- law dawg
- 28 Comments
- 1433 Views
We’re giving this another shot. As is often obvious from the comments, there are several of you with a desire to be able to discuss legal topics that are not necessarily Vegas centric. Here’s your chance. If you want to discuss the legal merits of a topic of national interest, i.e. the Nevada Presidential Preference Primary; the appeal court ruling regarding Trump’s immunity in 2020 criminal election case; the U.S. Supreme Court considering on Thursday whether the insurrection provision will keep Trump off the ballot; etc, feel free to do so in the comment section of this post. We ask that you remain civil in your discussion and refrain from personal attacks on politicians or mere recitation of political rhetoric.
Police have immunity in the performance of their duties involving discretion. So should the President IF in the performance of duty. Surely this can be agreed to by both sides of the aisle. Do not let politics divide us.
Yeah because we see how police immunity works out and certainly there are no problems, complaints or concerns with its application.
So that there is a problem is your argument against it? Pretty weak.
There’s a distinct difference in the law between actions taken as as candidate and actions taken by the officeholder. Also, as the DC Circuit points out, it’s an unsettled question. Civil immunity for actions taken in the performance of his duty, sure but criminal immunity?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208593677.0_2.pdf
So long as it is within the scope of their duties. I don’t find that calling the Georgia secretary of state and pressuring them to commit election fraud falls within the purview of POTUS.
Keep shooting those uninformed opinions. The audio from the call is widely available. Take a listen and don’t sound like you only care enough to parrot the Maddow talking points.
If you’re only wanting to make sure that all the lawful votes get counted, wouldn’t you tell a governor to make sure they accurately counted the votes?
Or would you tell the governor that you just need them to find 11,780 votes for you?
“So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
I think that subsequent to Mack v Williams that most if not all qualified immunity under state law is a thing of the past, unless the legislature intends to reverse the case. It still exists under federal case law, but even there SCOTUS has been trimming the edges of the doctrine. I will defer to the opinion of those who may be better informed than I.
Not exactly. There are two exceptions to the police immunity doctrine as codified. The one that is most relevant is that an officer may not create a situation that affirmatively causes the harm. Doing so, results in personal liability.
As much as I approve of Trump’s performance in office (but not his running his mouth on twitter) it is difficult to see how your comparison results in presidential immunity for non-official duty acts or conduct.
I think the merits of the appeals court decision are correct. The Founders really seemed to not like the idea of having a king, and confirming that the executive does not enjoy blanket immunity is the right result.
Not trolling my friend but I didn’t read the opinion. Is there immunity in performance of duty?
“We also have considered his contention that he is entitled to categorical immunity from criminal liability for any assertedly “official” action that he took as President — a contention that is unsupported by precedent, history or the text and structure of the Constitution.”
Assuming you’re referring to criminal immunity, no, there’s not.
BMO’s droning US citizens in the mid east seems wrong and shouldn’t be clothed by immunity.
Be careful what you wish for. Under this approach, every president from Bush 1 through Biden could be prosecuted for any myriad of actions, which include everything from bombing civilians to money laundering.
Ok, so no one is above the law? Yeah I’m ok with that.
I don’t get why this argument is so often presented as a “gotcha” like I have giant Obama and Biden flags flying from the back of my Toyota Prius and I’d be personally damaged if they were charged for criminal activity.
If people break the law, charge them.
“I’m saying if the President does it, it’s not illegal.”
Is that really what you want? The Nixon standard?
Yeah, that’s not what anybody is talking about. Trump trying to pressure state officials to change election results can never reasonably be argued to be in anyone’s interests except Trump’s. Right, wrong or otherwise decisions to engage in even morally questionable activities in furtherance of national interests are clearly protected.
There’s a learning lesson here for all attorneys, that you need to tee up your arguments and make them consistent.
E.g., don’t argue “you don’t need to impeach, just leave it to the criminal justice system” and then tell the court that you can’t be indicted because you weren’t (convicted and) impeached.
E.g., don’t tell the court “I’m absolutely immune from criminal prosecution” while also arguing “but yeah I could be prosecuted if I had been impeached first”
This inconsistency bothers me as well, but 95% of the public doesn’t understand or care.
If SCOTUS says it was an insurrection, there’ll be another insurrection. The justices know that.
Plenty of room in the prisons for the next round.
This is actually very true. Private prisons are making a massive comeback.
Terrorists gonna terrorize. Arrest and charge them just like everyone else.
Bro do you even do politics? Not all lawsuits are about the substantive questions therein. He wanted delay and he got it. Whatever side you’re on, that’s a fact.
That’s exactly right. Nobody expected the Court to adopt that crazy absolute immunity garbage. Trump is trying to run out the clock. Whether he is successful or not really depends on whether SCOTUS grants or denies cert after the full COA panel affirms. Anything other than a denial of cert will be a massive win for Trump. If SCOTUS denies cert, he is fucked. I predict denial of cert simply because it keeps them (SCOTUS) out of the circus, it’s the path of least resistance. But I could be wrong.
based on what I’m seeing about how the Supreme Court hearing went, it is unlikely that Trump will be kept off the ballot.
And Biden can break laws with impunity because he is mentally incompetent.