Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: wesfau2 on July 01, 2024, 03:28:48 PM
-
Was the creation of this legal precept right/necessary/good?
-
It’s a sticky question that goes beyond any benefit/harm it might cause Trump.
In theory it should prevent the kind of ridiculous lawfare we’ve seen used against Trump (and hopefully his allies). The political assassination using “the law” they’ve attempted against him is like nothing we’ve seen since pre civil war days.
Had Trump served two terms and not been eligible to run again? This issue would never have been raised.
I absolutely do not believe the “Trump wins and he will assassinate all of us” rhetoric being spewed by insane democrats any more than I believe the lunacy of the left who call for the current administration to use the military to lethally end Trump’s campaign.
Does it potentially create the opportunity for a rogue president — hint: not Trump, more likely a Democrat — to engage in bad acts with immunity? Maybe so.
I have faith, however, that our system of checks and balances - when followed as intended, which is where this SC seems to be trying to restore - will rein that in.
In short? The democrats MADE it necessary. I think the decision is right (although I have some reservations). Good is a relative term.
-
I've only read the Cliff Notes. However, I like the basic premise of it, in that it gives the President immunity for "Official acts" carried out. There are too many things that people can try and construe as a crime, especially in this day and age of complete polarization, and everyone looking for the slightest hint of wrongdoing.
I thought the dissent was a little extreme, essentially saying the ruling could afford immunity to the President if he ordered the Navy Seals to take out a political opponent. If you think murdering your opponent falls under the category of Official Act, you're reaching like a midget at a water fountain.
I don't think this really affects Trump's case. They're sending it back down to let the trial Court make the decision on whether or not what he's accused of falls under the heading of Official Act. Can't see it.
-
Why have we lost the righteous indignation over "activist" judges?
This is wholly a creation of this court. Presidential Immunity is not addressed in the Consitution. Impeachment is. The 25th Amendment is...there are limitations to the presidential authority. Checks and balances.
This removes them...or at least neuters them.
Chevron took the power from Congress and this ruling passes it all to the Executive.
We now have no co-equal branches of government. There is the Executive and everyone else is at risk.
Notice I got through that without mentioning the politics of anyone involved.
Steve, I beg you to read the opinion in its entirety and take Sotomayor's dissent seriously. This is dark, dark shit.
-
Why have we lost the righteous indignation over "activist" judges?
This is wholly a creation of this court. Presidential Immunity is not addressed in the Consitution. Impeachment is. The 25th Amendment is...there are limitations to the presidential authority. Checks and balances.
This removes them...or at least neuters them.
Chevron took the power from Congress and this ruling passes it all to the Executive.
We now have no co-equal branches of government. There is the Executive and everyone else is at risk.
Notice I got through that without mentioning the politics of anyone involved.
Steve, I beg you to read the opinion in its entirety and take Sotomayor's dissent seriously. This is dark, dark shit.
:facepalm:
-
One question. Should be a simple one.
Let’s say the US is tracking a terrorist. One who’s killed American citizens. We’ll call him Baghdad Bob.
After his last strike on US soil, Bob went hiding. After a years-long search, intelligence locates Bob. There is a chance to take him out.
Do you want the president concerned that some lunatic court in New York could indict him for murder when he’s making the decision to eliminate him?
Because that’s what this is intended to prevent.
-
I believe in natural immunity. No more clot shots for me you gay bitch.
-
If it helps Trump, bad. If not, good.
That’s the extent in which libtards care.
-
We shouldn't have any qualms about taking out a military leader like Soleimani on foreign soil. "Baghdad Bob's" should be fair game wherever they set up shop.
Preventive maintenance.
-
I read as much of the opinion as I needed to, especially since it is over 100 pages long. Here is the core of the majority's opinion:
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
I did something last night that made my skin crawl. I went around the channels, to the CNN's and MSNBC's of the world to see what was being said, and I thought I was listening to satire. I think they, along with Sotomayor in her dissent, have lost their fucking minds in a pathetic attempt to spin this as giving Trump carte blanche to be the Dictator Supreme. BTW, he's NOT the President!!!
I saw everything from assassinating political opponents, to throwing every Democrat and talk show hosts in jail. It does nothing of the sort. Any reasonable person without a political agenda could never read anything so outrageous into that opinion. It simply re-establishes what has pretty much been in place already.
The President, and Government in general, have to be able to function and make decisions within their Constitutional authority, without fear of criminal prosecution. This opinion does absolutely nothing to expand the definition of "Official acts" to include any of the things being proffered.
-
I read as much of the opinion as I needed to, especially since it is over 100 pages long. Here is the core of the majority's opinion:
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
I did something last night that made my skin crawl. I went around the channels, to the CNN's and MSNBC's of the world to see what was being said, and I thought I was listening to satire. I think they, along with Sotomayor in her dissent, have lost their fucking minds in a pathetic attempt to spin this as giving Trump carte blanche to be the Dictator Supreme. BTW, he's NOT the President!!!
I saw everything from assassinating political opponents, to throwing every Democrat and talk show hosts in jail. It does nothing of the sort. Any reasonable person without a political agenda could never read anything so outrageous into that opinion. It simply re-establishes what has pretty much been in place already.
The President, and Government in general, have to be able to function and make decisions within their Constitutional authority, without fear of criminal prosecution. This opinion does absolutely nothing to expand the definition of "Official acts" to include any of the things being proffered.
Agreed.
You have to have slipped from liberal to leftist (different things) to view this as “dark, dark stuff”.
It is nothing like what is portrayed. I heard an interview with a black politician on the radio this morning who said that under this ruling Trump will have his own private army in the streets murdering anyone who disagrees with him.
Sadder, you will find about 1/5 - or 13.49% - of the people in this country who will accept this nonsense at face value.
-
my hope, weskie is just fucking with Kaos and snags ...well all of us.
doubtful.
-
my hope, weskie is just fucking with Kaos and snags ...well of us.
doubtful.
That’s been my hope for a long time, brother.
Still love him. Would still defend him to the death against others. Hope every day he’s just playing devils advocate.