of having a revolution if you can still get dragged into court about it?
DeleteThe 1867 presidential immunity ruling, also known as Mississippi v. Johnson, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that established the concept of presidential immunity from lawsuits. In this case, the Court ruled that President Andrew Johnson was immune from a lawsuit brought by the state of Mississippi, which sought to hold him accountable for his actions as president.
ReplyDeleteWe are approaching the point where the only things to rely on are anonymity or overwhelming force. That paper is about as good as it feels being dragged over the butthole, if you can afford anything to come out of it, and no good for anything else except starting a fire.
ReplyDeleteAndy Jackson was famous for thumbing his nose at the Supreme Court (Marshall in particular). He correctly observed that the Court can render any decision they care to; however, the enforcement of said decision is the part of the equation they don't control. There seems to be more than one flaw with our system of government. The worst mistake was counting on politicians to represent the populace instead of themselves, all other problems stem from this one.
ReplyDeleteOnly a retard would think the supreme court's ruling was in any way inconsistent with the constitution, and historical jurisprudence. There is literally nothing unusual about this ruling. And any legal scholars pretending otherwise are either lying, or imbeciles.
ReplyDelete