791–800 of 1001 posts
"Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity, If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backs…
It's interesting that even in the Roman Republic the immunity ended after the end of your term, and you could be prosecuted for official acts taken during it. And even let to Caesar fighting to keep himself in office at all times to avoid inevitable prosecution. https://theconversation.com/from-caesar-to-trump-immunity-is...
Awfully bold of you to assume we are better governed than Rome - back when ther was still such a thing as honor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you keep using the word “corruption?” This is an incredibly milquetoast opinion that says presidents retain immunity for some official acts while in office. Because that’s obviously true. When Trump wins again, he can’t prosecute Biden for deaths caused by Biden’s border policies. Because obviously. It’s shameful that it wasn’t 9-0.
> Why do you keep using the word “corruption?” I used it once. Because that’s why ancient democracies used selection by lot. My criticism isn’t of this ruling per se , but of the institution, which has swung from a stabilising branch of government to a constant source of chaos.
What are you talking about? The Supreme Court gutted the constitution in the mid-20th century, and anti-democratically reshaped society down to its foundations.
The supposed "chaos" comes entirely from liberals freaking out at the smallest retrenchment of their destabilizing prior precedents.
Surely the "impeachment exists" arguments are in bad faith. Otherwise, I'm convinced they've abandoned reason. Impeachment process takes time, and in that window, the president can do whatever. POTUS can even mobilize the army (an official power) to block congress from meeting, since apparently the motive behind the use of official power doesn't matter. If they can't meet, how are they going to impeach.
Of course they're in bad faith. The whole idea is to punt accountability off to something else endlessly. "We can't do X because Y already exists to handle that." Later: "We can't do Y because we already have Z." And thus: "X is the proper way to handle that, not Z."
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you keep using the word “corruption?” This is an incredibly milquetoast opinion that says presidents retain immunity for some official acts while in office. Because that’s obviously true. When Trump wins again, he can’t prosecute Biden for deaths caused by Biden’s border policies. Because obviously. It’s shameful that it wasn’t 9-0.
In software development, one of the biggest smells is being asked to implement a solution to something that isn't a problem that anyone actually has. In 250 years, for 44 presidents, not one of them has needed immunity from criminal prosecution. All this does is shield the man who attempted to use violence and a conspiracy to commit election fraud with a fake slate of electors to reverse the result of a legitimate de…
Can't help but wondering if Joe is contemplating Seal Team Six's summer plans right about now.
Right, the best way to avoid fascism is to become a fascist before your opponent does. In the name of democracy, of course.
Can anyone pencil out the real danger of this position? Sotomayors opinion seems to posit that a president can receive a bribe and pardon someone for that and this is an official, immune act. However, I don't think soliciting a bribe would be considered an official act of the POTUS, and by what I have been able to understand from this opinion would still be subject to prosecution. I also think that this opinion seems…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you conclude that? It is my understanding that the Nixon tapes were recordings of conversations Nixon had with campaign staff as a candidate, and as the Supreme Court held, actions taken as a candidate are not official actions and are therefore not subject to immunity.
If this ruling would have been in force back then, Nixon could have argued that the conversations were done in his official role as president. For example, a conversation with his chief of staff about ordering the CIA perform a coverup could be considered “official business” since he was talking to a top executive branch official and directing an executive branch agency to take an action. The distinction between “off…
Maybe, but does it follow that there's no protection for "official acts?" Go read some criminal statutes, and see what it would take for a creative red state prosecutor to pin something on Obama for ordering drone strikes killing American citizens. Or do you think Biden couldn't be charged with something in connection with his border policies?
Hoboy, I hope there's not another round of Trump...