Another absurd proposal from President Biden

[BackAgain]

Trump would get a trial too, but that’s not good enough for you guys. Why is it good enough for the rest of us?

It’s not just Trump. The Presidential Immunity decision applies to future Presisents, too. And one of the points is to avoid having to worry about a successor going after you criminally for mere partisan political reasons. And especially in multiple “trials.”

You really seem unable to follow along.

And a president who can’t be prosecuted for decisions they made could adversely affect the country.

Nope. You still don’t get it. Try real hard to pay at least a little bit of attention. A president can still get prosecuted. Just not for those executive decisions within the ambit of his Constitutional authority.

I think presidents should be worried about the consequences of their actions.

That’s what impeachment proceedings are for as well as possible criminal charges for crimes unrelated to their actual obligations.

That way they will be careful to follow the law. That is important, isn’t it? That president’s follow the law.

The immunity decision doesn’t prevent that. Your ongoing ignorance borders on a silly refusal to accept the actual facts.

Avoiding the point doesn’t demonstrate much intellectual honesty on your part.

You fail to make a coherent point. And you haven’t been honest yet in this discussion.

I’ll give you more time to come up with an actual response before I assume you can’t.

I will continuebtone text just more dishonest deflections and non sequiturs from you.

Yiur ceaseless unwillingness to be honest comes as no surprise.

 

[task0778]

Biden wants to propose a Constitutional amendment to “reverse” the SCOTUS decision on Presidential Immunity.

Biden to push for constitutional amendment next week to reverse Trump immunity decision: report — Fox News

President Biden is reportedly set to propose major changes to the Constitution on Monday in response to recent Supreme Court decisions he has criticized.

apple.news

Just as we don’t believe in ex post facto laws, so too we don’t accept ex post facto Constitutional Amendments designed to impact just one individual.

Thankfully, it won’t matter. No such proposal to amend the Constitution is going to get enacted or passed or ratified, anyway.

In fact, even if it were to somehow get ratified, it would only impact future Presidents.

Between now and election day, Biden is going to say all sorts of dumbshit stuff that'll never happen to peel away votes for Trump. So will Harris and the other democrats, lies are their stock in trade.

 

[BackAgain]

Between now and election day, Biden is going to say all sorts of dumbshit stuff that'll never happen to peel away votes for Trump. So will Harris and the other democrats, lies are their stock in trade.

Assuming no successful electoral theft efforts, the people of the United States will end up with the government they deserve.

 

[1srelluc]

What kind of “packs”? Like smokes or the fudge kind?

I think you might be onto something.

 

[task0778]

Assuming no successful electoral theft efforts, the people of the United States will end up with the government they deserve.

Yeah, pretty much.

 

[rightwinger]

It is not within the official Constitutional duties of the Executive to SELL Pardons

Ergo, no immunity. So simple and obvious, even you should be able to grasp that much, Leftwhiner.

Supreme Court did not say that

They only differentiated between official acts and unofficial acts.
What the Court SHOULD have said was …

The court needs to determine if what was done is legal or not.
Whether it is official or not is irrelevant

 

[Marener]

It’s not just Trump. The Presidential Immunity decision applies to future Presisents, too. And one of the points is to avoid having to worry about a successor going after you criminally for mere partisan political reasons. And especially in multiple “trials.”

You really seem unable to follow along.

A former president can still get prosecuted for partisan political reasons, though. Just not related to official duties. Also, a president forcing his DoJ to go after political allies with investigations and prosecutions for partisan political reasons is perfectly legal since those are part of their constitutional duties. So unintended (or god forbid intended) consequences are still far worse than any potential benefit.

Nope. You still don’t get it. Try real hard to pay at least a little bit of attention. A president can still get prosecuted. Just not for those executive decisions within the ambit of his Constitutional authority.

I'm well aware, but given the broad authority granted to the president, I am FAR MORE concerned with the president violating the law with his constitutional authority than in his personal capacity.

That’s what impeachment proceedings are for as well as possible criminal charges for crimes unrelated to their actual obligations.

Impeachment merely removes them from office. These are insufficient consequences for violating the law, especially when the president is in a place to use his authority to suppress any investigation (see Nixon) or would be essentially free to violate any law at the end of their administration when they're about to leave office anyway (see Trump's election fraud).

The immunity decision doesn’t prevent that. Your ongoing ignorance borders on a silly refusal to accept the actual facts.

Of course it does. If a president doesn't have to worry about being prosecuted for violating the law, there's almost nothing to prevent them from doing so.

You fail to make a coherent point. And you haven’t been honest yet in this discussion.

I will continuebtone text just more dishonest deflections and non sequiturs from you.

Yiur ceaseless unwillingness to be honest comes as no surprise.

I've said nothing dishonest.

We are literally holding the president's subordinates to a higher standard than the president. A president can order his subordinates to break the law. His subordinates can be prosecuted for doing so, but the president can't. It's bizarre.

 

[BackAgain]

Supreme Court did not say that

They only differentiated between official acts and unofficial acts.
What the Court SHOULD have said was …

The court needs to determine if what was done is legal or not.
Whether it is official or not is irrelevant

As I said you don’t understand thing one about the decision.

Again, there ARE preconditions. One of them is that the official act must be within the scope of the President’s Constitutional duties. And yes. They did say that.

If the act isn’t within the ambit of his (or her) official Constitutional obligations, then there ain’t no immunity. Thus, even though you are unable to follow along, it remains fully true that while a President has authority to issue pardons, he has no authority to sell them.

Your fail isn’t quite complete because I’m sure you will continue to post remarkably stupid shit, Leftwhiner.

 

[BackAgain]

A former president can still get prosecuted for partisan political reasons, though. Just not related to official duties. Also, a president forcing his DoJ to go after political allies with investigations and prosecutions for partisan political reasons is perfectly legal since those are part of their constitutional duties. So unintended (or god forbid intended) consequences are still far worse than any potential benefit.

I'm well aware, but given the broad authority granted to the president, I am FAR MORE concerned with the president violating the law with his constitutional authority than in his personal capacity.

Impeachment merely removes them from office. These are insufficient consequences for violating the law, especially when the president is in a place to use his authority to suppress any investigation (see Nixon) or would be essentially free to violate any law at the end of their administration when they're about to leave office anyway (see Trump's election fraud).

Of course it does. If a president doesn't have to worry about being prosecuted for violating the law, there's almost nothing to prevent them from doing so.



I've said nothing dishonest.

We are literally holding the president's subordinates to a higher standard than the president. A president can order his subordinates to break the law. His subordinates can be prosecuted for doing so, but the president can't. It's bizarre.

To be honest here, I didn’t bother to read your post beyond the first sentence.

Strive for clarity, not verbosity. Honesty would help too. Give that try.

 

[rightwinger]

As I said you don’t understand thing one about the decision.

Again, there ARE preconditions. One of them is that the official act must be within the scope of the President’s Constitutional duties. And yes. They did say that.

If the act isn’t within the ambit of his (or her) official Constitutional obligations, then there ain’t no immunity. Thus, even though you are unable to follow along, it remains fully true that while a President has authority to issue pardons, he has no authority to sell them.

Your fail isn’t quite complete because I’m sure you will continue to post remarkably stupid shit, Leftwhiner.

yes, they did say that

They went to great lengths to define official duties.
But they failed to address illegal actions done as part of an official duty

 

[BackAgain]

yes, they did say that

They went to great lengths to define official duties.
But they failed to address illegal actions done as part of an official duty

Ignore the preconditions and you have the basis for your flatulent fallacy.

Otherwise, you’re utterly unpersuasive. As usual.

 

[Independent thinker]

Biden wants to propose a Constitutional amendment to “reverse” the SCOTUS decision on Presidential Immunity.

Biden to push for constitutional amendment next week to reverse Trump immunity decision: report — Fox News

President Biden is reportedly set to propose major changes to the Constitution on Monday in response to recent Supreme Court decisions he has criticized.

apple.news

Just as we don’t believe in ex post facto laws, so too we don’t accept ex post facto Constitutional Amendments designed to impact just one individual.

Thankfully, it won’t matter. No such proposal to amend the Constitution is going to get enacted or passed or ratified, anyway.

In fact, even if it were to somehow get ratified, it would only impact future Presidents.

But Biden has nothing to do with trying to get Trump.

 

[BackAgain]

But Biden has nothing to do with trying to get Trump.

 

[rightwinger]

Ignore the preconditions and you have the basis for your flatulent fallacy.

Otherwise, you’re utterly unpersuasive. As usual.

Wrong

 

[BackAgain]

Wrong

No no. I’m correct. You are wrong. As usual.

 

[task0778]

Fro the OP link:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority.


"The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive," he said.


Somebody wanna tell me what the problem is here? Cuz I ain't seeing it.

 

[rightwinger]

No no. I’m correct. You are wrong. As usual.

The chief justice dismissed the dissents, suggesting that his three liberal colleagues had misinterpreted the majority's opinion and were engaging in "fear mongering." Roberts argued that they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today." He wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity."

Notice Roberts does not include prosecution in his official capacity where he has complete immunity

 

[BackAgain]

The chief justice dismissed the dissents, suggesting that his three liberal colleagues had misinterpreted the majority's opinion and were engaging in "fear mongering." Roberts argued that they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today." He wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity."

Notice Roberts does not include prosecution in his official capacity where he has complete immunity

He is subject to prosecution for acts not within his official capacity. And he has no official capacity to sell pardons, you idiot.

 

[rightwinger]

He is subject to prosecution for acts not within his official capacity. And he has no official capacity to sell pardons, you idiot.

The court was specifically asked that during arguments
Conservative Justices refused to specifically address that

All they had to do is say…,, A President is not immune for illegal acts done as part of official duties

They didn’t

 

[BackAgain]

The court was specifically asked that during arguments
Conservative Justices refused to specifically address that

All they had to do is say…,, A President is not immune for illegal acts done as part of official duties

They didn’t

Your entire argument is presicated on your ignorantly-based refusal to accept the preconditions.

You remain ineducable. .