happney65:


It isn't. Let's not support what is not right. This is a very very wrong ruling which will indirectly turn the US into a dictatorship.

A President tomorrow can decide not to leave government because "it is official act". Isn't it?

A former president told "Inec" to find votes for him, A former president told his supporters to invade the capital and stop the steal. Actions that are purely inlegal yet you are trying to claim it isn't an avenue for Dictatorship

Really?

happney65:
PDPGuy as a Lawyer,so can Biden have Trump arrested and locked up and claim it is official act? How do we differentiate between official and unofficial acts?

Truly, Election has consequences

What a Pity for America!

The delineation between “official” and “unofficial” acts would rest with the DC District court. But as raumdeuter suggested, I would think that Judge Chutkin (of the DC District Court) would likely find that Trump, asking a Secret Service agent to assassinate a rival candidate for president, would fall under “unofficial acts”.

raumdeuter:


It depends on what the prosecutor, defence and lower court are able to decide.

What SCOTUS simply said is there are official acts which are covered and unofficial acts which are not covered. Now you go clarify every single case on which is official and which isnt Simple

they always tend to decide wrong when it comes to Trump. I think the Supreme court will be very busy

happney65:


But asking a state official to help him find votes is official acts?

Or telling his supporters to storm the Capital to "stop the steal" is official acts?

Exactly.
The state official one, we will find out. They will have a hearing about it and then it will go back to the Supreme Court.. because it's Trump.
The supporters one, he can argue he was giving an "official speech" so it was an official act. And because it was an official act, whatever he said there couldn't be used to prosecute him.
They may have spoken to that one, but haven't read the full ruling yet.

happney65:


It isn't. Let's not support what is not right. This is a very very wrong ruling which will indirectly turn the US into a dictatorship.

A President tomorrow can decide not to leave government because "it is official act". Isn't it?

A former president told "Inec" to find votes for him, A former president told his supporters to invade the capital and stop the steal. Actions that are purely inlegal yet you are trying to claim it isn't an avenue for Dictatorship

The court is not a place for emotions or emotional arguments

Let me ask you are all acts by President official? or unofficial?

Should a president be prosecuted for ordering the killing of Osama or Suleimani?

PDPGuy:


The delineation between “official” and “unofficial” acts would rest with the DC District court. But as ramdeuter suggested, I would think that Judge Chutkin (of the DC District Court) would likely find that Trump, asking a Secret Service agent to assassinate a rival candidate for president, would fall under “unofficial acts”.

this is one of the most straight forward ruling ever

Why should SCOTUS be scrutinizing every case as official or unofficial? They are fairly straight forward and where they are not clear, a lower court can clarify

happney65:


It isn't. Let's not support what is not right. This is a very very wrong ruling which will indirectly turn the US into a dictatorship.

A President tomorrow can decide not to leave government because "it is official act". Isn't it?

A former president told state "Inec" to find votes for him, A former president told his supporters to invade the capital and stop the steal. Actions that are purely inlegal yet you are trying to claim it isn't an avenue for Dictatorship

Lol Watergate would have been considered official act.

sanpipita:


Lol Watergate would have been considered official act.

How is spying on a rival an official act? If its official to you then go and argue it in lower court

raumdeuter:


The court is not a place for emotions or emotional arguments

Let me ask you are all acts by President official? or unofficial?

Should a president be prosecuted for ordering the killing of Osama or Suleimani?

Osama and Suleimani are people who killed Americans isn't it? They are criminals. All over the world they kill criminals. So how would you compare this to other cases?

If Obama had his political opponent killed, he should be tried. Osama isn't Obama's political opponent.

raumdeuter:


That argument s not for SCOTUS to be dissecting what is official and what is not official. That is left for prosecutor, defence and lower courts
What SCOTUS put out is that there are official acts which are covered and unofficial acts which are not covered. This is the most straightforward explanation

If I ask you. Are all acts by presidents covered under immunity? What will be your response?

But the Supreme Court will. Because all the rulings will go back up to them. Chutka will decide, Trump will appeal to the circuit and then to the Supreme Court.
No, all acts of President's shouldn't be covered under immunity. They have to much power to be covered under immunity. For core constitutional questions, yes. But the rance of official acts is very broad.

raumdeuter:


How is spying on a rival an official act? If its official to you then go and argue it in lower court

Your missing the point. It's not the destination that determines whether it's official. It's the vehicle they use to get to the desitination.
If he sent the DOJ to spy on someone that by my reading of this would be an official act.

ijebosb:


Your missing the point. It's not the destination that determines whether it's official. It's the vehicle they use to get to the desitination.
If he sent the DOJ to spy on someone that by my reading of this would be an official act.

like if Biden sends the DOJ to kill a political opponent?

PDPGuy:


The delineation between “official” and “unofficial” acts would rest with the DC District court. But as raumdeuter suggested, I would think that Judge Chutkin (of the DC District Court) would likely find that Trump, asking a Secret Service agent to assassinate a rival candidate for president, would fall under “unofficial acts”.

And if he says "Killing a political opponent is the best for America and saying he is a threat to America and can be classified under official acts"

E.G, A Trump that didn't want to leave power or asked his supporters to invade the Capitol.

So how would it be classified as unofficial acts?

If a sitting president decides to do that,tell me how it will be classied

ijebosb:


Your missing the point. It's not the destination that determines whether it's official. It's the vehicle they use to get to the desitination.
If he sent the DOJ to spy on someone that by my reading of this would be an official act.

Lol

bemeruca:


like if Biden sends the DOJ to kill a political opponent?

This is an interesting discussion and you're doing your childish lying trolling thing again. Pushing debunked disinformation.
Go to your corner and suck your thumb like the child you are.

sanpipita:


Lol

The first is part of the ruling.
The second Barrett who was in the majority disagreeing with this line of thinking.

ijebosb:


This is an interesting discussion and you're doing your childish lying trolling thing again. Pushing debunked disinformation.
Go to your corner and suck your thumb like the child you are.

Lmao. This is your understanding? You said something stupid, since it's the vehicle not the destination that determines it. If he used the Vehicle (DOJ) to kill a political opponent, will it be official?

According to your reading that will be an official act.

happney65:


Osama and Suleimani are people who killed Americans isn't it? They are criminals. All over the world they kill criminals. So how would you compare this to other cases?

If Obama had his political opponent killed, he should be tried. Osama isn't Obama's political opponent.

You are missing the point, Osama and Suleimani killing will fall under official killing, Joe Random even if he is a criminal/killer as long as he hasnt been found guilty by court. You have no right to order his killing. is an unofficial killing

You will be prosecuted for Joe Random, you have immunity for Osama

ijebosb:


But the Supreme Court will. Because all the rulings will go back up to them. Chutka will decide, Trump will appeal to the circuit and then to the Supreme Court.
No, all acts of President's shouldn't be covered under immunity. They have to much power to be covered under immunity. For core constitutional questions, yes. But the rance of official acts is very broad.

the bold is exactly what the SCOTUS said and you have an issue with it

raumdeuter:


the bold is exactly what the SCOTUS said and you have an issue with it

Clearance Thomas is there

raumdeuter:


You are missing the point, Osama and Suleimani killing will fall under official killing, Joe Random even if he is a criminal/killer as long as he hasnt been found guilty by court. You have no right to order his killing. is an unofficial killing

You will be prosecuted for Joe Random, you have immunity for Osama

I think you are missing the point. If he uses a process that is part of his Presidential powers to kill Joe Random, you can't even question why he did it by this ruling. Once he uses a process that is considered an "official act", the end goal becomes off limits.

Like if he gives an official speech and in that speech tells you to kill his wife, and you do. That is an an official act and he would be immune. Though killing his wife wouldn't be an unofficial act, because he told you to do so in an official speech, you have no proof of it, because you can't use those words to prosecute him.

happney65:


And if he says "Killing a political opponent is the best for America and saying he is a threat to America and can be classified under official acts"

E.G, A Trump that didn't want to leave power or asked his supporters to invade the Capitol.

So how would it be classified as unofficial acts?

If a sitting president decides to do that,tell me how it will be classied

Now, your first hypo is where it could get tricky. I wouldn’t want to believe that a reasonable judge would agree that your first hypo is an official act, because even if the political opponent has committed treason against the U.S., he/she would still have to go through due process before a punishment can be meted out to that person.

But if that same rival, for eg, takes hostages in a federal building, while being armed and threatens to shoot all the hostages unless a President Trump (or Biden) withdraws from the race, a court may decide that the sitting president has the official power to authorize the FBI’s SWAT team to take out that rival. No doubt that the DOJ and the court may reason that the president’s duty to protect lives and property would be sufficient justification for the president to authorize the on the spot shooting of his rival, in that circumstance.

As to your second example, the District court would most likely hold that, Trump allegedly asking his supporters to invade Capitol Hill, would be outside the scope of his official duties, especially if he didn’t use any instrument of governance ie the DOJ, FBI etc to pass that order to his supporters.

raumdeuter:


The SCOTUS said Trump has immunity from official acts but not for unofficial acts

Its now left to the lower courts to clarify what is Official act and what is not official act

E.g Ordering the killing of a known terrorist like Osama, Suleimani who pose a threat to the US is an official act, ordering the killing of a business associate who you don't like is an unofficial act

This is a very simple thing, What will be the reason for Biden to order the arrest on Trump?

Let me ask you the order to kill Osama where do you think it falls under? vs the order to kill a random civilian

Everyone has an official duty and an unofficial duty. A company driver carrying business luggage for delivery vs the same driver going to party on the weekend. Which one is official and which is unofficial ??

Let me see how hard it is to differentiate between both

They truly understand these things but their hate for Trump wouldn't let them reason... It's just partisanship!
They're all coping over X(formerly Twitter) and it's glorious .

The reverse would have been the case if Obama was standing trial.

Besides politics has entered the courts as democrats initiated that during the confirmation of Robert Bork back in the 80s, Thomas' confirmation in the 90s, Alito's confirmation in 2005 and the worst of all Kavanaugh's confirmation in 2018... So they have no reason to cry foul now

This is a perfectly-timed also a delay strategy (due to the politics involved)...Thomas and Alito wouldn't love Biden or a Democrat to name their replacement as they're definitely retiring if Trump wins.

happney65:


But asking a state official to help him find votes is official acts?

Or telling his supporters to storm the Capital to "stop the steal" is official acts?

Yet again with the talking points...

This thing is too funny

Hilarious

raumdeuter:


You are missing the point, Osama and Suleimani killing will fall under official killing, Joe Random even if he is a criminal/killer as long as he hasnt been found guilty by court. You have no right to order his killing. is an unofficial killing

You will be prosecuted for Joe Random, you have immunity for Osama

Sotomayer spoke to this in her dissent.

ijebosb:


I think you are missing the point. If he uses a process that is part of his Presidential powers to kill Joe Random, you can't even question why he did it by this ruling. Once he uses a process that is considered an "official act", the end goal becomes off limits.

Like if he gives an official speech and in that speech tells you to kill his wife, and you do. That is an an official act and he would be immune. Though killing his wife wouldn't be an unofficial act, because he told you to do so in an official speech, you have no proof of it, because you can't use those words to prosecute him.

That is for the lower courts to decide what is official or not

Then the defence and prosecutors will argue in court

raumdeuter:


the bold is exactly what the SCOTUS said and you have an issue with it

I think the difference, I believe the the province of his official acts is quite broad.
So, there is little difference to me between what they allowed to be immune and all his possible actions.

Sotomayor: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

Laurene:
They truly understand these things but their hate for Trump wouldn't let them reason... It's just partisanship!
They're all coping over X(formerly Twitter) and it's glorious .

The reverse would have been the case if Obama was standing trial.

Besides politics has entered the courts as democrats initiated that during the trial of Robert Bork back in the 80s, Thomas' confirmation in the 90s, Alito's confirmation in 2005 and the worst of all Kavanaugh's confirmation in 2018... So they have no reason to cry foul now

This is a perfectly-timed also a delay strategy (due to the politics involved)...Thomas and Alito wouldn't love Biden or a Democrat to name their replacement as they're definitely retiring if Trump wins.

Their tears is delicious.
Ain't expending any time in a back and forth with TDS patients about the ruling.
We move.

Next up is Merchan.

-Lord

ijebosb:


Sotomayer spoke to this in her dissent.

Then its left for the lower court to decide if he used his powers in the way Sotomayor is suggesting.

The simple thing is there are protected official acts and unprotected unofficial acts

or does Sotomayor expect the SCOTUS to say All President acts are NOT covered under immunity? Then that is opening a different kettle which might include the killing of Osama Suleimani, Zarqarwhi etc where all former POTUS are going to face criminal proceedings

To you which of these will be right?

All President acts are covered under immunity
or
All president acts are NOT covered under immunity