- law dawg
- 52 Comments
- 1893 Views
Here’s your space to discuss the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States and the legal merits of any other topic of national interest, i.e. ramifications, other decisions, etc.. Please keep this discussion 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.
Orange Man BAD!
I will not stand for this Tony the Tiger defamation!
Sleepy man good
It does not seem like much of a stretch. Official acts have to be immune, else a President could/would never act. Common sense. I think the significance of the decision is to illustrate over reach by a prosecutor.
Yeah, I can’t stand the guy, but official acts cannot be prosecuted. And, I don’t really care in this particular case whether or not the acts in question are official or if they are prosecuted.
If the majority of voters end up wanting this guy to be the president I find that pretty sad, but also trying to prevent him from running or holding office because of some the people that worship at his cult are violent probably results in more violent backlash.
Very slippery slope indeed. Does a prior president get prosecuted for drone striking U.S. citizens that were overseas?
Does a prior president get prosecuted for utilizing FBI/NSA spy services against his political party’s main opposition during a past campaign?
Without this decision, each of the last 5 presidents (probably more) has potential criminal liability for acts done while in office (ignoring SoL issues).
Certainly on the table at this point.
There is no SOL for treason, as specified in 18 USC §3281, which states:
“An indictment for any offense punishable by death may be found at any time without limitation.
I’m curious how you’d respond to the dissent’s argument that the decision permits: “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune”
I think reasonable people agree presidential immunity for certain things make sense, but this decision goes too far.
I’m curious from those more knowledgeable, does the immunity trickle down the entire executive branch?
2:19 false premise, just bc said in dissent don’t make it so, no one really thinks assassinations official duty
>no one really thinks assassinations official duty
Maybe you should check the majority opinion. Commanding the armed forces is absolutely an official duty. Why can’t a president just use his official duties to assassinate someone?
Pardons are an official duty too. Why can’t a president just accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon?
What about selling judicial or ambassador appointments through bribes?
@2:19
Good points. However, by your reasoning Obama, who intentionally targeted and killed an American citizen, should be on trial for murder.
I’m a lifelong democrat and I agree, he should be. No one should be above the law. I’d convict Obama of murder if the evidence at trial showed he deliberately killed US citizens with drone strikes. We all should. When did it become controversial to say presidents shouldn’t be allowed to order the murder of US citizens?
I guess if this is true, Biden, could right now order the assassination of his political rivals? What are the limits, etc?
That’s nonsense. Assassination of a political rival is in no way “official”. Taking a bribe is in no way official.
I thought this was the common understanding, cry more libtards
need a hug?
Weird that this comment was left up. Offensive, ignorant, and contributes nothing to the conversation.
No Thwack for you, cry harder.
There are clearly others that have a lot more to worry about than 45.
The law should be applied evenly without passion whether the President is a Republican, Democrat, or third Party.
Agreed and this case seems to set the stage for that very thing.
I’m a legal genius! I’m the new Dershowitz! I told my cousin last night – protected fur official n not for unofficial! I rule!!
If skin is orange, no immunity. For all non-orange skin, full immunity.
You are correct. Think of how many acts in official capacity are made that the other side would say are criminal e.g., EVERY military action.
1:40pm, to be fair…. over the last 20+ years, there have been several “military actions” that we would consider a war crime if another country committed them.
The basic premise of differentiating between official acts in furtherance of their constitutional duties receiving absolute immunity and non-official acts receiving no immunity receiving no immunity makes sense. It’s all the stuff in the middle that is problematic. A president makes many “official” acts which may not be in the furtherance of their constitutional duties. What should the rule or test be for those “official” acts.
I would suggest the test for those middle category acts be simply: if done for the benefit of the nation then immune, if done for personal benefit then not immune. That nation/personal benefit test should also apply to constitutional duties actions as well.
I like your observations. I am going to use this analysis to discuss the decision with my 80-year old parents.
There’s a problem when the issue of whether something was an act that is immune or not is left intentionally vague, such that the question will ultimately be decided on a case-by-case basis by the SCOTUS. So now you have a group of 9 people with no code of ethics, who will decide, based on unannounced, undefined factors which presidents go to Shawshank. Oh and those 9 people can accept bribes (or gratuities!) with impunity.
Nonsense. Its a question of first impression. This is actually a very clear question of first impression.
Nonsense? Given the fact they are green lighting crime, maybe they should be very clear about the limits of the acceptable crime – unless they didn’t want to so they can be the gods to which presidents must answer.
“Green lighting crime” lol!!
The last 7 presidents are war criminals (at minimum), by definition. Should we prosecute them all?
Has anyone actually read the full opinion and dissent as it is 119 pages. I would bet 90% have not, but take their talking points from whatever propaganda program they watch on TV.
I have not read it. I do not watch TV. I’m so disgusted with the supreme court, I have no interest in reading their gibberish. Every single one of those charlatans testified under oath that they would follow precedent and they have not. They have carried water for the far right in virtually every single opinion they’ve written, undoing generations of legal precedent and undermining our way of life. It’s really sad.
11:39am clearly watches TV but claims not to – lol!
The Maddow patrol has arrived and is crying . . . harder.
“gibberish” “follow precedent”
🤣
🤣
Last time I checked, SCOTUS was the body that SET the fucking precedent and has repeatedly overturned itself.
Ever heard of Brown v. BOE? You should be ashamed at your inability to objectively and with intellectual honesty look beyond your TDS at the actual outcome of this case.
Maybe you should find a more suitable profession.
Okay 12:13 troll boy. The Brown decision was about more freedom and protecting the rights of the individual. That correlates directly with Roe in that Roe too was about more freedom and protecting the rights of the individual. Before Brown, the individual’s rights were curtailed. Before Roe and after Dobbs, the individual’s rights were curtailed. It’s odd that you direct me to find a more suitable profession when I had to point that out. Did you not take Con Law? Or did you get your law degree in a strip mall law school? This Court has taken the country backwards in that it continues to restrict the rights of the individual to achieve the aims of the far right. The individuals most directly impacted also happen to largely be female.
It’s not the far right. As much as it butt hurts you, it’s the mid, average moral person.
Troll boy here.
Pretty sure that my mid-4 digit bar number and upper tier 2 JD allows me to say that your feelings are showing and your objectivity is nonexistent. As I said, find a new profession.
“mid-4 digit bar number and upper tier 2 JD”
Hello, fellow traveler.
“upper tier 2 JD” hahahaha How are you claiming to have a mid-4 digit bar number and still trying to flex with your silly law school ranking? BTW I too attended an upper tier 2 school. I just don’t use it to try to win arguments.
Boyd doesn’t count as a upper tier 2 school and you started it with your ad hominem “strip mall” comments.
I did not attend Boyd. The strip mall comment was aimed at a specific pseudo attorney who attended an un-accredited law school in CA and who cannot even apply for the Bar because of it, but who likes to fashion themselves as a constitutional law expert and who likes to comment on this blog. And since we’re talking ad hominem attacks, you started it. Not my fault your analytical skills don’t extend beyond the tip of your nose.
Time for a dickploma measuring contest
12:31pm – even RBG has stated that Roe has no underpinnings in the constitution or precedent. It was judge-made law.
As I am sure you know, SCOTUS did not “curtail” any abortion rights in Dobbs, they simply concluded that the Constitution leaves this up to the states (which I would submit is much more democratic than 9 unelected judges saying what rights we do and don’t have!!).
Ahem . . . . you mean . .St. Ruth.
Don’t you?
That’s a BS argument and you know it. The Court knew exactly what it was doing. There were states that had laws already in place so that if Roe was overturned, abortion would become illegal overnight. Next on the list is IVF and then birth control. You can keep acting like it’s dEmOcRaCy, but the Court has been hijacked by religious zealots for the purpose of advancing a far right agenda that includes state control over women’s bodies, little to no regulation of the environment, and unfettered power for the 1%. Also, this isn’t a democracy. Didn’t you learn that in your tier 2 law school back in 1988?
OK, Chicken Little. the sky is truly falling. . . .🙄🙄
Troll here.
1998. THX
4:24 – I sincerely cannot tell if you’re sincere or satire. lol!
The left cannot meme.