bemeruca:

ijebosb:


So, the president controls the military. Described in the constitution. Using seal team 6 may even rise to Core Constitutional Power. The problem is the SCOTUS didn't include language for corrupt use of official acts/constitutional power.

ijebosb:


You think somehow they can take into account motivation or purpose. They can't. The purpose of the use of the official act could be corrupt it wouldn't matter one bit as long as the act is deemed official.

raumdeuter:


When you take specific cases to court they can determine motivation and purpose which will make it official or unofficial.

ijebosb:


They cannot. Period.
You are wrong.
Once it's official, it does not matter.
This is not me saying this. That is the law.

In fact that is the whole point the conservatives argued. They don't want to make immunity on official acts arbitrary. Once an act is official, the President should be able to do it without fear of legal consequences.

I just quoted you a brilliant attorney on it.

raumdeuter:


Who determine what is official and what is not?

A brilliant attorney is not the SCOTUS. Let her go and prove her case

ijebosb:


I'm not even sure what you mean. You are 100% absolutely wrong. You won't find anyone, even in support of the ruling saying what you are.

The rational of the ruling was to give POTUS the ability to exercise his/her official acts without fear of legal ramifications due to the outcome.
So if a court could scrutinize the outcome, how could he/she act without fear?
That has been the basis of all immunities. Even the immunity for Congress.

So, you are wholly missing the point of immunity and in fact the point of this ruling.
You should read it.
You're arguing your understanding which is flawed. Not what is in the ruling.

I hope you do at some point read it so you can understand how bad it really is.

raumdeuter:


All these are just to induce panic. She can add all the millions of scenarios to it, It doesnt change anything

Sotomayor should tell us what her ruling should be
Current ruling states its on a case by case, If she wants a blanket rule let her say which of the 2 options is she with
Is it

1. President does not have immunity from ALL acts
or
2. President does have immunity from ALL acts

So what is it?

raumdeuter:


I have read and this is what John Roberts said

happney65:


My brother,you still haven't answered this question.

If as president, you decide not to leave power and cite it as official isn't it not official and you are within your rights not to leave power because IMMUNITY covers you

bemeruca:


The constitution already answered

bemeruca:


The constitution already answered

happney65:


And which is?

ijebosb:


Link the section of the constitution which answers this.

bemeruca:


A20S1
The terms of VP and presido ends at noon 20th January

ijebosb:


You missed the point.
If they say they won't leave due to an official act. Who forces them out?
In fact if thy use their Core Constitutional power of the military to start a coup. Who forces them out?

ijebosb:


You missed the point.
If they say they won't leave due to an official act. Who forces them out?
In fact if thy use their Core Constitutional power of the military to start a coup. Who forces them out?
And if somehow enough people do decide to force them out, they just get to go home and chill out because they can't be prosecuted because they are immune.
Lol

ijebosb:
This is a good comment. The Dems who are in power are not cheering this ruling. But the Trumpers are. This says everything about the two parties and where conservatism under Republicans has moved to.

ijebosb:


You missed the point.
If they say they won't leave due to an official act. Who forces them out?
In fact if thy use their Core Constitutional power of the military to start a coup. Who forces them out?
And if somehow enough people do decide to force them out, they just get to go home and chill out because they can't be prosecuted because they are immune.
Lol

basilico:


Childish reasoning. Is there a clause in the constitution of your country that says except Trump

budaatum:
The dumpers are gaslighting as usual, and severe TDS is making some fall for their gas.

The Supreme Court has simply ruled that the District Court separate the president's official acts, duties which are defined by the Constitution and are immune, from the unofficial unconstitutional acts which are not.

But some are reading this as if dump can presidentially go shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Lol. Yet, they likely wouldn't claim it gives Biden that same right.

bemeruca:


The sky is falling.

bemeruca:


This is the sky is falling mentality

They claim he can do this and that. Show them the system does not allow that, they will say you don't understand and make up another scenario.

It only negates their claim of Trump being a dictator. While will he be asking someone to find votes which is not illegal instead of him to just use the military and stay in power.

all he has to say is 10% for the big guy

budaatum:
The dumpers are gaslighting as usual, and severe TDS is making some fall for their gas.

The Supreme Court has simply ruled that the District Court separate the president's official acts, duties which are defined by the Constitution and are immune, from the unofficial unconstitutional acts which are not.

But some are reading this as if dump can presidentially go shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Lol. Yet, they likely wouldn't claim it gives Biden that same right.

basilico:


Be honest for just one time

budaatum:


I am always honest. Try asking your question without.

happney65:


My brother,you still haven't answered this question.

If as president, you decide not to leave power and cite it as official isn't it not official and you are within your rights not to leave power because IMMUNITY covers you

raumdeuter:


When you take specific cases to court they can determine motivation and purpose which will make it official or unofficial.

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would
risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/23-939.pdf

basilico:

You think the three dissenters would give the same ruling if Clinton, Biden or Obama was slapped with a gazillion counts