Was the Supreme Court Wrong About Presidential Immunity?

Glenn Greenwald and Elizabeth Price Foley debate Trump v. United States and its implications for presidential powers.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Was the Supreme Court Wrong About Presidential Immunity?

HD Video Download

Did the Supreme Court err in its July 1 ruling in Trump v. United States that "the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority"? That was the subject of this month's Soho Forum debate. Law professor Elizabeth Price Foley and journalist Glenn Greenwald debated the resolution, "Presidential immunity for official acts is a key factor in the proper functioning of the U.S. government's executive branch."

Defending the resolution was Foley, a professor of law at Florida International University, where she teaches constitutional law and separation of powers. She has testified before Congress on numerous constitutional topics, and is the author of three books on constitutional law.

Arguing for the negative was Greenwald, a journalist and podcaster who won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the NSA-Snowden revelations. He left The Intercept in 2020 to become independent, and is now the host of SYSTEM UPDATE nightly on Rumble.

This debated was moderated by Soho Forum director Gene Epstein.

Comments

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Greenwald has been consistent in calling out the lawfare of governments, especially ones on the left. He had a discussion with Taibbi that wades into the democrats lawfare vs Trump.

Greenwald: I think that it really revealed the underbelly of this new “lawfare” tactic. Maybe it’s not so new, but it’s more prevalent, it has this modern form, where instead of doing overt coups, you give the cover of concocting corruption scandals against democratically elected leaders you dislike.

I actually think one example that is similar, though not identical, was what the CIA did in manufacturing the Russiagate scandal against Trump. But obviously what was done to Lula and the Workers Party is the classic case. I feel like a lot of that has reverberations.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

You're defending Greenwald and Taibbi again. Sarc's going to come in and call you a right-winger.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Sarc supports democrats and neocons. He's a statist. He doesn't understand what a statist is though.

[sarcasmic]

Jesse wishes the Nazis won the war.

[Don't look at me!]

Ideas™ , never people.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Lol. What a hilarious day it has been. Bookmarked.

This comment made after you were defending kidnappers of Israel earlier. Fucking hilarious.

You're also literally a fascist. Always defending bad government acts through corporations, advocating for jailing political opponents, etc.

[sarcasmic]

Im comparing you to Nazis and you’re bragging about how you will use past statements against me.

Hello?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Did this make sense to you? What's your BAC at?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Jesse is a 50-center for his team. He is going to defend Team MAGA and he is going to oppose anyone criticizing Team MAGA.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Fuck off you paid hack. MAGA doesn't need fifty-centers like you to gaslight because they're not abhorrent child castrationists, warpigs, and internet political censors.

Civic nationalism, defending borders and making America great again doesn't need to hire weasels to sell it.

[TJJ2000]

Do you think Jesse supports [Na]tional (Fed) So[zi]al[ism]???
Or are you just Leftard-Projecting your own ideology onto Jesse?

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nazi
...short for Nationalsozialist “National Socialist”.

Democrats are the party that supports (is) the Nazi's and they have literally taken public pride in identifying themselves as such just without the short-for acronym. Listening to someone who has demonstrated a preference for Demorats call anyone else but themselves Nazi's is completely laughable.

[Tony]

I love the rightwing PC jargon “lawfare,” a word that could simply be replaced by “law.”

[TJJ2000]

Maybe the "law" should've raided Biden's garage long before Trumps locked closet?
The Leftard Self-Projection is so bright it is blinding.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Tony, you say non-rightwing never uses lawfare, proving you are ignornant ( for those still in doubt)

[LIBtranslator]

There ya go Tony. So, we have the Suprema corte saying the fugitive slave clause was good and just. It also said that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments do NOT give female citizens the right to vote. Wiretaps, prohibition laws, conscription as lawful enslavement all well and good, and now packed with The Don's Christian National Socialists the Fuhrer is above the law and women are NOT freed of slavery after all. Remember Heinlein: the law says whatever you can get a court to say it says. Even if wrong, it's good to see a non-MAGAt here.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

SCOTUS never said that.

[SRG2]

Of course the decision was wrong. The Constitution does recognise immunity elsewhere, and had the drafters intended to immunise the president they would surely have said so.

No-one who calls themselves an originalist or textualist can agree with the Court's decision - at least, not if their self description is honest.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

I do love constititoonals from strikes British sock.

Can you point to what part of the decision was wrong explicitly?

Hint, you'll see where they derive it from.

Here you go buddy.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/file/969611/dl

[damikesc]

So, literally every government official EXCEPT the President have immunity for actions taken while in office?

Can you explain that logic?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Orange man bad. Boom. You didn't see that one coming.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Can you give me an example that is 100% NOT an "official act"?

[Don't look at me!]

Putting a cigar into your intern?

[DesigNate]

Spying on the opposition candidate?

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Yes,colluding with your son Biden to sell influence.
Where's my prize ?

[Bruce D]

'Can you give me an example that is 100% NOT an "official act"?'

Trump telling his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" march on the Capital while proceedings are underway or imminent is a private political act as a CANDIDATE for public office of President, not in his official role holding public office as President.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

what a terrible example because those are supporters of the President (who happens to be Trump)
Juat childishly dumb to think every protester was of one party !!!

[bacchys]

No government official except the President has immunity from criminal prosecution. The President didn't have it, either, until this SCOTUS broke the Constitution for the orange fuckwad.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Lefties are getting dumber.

Is jack smith or anyone at the FoJ being arrested for kidnapping or false arrests given the USSC ruling on J6 charges? Or do they have prosecutorial immunity?

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

No, the President does not. By Constitutional Amendment the President can simply be removed if Cabinet members of your level of rationality see what you claim to see. IF X sane and moral folks allow a senile,lazy, stupid, long-tome idiot like Biden continue in office, who is MORE to blame?

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

aah, but you love the Biden ERA statement.
You can safely be ignored.

[SRG2]

They don't, in general. There are exceptions - prosecutorial immunity (judge-made law), qualified immunity (judge-made law).

Do you see the pattern?

Which other government officials do you think have immunity thanks to the Constitution? Or legislation, for that matter?

[Michael Ejercito]

Here is a passage from Trump v. United States.

And the Court’s prior decisions, such as Nixon and Fitzgerald, have long recognized that doctrine as mandating certain Presidential privileges and immunities, even though the Constitution contains no explicit “provision for immunity.” Post, at 4; see Part II–B–1, supra. Neither the dissents nor the Government disavow any of those prior decisions. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 76–77.

As such, the prosecution declined to disavow the Court's immunity jurisprudence, SCOTUS had to treat it as binding.

Do you disagree?

[SRG2]

First, Thomas particularly and other conservatives on the court do not regard precedent as necessarily binding. See Roe v wade.

Second, a prosecution often won't make claims broader than necessary to secure the decision The SC however went broader.,

From the dissent - which any originalist or textualist should agree with if theyt're being consistent : The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

YOU don't find precedent binding either. Do you defend Dred Scott?
So that is dishonest.
As to your "First" any lawyer sees that this only trransfers the 'absolute' to a discussion of what is a core constitutional power !!!
If I tell my kids You absolutely won't be in trouble if what you do is to help your siblings, all children now move to 'well I was trying to help X"
And don't you feel pompous saying the 'majority' didn't see what you do see ??? and what the hell is 'any recognizable bounds' except a fat egghead's way of saying 'absolute'
I would give you an "F" for that linguistic skulduggery

[Riva]

Because you are apparently a foreigner, I will excuse your abysmal ignorance of our constitution. Allow me to explain it to you in simple terms even someone from Oxford or Cambridge could understand. A president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for all “actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority.” This is rooted in our constitutional structure of separated powers. He is entitled to a presumption of immunity for “all his official acts.” There is no immunity for his “unofficial acts.”

[SRG2]

I am well acquainted with the US Constitution - in fact, like many immigrants, probably more familiar with it than the average even educated American.

First, "separation of powrs" nowhere exists as a term in the Constitution, though I concede that it is generally understood to be implied. (This is a legitimate argument to use particularly against anyone who argues that "wall of separation" is not to be found either.)

Second, it is an illogical and textually unwarranted srep to say that as the president has executive power, it's a violation of the Consttitution to prosecute him. In fact, the oath of office implies that he is bound by US law, which is at variance with the feeble arguments made by the majority in the immunity case.

Third, had the FFs intended the president to have immunity, they would have put it in the Constitution. They didn't, and it's not as though immunity in general was overlooked.

so fuck off, basically.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Do you not see that only transfers the question to the difference between official and un-official and; most importantly transfers that from the President to anonymous armchair Chief Justices like you 🙂

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Riva never studied law. Your own argument only removes "absolute" form immunity and attaches it to the definitin of official vs unofficial.

I tell my kids you can do absolutely anything you have to do if it is in the safety and welfare of your siblings. "Well, I finished the cake off so Jeffie wouldn't get fat"

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

No, the President does not. By Constitutional Amendment the President can simply be removed if Cabinet members of your level of rationality see what you claim to see. IF X sane and moral folks allow a senile,lazy, stupid, long-tome idiot like Biden continue in office, who is MORE to blame?

[JFree]

Had ANYONE thought Presidential immunity was a thing before Roberts/etc created the notion out of thin air, then Ford wouldn't have pardoned Nixon because he wouldn't have needed to.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the question is, did anyone think Presidents could be prosecuted for exercising the powers of their office prior to Trump?

The Court overshot, but in response to a real problem.

[Vernon Depner]

The absence of such prosecutions shows that it was regarded as a "thing". The extraordinary lawfare against Trump made it necessary to make it explicit.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Wrong on law and on the facts.
Ford said publicly he pardoned Nixon only so that things wouldn't bog down in legal matters (which is what you are agitating for !! Smart Ford, dumb you)

And the out of thin air comment logically works against you. The most obvious things in the world are not stated because they are the most obvious things in the world.

[DesigNate]

It’s like you leftist idiots don’t understand what an official act is….

[LIBtranslator]

Mebbe so, but objectivists and libertarians can clearly see an official act is whatever altruist communists or altruist nationalsocialists say the law sez it is, whenever either looter faction has enough Trilbys hoodwinked to vote its bidding--absent enough libertarian spoiler votes to cover the gap in enough States to toss the electoral outcome into mathematical unpredictability. That's the Kleptocracy principle. That plus Dem dereliction was what what elected Trump in the first place. The Jesus Caucus Anschluss is a looter countermeasure.

[LIBtranslator]

Petr Beckmann explained that the Suprema Corte is a child of its time, just as liable to political looting, enslavement and murder as the political parties that appoint its Legislators For Life. Monarchic caudillos are not pretty, but do result from cowardly failure to use leveraged libertarian spoiler vote clout to drag them into the current millennium. One libertarian electoral vote named a woman 51 years ago today and Roe suddenly invented women having individual rights!

[Longtobefree]

Of course the supreme court was/is right.
That is their only job.

(and when they change their minds, they will be right again/still)

[sarcasmic]

Depends on who the president is. Does Trump deserve immunity? Hell yeah! Does Biden? Hell no! Justice should be based upon who, not what. Take that blindfold off lady and look at the politics, then decide.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

More projection from sarc.

Remind us why Trump was guilty for classified documents but Biden wasn't again buddy.

[sarcasmic]

What else do the voices in your head tell you?

[damikesc]

You're criticizing people for saying "You're all being political" and ignoring that you are as well, possibly moreso.

He provided you as close to an identical situation as possible. Both had classified documents. One was punished. One was not. The one who was punished had far more of a claim to have the papers than the one not punished.

Is THAT justice?

[sarcasmic]

One said whoops and the other said fuck you. Right or wrong, that makes a difference.

[Don't look at me!]

Ha Ha Ha

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

He is getting sleepy from his bender. Hopefully Jeff can rock him to sleep soon.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Oh. Didn't know that was part of the law that was violated. Makes total sense. Are you a law professor? So astute.

[damikesc]

One had them for decades. The other did not. One was the President and had the power to declassify at will. The other was not.

Again, is this justice in your eyes?

[sarcasmic]

I’m not being judgy, I don’t care. Difference, based upon what I have read, is that Trump acted like a diva when asked return classified documents. Others complied.

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

Can you cite the "acting like a diva" part of the law? I know sharing classified information like Joe did with his ghost writer is part of the law. But I don't recall the diva clause.

[Bruce Hayden]

They never got to the question of whether the DOJ/FBI/Archives even had a claim for the documents. Bratt/Smith claimed that they did. Trump claimed that they were his (and had been declassified). The case was dismissed by Judge Cannon (on the grounds that Smith didn’t have the power to bring or try the case) before she could address those subjects.

On the flip side, Trump’s attorneys requested extensions of time and/or rolling production (they had hundreds of boxes to go through, by someone with an appropriate security clearance, that mostly hadn’t been opened since the boxes had been filled when clearing his desk in the oval Office throughout his 4 years in office). And Jay Bratt, Deputy Special Counsel and DOJ Counterintelligence and Export Control Branch chief denied both requests. Were those denials reasonable? Was it reasonable for Bratt to have ordered the FBI raid of MAL, when the proximate cause of Trump failing to produce the documents was Bratt’s refusal to grant either of these requests? Again, issues that Judge Cannon hadn’t addressed yet at the time she dismissed the case.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Actually neither said what you say they said, That is just you pre-judging while pretending not to. And even if it made a difference, so what. THe issue is exactly the same

FROM THE HUR REPORT

"Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and
foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the
garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home"

[chemjeff radical individualist]

He provided you as close to an identical situation as possible.

No, it isn't. That is the problem with you and your team's superficial comparisons.

Everyone else - Biden, Obama, Hillary, Pence, Bush - worked with the government to try to return the offending documents. Trump did not.

Trump actively tried to conceal his possession of the unauthorized documents. Everyone else did not.

Trump was treated differently due to *Trump's own actions*.

[Don't look at me!]

Ha Ha ha again.

[Mother's Lament (Salt farmer)]

Trump cooperated fully, and I know that you know that. The DOJ lied, and whole thing was just another con.

Speaking of cons, Lying Jeffy, what do you make about this?

The FBI had 26 confidential human sources at the Capitol during the riot on January 6, including four who entered the Capitol building and 13 who entered the "restricted area" around the Capitol, according to a just released DOJ Inspector General reporter.

[Bruce Hayden]

See my comments above. Trump was producing such documents. He requested extensions of time and rolling production. Both were rejected by Jay Bratt.

[TJJ2000]

Jesse won that debate by one of the biggest landslides I've ever seen.
It is quite funny UR still trying to defend your blatant lawfare against your political enemies.

Something, something about the apple and the tree and the [WE] 'Identify-as' gangster mentality of the left w/o any principle what-so-ever. And boy can they Self-Project even when projecting against a brick wall.

[damikesc]

Trump was negotiating. Biden put the pressure to demand the documents.

[DesigNate]

Hahahahahahahaha. Goddamn man have some self respect.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

FALSE, FROM THE HUR REPORT on Biden
Our investigation uncovered evidence that President Biden willfully retained
and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency when he was a private citizen. These materials included (1) marked classified documents about military and foreign policy in Afghanistan, and (2) notebooks containing Mr. Biden's handwritten entries about issues of national security and foreign policy implicating sensitive intelligence sources and methods. FBI agents recovered these materials from the garage, offices, and basement den in Mr. Biden's Wilmington, Delaware home

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Hillary? No way.
Here she is saying what's a server, wipe a server, what's that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MaoNDzZ8Mw

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

This response doesn't even make sense. Lol.

Hangover started?

[LIBtranslator]

I see sarc making good sense, but he seems to be writing to redneck grey rectangles mooted by Reason subscribers. To each his own...

[DesigNate]

Was it an obvious presidential act? Then it doesn’t matter who was in office, except to the chattering class.

[A Thinking Mind]

They were right and their decision wasn’t even that extreme. It left a wide gap of deciding what is an official exercise of presidential power and what is a discretionary power being misused. Jack Smith’s case could still have gone forward against him, they just had an extra pre trial hurdle to overcome, and they decided to pause it until after the election-when it was dropped.

If the President is abusing his authority, the remedy is impeachment. If Congress refuses to impeach, then it’s likely the matter is not an obvious and gross breach of authority and instead a political wedge. And if Congress is wrong it goes to voters to decide. That’s why we have checks and balances and a separation of powers.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

It would have been a great decision if we were living in 1790s America. But we are not. We are living in 2024 America where the president has far more executive authority than the Founding Fathers likely would have contemplated as desirable. Because the reach of executive authority is so broad, it is not a big stretch for the executive to claim "this thing is an official act and therefore is immune". And courts have historically been reticent to try to second-guess the executive in this regard.

Given the state of current executive power, can you give me an example of an act that would positively 100% be NOT considered an "official act"? Whatever you come up with, I can find a vague enough law that grants executive authority to do what that executive did.

[Michael Ejercito]

Since when was criminal prosecution a check on presidential power?

[Vernon Depner]

Since 2015.

[SRG2]

If the President is abusing his authority, the remedy is impeachment. If Congress refuses to impeach, then it’s likely the matter is not an obvious and gross breach of authority and instead a political wedge

Politically naive comment of the day

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

President Jackson did exactly what is disputed here.
Supreme Court said 'The Constitution says this" and he replied. I took an oath to uphold the Constitution as I see it not as how you see it.
So many on here are history-proofed.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

So Glenn Greenwald was arguing in favor of presidential immunity? Huh.

[DesigNate]

“…the resolution, "Presidential immunity for official acts is a key factor in the proper functioning of the U.S. government's executive branch."”

If Greenwald was arguing in the negative, that means he was not arguing for immunity…

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I don't know how a consistent populist can argue in favor of executive immunity, or immunity of any kind really. Shouldn't it be the populist position that all politicians should be accountable to the people at least on some level?

I guess the 'populist' position here is that they think their man should be allowed to do whatever he wants, as long as their man is fighting for 'the people'. This honestly sounds closer to communism than to populism.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Well, closer to Leninism anyway. True communism is stateless. Leninism is 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

[LIBtranslator]

Translation: anarchism is violent communism.

[Michael Ejercito]

Immunity was not invented this year.

Ever heard of qualified immunity?

[JesseAz (mean girl ambassador)]

It's what Jeff demands to defend the bad actors in government from being prosecuted.

[SRG2]

Invented by the courts, not by the Constitution nor legislation.

[Michael Ejercito]

And no party in Trump asked SCOTUS to uninvent it, so the Court faithfully applied its prior immunity jurisprudence.

[TJJ2000]

"the peoples" Supreme Law is already written.

Did you find "no president shall question election integrity" in it?

[SRG2]

Did you find, "the president is immune for all actions carried out as part of his core official duties" in it?

[TJJ2000]

Did you find that in the SCOTUS ruling?

[Mickey Rat]

Impeachment and trial in the Senate is the level the Chief Executive is held accountable. That you do not think it is enough does not mean that it does not exist.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Your guess is wrong if you are interested. And your comparispnof populism and communism has 3 errors ,the worst being that Communism has never been populist. Silly and uninformed you are.l
But your executive immunity premise is downright stupid. There must be some level of immunity or no President could do anything. That is just logic. So you are arguing by altering the definitions of thimgs. If your view were the law were in effect it would certainly be a form of immunity : As long as Chemjeff is not offended you have absolute immunity !!!

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Answer: NO
You don't know how but you actually admit that it is so !!! Populists DO argue in favor of executive immunity.
Now, if you will just take your own words as data, you can start over and say something sensible.

[SRG2]

Those who think that the SC reached the correct decision do so because they're thinking in terms of Trump getting immunity (though the Florida case clearly doesn't apply). They're not thinking in terms of presidents in general getting immunity.

[Michael Ejercito]

The Sc was thinking of presidents in general getting immunity.

They relied on Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982) and Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982)

Furthermore, federal prosecutors already have immunity per prior court precedents.

Most importantly, no litigant asked the Court to sweep away its prior immunity jurisprudence.

What this means, of course, is that any argument that President Barack Obama committed manslaughter by being the President when Operation: Fast & Furious resulted in the death of border patrol agent Brian Terry, can not stand.

[SRG2]

While we know that the decision covered all presidents, I think that it was accepted because it specifically covered Trump. If the court had ruled in favour of Biden in another case, you lot would have been screaming.

Furthermore, federal prosecutors already have immunity per prior court precedents.

Which I had already stated earlier.

[Michael Ejercito]

Does it surprise you federal prosecutors did not ask the Supreme Court to sweep away its prior immunity jurisprudence?

[DesigNate]

That’s because you’re a partisan hack bruv.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

Okay, froim law school, logic class, rhetoric class : NEVER argue from a contrafactual , it makes you look a total asss.
The court did not rule in favor of Biden, so if you will leave your alternate universe and address the factual......

[Nobartium]

It's called sovereign immunity.

The same type of immunity that congressshitters get when they pass laws that are unconstitutional (or tax you to death).

[SRG2]

It's not called sovereign immunity because - unlike a monarch - the president is not a sovereign.

And while Congress gets immunity in the Constitution, when they act unconstitutionally, unless the Executive or a state takes them to court, no-one else will generally be recognised as having standing to sue. And standing doctrines are all judge-made law.

[Nobartium]

Au contraire, the president is indeed sovereign. His sovereignty, as in this case, was over secrets and classification.

He isn't an absolute sovereign, the ruling made that clear, but what actually brought the case to court was something that he was.

Which is why no living president has ever been prosecuted over documents during their reigns.

[JasonT20]

Au contraire, the president is indeed sovereign.

This is, well, the only response to that is what I found here.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^ This is the slimy pile of lefty shit who supports murder as a preventative measure for pretty much anything:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

Eat shit and die, asshole.

[JasonT20]

^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.

Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm

"When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
Don't like it? Don't start the war."

Indeed, he is an embarrassment.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

SIlly and stupid comment. I am not a Trumpie and SC reached the right decision.
And people like you make me sure that is the case. You wanted filibuster removed for partisan reasons ----OOOOPS now you don't.

I have long since reserved my greatest scepticism for the one who posts posing as a cooly objective saint. You aint.

[IceTrey]

The SCOTUS doesn't err because the law is whatever they say it is.

[JasonT20]

Justice Robert Jackson:

We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.

That is a nice-sounding turn of phrase, because it uses the same word, but the meaning of the statement changes completely by the order of how it is used. But really, a simpler and more accurate statement would have been:

We are not infallible. We are only final.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^ This is the lying pile of lefty shit who supports murder as a preventative measure for pretty much anything:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

Eat shit and die, asshole.

[JasonT20]

^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.

Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm

"When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
Don't like it? Don't start the war."

Indeed, he is an embarrassment.

[Not a Conservative but a Biden LOATHER]

No, even in the law the Cosntituion is supreme over SCOTUS
That is the basis for reversals and my stare decisis is NEVER a valid sole excuse for keeping something in place , like Dred Scott and slavery.

[JasonT20]

Was the Supreme Court Wrong About Presidential Immunity?

This question has a really simple answer: Yes.
The explanation of why the majority was wrong is almost as simple: No one should be above the law.

As noted in the dissent, the United States is no longer a place where we can credibly claim that no one is above the law. SCOTUS has declared that the President, bound by the Constitution to see that the law is faithfully executed, can't be criminally prosecuted for choosing to violate the law, as long as judges in federal courts agree that he was making an "official act". And those judges could owe their jobs to that President.

[Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment]

^ This is the stesming pile of lefty shit who supports murder as a preventative measure for pretty much anything:

JasonT20
February.6.2022 at 6:02 pm
“How many officers were there to stop Ashlee Babbitt and the dozens of people behind her from getting into the legislative chamber to do who knows what?...”

Eat shit and die, asshole.

[JasonT20]

^This is the hate-filled, fascist shit who supports killing children by the thousands as if that will be a lesson to terrorists that only view those children as fuel for their Jihad.

Sevo, 5-30-24, embarrassment December 13, 2024 at 5:51pm

"When you start a war against a stronger opponent, expect to suffer more casualties.
Don't like it? Don't start the war."

Indeed, he is an embarrassment.

[Lester75]

^^ Should be the same for any government official.

[JasonT20]

I'm confused, you're saying that every government official should be free from potential prosecution as long as they can get a judge to agree that they were performing "an official act"? Even if the "official act" was not something they are explicitly allowed to do?

That is what we're talking about here. Neither a President nor anyone else can be prosecuted unless their act was a crime - aka a violation of a criminal statute. If someone was actually acting in accordance with the law, including government officials exercising lawful authority, then they have an absolute defense.

What the SCOTUS decision did was to preempt any possibility of prosecuting a (former) President for actually violating the law by abusing their authority and giving orders that weren't lawful, because they will still argue that it was an "official act" that they have immunity for doing. On top of that, any criminal prosecutions for acts that were not official can't use any of those "official acts" in any way during the prosecution. And you think all government officials should have that kind of immunity?

[MWAocdoc]

"Was the Supreme Court wrong?" - Yes!

There! Fixed it for you!

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

NO, legally there are always two levels, the ruling and the supporting arguments. The SCOTUS is founded on this distinction as in agreement with a ruling with DISSENT

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

They did the right thing for the wrong reason
The last act is the greatest treason. To do the right deed for the wrong reason. TS Eliot, Murder in the Cathedral

We can't pretend this wasn't for everybody a BIden V Trump case.
And now for all the world to see BIden is pardoning absolute bastards incl his son. Trump needs to be punished for what he did in office but 4 years of a mindless poorly-spoken lazy idiot just doesn't count.

[voluntaryist]

Law is based on deadly threat, not reason, rights, choice. That leads to chaos, as we see worldwide, nationally, locally. Propaganda links "law & order" as if one leads to the other, a typical trick, i.e., committing the fallacy of the "stolen concept", putting two contradictory concepts together to create confusion, muddy the waters. Therefore, proving an act is legal doesn't make it moral or practical and doesn't warrant ending criticism.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

Law and order" are not so dissimilar that putting them together is ipso facto wrong. you yourself add in a causal connection that does not exist in the more collocation of the two !!!
And of course you ruined your whole argument by saying "DEADLY threat" and not just "threat" because it requites LAW to say what is not just a threat but a deadly threat.

Your last statement is true but totally unconnected to what went before., and it was NEVER the case in Western law anyway !!

Epikeia is a principle of equity that allows for the interpretation of a law to be adjusted in cases of hardship or when it violates natural law. The term comes from the Ancient Greek word epieikeia, which means "reasonableness".
In the Roman Catholic Church, epikeia is an interpretation of the law that allows for exceptions in cases of hardship. For example, a mother might use epikeia to miss mass and stay with her baby instead

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

If you don't say complete immunity you only postpone the real question of 'What is immune"
The question should have been , Is X immune?
The Trump attackers forced this answer by sheer illogical stupidity.

[Peter Kreeft taught me LOGIC, BEWARE !!!!!!!]

In Rhetoric/Debate/Logic class this is an example of an illicit description fo what is being argued.
1)supreme court okay of anyting is merely a statement that it is not unconstitutional. It can be stupid, nebulous, poorly crafted, even pointless. nonetheless
2) Why assume it was right that the question came to the Supreme Court. SCOUTUS and lower courts have repeatedly called tuition refund unconstitutional but you keep on with it at REASON, don't you
3) The HILLARY PREMISE is at work here: that something has a perfect solution, so you can argue down all practicable alternatives. The only way to ensure the immunity that everyone knows a President must have, is this way. Biden is evil dumb and hateful with some of his pardons but the remedy is not to elect a FOOL with a 50-year history of being a FOOL.

[LIBtranslator]

State Department bureaucrats and Britain's Anthony Eden wanted Hitler to have immunity, along with his SS and Gestapo minions because Stalin socialists were way worse for business and didn't even love the Boy Jesus. Only after Herbert Pell went to the newspapers with the story was enough pressure generated to bring some Christian National Socialists to trial for war crimes. We are seeing a replay of how bureaucrats and infiltrators write the laws just as surely as appointees of other stripes.

[With Trump in, "now Lord you can let your servant go in peace"]

Learn the Constitution on your own. Most of colonial America did just that.
So birthright citizenship

"
IN FACT, the Constitution only grants birthright citizenship to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the “United States.” The facts are clear that this doesn’t include the children of illegal immigrants, visitors, or tourists."