Recent SCOTUS ruling on immunity

[Votto]

Supreme Court's liberal justices warn of 'law-free zone' stemming from Trump immunity ruling

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court's historic immunity ruling left her with "fear for our democracy." The 6-3 decision set a broad new definition of executive power as it stated former presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for "official acts"...

www.yahoo.com

Who here agrees that a President should not face criminal charges for official acts of government?

I realize that the Left is appalled at the idea, only because they feel constrained going after Trump. And let's be honest here, they have no fear it would ever be used against one of their darling Presidents like Obama, who assassinated American citizens abroad without and judicial due process, something clearly in violation of the Constitution. That is because the GOP never holds the DNC to account for anything and never will,

I also realize that many on the right will champion the ruling, just to protect Trump, but realize, the Left is building a hedge around the clearly corrupt Swamp for any possible retaliation against those in government involved in any criminal activity that they may proclaim to be official state activity.

Then again, those in government seem to ignore laws all the time with impunity anyway, and seem make them up as they see fit, so what does it really matter?

Never mind

Carry on with the clown show.

 

[1srelluc]

The dems (and most everyone else) were fine with Obama killing four American citizens he had declared terrorists.

 

[whitehall]

It was 6 to 3 so there is hardly a "blistering dissent" but rather a simple minded political rant typical of ultra left wing ideologs who have become a dismal minority.

 

[Billiejeens]

I hear that the unwise Latina is sick and won't be around long.

 

[berg80]

One of the more telling aspects of the decision is the court allowed for things being considered official acts that his attorney admitted were private acts. The ruling is essentially a political document.

 

[whitehall]

The concept is simple unless you live in a Banana Republic. You can't arrest the freaking president. Why can't democrats understand it?

 

[dudmuck]

Supreme Court's liberal justices warn of 'law-free zone' stemming from Trump immunity ruling

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court's historic immunity ruling left her with "fear for our democracy." The 6-3 decision set a broad new definition of executive power as it stated former presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for "official acts"...

www.yahoo.com

Who here agrees that a President should not face criminal charges for official acts of government?

I realize that the Left is appalled at the idea, only because they feel constrained going after Trump. And let's be honest here, they have no fear it would ever be used against one of their darling Presidents like Obama, who assassinated American citizens abroad without and judicial due process, something clearly in violation of the Constitution. That is because the GOP never holds the DNC to account for anything and never will,

I also realize that many on the right will champion the ruling, just to protect Trump, but realize, the Left is building a hedge around the clearly corrupt Swamp for any possible retaliation against those in government involved in any criminal activity that they may proclaim to be official state activity.

Then again, those in government seem to ignore laws all the time with impunity anyway, and seem make them up as they see fit, so what does it really matter?

Never mind

if you are referring to the drone program killing us citizens. The continued under Trump, and Trump stopped reporting on it. It was made public under obama.

Carry on with the clown show.

 

[struth]

it’s sad, really, that the court had to hear this case. We take for granted the fact that for over two hundreds years we never had to deal with demsfascisr using their office to go after rivals before

 

[berg80]

It was 6 to 3 so there is hardly a "blistering dissent" but rather a simple minded political rant typical of ultra left wing ideologs who have become a dismal minority.

You do understand that there is no constitutional justification for the ruling,, right? There is no language in the constitution allowing for presidential immunity from crimes.

 

[rightwinger]

Supreme Court's liberal justices warn of 'law-free zone' stemming from Trump immunity ruling

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court's historic immunity ruling left her with "fear for our democracy." The 6-3 decision set a broad new definition of executive power as it stated former presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for "official acts"...

www.yahoo.com

Who here agrees that a President should not face criminal charges for official acts of government?

I realize that the Left is appalled at the idea, only because they feel constrained going after Trump. And let's be honest here, they have no fear it would ever be used against one of their darling Presidents like Obama, who assassinated American citizens abroad without and judicial due process, something clearly in violation of the Constitution. That is because the GOP never holds the DNC to account for anything and never will,

I also realize that many on the right will champion the ruling, just to protect Trump, but realize, the Left is building a hedge around the clearly corrupt Swamp for any possible retaliation against those in government involved in any criminal activity that they may proclaim to be official state activity.

Then again, those in government seem to ignore laws all the time with impunity anyway, and seem make them up as they see fit, so what does it really matter?

Never mind

Carry on with the clown show.

I agree that a President should not be prosecuted for Legal Official Acts

But, if he breaks the law in doing an official act, he should be prosecuted

An example
Granting Pardons is an Official Act
Selling Pardons to the highest bidder is illegal and should be prosecuted

 

[berg80]

it’s sad, really, that the court had to hear this case. We take for granted the fact that for over two hundreds years we never had to deal with demsfascisr using their office to go after rivals before

Multiple grand juries voted to indict Trump you fucktard.

 

[struth]

Multiple grand juries voted to indict Trump you fucktard.

So what? A prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.

Doesn’t change the fact of what I said

 

[Sunni Man]

Selling Pardons to the highest bidder is illegal and should be prosecuted

Which is what President Clinton did for Marc Rich.

 

[Clipper]

it’s sad, really, that the court had to hear this case. We take for granted the fact that for over two hundreds years we never had to deal with demsfascisr using their office to go after rivals before

We never had to deal with a serial criminal scumbag like Trump. That's why this case ended up in front of SCOTUS who gave their MAGA lowlife leader a free ride to commit more crimes if he wins.

This decision was made not only to protect Trump, but with an eye to the future. The uber wealthy oligarchs got their way in their scheme to eventually turn this Country into an Aristocracy where they can run roughshod over the will of the people. The same bunch who own Clarence Thomas who they have bought & paid for.

That court is a threat to our Democracy as much if not more then Trump is.

 

[Concerned American]

You do understand that there is no constitutional justification for the ruling,, right? There is no language in the constitution allowing for presidential immunity from crimes.

Please list your credentials on constitutional law. I'll go with six SCOTUS justices opinions, Alex.

 

[scruffy]

You do understand that there is no constitutional justification for the ruling,, right? There is no language in the constitution allowing for presidential immunity from crimes.

Go tell the Congress critters who spent 17 million dollars of OUR money covering up their crimes.

You blowhard leftards have zero brains and zero understanding of history.

 

[fncceo]

I hear that the unwise Latina is sick and won't be around long.

Don't they say Latin X now?

 

[SweetSue92]

Supreme Court's liberal justices warn of 'law-free zone' stemming from Trump immunity ruling

In a blistering dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the Supreme Court's historic immunity ruling left her with "fear for our democracy." The 6-3 decision set a broad new definition of executive power as it stated former presidents are protected from criminal prosecution for "official acts"...

www.yahoo.com

Who here agrees that a President should not face criminal charges for official acts of government?

I realize that the Left is appalled at the idea, only because they feel constrained going after Trump. And let's be honest here, they have no fear it would ever be used against one of their darling Presidents like Obama, who assassinated American citizens abroad without and judicial due process, something clearly in violation of the Constitution. That is because the GOP never holds the DNC to account for anything and never will,

I also realize that many on the right will champion the ruling, just to protect Trump, but realize, the Left is building a hedge around the clearly corrupt Swamp for any possible retaliation against those in government involved in any criminal activity that they may proclaim to be official state activity.

Then again, those in government seem to ignore laws all the time with impunity anyway, and seem make them up as they see fit, so what does it really matter?

Never mind

Carry on with the clown show.

The Dems brought this and now they don't like it

Their game

Their rules

They hate it now

I do not care

 

[SweetSue92]

We never had to deal with a serial criminal scumbag like Trump. That's why this case ended up in front of SCOTUS who gave their MAGA lowlife leader a free ride to commit more crimes if he wins.

This decision was made not only to protect Trump, but with an eye to the future. The uber wealthy oligarchs got their way in their scheme to eventually turn this Country into an Aristocracy where they can run roughshod over the will of the people. The same bunch who own Clarence Thomas who they have bought & paid for.

That court is a threat to our Democracy as much if not more then Trump is.

Technically a new day; a new chance for me to say we cannot share a nation with these people. Not America, anyway.

They must be banished back to under their rocks or we must split.

No other options.

 

[struth]

We never had to deal with a serial criminal scumbag like Trump. That's why this case ended up in front of SCOTUS who gave their MAGA lowlife leader a free ride to commit more crimes if he wins.

This decision was made not only to protect Trump, but with an eye to the future. The uber wealthy oligarchs got their way in their scheme to eventually turn this Country into an Aristocracy where they can run roughshod over the will of the people. The same bunch who own Clarence Thomas who they have bought & paid for.

That court is a threat to our Democracy as much if not more then Trump is.

Haha nope we never had to deal with demafacist, willing to abuse their office to stay in power