Knobby22
Mmmmmm 2nd breakfast
- Joined
- 13 October 2004
- Posts
- 9,818
- Reactions
- 6,798
100%This is the best the US can come up with?
Just on my always objective, studious and humble opinion but Bullsh*t Knobby.I was just watching Liz Mair, Republican strategist and she was vitriolic on Fireside Chat .
But she also said Trump was looking bad also and only got away with it because the other guy was older and more infirm than him but he is pushing 80 and fading badly.
Yes the World is changing, anyone who thinks people are offended by dirty language, haven't ridden on public transport. Males, Females, kids both boys and girls, they all use what I would call disgusting language.
Further, the article goes on to say that the president is not immune from activities prior to becoming president.In Mississippi v. Johnson,1 in 1867, the Supreme Court placed the President beyond the reach of judicial direction, either affirmative or restraining, in the exercise of his powers, whether constitutional or statutory, political or otherwise, save perhaps for what must be a small class of powers that are purely ministerial.2 An application for an injunction to forbid President Johnson to enforce the Reconstruction Acts, on the ground of their unconstitutionality, was answered by Attorney General Stanberg, who argued, inter alia, the absolute immunity of the President from judicial process.3 The Court refused to permit the filing, using language construable as meaning that the President was not reachable by judicial process but which more fully paraded the horrible consequences were the Court to act.
The latest SCOTUS pronouncement changes none of the above, it specifically states that the president has immunity for “absolute” immunity for clearly official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.In Clinton v. Jones,28 the Court, in a case of first impression, held that the President did not have qualified immunity from civil suit for conduct alleged to have taken place prior to his election, and therefore denied the President's request to delay both the trial and discovery. The Court held that its precedents affording the President immunity from suit for his official conduct – primarily on the basis that he should be enabled to perform his duties effectively without fear that a particular decision might give rise to personal liability—were inapplicable in this kind of case.
"When [the president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."
I am stunned that she wrote that in a dissenting opinion.Dissenting judgements are always where the risk is stated in Trumps case pretty extreme IMHO.
And Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting judgement backed by two of the other justices, warned it elevates the president to "a king above the law".
Well I guess all the nonsense that goes on in the U.S, puts the Australian republic debate back another 50 years.I am stunned that she wrote that in a dissenting opinion.
Justice Sotomayor and the other justices are just as partisan as the other 6.
The president has always had immunity.
Nothing has changed.
if it were otherwise the murder of American enemies such as Arkan Al Alawi , Abu Bakr, Osama Bin laden and Abu Ibrahim to name but a few would have resulted in charges, but previous precedents had given presidents immunity from prosecution.
If a lower court backed up by the SCOTUS rules that a particular action was not in the Presidents official capacity, the president can be charged.
Mick
Exactly this. Those three judges obviously pandering.I am stunned that she wrote that in a dissenting opinion.
Justice Sotomayor and the other justices are just as partisan as the other 6.
The president has always had immunity.
Nothing has changed.
if it were otherwise the murder of American enemies such as Arkan Al Alawi , Abu Bakr, Osama Bin laden and Abu Ibrahim to name but a few would have resulted in charges, but previous precedents had given presidents immunity from prosecution.
If a lower court backed up by the SCOTUS rules that a particular action was not in the Presidents official capacity, the president can be charged.
Mick
I am stunned that she wrote that in a dissenting opinion.
It's always been that way though until Trump came along. If anything it will protect Biden when he gets out..
"The verdict additionally grants presidents presumptive immunity “from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility”, meaning a president is presumed to enjoy immunity from prosecution if his action pertains even just a small amount to his official status."
I wonder how this ruling would have effected Nixon?It's always been that way though until Trump came along. If anything it will protect Biden when he gets out.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?