Foolish People on the Left Keep Asking Ridiculous Hypotheticals About Presidential Immunity

[excalibur]

It began this past January when judge Pan asked her now infamous question about Seal Team 6. It continued today in the arguments in front of SCOTUS. How embarrassing.

What they fail to mention is that the Biden team, with Reichsleiter Garland as his wingman, attempting a political assassination with all the coordinated lawfare against Biden's #1 opponent.

The left needs to take a long, hard look at themselves in a mirror. They may not like what they see, if the mirror doesn't shatter first that is.

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh frequently told the government that the Supreme Court’s ruling would apply to all future presidents — not just Donald Trump.

“I’m not concerned about this case,” Gorsuch said. “But I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he continued.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/25/supreme-court-trump-immunity-case/

​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Foolish People on the Left Keep Asking Ridiculous Hypotheticals About Presidential Immunity​

And foolish people on the right keep insisting Mr. Trump would have absolute immunity if he went out onto 5th Avenue an shot 45 people.​

 

[excalibur]

And foolish people on the right keep insisting Mr. Trump would have absolute immunity if he went out onto 5th Avenue an shot 45 people.​

Said no one ever. But thanks for proving the point of the OP.

 

[Rogue AI]

And foolish people on the right keep insisting Mr. Trump would have absolute immunity if he went out onto 5th Avenue an shot 45 people.​

Not really, I think most sensible people are drawing the immunity line at 'official acts'. Anything that touches on 'official acts' would confer immunity. Either way, the Constitutional remedy of impeachment and removal is currently the only standard to determine when immunity would not apply.

 

[Marener]

Former presidents are already protected from malicious prosecutions by the criminal justice system.

Gorsuch is a tool.

 

[BackAgain]

And foolish people on the right keep insisting Mr. Trump would have absolute immunity if he went out onto 5th Avenue a shot 45 people.​

Nope. That imbecile question is asked by you shitsuckers on the left.

Don’t project so obviously, the dainty.

 

[excalibur]

So Kagan, who I once thought was intelligent, mentioned that the Framers didn't put [Presidential] immunity into the Constitution.

Hmm.

Yet she has judicial immunity, as do all Federal judges, even though the Framers didn't write it into the Constitution.

Both come from the common law. Does she not know any of this?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nope. That imbecile question is asked by you shitsuckers on the left.

Don’t project so obviously, the dainty.

triggered

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Not really, I think most sensible people are drawing the immunity line at 'official acts'. Anything that touches on 'official acts' would confer immunity. Either way, the Constitutional remedy of impeachment and removal is currently the only standard to determine when immunity would not apply.

So when a President Fails to protect US citizens, then when he is out of office, he can them be brought up on "Crimes against Humanity" right?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not really, I think most sensible people are drawing the immunity line at 'official acts'. Anything that touches on 'official acts' would confer immunity. Either way, the Constitutional remedy of impeachment and removal is currently the only standard to determine when immunity would not apply.

"Most sensible people?"

The arguments can end with fighting over what constitutes an official act.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So when a President Fails to protect US citizens, then when he is out of office, he can them be brought up on "Crimes against Humanity" right?

That doesn't fall with the US Justice system's purview. With friends like you, people who want to see Mr. Trump brought before Justice need no enemies.

next

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Said no one ever. But thanks for proving the point of the OP.

really?

 

[Rogue AI]

"Most sensible people?"

The arguments can end with fighting over what constitutes an official act.

Which is up to the House and Senate on a case by case basis. Not subject to the whims of local yokels or vengeful successors.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really, I think most sensible people are drawing the immunity line at 'official acts'. Anything that touches on 'official acts' would confer immunity. Either way, the Constitutional remedy of impeachment and removal is currently the only standard to determine when immunity would not apply.

Not just official acts necessarily though but immunity from criminal charges for pretty much anything. Using Dante's really REALLY dumb analogy that Trump supporters would give him immunity for going out and shooting 45 people. In that essentially non existent circumstance, we would expect our elected leaders to impeach and remove him from the Presidency immediately and then certainly state or local law would apply to prosecute him for murder. But if Congress is not the constitutional authority to prosecute and convict a President of crimes, any Tom, Dick, Harry or Harriet could accuse him of anything and keep him in court throughout his term of office. There would be constant investigations to see if something was within his jurisdictional duties or not. And for the rest of his life, his enemies could be making something he did as President a 'crime.

And if Congress did not impeach him and try him for the murder charge, we no longer have a government of, by and for the people anyway.

 

[BackAgain]

triggered

You almost always are.

Now try to get back to the actual conversation.

 

[dudmuck]

It began this past January when judge Pan asked her now infamous question about Seal Team 6. It continued today in the arguments in front of SCOTUS. How embarrassing.

What they fail to mention is that the Biden team, with Reichsleiter Garland as his wingman, attempting a political assassination with all the coordinated lawfare against Biden's #1 opponent.

The left needs to take a long, hard look at themselves in a mirror. They may not like what they see, if the mirror doesn't shatter first that is.

​

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh frequently told the government that the Supreme Court’s ruling would apply to all future presidents — not just Donald Trump.​

​

“I’m not concerned about this case,” Gorsuch said. “But I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”​

​

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he continued.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/25/supreme-court-trump-immunity-case/

​

enforcing laws is assassination?

 

[wamose]

If the Supreme Court could derail all these idiotic Trump prosecutions, they'd be doing the Democrat party a big favor. They'd also save them a lot of embarrassment and maybe even some felony charges. This is attempted election rigging, plain and simple. MAGA

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It began this past January when judge Pan asked her now infamous question about Seal Team 6. It continued today in the arguments in front of SCOTUS. How embarrassing.

What they fail to mention is that the Biden team, with Reichsleiter Garland as his wingman, attempting a political assassination with all the coordinated lawfare against Biden's #1 opponent.

The left needs to take a long, hard look at themselves in a mirror. They may not like what they see, if the mirror doesn't shatter first that is.

​

Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh frequently told the government that the Supreme Court’s ruling would apply to all future presidents — not just Donald Trump.​

​

“I’m not concerned about this case,” Gorsuch said. “But I am concerned about future uses of the criminal law to target political opponents based on accusations about their motives.”​

​

“We’re writing a rule for the ages,” he continued.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/04/25/supreme-court-trump-immunity-case/

​

Because the orange pile of shit is arguing for blanket, absolute immunity.

Duh.

What an idiotic and whiny thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Which is up to the House and Senate on a case by case basis.

Says who? There is no law that says a court cannot decide that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Using Dante's really REALLY dumb analogy that Trump supporters would give him immunity for going out and shooting 45 people.

Well, since Donnie and his supporters are arguing for absolute immunity, that would include such a scenario.

So blame yourselves for arguing something so incredibly stupid.