Idea for Biden to consider

[OKTexas]

There is now. The Supreme Court has recently legalized all manner of bullshit. Anything a President does that's an official duty, is now immune, meaning that the President can "sell" pardons and ambassadorships, and have his enemies assassinated. As long as it's an official duty, he's in the clear.

Gerrymandering is now legal if it's done for "partisan reasons". Gerrymandering for "racial reasons" is still illegal. How they came up with the idea that gerrymandering for ANY reason is legal is beyond comprehension.

And government officials can now receive "tips" from contractors they award municipal contracts to. As long as they "tips" are paid AFTER the contract is awarded. It's still a bribe if it's paid before the contract is awarded.

I know it reads like stuff people are making up, but this is what the SC has done this year.

You stupid foreign commie *****, ambassadorships have gone to big donors for more than 100 years, they don't call them patronage positions for nothing.

.

 

[OKTexas]

Have you? The SCOTUS decision doesnt give President blanket immunity. Dont believe me though believe the Chief Justice of SCOTUS

"A former president is entitled to "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

• The former president is entitled to "presumptive immunity" for other official acts but "no immunity for unofficial acts," he added.
• It is now up to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan — who is overseeing Trump's Jan. 6 case — to determine whether the acts Trump is accused of in the indictment are "official" or not.

Zoom in: Roberts wrote that Trump is "absolutely immune" from prosecution for any conduct in the indictment involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

• Roberts wrote that Trump's alleged attempts to get then-Vice President Mike Pence not to certify the electoral college votes "involve official conduct."
• Trump is "at least presumptively immune" from allegations that he pressured Pence, he continued. However, Roberts said it was up to the district court to make the final decision on whether that pressure was outside of the scope of Trump's "official" duties."

You should have made the commie ***** prove its claims.

.

 

[OKTexas]

"blanket immunity" does not exist. IDK why you people keep ******* lying about it.

The same reason they're lying about kneepads being the border czar, commie propaganda.

.

 

[OKTexas]

According to the supreme court ruling, nothing a sitting president does using his presidential authority is illegal. He has the legal authority to scoop trump up and drop him in Gitmo, or some unknown base where he will never be heard from again.

You really need to get off the crack.

.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It's obvious that Congress needs to pass legislation rescinding blanket immunity for a sitting president. It's also obvious that congress has no desire to pass such legislation. Biden should present his idea for such legislation along with the promise that if it isn't passed quickly, before the election, he will commit some obviously illegal act and rely on his blanket immunity for protection. There is a wide range of actions the president might take to make the MAGAs cringe for years to come and there will be nothing to be done if the legislation is not passed. If it is passed as requested, there will be no need for Biden to fulfill his promise. Of course, there are countless reasons why this scenario should or would never work and Biden is too ethical to even consider such a ploy but that is no reason to take it off the table yet.

I warned everyone this is where we were headed if the court was allowed to set policy like the overturning of the travel ban, ...well here we are, watching you trying to figure out how it all went so wrong without admitting your own culpability in this mess...
The courts are no longer doing your bidding, get used to it if trump should win this thing, after all you applauded this type of behavior by the court in the past.
You know longer have your gate keeper, your worst nightmare has come true, you may actually have to come out from behind your minority shield and do for yourself now.

 

[FA_Q2]

No it isnt. There is such a thing as an illegal order. Just because someone in authority tells you to do something doesn't make it legal.

You are wrong because you have not bothered to read the decision.

Yes the order would be illegal. The problem is it cannot be prosecuted because the order itself is assumed immune. IOW, if Biden orders the military to kill Trump the people carrying out the order could, in theory, be prosecuted but the order itself is not discoverable because it was a communication to the military, a core constitutional power the president. If you understand what assumed immunity means, that order cannot be entered into evidence. Anything the president said to the team sent to kill Trump would be inadmissible. This makes it impossible to prosecute. Anything that would implicate the president in the killing would be assumed protected.

What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties."

^ right there - the order is 100 percent immune. What is there to prove the president did anything - it was just a rouge team that got things wrong. no evidence that can connect the president to the actual order is allowed in any shape or form. None of that order would be 'public record.'

And he can just pardon them afterward.

If you think otherwise, you would have to point out where in the actual decision such an communication would not be protected. We know for a fact it is immune because the court ruled directly on this very thing with communications between Trump and the DOJ.

You are basing this off of idiot pundits. The cold hard fact is the court had directly ruled the action protected. This is why the majority decision ignores this problem entirely, they are aware there is no way out of it. It is also why Roberts appeals to the 'public record,' which would not exist with orders to the military or DOJ, to try and refute the problem with bribery. Again, if a president told someone they could be pardoned for any crime if they just gave them a million dollars that communication, clearly illegal, would be protected. Roberts says that DIRECTLY.

Read. The. Decision.

 

[Weatherman2020]

There is now. The Supreme Court has recently legalized all manner of bullshit. Anything a President does that's an official duty, is now immune, meaning that the President can "sell" pardons and ambassadorships, and have his enemies assassinated. As long as it's an official duty, he's in the clear.

Gerrymandering is now legal if it's done for "partisan reasons". Gerrymandering for "racial reasons" is still illegal. How they came up with the idea that gerrymandering for ANY reason is legal is beyond comprehension.

And government officials can now receive "tips" from contractors they award municipal contracts to. As long as they "tips" are paid AFTER the contract is awarded. It's still a bribe if it's paid before the contract is awarded.

I know it reads like stuff people are making up, but this is what the SC has done this year.

You ‘Biden is as sharp as a tack because that’s what the DNC tells me to parrot’ Leftards are the dumbest species on earth.

 

[Couchpotato]

I just posted the link and you ask for a link.

Read the damn article.

I did and while I do not like what the DOJ was doing there it wasnt the military randomly pulling people off the street and throwing them in jail. Maybe you should read it again. Even what the DOJ was doing in this instance wasnt what was being spoken about, and if you think that tactic was a product of "trump" you haven't been paying attention.

 

[Couchpotato]

There is now. The Supreme Court has recently legalized all manner of bullshit. Anything a President does that's an official duty, is now immune, meaning that the President can "sell" pardons and ambassadorships, and have his enemies assassinated. As long as it's an official duty, he's in the clear.

Because the US wasn't killing people in foreign nations we didn't like prior to this decision..... We weren't running coups, or fomenting unrest, overthrowing governments and installing pro western leaders who will do our bidding. We never used drones in Yemen to target and kill US citizens without due process. Never happened before but now that this decision has happened.......

Gerrymandering is now legal if it's done for "partisan reasons". Gerrymandering for "racial reasons" is still illegal. How they came up with the idea that gerrymandering for ANY reason is legal is beyond comprehension.

The districts were already gerrymandered. Do you think only one side does it and when they did it, it wasn't done for political reasons? That they are is not a good think but acting like a decision given by this court is the reason it's that way is revisionist history.

And government officials can now receive "tips" from contractors they award municipal contracts to. As long as they "tips" are paid AFTER the contract is awarded. It's still a bribe if it's paid before the contract is awarded.

I cant speak to that do you have a link? Given the hyperbole of your above statements....

I know it reads like stuff people are making up, but this is what the SC has done this year.

 

[Dragonlady]

Because the US wasn't killing people in foreign nations we didn't like prior to this decision..... We weren't running coups, or fomenting unrest, overthrowing governments and installing pro western leaders who will do our bidding. We never used drones in Yemen to target and kill US citizens without due process. Never happened before but now that this decision has happened.......



The districts were already gerrymandered. Do you think only one side does it and when they did it, it wasn't done for political reasons? That they are is not a good think but acting like a decision given by this court is the reason it's that way is revisionist history.


I cant speak to that do you have a link? Given the hyperbole of your above statements....

Your response makes no logical sense at all. There is no hyperbole in any of my statements. And you can Google the decision on “tips” for government officials.

This case was all over the news when it was decided, but you’ve never heard of it. There is nothing so ill-informed as right wing cult members.

 

[Couchpotato]

Your response makes no logical sense at all. There is no hyperbole in any of my statements. And you can Google the decision on “tips” for government officials.

This case was all over the news when it was decided, but you’ve never heard of it. There is nothing so ill-informed as right wing cult members.

Your entire post is hyperbole. Did the US not kill people in foreign countries (including US citizens), overthrow governments ousting democratically elected leaders for ones we liked, foment and support coups etc prior to this court's decision? Were the districts not gerrymandered by both parties for POLITICAL reasons prior to the decision? Stop acting like any of the things you listed are new and caused by any decision this court has made. All those things have been happening my entire life spanning almost 10 different administrations, I dont even know how many different party switches in Congress, different parties holding power at the state level in the over 15 states I've lived in. All the things you mentioned happened during that time and none of it was because of some SCOTUS decision in 2024, so yes HYPERBOLE.

Oh and a sure fire way to know you're in a political cult is if you accuse everyone who you think disagrees with you politically of being in a cult. Congrats.

 

[MarcATL]

Hmmph....