B-Man Posted July 3 Author Posted July 3 🦫 🦫 🦫 🦫 🦫 🦫 Okay, back to the thread. Yes, the Supreme Court got it right By Randy White On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision affirming that presidents have immunity for official acts carried out during their tenure, extending the precedent set in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. This ruling not only solidifies immunity for clearly defined official acts, but also provides presumptive immunity for actions that may be questionably official. Although presidential immunity was previously established in civil contexts, this decision marks a significant extension to criminal prosecution for official acts. The Context and Implications The necessity of this ruling becomes evident when considering the current politically charged environment in the United States. Over the past few election cycles, the atmosphere has been rife with accusations and investigations, often driven by political disagreements rather than clear legal violations. In such a climate, the ability of a president to perform their duties without constant legal threats is crucial. Preserving the Balance of Power For the presidency to function as a separate but equal branch of government, the president must not be perpetually entangled in legal defenses for every official act. If a president could be held civilly or criminally liable for actions taken in his official capacity, his office would be unduly constrained by the Judicial and Legislative Branches. This would effectively reduce the president to a servant of Congress or the district courts — a situation clearly not intended by the framers of the Constitution. The Irony of Opposition Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented, arguing that this ruling places the president above the law. This critique is steeped in irony. The Supreme Court itself enjoys a significant degree of judicial immunity, arguably more than any other branch of government. Though judicial immunity is different in scope and nature from presidential immunity, it is a well established concept. For example, the Court cannot be held liable for overstepping its bounds into legislative duties, illustrating a double-standard in the dissenters’ argument. Avoiding a Paralyzed Presidency Without this ruling, a president serving in a politically volatile environment would constantly hesitate in performing his duties. He would need to consult with numerous government lawyers before making decisions out of fear of future criminal prosecution. This situation could inhibit executive action and impede effective governance. Additionally, presidents who live many years after their term might find that societal norms have changed. An act once deemed appropriate might later be viewed as wildly inappropriate. Thus, adjudication after the fact could put every president at risk of prosecution years or even decades after his term. Constitutional Safeguards The Constitution already provides mechanisms for addressing presidential misconduct, so to argue that a president is “above the law” is a red herring. If a president commits “high crimes” or “misdemeanors,” the impeachment process is available. Additionally, if a president acts outside constitutional bounds, the Supreme Court can declare such actions unconstitutional. These safeguards ensure that the president is held accountable without compromising the functionality of the Executive Branch. Conclusion The ruling in Trump v. United States was not only appropriate, but necessary. Historically, a degree of civility and decency in the judicial system made such explicit rulings unnecessary. However, the current trend of weaponizing the judicial system for political purposes by district attorneys underscores the need for this affirmation of presidential immunity. By ensuring that the president can perform his duties without undue legal hindrances, the Supreme Court has upheld the balance of power envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/07/yes_the_supreme_court_got_it_right.html . 2 2
Backintheday544 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 2 minutes ago, phypon said: Gay people are tourist attractions? That's really strange. Do you have the stats on how many abortions percentage wise occur for gay people? https://escholarship.org/uc/item/37q049nr This old paper put a conservative estimate of $41,000,000 of tax revenue a year from allowing same sex marriage in CA. 1
phypon Posted July 3 Posted July 3 1 minute ago, Backintheday544 said: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/37q049nr This old paper put a conservative estimate of $41,000,000 of tax revenue a year from allowing same sex marriage in CA. I'm not sure I would call that a tourist attraction. I don't consider gay people a tourist attraction. I think that's a pretty demeaning term to put on people. "Come to our state, we have gay people and you can take pictures of them or send postcards to your friends!" That's kind of messed up, dudet. I understand what you are saying about gay people going to states that allow gay marriage, which is making my point about voting with your feet when it comes to abortion. I guess you think abortions are a tourist attraction too?
Backintheday544 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 1 minute ago, phypon said: I'm not sure I would call that a tourist attraction. I don't consider gay people a tourist attraction. I think that's a pretty demeaning term to put on people. "Come to our state, we have gay people and you can take pictures of them or send postcards to your friends!" That's kind of messed up, dudet. I understand what you are saying about gay people going to states that allow gay marriage, which is making my point about voting with your feet when it comes to abortion. I guess you think abortions are a tourist attraction too? Thats not what it is. CA used to be one of the only places in the US same sex couples could marry. Some people from other states would go to CA to marry while also bringing their money to the economy, it’s not go look at gay people. Just advertise come to NY state, come have your abortion. Spend your money here. Buy a ticket to Maid of the Mist get 10 percent off your abortion. 2
phypon Posted July 3 Posted July 3 2 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Thats not what it is. CA used to be one of the only places in the US same sex couples could marry. Some people from other states would go to CA to marry while also bringing their money to the economy, it’s not go look at gay people. Just advertise come to NY state, come have your abortion. Spend your money here. Buy a ticket to Maid of the Mist get 10 percent off your abortion. I'm sorry, but that's messed up. How many abortions have you had? I'm just curious how many abortions the average birthing person gets. Again, serious question.
Backintheday544 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 2 minutes ago, phypon said: I'm sorry, but that's messed up. How many abortions have you had? I'm just curious how many abortions the average birthing person gets. Again, serious question. I haven’t as I exercised my choice not to just like I respect other people to exercise their choice to have one.
Doc Posted July 3 Posted July 3 1 hour ago, B-Man said: For the 100th time, they were at an Urgent Care center, unable to properly treat an impending miscarriage. They were correct in sending her to a hospital. They weren't "refused care" Come now. Urgent Care centers are great places to have surgery... 1 1
Westside Posted July 3 Posted July 3 58 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: Thats not what it is. CA used to be one of the only places in the US same sex couples could marry. Some people from other states would go to CA to marry while also bringing their money to the economy, it’s not go look at gay people. Just advertise come to NY state, come have your abortion. Spend your money here. Buy a ticket to Maid of the Mist get 10 percent off your abortion. Why are you so gung ho over killing babies? That’s some sick shitt! 2
Backintheday544 Posted July 3 Posted July 3 Just now, Westside said: Why are you so gung ho over killing babies? That’s some sick shitt! No one wants to kill babies. Just remove fetuses. Even though the orange man told you Dems do abortions after birth, that’s not true. He lied to you.
Orlando Buffalo Posted July 4 Posted July 4 On 7/2/2024 at 10:44 AM, TH3 said: This scotus told us a gun that shoots 500 rounds a minute and was used to shoot 500 and kill 50 is not an automatic weapon What gun are you speaking of with this statement? I asked once before because I was curious, now I just think you lie because the truth makes you look stupid 1
The Frankish Reich Posted December 4 Posted December 4 52 minutes ago, B-Man said: It's an Equal Protection Clause challenge. You should read up on what that means.
Pokebball Posted December 4 Posted December 4 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: It's an Equal Protection Clause challenge. You should read up on what that means. If a minor can't consent to having sex, can a minor consent to sex changes? 1
Recommended Posts