Supreme Court decisions.

[B-Man]

 

 

BACK TO THE THREAD.

 

 

MSNBC Gives Extremely Absurd ‘Analysis’ About Latest Supreme Court Decision

 

https://redstate.com/levon/2024/07/01/msnbc-gives-extremely-absurd-analysis-about-latest-supreme-court-decision-n2176228

 

 

 

Bill Barr Rips Through Justice Sotomayor's Hysteria Over the SCOTUS Presidential Immunity Ruling

 

https://redstate.com/sister-toldjah/2024/07/01/bill-bar-rips-through-justice-sotomayors-hysteria-from-scotus-immunity-ruling-n2176239

 

 

 

,

 

[boyst]

27 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

Honey boo boo bear, I wish you were half as smart as you think and weren’t half as dumb as you’ve proven yourself to be.

 

End of story - you support Logan violations against Kerry. Trump has no way to end a war with Russia and Ukraine without violating Logan Act prior to being sworn in.

 

Trump has told you he will violate the Act you care about.

 

So, you either don’t actually care about the Logan Act or you’re ok with violations of the act as long as there is an (R) next to the name , making you just another Republican hypocrite.

 

Now honey pie. Leave the computer and let the adults handle conversations.

Tl dr

[B-Man]

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT DOES THE RIGHT THING

By John Hindraker

 

Today the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump for, among other things, asserting his legal rights in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The issue in the appeal was the scope of presidential immunity. For their own reasons, both Trump and many Democrats chose to portray the Court’s 6-3 decision as a great victory for Trump. In fact, the Court steered a middle course, as most knowledgeable observers had expected.

 

 

The Court’s decision held, briefly, that a president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” He is entitled to a presumption of immunity for “all his official acts.” But there is no immunity for his “unofficial acts.”

 

This is a moderate and sensible resolution of the unprecedented issues raised by Smith’s (absurd, in my view) prosecution. The difficulty, as the Court’s decision by Chief Justice Roberts recognized, is that applying these principles requires close attention to the facts. This case has been hurried through the courts because the Democratic Party was desperate to convict Trump of something–anything!–before the election. Therefore, the necessary factual development to properly apply the Court’s principles does not yet exist, and the Court remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion–a very common appellate procedure.

 

{snip}

 

In short, there is nothing surprising about today’s decision. It is consistent with where most observers thought the case was going following oral argument. It represents a moderate, compromise position–and a correct one, in my opinion.

 

Generally speaking, appellate courts lay out broad legal principles which then are applied to specific cases by trial courts. Most often, that is the decisive stage, and the important decision is the one rendered by the jury. This case deviated from the norm because it was driven not by conventional legal practice, but by the Democrats’ determination to bring it to trial quickly so as to get a guilty verdict against Trump before November’s election. That plan has been foiled by the Supreme Court’s reasonable approach.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/07/the-supreme-court-does-the-right-thing.php

[Tiberius]

 

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immunity-supreme-court/

 

Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here:

The immunity is absolute

There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given

On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified,” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts.

Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.

Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office.

 

Just now, B-Man said:

 

 

THE SUPREME COURT DOES THE RIGHT THING

By John Hindraker

 

Today the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Donald Trump for, among other things, asserting his legal rights in the aftermath of the 2020 election. The issue in the appeal was the scope of presidential immunity. For their own reasons, both Trump and many Democrats chose to portray the Court’s 6-3 decision as a great victory for Trump. In fact, the Court steered a middle course, as most knowledgeable observers had expected.

 

 

The Court’s decision held, briefly, that a president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” He is entitled to a presumption of immunity for “all his official acts.” But there is no immunity for his “unofficial acts.”

 

This is a moderate and sensible resolution of the unprecedented issues raised by Smith’s (absurd, in my view) prosecution. The difficulty, as the Court’s decision by Chief Justice Roberts recognized, is that applying these principles requires close attention to the facts. This case has been hurried through the courts because the Democratic Party was desperate to convict Trump of something–anything!–before the election. Therefore, the necessary factual development to properly apply the Court’s principles does not yet exist, and the Court remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion–a very common appellate procedure.

 

{snip}

 

In short, there is nothing surprising about today’s decision. It is consistent with where most observers thought the case was going following oral argument. It represents a moderate, compromise position–and a correct one, in my opinion.

 

Generally speaking, appellate courts lay out broad legal principles which then are applied to specific cases by trial courts. Most often, that is the decisive stage, and the important decision is the one rendered by the jury. This case deviated from the norm because it was driven not by conventional legal practice, but by the Democrats’ determination to bring it to trial quickly so as to get a guilty verdict against Trump before November’s election. That plan has been foiled by the Supreme Court’s reasonable approach.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/07/the-supreme-court-does-the-right-thing.php

Did a Putin fan write that? The Court allowing a lawless person to be President is a good thing?

 

Are you stupid or evil? What is it?

[4th&long]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

 

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immunity-supreme-court/

 

Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here:

The immunity is absolute

There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given

On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified,” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts.

Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.

Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office.

 

Did a Putin fan write that? The Court allowing a lawless person to be President is a good thing?

 

Are you stupid or evil? What is it?

He’s both, obvious by now lol

[Backintheday544]

6 minutes ago, boyst said:

Tl cr

Fixed it for you: TL CR (Too long, can’t read)

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court established 40 years ago that

presidents are immune from civil prosecution.

 

Before today, it was never required for the Supreme Court

to weigh in on criminal prosecution, because presidents

never went after their predecessors in this manner.

 

Joe Biden changed that forever.

 

And the Supreme Court dealt a significant blow

to his lawfare against President Trump.

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[4th&long]

 

[Roundybout]

1 hour ago, 4th&long said:

 

Why would the GOP care? They pick and choose what they like from the Constitution. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[Backintheday544]

30 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Not being a military expert at all….. but wouldn’t that be the dumbest ***** ever for the President to invade his own territory since the President has immunity from criminal prosecution?

 

Would have been a much more effective joke if he said Mar-A-Lago.

 

If the right doesn’t  even know where to properly invade in a joke, it’s going to be a quick civil war.

Edited July 2 by Backintheday544

[phypon]

11 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

Not being a military expert at all….. but wouldn’t that be the dumbest ***** ever for the President to invade his own territory since the President has immunity from criminal prosecution?

 

Would have been a much more effective joke if he said Mar-A-Lago.

 

If the right doesn’t  even know where to properly invade in a joke, it’s going to be a quick civil war.

In one day we now have two Lefty's talking about 'CW' (not the local TV channel).  I don't know what it is with you people.  Not a good thing...  

Edited July 2 by phypon

[Backintheday544]

9 minutes ago, phypon said:

In one day we now have two Lefty's talking about 'CW' (not the local TV channel).  I don't know what it is with you people.  Not a good thing...  

 

Dont check out this thread then:

 

 

[Backintheday544]

I also think the Supreme Court ruling is fair. I think a President should have civi and criminal immunity for official acts. The country has always taken that stance.

 

I’d love though for the Biden admin to just troll the right on it. I want him to say all Federal student loans are now forgiven, I unlawfully (or accidentally due to his old age and dementia) destroyed all records and contracts for people’s student loans.

[phypon]

2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

I also think the Supreme Court ruling is fair. I think a President should have civi and criminal immunity for official acts. The country has always taken that stance.

 

I’d love though for the Biden admin to just troll the right on it. I want him to say all Federal student loans are now forgiven, I unlawfully (or accidentally due to his old age and dementia) destroyed all records and contracts for people’s student loans.

If he really wants to win voters he should forgive all mortgages and car loans.  And lower the F'ing tax on TEA!!

[4th&long]

 

[Backintheday544]

9 minutes ago, phypon said:

If he really wants to win voters he should forgive all mortgages and car loans.  And lower the F'ing tax on TEA!!

He can’t. The government doesn’t own those. That’s why I said federal student loans and not private student loans.

[phypon]

6 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

He can’t. The government doesn’t own those. That’s why I said federal student loans and not private student loans.

Here are two links for you:

 

https://www.usa.gov/government-home-loans

 

https://www.hud.gov/buying/loans

 

Just wanted to add that I'm not being serious about mortgage or car loan forgiveness, I was making a point that he shouldn't be forgiving anyone's loans. If you take out a loan, it's your responsibility to pay it back.

Edited July 2 by phypon

[Biden is Mentally Fit]

19 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

 

Dont check out this thread then:

 

 

Thank you for resurrecting. In the event anyone wonders, the intent of the thread with the idiotic capitalization was:

 

1. to mock the not-very-dearly departed Billstime for his senseless use of capitalization that seemed like some sort of extremely weird fetish. I’ll miss him. 

 

2. to mock the then completely unhinged jackass known as redhawk/joe Ferguson forever, who at the time had “civil war” wet dreams. To redhawk’s credit, he has been mostly hinged the last several months.