Appeals Court : Trump has NO IMMUNITY

[BlindBoo]

"Y'all"?...Sorry, Chumlee.

This ruling now makes charging Oboingo with murder a possibility...As per usual, the shortsightedness of the modern shitlib, in order to rationalize the exigent stupidity of the day, will come back to bite their asses.

The ruling is such a basic principle of our law that nothing has changed.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Cool...Now Obama can be indicted for murdering a U.S. citizen on foreign soil, without him being so much as arrested and charged.

Wrong.

“Political Question doctrine is the rule that Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question. This doctrine refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue. The doctrine is also referred to as the justiciability doctrine or the non-justiciability doctrine, but the justiciability doctrine may involve other reasons for dismissing a claim such as for mootness.”

political question doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Killing terrorists is part of the president's duties.

Overthrowing an election is not.

Dumbass.

True.

And if the people object to the killing of US citizen terrorists on foreign soil, the remedy is the political – not judicial – process; either removal via impeachment or voting a president out of office.

 

[Lakhota]

Former President Trump is now just plain ole Citizen Trump!

 

[Oddball]

Wrong.

“Political Question doctrine is the rule that Federal courts will refuse to hear a case if they find that it presents a political question. This doctrine refers to the idea that an issue is so politically charged that federal courts, which are typically viewed as the apolitical branch of government, should not hear the issue. The doctrine is also referred to as the justiciability doctrine or the non-justiciability doctrine, but the justiciability doctrine may involve other reasons for dismissing a claim such as for mootness.”

political question doctrine

www.law.cornell.edu

Shut the **** up, Donny.

 

[Lakhota]

How sweet it is! All women, and one black!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Shut the **** up, Donny.

At least you’re consistent at being wrong and an ignoramus.

 

[Oddball]

At least you’re consistent at being wrong and an ignoramus.

And you're consistent as well...A consistent douchebag.

 

[Oddball]

The ruling is such a basic principle of our law that nothing has changed.

Then why does the decision equivocate and qualify on the question?

Have you even read the text of the decision?

I'll score that a big "NO".

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 898652

How sweet it is! All women, and one black!

Sweet...All the proper identity boxes are checked!

Ayn Rand gets proven correct once again.

 

[frigidweirdo]

it’s quite imaginable, actually; this is a Supreme Court dominated by partisan conservative ideologues that has already demonstrated its contempt for settled, accepted precedent – a Court perfectly capable and willing to establish dangerous precedent.

The problem is they're not stupid, and they know what would happen if a Democratic president had such power.

 

[BlindBoo]

Then why does the decision equivocate and qualify on the question?

Have you even read the text of the decision?

I'll score that a big "NO".

They completely delineated the difference between illegal criminal acts verse actions taken under the moniker of official presidential action. Like the action against an Al Qaeda operative or unlawful combatant, who posed a great risk to the lives of Americans.

 

[konradv]

Sweet...All the proper identity boxes are checked!

Ayn Rand gets proven correct once again.

Ayn Rand was a sick pup.

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Mac1958]

 

[Delldude]

Just because MAGA ignores Trump’s crimes, doesn’t mean SCOTUS will.

Something I wasn't aware of......

Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for their official acts. Currently, presidents are only immune from civil prosecution for their official acts. That is because the Supreme Court has never had to decide whether that extends to criminal prosecutions, as no president has ever faced a criminal prosecution until the Democrats’ four criminal indictments against Trump.

Justices Wise to Smith’s Game​

We owe the Supreme Court a debt of gratitude for having stopped this disgrace. As Smith put it in December, it is “imperative” that the justices decide whether and to what extent presidential immunity exists. Given the schedule, it is highly unlikely Trump will go to trial before Judge Chutkan before the election. There are three months of pretrial work left whenever the case returns to her docket. Also, the justices could remand the matter with instructions to make findings as to what acts alleged in the indictment were and were not official. Judge Chutkan has never done so; rather, she and the D.C. Circuit categorically rejected the presidential immunity defense.
__________________
Smith did everything he could to rush this case to verdict before the election while cowardly never admitting it. The justices were wise to his game and prevented him from winning it. They must have known they would be excoriated, yet they unflinchingly ruled in favor of order and against the very election interference that purported defenders of democracy claim to oppose.

For this courage, we owe the Supreme Court our utmost appreciation. Critics have and will continue to characterize the court as “illegitimate,” but the justices’ strength in the face of the anti-Trump resistance enhances, not diminishes, their legitimacy.

Dem Meltdown Over Trump Immunity Shows SCOTUS Is Spot On

Special Counsel Jack Smith did everything he could to rush this case to verdict before the election while cowardly never admitting it.

thefederalist.com

 

[Marener]

Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for their official acts

This is almost certainly untrue and the Federalist provides no substantiation of this.

Im thinking specifically about Congress, and Bob Menendez who is facing criminal prosecution for bribery which includes many official acts that he has no immunity from.

 

[Lesh]

Something I wasn't aware of......

Members of Congress and federal judges are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for their official acts. Currently, presidents are only immune from civil prosecution for their official acts. That is because the Supreme Court has never had to decide whether that extends to criminal prosecutions, as no president has ever faced a criminal prosecution until the Democrats’ four criminal indictments against Trump.

Justices Wise to Smith’s Game​

We owe the Supreme Court a debt of gratitude for having stopped this disgrace. As Smith put it in December, it is “imperative” that the justices decide whether and to what extent presidential immunity exists. Given the schedule, it is highly unlikely Trump will go to trial before Judge Chutkan before the election. There are three months of pretrial work left whenever the case returns to her docket. Also, the justices could remand the matter with instructions to make findings as to what acts alleged in the indictment were and were not official. Judge Chutkan has never done so; rather, she and the D.C. Circuit categorically rejected the presidential immunity defense.
__________________
Smith did everything he could to rush this case to verdict before the election while cowardly never admitting it. The justices were wise to his game and prevented him from winning it. They must have known they would be excoriated, yet they unflinchingly ruled in favor of order and against the very election interference that purported defenders of democracy claim to oppose.

For this courage, we owe the Supreme Court our utmost appreciation. Critics have and will continue to characterize the court as “illegitimate,” but the justices’ strength in the face of the anti-Trump resistance enhances, not diminishes, their legitimacy.

Dem Meltdown Over Trump Immunity Shows SCOTUS Is Spot On

Special Counsel Jack Smith did everything he could to rush this case to verdict before the election while cowardly never admitting it.

thefederalist.com

Why then was Nixon pardoned?

 

[Delldude]

Why then was Nixon pardoned?

He resigned to avoid an impeachment and conviction in the Senate which would have made him indictable in a criminal court.

 

[Marener]

Since 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court has had a doctrine that, when officials face a lawsuit alleging civil rights violations under federal law, they are entitled to assert a defense of “absolute immunity” or “qualified immunity.” Judges and prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity.Feb 14, 2024

This is a reference to civil law. The topic is criminal law.