quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
I was against the immunity ruling.
You won't like it when the dems use it to subjugate you.

Then you don't understand it.

Oh I do understand it.
Any official act. Including enacting laws that trample rights.
Ot allow others(federal employees) to trample rights.

So yes, I do understand it. The knife cuts both ways.

"...to protect our democracy..."
(from HRK's post)

I am getting very weary of the GDCs pimping this phrase like a has been hooker.


It's another of those "Sinclair" news readers all saying the exact same phrase, that is as tight as a choir, if they are all played in unison.

I have seen several "people on the street" interviews when asking people about the Debate, or the election etc., and someone responds with "Biden is working for the people and trying to save our Democracy", and almost every leftist talking point "clips" that I have seen.

No, fools, he is not. He's a talking goldfish...

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
I was against the immunity ruling.
You won't like it when the dems use it to subjugate you.

Then you don't understand it.

Oh I do understand it.
Any official act. Including enacting laws that trample rights.
Ot allow others(federal employees) to trample rights.

So yes, I do understand it. The knife cuts both ways.

Enacting laws?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:
I was against the immunity ruling.
You won't like it when the dems use it to subjugate you.

Then you don't understand it.

Oh I do understand it.
Any official act. Including enacting laws that trample rights.
Ot allow others(federal employees) to trample rights.

So yes, I do understand it. The knife cuts both ways.

Enacting laws?

Executive orders. That will trample freedoms.
Now there's immunity from prosecution for such acts.
Now who gets to define want an official act is?

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:

Executive orders. That will trample freedoms.
Now there's immunity from prosecution for such acts.
Now who gets to define want an official act is?

Nothing has changed. Nothing. The President has always had immunity for official acts. This is just the first time it has been challenged because the dems for the first time went after a former President so the Supreme Court was forced to address it.

Man, seriously, what have you been reading? You're buying right into the leftist narrative. The President has immense power. Always has.

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:

Executive orders. That will trample freedoms.
Now there's immunity from prosecution for such acts.
Now who gets to define want an official act is?

When's the last time anyone even suggested prosecuting a POTUS over an executive order he signed? You think immunity is some new freedom to go crazy with EOs, which have no force of law anyway?

Like so many things these days, “immunity from prosecution” is just a different way of describing something that would before have been simply recognized as empowerment of certain officials to do things that the rest of us may not legally do.

If I put red and blue lights and a siren on my car and proceeded to use them to signal other drivers to stop for any reason, I would no doubt be subject to prosecution for various offenses anywhere in the country.

But what if a police officer on duty did that in his official vehicle for a legitimate reason, and yet a prosecutor someplace decided to charge him with the same crimes that I would have been found guilty of? Would we say that the officer had “immunity” from prosecution for his official acts? Of course not. We would point to whatever statutes, legal regulations, applicable common law, etc., that gave him the legal authority to make traffic stops in the course of his duties.

The President as chief executive of the national government must have the power to do a myriad things to perform the job we the people (or some of us, anyway) hired him to do. And many of those things are not something the rest of us may legally do. Saying he is empowered to do those things he was hired to do and therefore means he need not answer to some random prosecutor who dreams up charges associated with his empowered acts is not “immunity from prosecution” or being “above the law.”

Added: And I contend that referring to “immunity from prosecution” in the case of official acts by a President is a form of the logical fallacy of begging the question, or an argument whose basic premises are only assumed without proof. By using the term, it’s assumed that a prosecution could be legitimately pursued, but that’s not true if someone is empowered by law or other authority to do what is being objected to, such as a police officer making a justified traffic stop.

An example of immunity from prosecution is the foreign representative who has diplomatic immunity in a country. If someone driving drunk runs over a pedestrian in a crosswalk, a prosecution would legitimately be warranted. If, however, it’s a diplomat, then he would indeed be immune from prosecution because of his status, but not because he was empowered to run people over.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ScreamingCockatoo:

Executive orders. That will trample freedoms.
Now there's immunity from prosecution for such acts.
Now who gets to define want an official act is?

Nothing has changed. Nothing. The President has always had immunity for official acts. This is just the first time it has been challenged because the dems for the first time went after a former President so the Supreme Court was forced to address it.

Man, seriously, what have you been reading? You're buying right into the leftist narrative. The President has immense power. Always has.

Well put and I agree. The left is trying to scare voters into believing their crap that Trump will become a dictator with unlimited power on day one if he wins and must be stopped. The Constitution has not been ruled null and void.

I like the premise of the second article that was posted. Could explain why the DC leftists are propping up a living stiff. They're not worried so much for the country's future as they are for their own. Highjacking the country works great for those in power, until they're not.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
This didn't take long:

Link

House Democrat proposes constitutional amendment to reverse justices' presidential immunity ruling
.

You know, and they know, it's huffing and puffing going nowhere. Just playing to their base. Just like when the GOP acted like their vote to defund Obamacare was going anywhere.

quote:

Originally posted by grumpy1:
Well put and I agree. The left is trying to scare voters into believing their crap that Trump will become a dictator with unlimited power on day one if he wins and must be stopped. The Constitution has not been ruled null and void.

Yup, just trying to stir up their base, and any idiots who will believe such shit, to the voting booth..

I cherry-picked some parts of the SCOTUS's majority opinion.

I think, specifically, it is the [A5] that is forcing Alvin Bragg (federal prosecutor in one of the lawfare cases) to ask to postpone the sentencing in the fake charges of criminal accounting mistake' of the Stormy Daniel's payment'.

That's because the language in the [A5] quote suggests that prosecution cannot ask jury to consider evidence from official acts, which (according to Pres. Trump lawyers -- was done by the prosecution).

The majority opinion also dismantles the completely biased, unconstitutional interpretation of separation of powers clause by the minority of the court ([A6], [A7])


Finally, I think what the opinion did not address (and perhaps the Court is too weak to take this head on) -- is that unfair persecution, entrapment by law enforcement and intelligence agencies -- have no negative consequences.
SCOTUS continues to allow to initiate lawfare (selective prosecution, therefore selective entrapment) without any subsequent criminal accountability for the actions of the biased prosecutors and judges.



https://www.supremecourt.gov/o...3pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

[A1]

quote:

Federal Prosecutors:
"First, it [they] points to the Justice Department’s “longstanding commitment to the impartial enforcement of the law,” id., at 21, as well as the criminal justice
system’s further protections: grand juries, a defendant’s
procedural rights during trial, and the requirement that the
Government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, ..."

[A2]

quote:

The SCOTUS Majority:
"...These safeguards, though important, do not alleviate the
need for pretrial review. They fail to address the fact that
under our system of separated powers, criminal prohibitions cannot apply to certain Presidential conduct to begin
with...

[A3]

quote:

... Even if the President were ultimately not found liable for
certain official actions, the possibility of an extended proceeding alone may render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties.”

[A4]

quote:

...
As for the Government’s assurances that prosecutors and
grand juries will not permit political or baseless prosecutions from advancing in the first place, those assurances are
available to every criminal defendant and fail to account for
the President’s “unique position in the constitutional
scheme.” Id., at 749. We do not ordinarily decline to decide
significant constitutional questions based on the Government’s promises of good faith. See United States v. Stevens,
559 U. S. 460, 480 (2010) (“We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly.”). Nor do we do so today.

"

---

[A5]

quote:

"...
Allowing prosecutors to ask or
suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the
jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the
President’s policies and performance while in office. ..."

..."

[A6]

quote:

"...
Like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity. But
unlike anyone else, the President is a branch of government, and the Constitution vests in him sweeping powers
and duties. Accounting for that reality—and ensuring that
the President may exercise those powers forcefully, as the
Framers anticipated he would—does not place him above
the law; it preserves the basic structure of the Constitution
from which that law derives. ..."

[A7]

quote:

"...
The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring
the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s
precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President
“feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.”

..."

This message has been edited. Last edited by: platform,