Logical next step?

[Billiejeens]

may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional
power.

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire
into the President’s motives.


Giving orders to the military is an exclusive constitutional power of the president. He's the Commander in Chief. And since Roberts contents that his motives can't be questioned, it follows he can order an opponent killed by the military.

So, as I knew -
It's made up.
It's a series of leaps and interpretations that no reasonable people would make and has no basis in fact.

The left has specifically jumped on this seal team 6 hoax, so if it is not a orchestrated hoax, PLEASE point out the specific language that addresses that.

 

[forkup]

The only way to stop it is either a new Supreme Court decision limiting this new found authority. Or an amendment to do so.

Getting public opinion for an amendment would require serious public interest. That means Biden has to abuse this new power to create the atmosphere where it won’t happen ever again.

How do you suggest he do that? Do something egregious so the Supreme Court reconsiders?

 

[Billiejeens]

The only way to stop it is either a new Supreme Court decision limiting this new found authority. Or an amendment to do so.

Getting public opinion for an amendment would require serious public interest. That means Biden has to abuse this new power to create the atmosphere where it won’t happen ever again.

Except -

There is literally no newfound authority.

 

[Marener]

The DOJ already wont indict a sitting president. This SC ruling changes nothing in that respect.

He's already been indicted, silly.

 

[Dragonlady]

First, I'm not advocating for any harm to come to trump, or any of his supporters, but in the light of the recent Supreme court ruling, serious uncomfortable questions present themselves. A reasonable person might believe trumps threats to seek revenge on his opponents, as well as his offer to trade environmental protections for a billion dollars present a threat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the country. Having sworn to protect and defend the constitution, and in light of the new presidential authority, it is Biden's duty to prevent any chance of trump winning the upcoming presidential election in any way his newfound authority allows. Should Biden, exercise his newfound authority by imprisoning trump in Guantanamo, or some other way? If congress opposes such actions, they can always impeach him if they can get enough of our representatives to find him guilty.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-immunity-scotus-decision-full-text-pdf/

Welcome to the dystopia.

Biden should definitely use these powers to prevent Trump's re-election, for the good of nation.

 

[SavannahMann]

There is NO new found authority, it has always existed, it just took Progressive Lawfare to force the court to quantify it.

It has not always existed. Nixon required a Pardon to avoid being charged with crimes. Clinton negotiated a plea deal to end the possibility of prosecution. These are historical facts.

 

[forkup]

So, as I knew -
It's made up.
It's a series of leaps and interpretations that no reasonable people would make and has no basis in fact.

The left has specifically jumped on this seal team 6 hoax, so if it is not a orchestrated hoax, PLEASE point out the specific language that addresses that.

Just because you don't want to make an inference going by the actual language in the ruling doesn't mean you can't make on.

SCOTUS opinions don't work on a case to case basis. They work on establishing certain frameworks by which to judge those cases. This particular framework allows for a president to order the military to kill an opponent. Saying I need a specific circumstance spelled out to make that circumstance legal is simply dishonest.

 

[Dragonlady]

Except -

There is literally no newfound authority.

Oh yes there is Billie, Boy. Joe Biden has the same "immunity from prosecutioon for official acts" that the Supreme Court just gave to Donald Trump. So anything that Biden does to Trump to prevent his re-election, is now legal.

Biden can NOW order Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump and Biden cannot be prosecuted.

Be careful what you wish for Billie.

 

[forkup]

He's already been indicted, silly.

NOT WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE. Being deliberately obtuse don't make you right. It simply makes you dishonest.

 

[martybegan]

It has not always existed. Nixon required a Pardon to avoid being charged with crimes. Clinton negotiated a plea deal to end the possibility of prosecution. These are historical facts.

And that's why the question was never answered. In all other acts no one got to this point.

For Nixon it was the cover up, which isn't an act of office that he was actually accused of.

And for Clinton he actually lied under oath, in front of everyone, again not a Presidential act.

 

[Marener]

NOT WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE. Being deliberately obtuse don't make you right. It simply makes you dishonest.

I KNOW.

BUT HE HAS BEEN INDICTED AND NOW IF HE WINS THE PRESIDENCY HE CAN TELL THE AG TO HAVE ALL THE CHARGES DROPPED. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.

STOP BEING OBTUSE.

 

[the watcher]

Biden should definitely use these powers to prevent Trump's re-election, for the good of nation.

We're there. The end justifies the means. Anything goes with us now. Reasonable people demand action.

 

[martybegan]

The Supreme Court in the past 2 weeks has:

• legalized gerrymandering, for partisan purposes only;
• legalized public officials receiving "tips" from people they give public contracts to - bribery;
• gave judges the power to overturn scientists; and
• immunity from prosecution for the President.

You are no longer a democracy.

Simplistic views from a simpleton.

1. and yet Gerrymandering for race is A-OK right?
2. Those are still crimes at the State level, and probably under other federal laws, this one law was just too vague to hold up.
3. Judges should be able to overturn anything, that's their purpose. And how fair is it if one group of "experts" is judge, jury and executioner?
4. Only for official constitutional acts, and this has been the situation for centuries. It just didn't have to be quantified until now because of Dem lawfare.

 

[OKTexas]

NO. I hope he does not. He can't sink to MAGA's level. If he does, then we're probably done. We're on the precipice as it is. That's when the Trumps and Bannons and Flynns win.

The Supreme Court's version of the Enabling Act of 1933 was blatant enough. The rest of the country can't be a part of this.

You stupid fuck, SCOTUS did not grant the president any legislative authority. They can't write their own laws. You freaks are the fucking nazis.

.

 

[martybegan]

Protecting the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Trump has said the Constitution should be "ignored". Killing Trump is saving the Constitution which is Biden's FIRST and most important "official duty".

Be careful what you wish for Marty.

It's official. you morons have actually lost it.

 

[forkup]

I KNOW.

BUT HE HAS BEEN INDICTED AND NOW IF HE WINS THE PRESIDENCY HE CAN TELL THE AG TO HAVE ALL THE CHARGES DROPPED. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT.

STOP BEING OBTUSE.

I think you need to go over the thread. I wasn't the one making the claim.

 

[martybegan]

You stupid fuck, SCOTUS did not grant the president any legislative authority. They can't write their own laws. You freaks are the fucking nazis.

.

That moron actually referenced the enabling act?

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Marener]

For Nixon it was the cover up, which isn't an act of office that he was actually accused of.

Of course it was.

 

[martybegan]

NO. I hope he does not. He can't sink to MAGA's level. If he does, then we're probably done. We're on the precipice as it is. That's when the Trumps and Bannons and Flynns win.

The Supreme Court's version of the Enabling Act of 1933 was blatant enough. The rest of the country can't be a part of this.

I had to scroll to find this after OKTexas' response, just to add my own.

The Enabling act?

Really?

Please tell me you aren't this fucking retarded.

 

[OKTexas]

Mac do you believe Trump will have any qualms about testing the limits of this immunity?

I'm not an alarmist by nature nor do I think it's a good idea to try to use whataboutisms to justify your own behavior. But the full implications of this ruling in the hands of an aspiring autocrat are so dire and immediate that I have a hard time NOT just wanting to throw out the rulebook. When it comes down to it I rather have an autocrat who has a moral compass then one without it.

Can you find any fault in my logic?

Yeah, xiden has shown a greater propensity to ignore the law than Trump ever did.

.