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.

This is wrong.
And you are wrong.
Per this ruling, Trump could use an official act even with corrupt intent to kill someone and get off because it was an official act.
This is not hyperbole.

It does give Biden the same right. The difference I've been trying to get you to understand is that Dems don't believe anyone should have that right. Dems generally believe in the structures of Democracy not just Power. So, even though the Dems control the White House, they are upset over this.

ijebosb:


This is factually wrong based on Robert's own writing in the ruling. You cannot take motivation into deciding official and unofficial acts.

Since you already have the Constitution that determines the official duties of a president, you don't need motive to determine if a president shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is official act or not.

budaatum:


No, I don't think the dissenters would dissent if they were not suffering from TDS. And I in fact find it shameful that Sotomayor would say what was said below. Its what I'd expect from a biased left wing non-maga Supreme Court Judge Mrs Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, since the ruling does not place any president above the law.

Stuff like this is what is making people say this.

Since the president is bound by the A5th and A14th does not allow the president to point and kill whoever he does not like.

budaatum:


No, I don't think the dissenters would dissent if they were not suffering from TDS. And I in fact find it shameful that Sotomayor would say what was said below. Its what I'd expect from a biased left wing non-maga Supreme Court Judge Mrs Virginia "Ginni" Thomas, since the ruling does not place any president above the law.

The founders of the US, debated this. They wrote Congressional immunity into the Constitution but did not write in Presidential immunity. Purposefully. The country was founded on the ideal that no man is above the law. We have no Kings. The Supreme Court just changed that.

You should find a constitutional lawyer you respect and read some of their opinions on this.

budaatum:


Since you already have the Constitution that determines the official duties of a president, you don't need motive to determine if a president shooting someone on Fifth Avenue is official act or not.

That's a bad understanding of the Constitutional Powers and Presidential Duties.
Ex. The Constitution gives the President control over the military. By this ruling the motivations of he uses it can't be questioned.
If he wants to use his war powers to drone someone. Ey. That's his right. Lol
Read the ruling.

ijebosb:


This is wrong.
And you are wrong.
Per this ruling, Trump could use an official act even with corrupt intent to kill someone and get off because it was an official act.
This is not hyperbole.

It does give Biden the same right. The difference I've been trying to get you to understand is that Dems don't believe anyone should have that right. Dems generally believe in the structures of Democracy not just Power. So, even though the Dems control the White House, they are upset over this.

This is your own understanding, and in my opinion, is hyperbole.

If Biden were to agree with you, he will just arrange another official debate and shoot dump on national tv and be immune from persecution because "it was an official act".

But I'm very certain Republicans will not agree this ruling gives Biden that right, and neither does Biden, I hope.

ijebosb:


The founders of the US, debated this. They wrote Congressional immunity into the Constitution but did not right in Presidential immunity. Purposefully. The country was founded on the ideal that no man is above the law. We have no Kings. The Supreme Court just changed that.

You should find a constitutional lawyer you respect and read some of their opinions on this.

So if Biden kills his wife he won't be charged for that?
The 5th amendment does not allow that.

raumdeuter:


An individual doesn't define what is an official act. The office he occupies has rules

If he decides not leave, won't even be a question. Did Trump want to leave or not?

Did he leave or he didn't? That's America and why it's not a banana republic

He didn't want to leave and you know that. What happened when he didn't want to leave never happened in the history of the US. The US has been known for the peaceful transfer of power and for the first time in US History. 2020 took a violent turn and we all watched on TV when Democracy in America nearly went up in flames.

If Democracy fails in the US,it fails in developing countries like ours because the US won't have any moral standing to condem election rigging or coup by sit tight leaders

And Yes,With this ruling Trump has just been given a free pass to stay in power because he will claim being under official acts.

Someone that tried to stay beyond power when this type of ruling wasn't in place,will stay in power with this type of ruling.

Leave sentiments aside and look at the broader picture.

Trump or anybody will decide to stay in power citing the election being rigged when they were not rigged and claim "Official Acts".

That is what I'm saying

Cefini

budaatum:


This is your own understanding, and in my opinion, is hyperbole.

If Biden were to agree with you, he will just arrange another official debate and shoot dump on national tv and be immune from persecution because "it was an official act".

But I'm very certain Republicans will not agree this ruling gives Biden that right, and neither does Biden, I hope.

No he wouldn't as the parties are not the same.
At some point you are going to have to understand that.
Dems believe the shit they sell. Peace, Love, Democracy, rule of Law.
It's the reason Biden will let his son go to jail while Trump pardons everyone.

You're understanding of this ruling is off.
This is not hyperbole!!

ijebosb:


That's a bad understanding of the Constitutional Powers and Presidential Duties.
Ex. The Constitution gives the President control over the military. By this ruling the motivations of he uses it can't be questioned.
If he wants to use his war powers to drone someone. Ey. That's his right. Lol
Read the ruling.

I have read the ruling in its entirety, but perhaps I missed the bit where the president is immune if he ordered the military to go shoot dump, so please show me that bit I missed pleased. I want dump shot!

ijebosb:


That's a bad understanding of the Constitutional Powers and Presidential Duties.
Ex. The Constitution gives the President control over the military. By this ruling the motivations of he uses it can't be questioned.
If he wants to use his war powers to drone someone. Ey. That's his right. Lol
Read the ruling.

The constitution and the system does not allow trump to misuse the military.

ijebosb:


No he wouldn't as the parties are not the same.
At some point you are going to have to understand that.
Dems believe the shit they sell. Peace, Love, Democracy, rule of Law.
It's the reason Biden will let his son go to jail while Trump pardons everyone.

You're understanding of this ruling is off.
This is not hyperbole!!

So, you think this ruling gives dump the right to go shoot someone on fifth avenue and be immune because he is Republican?

I so wish dump agrees with you and goes to shoot someone on fifth avenue so we can see if it is hyperbole or not.

bemeruca:


The constitution and the system does not allow trump to misuse the military.

Judges have immunity for their decisions. The president should have some too, no?

budaatum:


I have read the ruling in its entirety, but perhaps I missed the bit where the president is immune if he ordered the military to go shoot dump, so please show me that bit I missed pleased. I want dump shot!

Dems don't want Trump shot.
THe ruling requires an understanding of Constituionally defined Presidential powers or Core power.
Then it moves on to official acts.

The court has just said the powers defined by the President in the Constitution are Immune from prosecution. Period. So, it doesn't matter why he uses them they way he does because they are immune. In fact you can't even ask the motivations. So, it follows if one of his powers is controlling the military, he could tell them to do anything and no one could question him. Anything like kill a rival. You get.

happney65:


And Yes,With this ruling Trump has just been given a free pass to stay in power because he will claim being under official acts.

Sorry, but this is not true.

The president does not decide what official acts are. The Constitution of the United States of America does, and it clearly states when a president shall leave office.

basilico:


Judges have immunity for their decisions. The president should have some too, no?

Funniest part is one partisan ewu will come and tell the president what is official and what is not in a office he has never held.

It's like going into a company and telling them manager that his use or official vehicles to attend meetings is not official use of company's assets

budaatum:


So, you think this ruling gives dump the right to go shoot someone on fifth avenue and be immune because he is Republican?

I so wish dump agrees with you and goes to shoot someone on fifth avenue so we can see if it is hyperbole or not.

Trump is not currently President so no.
And if Trump went and himself shot someone on Fifth ave he wouldn't have immunity.
But if he used an "official act" or a "Core Constitutional Power" to shoot someone of fifth ave, he would be immune.

budaatum:


Sorry, but this is not true.

The president does not decide what official acts are. The Constitution of the United States of America does, and it clearly states when a president shall leave office.

I already told them that but tds coupled with falling sky will not allow them accept fact.

budaatum:


Sorry, but this is not true.

The president does not decide what official acts are. The Constitution of the United States of America does, and it clearly states when a president shall leave office.

The way you are thinking about this is very limited.

bemeruca:


Clearance Thomas is there

LOL!!

ijebosb:


Dems don't want Trump shot.
THe ruling requires an understanding of Constituionally defined Presidential powers or Core power.
Then it moves on to official acts.

The court has just said the powers defined by the President in the Constitution are Immune from prosecution. Period. So, it doesn't matter why he uses them they way he does because they are immune. In fact you can't even ask the motivations. So, it follows if one of his powers is controlling the military, he could tell them to do anything and no one could question him. Anything like kill a rival. You get.

The court has not "just said the powers defined by the President in the Constitution are Immune from prosecution"!

To start with, the president does not define his powers. The constitution does. And there's nowhere it says he can order the military to kill his rival!

Besides, simple reasoning would dictate that if what you claim is true, all acts of dump while in office are immune because he used presidential powers, but I'm certain he still has a case since:

"Instead, the high court's ruling sets the stage for hearings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on what allegations in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment should be considered official acts and, therefore, potentially immune from prosecution".

Those that are considered unofficial, if any, will be prosecuted, if time allows of course.

budaatum:


Sorry, but this is not true.

The president does not decide what official acts are. The Constitution of the United States of America does, and it clearly states when a president shall leave office.

But the constitution was clear on the transfer of power which Trump told his supporters to go and "Stop the steal" Isn't it? Did they not? Did Trump not try to stop it?

If Pence had been killed that night by the mob,do you think the peaceful transfer of power would happen?

Now,that didn't happen,but with this Judgement,any baga can decide to stay in power. And we know who will want to stay in power citing "official ACTS"

May the universe spare our lives

ijebosb:


Trump is not currently President so no.
And if Trump went and himself shot someone on Fifth ave he wouldn't have immunity.
But if he used an "official act" or a "Core Constitutional Power" to shoot someone of fifth ave, he would be immune.

I do not agree that a dump in office can claim he was performing his official duty if he shoots someone on fifth avenue and is therefore immune.

I do not believe America is so dumb and stupid that they would claim this ruling claims and accepts nonsense like that.

Even his acts in the current hearings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan still need to determine what is official or not, and I am willing to wait on her ruling instead of letting the sky fall on my head.

happney65:


But the constitution was clear on the transfer of power which Trump told his supporters to go and "Stop the steal" Isn't it? Did they not? Did Trump not try to stop it?

And that is precisely why he still has a case before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan.

It is not his official duty to not uphold the Constitution of the United States of America that he swore to uphold. And in fact, not upholding the Constitution is a treasonable offence that the President is not immune from prosecution from whether acting officially or not. And I hope Jack Smith adds that to the charge if he hasn't already.

budaatum:


The court has not "just said the powers defined by the President in the Constitution are Immune from prosecution"!

To start with, the president does not define his powers. The constitution does. And there's nowhere it says he can order the military to kill his rival!

Besides, simple reasoning would dictate that if what you claim is true, all acts of dump while in office are immune because he used presidential powers, but I'm certain he still has a case since:

"Instead, the high court's ruling sets the stage for hearings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan on what allegations in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment should be considered official acts and, therefore, potentially immune from prosecution".

Those that are considered unofficial, if any, will be prosecuted, if time allows of course.

That should have been "Powers defined for the President"
Simple ex.
Say if the Constitution says a Presidential act is driving.
Now, while the President is driving, he decides to kill someone because he doesn't like the shirt they are wearing.
He is immune from Prosecution. Why?
Because he is perfuming a Constitutional defined power, driving. And the courts can't ask the motivation of why he did something if he is doing a constitutionally defined act.
Ya get?

But did this with you yesterday. And already today with Raum.
So, I'm going to bow out.
I guarantee you it's not as simple as you are making it seem.
Find a US constitutional lawyer (maybe a prof who teaches constitutional law) and read some of their views on this case.

ijebosb:


The founders of the US, debated this. They wrote Congressional immunity into the Constitution but did not write in Presidential immunity. Purposefully. The country was founded on the ideal that no man is above the law. We have no Kings. The Supreme Court just changed that.

You should find a constitutional lawyer you respect and read some of their opinions on this.

This ruling has not placed any president above the law! It has just placed a president's official acts above the law. But you seem to think a president ordering the murder of their opponents by the military is an official act for some reason, and I do not agree with your understanding.

budaatum:


I do not agree that a dump in office can claim he was performing his official duty if he shoots someone on fifth avenue and is therefore immune.

I do not believe America is so dumb and stupid that they would claim this ruling claims and accepts nonsense like that.

Even his acts in the current hearings before U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan still need to determine what is official or not, and I am willing to wait on her ruling instead of letting the sky fall on my head.

It does allow for it if he does it by using an official act.
But, this is that Ego speaking.

America is not dumb and stupid. But, there has been a well funded effort to get certain conservatives on the Courts to use the courts to make structural changes to the US. As Republicans fear they can't do so by making laws via Congress as they can't win elections as they are in the minority. Those people have won. The Court does not represent a majority of the US population.

ijebosb:

That should have been "Powers defined for the President"
Simple ex.
Say if the Constitution says a Presidential act is driving.
Now, while the President is driving, he decides to kill someone because he doesn't like the shirt they are wearing.
He is immune from Prosecution. Why?
Because he is perfuming a Constitutional defined power, driving.

Stop right there! Lol!

Where does his "perfuming a Constitutional defined power, driving" include "kill someone"?

Dude please, you live in America, and you should know that even if a president is not charged in court for killing someone because of the shirt they wear, Congress may decide to impeach that president and ask for their prosecution. And even if Congress don't, you still have the jury of We The People who may decide to find that president guilty and punish all those Congress members for not performing their duty of protecting the Constitution of the Unite State of America.

Or do you think a party not winning an election for a generation would not be a deterrent or punishment enough?

Or is it that you think the voters in America wouldn't mind electing presidents who kill people for the shirts they wear?

budaatum:


Stop right there! Lol!

Where does his "perfuming a Constitutional defined power, driving" include "kill someone"?

Dude please, you live in America, and you should know that even if a president is not charged in court for killing someone because of the shirt they wear, Congress may decide to impeach that president and ask for their prosecution. And even if Congress don't, you still have the jury of We The People who may decide to find that president guilty and punish all those Congress members for not performing their duty of protecting the Constitution of the Unite State of America.

Or do you think a party not winning an election for a generation would not be a deterrent or punishment enough?

Or is it that you think the voters in America wouldn't mind electing presidents who kill people for the shirts they wear?

The sky is falling.

They make up shit as they go

budaatum:


Stop right there! Lol!

Where does his "perfuming a Constitutional defined power, driving" include "kill someone"?

Dude please, you live in America, and you should know that even if a president is not charged in court for killing someone because of the shirt they wear, Congress may decide to impeach that president and ask for their prosecution. And even if Congress don't, you still have the jury of We The People who may decide to find that president guilty and punish all those Congress members for not performing their duty of protecting the Constitution of the Unite State of America.

Or do you think a party not winning an election for a generation would not be a deterrent or punishment enough?

Or is it that you think the voters in America wouldn't mind electing presidents who kill people for the shirts they wear?

It was an example.
I think you are having a hard time grasping the concept of immunity, or official acts or presidential core powers.
If they are immune, they can be impeached but not prosecuted by ANYONE, no matter who asks.
Trump tried to steal an election and almost directed a coup. He is close to winning the Presidency.
You cultural understanding of what is going on in the US is lacking.

ijebosb:


It was an example.
I think you are having a hard time grasping the concept of immunity, or official acts or presidential core powers.
If they are immune, they can be impeached but not prosecuted by ANYONE, no matter who asks.
Trump tried to steal an election and almost directed a coup. He is close to winning the Presidency.
You cultural understanding of what is going on in the US is lacking.

I told you it was a bad example.

ijebosb:


Those people have won. The Court does not represent a majority of the US population.

Ijebos, those people have not won. If anything, they won a battle, and I'm arguing they haven't, note. They definitely have not won the ongoing war. And seriously, I do hate when you make it sound like you are weak and have lost, when I know you will fight till your dying breath and even your rotted bones so they lose!

If Americans agree with you that "The Court does not represent a majority of the US population", then the majority of the US population just need to elect people who represent them so judges who represent them get to be placed in the court.

It is a democracy after all, no?