ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY

[Ralph Wiggum]

Tripper11 (4,340 posts)
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 10:31 AM
0
RECOMMEND
ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
WELL **** ME.....

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority; he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts; there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219084463

[Ralph Wiggum]

One other DUmmy thread while I'm looking at this sewer:

brooklynite (95,957 posts)
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 10:30 AM
5
RECOMMEND
BREAKING: SC issues Immunity ruling
Case remanded to district Court to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS,
ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BAR-
RETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring
opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR,
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court con-
cludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the
Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from
criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter
of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safe-
guard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive
Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional du-
ties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be
immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can
show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no
“dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive
Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.
(3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Alt-
hough Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure
that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of
future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not
support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694,
and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predi-
cated on the President’s unofficial acts. P. 15.
(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled
to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official
from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that
distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in partic-
ular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is
“a court of final review and not first view.” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566
U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differ-
entiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how
to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allega-
tions covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on
those issues. Pp. 16–32.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219084459

[BannedFromDU]

   

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS,
ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BAR-
RETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring
opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR,
J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court con-
cludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the
Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from
criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter
of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safe-
guard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive
Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional du-
ties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be
immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can
show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no
“dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive
Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754. Pp. 12–15.
(3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Alt-
hough Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure
that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of
future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not
support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694,
and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predi-
cated on the President’s unofficial acts. P. 15.
(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled
to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official
from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that
distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in partic-
ular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is
“a court of final review and not first view.” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566
U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differ-
entiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how
to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allega-
tions covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on
those issues. Pp. 16–32.

Buried deep in a footnote:

It is hereforth ordered that DUmmies can suck a fat dick.

[FunkyZero]

I wonder if we are going to see another DU lockdown again. Those ingrates were banking everything on lawfare abuse being able to take down Trump before the election.
They have so been looking forward to the "frog march" of their dreams... now all shattered and laying in the shadows of Pedo-Joe's divide-by-zero performance in the debate

[Ralph Wiggum]

Now they're getting unhinged with their "legal" takes:

HAB911 (9,085 posts)
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 10:54 AM
4
RECOMMEND
Biden should 'officially act" Trump to Gitmo and let the courts fight it out

lapfog_1 (29,344 posts)
4. arrest all 6 members of the SCOTUS and send them to Gitmo
Reply to HAB911 (Original post)
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 11:01 AM
Then call on Seal Team 6.

Immediately name 6 replacements to SCOTUS. They can rule whether or not Biden was acting with immunity.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219084622

Baltimike (4,183 posts)
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 10:39 AM
19
RECOMMEND
JOE BIDEN HAS ABSOLUTE IMUNITY!!!!!
We need to stop playing their game and frame our own narrative

The alter-ego of Laydebug speaketh!!!

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219084518

JohnSJ (92,989 posts)
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 11:04 AM
0
RECOMMEND
Let's not mince words anymore, the nazis on the Supreme court ruled that a president has immunity for "official acts"
but left open what an "official act is", was. In other words, whether trying to overturn an election is an official act of the President, has not been determined.

You know darn well trump and his lawyers are going to argue that the election was "flawed", and he was just exercising his official presidential duties.

The only way we can save this country is voting straight Democratic and cleaning up ALL three branches of government. If that doesn't happen, the country will no longer a democracy, but ruled by autocrats.

That means those on the left and middle better forget their differences and unite for a single cause in November, saving Democracy.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100219084701

[fatboy]

I think it's about time for Biden to be awarded "The J F Kennedy Profiles in Courage" award. 

[SVPete]

The nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority; he is also entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts; there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Whether ignorance, lying, or a tacit admission that Trump stayed within in his duties as President, that is NOT the simple "absolute immunity" the DUmmie claims. It is narrowly limited immunity. Without seeing details, I'm guessing that trial court(s) will have to determine that Trump acted within his Presidential authority and duties.

The ruling is common sense. Without it, every family member of a service member killed in Afghanistan due to LIEden's lack of planning could sue LIEden. Without it, every jurisdiction in which a catch-and-released illegal committed a crime - and the victims of those crimes - could sue LIEden. DUmmies won't see that. DUmmies are blinded by their Trump-Hatred.

[SVPete]

If DU-folk ever get past their "Absolute Immunity" delusion and talking-points and actually understand and take the implications of this common-sense decision seriously, what it will actually do will PO them. It complicates Smith's case(s) by forcing him to prove that whatever action he claims was illegal was not in fact part of Presidents' duties. It substantially adds to and raises Smith's burden of proof. On Trump's side, this ruling validates the principle of his core defense, and Trump will be able to file challenges requesting the dismissal of some/most/all charges in a case, which will further delay the cases.

Trump-Haters hate these cases being delayed. They know the NYC conviction is likely to be overturned, so they at least need the FUD-value of Trump being on trial in one or more other cases.

On one hand, President Trump having carried classified documents with him to MaL for his work as President was legal, pure and simple. That there were negotiations with the National Archives over papers at MaL (including those shipped there by Biden's minions) may extend immunity over those papers confiscated in FBI theater.

On the other hand, President Trump speaking at a political rally - e.g. the one on 1/6/2021 - was not part of a Presidential duty. So Smith could try to prosecute for that speech, but would fail because of what Trump actually said. AFAIK, courts don't "hear" imaginary "dog whistles", especially those that say the opposite of what the "dog whistle" literally means.

[FunkyZero]

Trump-Haters hate these cases being delayed. They know the NYC conviction is likely to be overturned, so they at least need the FUD-value of Trump being on trial in one or more other cases.

I think what burns me the most is that deny to the end that they are pushing this for the purposes of derailing the Trump candidacy, but their denial is so thinly veiled, all one has to do is read the DUmp monkey comments to see the truth. Their anger is targeting not the idea that Trump won't be convicted if he is guilty of a crime, but instead, they are pissed exclusively because their BS trials won't be completed before the election. Their anger is in the delays and not being able to deny half of America their right to elect their choice (or Trump his right to be treated fairly as any other American would). Justice is the furthest thing from their minds. They are dastardly a-holes, they know it, we know it, everyone including these judges know it. They even openly promote corruption and illegal actions if it suits their agenda. I'd really love to burn my last mole on this one, but they will never change anyway. Telling them straight to their face doesn't even work. These people have no foundational ethics.

[Old n Grumpy]

According to them it doesn’t matter what the court said, they are trumpeters. So he’s still guilty. And the law doesn’t apply to their hero biden

[Ralph Wiggum]

I think what burns me the most is that deny to the end that they are pushing this for the purposes of derailing the Trump candidacy, but their denial is so thinly veiled, all one has to do is read the DUmp monkey comments to see the truth. Their anger is targeting not the idea that Trump won't be convicted if he is guilty of a crime, but instead, they are pissed exclusively because their BS trials won't be completed before the election. Their anger is in the delays and not being able to deny half of America their right to elect their choice (or Trump his right to be treated fairly as any other American would). Justice is the furthest thing from their minds. They are dastardly a-holes, they know it, we know it, everyone including these judges know it. They even openly promote corruption and illegal actions if it suits their agenda. I'd really love to burn my last mole on this one, but they will never change anyway. Telling them straight to their face doesn't even work. These people have no foundational ethics.

Absolutely correct.

Meanwhile, the hyperbolic left is going bat-guano crazy. One prime example (which shouldn't be a shocker):

AOC threatens Supreme Court articles of impeachment over immunity ruling
Ocasio-Cortez claims Supreme Court 'consumed by a corruption crisis'

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threatened to bring articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court after Monday's immunity ruling regarding former President Trump.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X. "Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."

The ruling in question said a president has absolute immunity from prosecution for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," and "presumptive immunity" for official acts in general. The court said there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's congressional office seeking clarification on who in particular she intends to impeach, but did not immediately hear back.

Ocasio-Cortez was not the only congressional Democrat to blast the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., vowed that "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-threatens-supreme-court-articles-impeachment-over-immunity-ruling

The Supreme Court IS the ultimate authority on what is and isn't Constitutional, you jag-dorks!  Apparently you don't even comprehend the three co-equal branches of government. Just because you're a "lawmaker" in Congress doesn't entitle you to whine like a baby and get your way because the Supreme Court doesn't rule on the Constitution the way YOU want it to.

[Airwolf]

Absolutely correct.

Meanwhile, the hyperbolic left is going bat-guano crazy. One prime example (which shouldn't be a shocker):

AOC threatens Supreme Court articles of impeachment over immunity ruling
Ocasio-Cortez claims Supreme Court 'consumed by a corruption crisis'

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., threatened to bring articles of impeachment against the Supreme Court after Monday's immunity ruling regarding former President Trump.

"The Supreme Court has become consumed by a corruption crisis beyond its control," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on X. "Today’s ruling represents an assault on American democracy. It is up to Congress to defend our nation from this authoritarian capture. I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return."

The ruling in question said a president has absolute immunity from prosecution for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority," and "presumptive immunity" for official acts in general. The court said there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

Fox News Digital reached out to Ocasio-Cortez's congressional office seeking clarification on who in particular she intends to impeach, but did not immediately hear back.

Ocasio-Cortez was not the only congressional Democrat to blast the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., vowed that "House Democrats will engage in aggressive oversight and legislative activity with respect to the Supreme Court to ensure that the extreme, far-right justices in the majority are brought into compliance with the Constitution."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/aoc-threatens-supreme-court-articles-impeachment-over-immunity-ruling

The Supreme Court IS the ultimate authority on what is and isn't Constitutional, you jag-dorks!  Apparently you don't even comprehend the three co-equal branches of government. Just because you're a "lawmaker" in Congress doesn't entitle you to whine like a baby and get your way because the Supreme Court doesn't rule on the Constitution the way YOU want it to.

Legal advice from AOC is like asking a 4 year old to build your house. Even if she gets them to vote on it they won't get it past the Republican's.

[Crazy Horse]

They do realize that this also protects Obama from being charged with murder for the drone strikes on American citizens without due process.

[DUmpDiver]

Biden has some nerve whining about this ruling after he was granted de facto immunity on his document theft merely because he's a feeble sympathetic old man.

[Old n Grumpy]

Biden is also guilty of running a pay for access and protecting his son from his criminal activities.
Not to mention election interference and lawfare at Trump.