₦airaland Forum

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.

bemeruca:
like if Biden sends the DOJ to kill a political opponent?

This is an interesting discussion and you're doing your childish lying trolling thing again. Pushing debunked disinformation.
Go to your corner and suck your thumb like the child you are.

raumdeuter:
How is spying on a rival an official act? If its official to you then go and argue it in lower court

Your missing the point. It's not the destination that determines whether it's official. It's the vehicle they use to get to the desitination.
If he sent the DOJ to spy on someone that by my reading of this would be an official act.

raumdeuter:
That argument s not for SCOTUS to be dissecting what is official and what is not official. That is left for prosecutor, defence and lower courts
What SCOTUS put out is that there are official acts which are covered and unofficial acts which are not covered. This is the most straightforward explanation

If I ask you. Are all acts by presidents covered under immunity? What will be your response?

But the Supreme Court will. Because all the rulings will go back up to them. Chutka will decide, Trump will appeal to the circuit and then to the Supreme Court.
No, all acts of President's shouldn't be covered under immunity. They have to much power to be covered under immunity. For core constitutional questions, yes. But the rance of official acts is very broad.

happney65:
But asking a state official to help him find votes is official acts?

Or telling his supporters to storm the Capital to "stop the steal" is official acts?

Exactly.
The state official one, we will find out. They will have a hearing about it and then it will go back to the Supreme Court.. because it's Trump.
The supporters one, he can argue he was giving an "official speech" so it was an official act. And because it was an official act, whatever he said there couldn't be used to prosecute him.
They may have spoken to that one, but haven't read the full ruling yet.

raumdeuter:
The SCOTUS said Trump has immunity from official acts but not for unofficial acts

Its now left to the lower courts to clarify what is Official act and what is not official act

E.g Ordering the killing of a known terrorist like Osama, Suleimani who pose a threat to the US is an official act, ordering the killing of a business associate who you don't like is an unofficial act

This is a very simple thing, What will be the reason for Biden to order the arrest on Trump?

Let me ask you the order to kill Osama where do you think it falls under? vs the order to kill a random civilian

More complicated than that.
ex.
They ruled that talking to the DOJ was an official act. And so not only could he not be prosecuted for any actions the DOj took, but the communications of such actions were privileged. Assume he used the DOJ to set you in some way in an action outside his official acts. If the communications were privileged because he was communicating with the DOJ, how would u prove it?

And to your random civilian point. Whether it's a known terrorist or civilian wouldn't matter. The "official act" definition turns on whether he was using his "constitutional and statutory" authority. And since communications between him and DOJ and presumably the Military would be privileged, how would one know the motivations of his "official act"?

Obrigardo:
That's so crazy man. At the end of it all, the maga movement is just based on pure hate! Nothing else! Hate is at the core of this disgusting maga cult.
It's only hate that can drive a self-professed christian or evangelical to support a RAPIST and a Fraud, a convicted felon to lord over his/her life. The criminal gives them the outlet to amplify their hate on whom they deem "infidels".

It is based on hate. But too many well intentioned Christians have gotten caught up in it.
I think Christians at out core have to take a hard look at ourselves, our churches, our preaches and what we do vs. what we say we believe.
The support of Trump is an issue with Christianity.

What is wild about this immunity ruling, this is everything Conservative 2nd amendment Gun nutters would be freaking out over. An unaccountable President/federal government immune to do whatever they want and above the law. Yet, because of Trump they were cheering it.

Supreme Court Ruling came out. By 6-3 decision the Court ruled Trump does have Presidential immunity for Constitutional acts, the presumption of immunity for Official Acts, no immunity for Personal acts.

Crazy decision. America has changed. This is how a country like the USA begins to look like Nigeria.

Below is part of the dissent.

Laurene:
Black voters not supporting Republicans isn't a Trump issue but in contrary it's a generic issue.

Democrat has a engineered not to support any republican regardless of how bad the opposing democrat may be... They grew up being told not to vote republicans.
It's only few conservative blacks and those that immigrated from Africa that supports most of republican messaging in broader view.

John James faced Gary Peters (a white man) and still lost 90% of black support... Tim Scott(a black man) keeps getting elected in South Carolina without gaining more than 5% of black vote.

Anyone that tells you it's just Trump's rhetoric or style is a bloody liar.

Generic issue? You mean because there are a lot of people in the Republican tent that would prefer Black people be unalive?
So, no it's not just Trump. But Trump's racism is clear.

Your focus seems to be on identity politics rather than policies, so in your mind you can't fathom a black person voting for someone else who isn't black. Unfortunately for you, black people are capable of seeing beyond race and understanding policies, even if you don't.

I'm a black Christian. My parents were immigrants and didn't talk politics and couldn't even vote when I was young. Why did I become a Democrat? Catechism class and the racism I experienced. The Democratic party seemed more aligned with the actual message of the Bible.

Obrigardo:
I hope you took a clean shower after writing this drivel.

Something is fundamentally wrong with maga cultists, like mentally wrong up there if you think an adjudicated rapist and a convicted felon is gonna be the one controlling shit that's gonna affect your livelihood and even your family's.

Hopefully, the majority doesnt side with you. So you better get your head in shape. And you should have a sliver of shame backing a convicted felon who's gonna lose anyway.

Esp. when she said Sanders would be a good pick. Sanders who is already mired in corruption allegations in her deep Republican state.

The problem with these posts is that most of these people are talking about matters that will never affect them. Raumdateur is the only person who actually lives in the states who this election will actually affect. And at times he sounds rational. The others rarely talk about issues. If you don't get US health care, don't have a US job, don't get affected by US racism, don't have to worry about regulations, sending your Black child to College, buying/selling a house and doing do as a black person in the US, etc etc, what perspective are you speaking from?

That's the reason some of these posters at some point pretended to have lived in the states. They understand it adds a certain imprimatur to their posts. It's a know tactic that disinformation artists use to sound relatable. Like Russians pretending to being black Americans and pushing Trump talking points (some of which are then posted here). Because it works.

Some here even pretend to be women like Laurene. Her speech patterns were off so I read some of her previous posts and she's been called out for being a man(which was obvious) and also pretending to live in the US. I'm only calling her out now, because we are getting close to the election and pretending to be a woman and pretending to live in the States is a tactic of disinformation. And I find it very peculiar that a man would pretend to be a woman on a Nigerian board. I can see the advantages though, deference.

It is surprising to me though that a lot of Nigerians support Trump. But I guess, Nigerians are very "religious" and so they would support the Republicans as they would think Republicans are very "Religious" as well. And I guess some Nigerians are "religious" just like Republicans are "religious"... just in name only. The odd thing, is, everyone I know who I find to be legit men/women of God will be voting Democratic.

budaatum:
Also, please stop trying to give buda affirmation by calling me a smart person. buda does not require being told buda is smart, because buda already knows buda is very intelligent and immensely smart. Ego, you see.

I don't do affirmation.
But, after spending a considerable amount of time trying to explain something that was kind of obvious. I will stop.