₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Just heard this on CNN too, but its not an understanding I share and its based on the sky falling, a feeling I know you share.

If that's not ur understanding, your understanding is wrong. At this point, you are arguing the definition of immunity or simply don't understood the ruling. It's the top line summation of the decision.

PDGguy posted a summation of the ruling.

PDPGuy:
Here's a detailed summary of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States:

...
2. Court's Ruling:
- The Court held that under the constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to some immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his Presidency.

3. New Immunity Framework:
a. Core Constitutional Powers:
- The President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.

b. Other Official Acts:
- The President is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.
- This presumptive immunity can potentially be overcome if applying a criminal prohibition would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

c. Unofficial Acts:
- There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
...
6. Evidentiary Ruling:
- The Court held that evidence of official acts for which a President is immune cannot be admitted at trial, even to prove intent or knowledge for non-immune acts.

Here is a good thread if you want to understand why your "We the People" argument falls flat.
https://x.com/Mike_Podhorzer/status/1807816938589991189

budaatum:
I read.



Explain how a president is immune from the bold please.

Immunity supersedes everything. Once something is immune, nothing can change that. It's similar to the lawyer client privilege and doctor patient privilege. But in those cases there are exceptions. The Supreme Court decided that this immunity is almost sacosant. It has to do with the separation of powers as well. So, the Supreme Court decided that the president's ability to make bold decisions as long as it's via some official act is more important than any laws that may be broken.

As to impeachment, is is largely a political process. The congress mostly decides what constitutes high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Now a president can be inpeached for an official act because Congress just doesnt agree with. In fact it doesn't have to be even illegal per se. Once a president is impeached and removed they can be charged and convicted. Buy now the Supreme Court just bestowed immunity for official acts. So even if they are impeached and removed. As long as it's an official act they won't be prosecuted.

budaatum:
Your example was a bad example.

If a president is impeached, it is because their act is considered to be "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. U.S. Const. art. II, § 4", which is illegal and not an official act, so they can be prosecuted, is what you miss.

Can I be honest, you sound as if you don't have enough understanding of this topic to even post remotely intelligently on it. This post is silly. It's clear u don't understand immunity or impeachment. Impeachment is a political process. Immunity means no one can prosecute him. I can repeat this a nother 5 times and you'll continue repeating the same lie.

Do some reading on this topic because u are spreading misinformation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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.

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!!

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.

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:
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.

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

This is factually wrong based on Robert's own writing in the ruling. You cannot take motivation into deciding official and unofficial acts.
I found the section.
So as long as the act is official, even if he had a corrupt motive like trying to kill Biden to win an election, he would still be immuned.
As I said it's the vehicle (or the official act) POTUS uses that matters, not the outcome or motivation.

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

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 trump Republicans has moved to.

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

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

bemeruca:
The constitution already answered

Link the section of the constitution which answers this.

Another good tweet.
Article II power means it's a core Constitutional Power in which a President gets automatic immunity.

raumdeuter:
I have read and this is what John Roberts said

You read the whole ruling?

What do you think what you highlighted had to do with what we were talking about?
That is like the abridged version of the ruling.
I'm far beyond that, you should be as well.
I am talking about the details. As in whether motivation and purpose will be used to determine official acts.
Your highlighted post doesn't come close to addressing that.

raumdeuter:
Who determine what is official and what is not?

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

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

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:
Thats your reading of it, Then they should go prove it in court, and appeal it to SCOTUS. If all layers of the courts agree that its an official act

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:
if the defence prosecution and lower courts are dumb enough to agree that its an official act. There is still the SCOTUS to adjudicate

I have faith in the justice system they probably wont unlike in Nigeria

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.

raumdeuter:
If courts decide and you appeal to SCOTUS you bring specific cases not blanket ruling

There might be some where the POTUS will have immunity and some where he doesnt. It is on a case by case basis

That is how law nd justice system works

Killing Osama is not same as killing Joe Random

Let me try this again,
Say a POTUS's official act is driving a car.
He says in a meeting with a DOJ official he intends to drive his car and kill Biden.
He then drives his Car and kills Biden.
He is immune. In fact they can't even question the discussion he had with the DOJ.
Doesn't matter the reason he chose to kill Biden, as long as he was performing his official act he is immune.
That is my reading of it.

raumdeuter:
when they are unable to decide, they should bring that specific case to the SCOTUS. They shouldnt be asking for blanket immunity or blanket non-immunity. That is irresponsible

Killing Osama is not equal to killing Joe Random

Even if courts do decide. Anyone can appeal the decision to SCOTUS. It's not a matter of them not being able to decide.
That's not how US courts work.
I'm telling you how it works and you ignore it and repeat the same thing.

Laurene:
She's a hack... Hopefully Trump gets to replace her.

Simmer down. In the US, unlike in Nigeria, Presidents can't replace Federal justices because they feel they can.
Now given this ruling, Trump could have Seal Team 6 kill her and then nominate someone to replace her.

raumdeuter:
SCOTUS has pushed that back to the lower courts, there are a million and one acts a politician can do while in power. Let the lower courts sort it out which is official and which is unofficial

But the SCOTUS has stated official are covered, unofficial are covered. Now the other lower courts should get to work

You keep repeating the same thing on a loop.
People have the ability to appeal to SCOTUS. So SCOTUS will then be the one deciding.
They have given themselves the power to decide this.
You do understand this don't you. That you can't/won't acknowledge it is odd. As if not acknowledging it makes it not real.

raumdeuter:
the bold is exactly what the SCOTUS said and you have an issue with it

I think the difference, I believe the the province of his official acts is quite broad.
So, there is little difference to me between what they allowed to be immune and all his possible actions.

raumdeuter:
You are missing the point, Osama and Suleimani killing will fall under official killing, Joe Random even if he is a criminal/killer as long as he hasnt been found guilty by court. You have no right to order his killing. is an unofficial killing

You will be prosecuted for Joe Random, you have immunity for Osama

Sotomayer spoke to this in her dissent.

Hilarious

raumdeuter:
You are missing the point, Osama and Suleimani killing will fall under official killing, Joe Random even if he is a criminal/killer as long as he hasnt been found guilty by court. You have no right to order his killing. is an unofficial killing

You will be prosecuted for Joe Random, you have immunity for Osama

I think you are missing the point. If he uses a process that is part of his Presidential powers to kill Joe Random, you can't even question why he did it by this ruling. Once he uses a process that is considered an "official act", the end goal becomes off limits.

Like if he gives an official speech and in that speech tells you to kill his wife, and you do. That is an an official act and he would be immune. Though killing his wife wouldn't be an unofficial act, because he told you to do so in an official speech, you have no proof of it, because you can't use those words to prosecute him.

sanpipita:
Lol

The first is part of the ruling.
The second Barrett who was in the majority disagreeing with this line of thinking.