SCOTUS discusses immunity for the President

[Marener]

It was inherently unequal, as Brown rightly decided.

Dobbs said Roe was shit, end of story.

The logic behind Dobbs is the same logic behind Plessey.

 

[berg80]

US Supreme Court justices in Trump case lean toward some level of immunity

Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy on Thursday to the argument that presidents have some immunity against criminal charges for certain actions taken in office as it heard arguments over Donald Trump's claim of immunity from prosecution for trying to undo his 2020 election...

www.yahoo.com

SCOTUS began questioning each other as to if and how a President or former President could be held to account legally for anything

Here is a taste.

Sauer raised three hypothetical examples of past presidents being charged for officials actions taken as president.

He asked whether George W. Bush could be prosecuted for obstructing an official proceeding for allegedly lying to Congress to justify the Iraq war, or Barack Obama charged with murder for killing U.S. citizens abroad by drone strikes or Biden charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter country illegally, based on his border policies.

"The answer to all these questions is no," Sauer said.


But Trump can be prosecuted for paying money to a whore to keep their affair private or hold Presidential files Biden had as a Senator?

Hilarious!!

As a starting point it should be noted attorneys from both sides of the immunity case, and all the justices, agree what has been referred to as private acts, not official ones, have no claim to immunity.

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument​

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

At Supreme Court, Trump lawyer backs away from absolute immunity argument​

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

www.nbcnews.com

There's one more thing worth mentioning as a precursor. The Court should never have heard this case. Because the claim that Don has absolute immunity for criminal acts taken in office as president is an insult to reason, an assault on common sense and a perversion of the fundamental maxim of American democracy that no man is above the law. Which is how the lower courts have ruled.

With that in mind, Amy Coney Barrett's questioning of Trump's attorney, John Sauer, was game over for Don. Or at least it should have been. Here's why.

She read the individual charges from the Jan. 6 case Jack Smith has brought, asking Sauer each time whether they constituted a private act or an official one. In every instance he acknowledged they were private acts, not part of Trump's official, Article II duties as prez. That, as they say, is the ballgame. Because as Justice Jackson pointed out that is the question before the Court.

The question is decidedly not what most of the conservatives wanted to make it. An exploration of what constitutes a private and an official act. That is an intellectual exercise having nothing to do with the merits of this case since there is general agreement, even by Sauer, that the acts in question are not official in nature. Which makes the Court's willingness to hear the case yet another travesty ushered in by Trumpery.

 

[BackAgain]

And even then the immunity would not be absolute because he could be impeached and then removed from office for his transgression.

Yep. And if he did get impeached and removed, he could Constitutionally THEN be criminally prosecuted.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump attorney D. John Sauer conceded there are allegations in the indictment that do not involve "official acts," meaning they would not be subject to any presidential immunity.

Obviously.

The acts for which he was indicted were committed PURELY out of self interest.

 

[kyzr]

Was paying a whore part of Trump's duties as president?

Duh, when did he do that? Hint: never

 

[kyzr]

Obviously.

The acts for which he was indicted were committed PURELY out of self interest.

True.
The question is were they protected by the 1st Amendment?

 

[martybegan]

The grand jury that indicted him disagrees.

You can indict a ham sandwich if you work hard enough.

 

[martybegan]

The logic behind Dobbs is the same logic behind Plessey.

Not even close. Brown fixed Plessey, Dobbs fixed Roe.

 

[Marener]

Not even close. Brown fixed Plessey, Dobbs fixed Roe.

Absolutely the same logic. Plessey and Dobbs included a strict interpretation of constitution and refusal to accept that the constitution implies rights that aren't specifically enumerated that granted the states additional authority to deprive people of rights by legislation.

 

[martybegan]

Absolutely the same logic. Plessey and Dobbs included a strict interpretation of constitution and refusal to accept that the constitution implies rights that aren't specifically enumerated that granted the states additional authority to deprive people of rights by legislation.

Plessey was not a strict interpretation, it was an excuse to avoid equal protection.

Dobbs fixed the Roe excuse of a made up right to privacy.

 

[Marener]

Plessey was not a strict interpretation, it was an excuse to avoid equal protection.

Dobbs fixed the Roe excuse of a made up right to privacy.

Absolutely it was a strict interpretation. The constitution says equal so they said equal. Very strict.

 

[martybegan]

Absolutely it was a strict interpretation. The constitution says equal so they said equal. Very strict.

No, they said separate could be equal, which was clearly wrong.

Again, read Harlan's dissent. And Harlan was no fan of blacks (or chinamen as he called them), but he was a strict adherent to the Constitution, including what the 14th amendment said.

 

[Marener]

No, they said separate could be equal, which was clearly wrong.

Again, read Harlan's dissent. And Harlan was no fan of blacks (or chinamen as he called them), but he was a strict adherent to the Constitution, including what the 14th amendment said.

They didn't say it had to be separate. They let the states decide. Just like bans on abortion which is clearly wrong.

 

[martybegan]

They didn't say it had to be separate. They let the states decide. Just like bans on abortion which is clearly wrong.

No, they implicitly gave permission for Separate but Equal laws to be applied.

Bans on abortion are not clearly wrong, that is your opinion.

 

[Marener]

No, they implicitly gave permission for Separate but Equal laws to be applied.

Bans on abortion are not clearly wrong, that is your opinion.

And Dobbs gives permission for abortion bans.

People said that segregation was not clearly wrong, that was their opinion.

Dobbs, like Plessey, gives the government more authority over the individual. Both violate the rights of the people.

 

[martybegan]

And Dobbs gives permission for abortion bans.

People said that segregation was not clearly wrong, that was their opinion.

Dobbs, like Plessey, gives the government more authority over the individual. Both violate the rights of the people.

And permission for the States to allow abortion up until the last second.

Dobbs gives the States BACK their authority, removing it from the Federal Supreme Court.

Segregation was wrong Constitutionally because it violated equal protection.

 

[Marener]

And permission for the States to allow abortion up until the last second.

Dobbs gives the States BACK their authority, removing it from the Federal Supreme Court.

Segregation was wrong Constitutionally because it violated equal protection.

Under Roe, the authority was with the individual, not with the Federal Supreme Court.

Dobbs took the authority from the individual and gave it to the state.

 

[berg80]

Obviously.

The acts for which he was indicted were committed PURELY out of self interest.

The logical conclusion of which is by Sauer's admission, Trump has no claim to immunity regarding the charges in the Jan. 6 case because they don't qualify as official acts. That's why the Supremes never should have taken the case. Doing so reveals their actual agenda. Helping Trump avoid justice by delaying the trial.

 

[martybegan]

Under Roe, the authority was with the individual, not with the Federal Supreme Court.

Dobbs took the authority from the individual and gave it to the state.

Under Roe the Authority was with the court at the federal level, unconstitutionally I might add.

Dobbs fixed it so the people of the State can decide how their abortion laws are setup.

Abortion is not a right.

 

[berg80]

You can indict a ham sandwich if you work hard enough.

That's a 10 year old's answer to a matter too difficult for a child to comprehend. What's your excuse?