Am I the only one who thinks this supreme court presidential immunity business is actually a setup orchestrated by the dems to protect Biden in the future ?
-
-
they won't protect Biden by protecting Trump......everyone is expendable if in the end it means maintaining control.Originally posted by imyomama View Post -
Just how much "future" do you think Bumbles has?Comment
-
chess game .. look at moves 2,3,4 ... looks like protecting Trump ... ends up protecting Biden ,Obama, Clinton, etc ... Trump doesn't need this .. all the cases are falling apart.. however, they need protection now for what's to come should they lose in november..
smells like an insurance policy for the puppet masters ...Comment
-
-
It doesn’t matter, very few democrat politicians pay for their malfeasance. Just look to the past in order to see the future.Comment
-
While I like the sound of this, I don't know. I am to the point now where I don't think there is any justice for the political class. Trump is not included in that IMO. He was rocking the boat and must be stopped at all costs but this immunity thing just feels like another dog and pony show and nothing will ever happen in the end.Originally posted by imyomama View PostComment
-
This sure give a lot of credit to the left for having the foresightedness to think of it.Originally posted by imyomama View Post
Keep in mind, police have immunity, cities have immunity, County Commissioners have immunity. Literally all of the government has immunity.
So.Comment
-
-
Correct. But the precedent is that government entities have some level of protection and I believe SCOTUS can formulate this for presidents.Originally posted by bullets13 View Post
as to whether this is calculated, certainly it could be.Comment
-
The the case probably will come down to official acts immunity and what is an official act.
When Biden sent airstrikes into Syria and Iraq because of the deaths of three soldiers, that was almost certainly an official act as commander in chief.
When Bill Clinton was having his Oval Officer tryst with Monica Lewinsky, that was (probably) not an official act.
So generally speaking or as it is believed today, Biden could not be held criminally responsible after he leaves office for the airstrikes because that’s within his official authority ask commander in chief and to protect American interests. What however, would it be if the same strikes were sent to the same locations but the president knew that his rival in the upcoming election was there at the time on a fact finding mission? Would that then be an official act?
If some kind of criminal charges came out of Clinton’s sexual escapades while he was the president…. would he have criminal immunity due to his office?
That is the question before SCOTUS. Listening to some of the oral arguments, the justices came up with several hypothetical situations like killing a political rival or what if this or what if that, would that be covered?
I think it may come down to some very narrow ruling on what is official and what is not.
Comment
-
But WHO will determine what is official and unofficial?Originally posted by tvc184 View Post
It's kinda like who gets to say you are to crazy to own a firearm.
It looks like whoever is in power gets to make the call..... Banana Republic.Comment
-
Every law in every country, state, city has to have some person, political body or court to determine that and each situation could potentially end up in court.Originally posted by stickerpatch59 View Post
The Supreme Court just sets rules for the courts.
The Supreme Court for example says that if you’re in custody of the police, you must be given a constitutional warning. Who determines whether that warning as claimed by the police, was official under the rules or unofficial and unlawful?
You could make that argument on every case. The right to argue a case in court doesn’t make a country a banana republic.
It would be a banana republic if there were no courts or rubber stamp courts.
Comment
Comment