First the debacle at the debate and now this. Two serious setbacks within days. Sure, we are entitled to fulminate. But given the performance of this USSC to date, and ditto POTUS,
did we really, really, really, expect anything different?
US supreme court rules Trump has ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts
- Thread starter Knuckle Ball
- Start date
did we really, really, really, expect anything different?
No, I knew the twats in the majority in the Supreme Court were going to do whatever they can to help out the orange stain. You have Alito waving Stop the Steal flags and Clarence with his super twat wife along with the rest who believe Trump is a God, the USA is fucked if they take the Whitehouse in November.
Well said. The US deserves this as its what they want.
Is that why Zuckerberg is building himself a bunker, or many other billionaires buying private yacht or island.
They know the US will be unliveable in a few years.
But maybe it will be a benevolent reign.
Well, Obama DID murder hundreds of civilians with drone strikes and got immunity for it, so ...
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush/
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.c...-in-numbers-ten-times-more-strikes-than-bush/
They made a mistake it’s Clearance Thomas not Clarence.
There's an old Turkish saying "When you put a clown in the palace, he doesn't become king, the palace becomes a circus"
You think posts like this are serious?
It's actually not a bad decision, although it needs to factor in an exception where the president is clearly acting in bad faith and for corrupt motives.
All decision-makers have immunity, as long as they stay within the proper ambit of their powers. Judges have judicial immunity. Legislators have legislative immunity.
The decision won't affect the hush money case, as this was when Trump was a private citizen BEFORE he became president. It probably won't affect the stolen documents case, as Trump was a private citizen AFTER he was president.
The insurrection case is interesting, as it involves corrupt and bad faith conduct when Trump was still in office.
It seems a number of pieces of evidence showing corrupt intent might be considered official acts (eg telling lawyers what to do, acknowledging that he lost to biden, etc). Not sure of the list yet.
The question is whether the USSC ruling allows bad faith to be taken into account or confers absolute immunity.
Also a question of whether challenging the selection of his successor is within his role as president, as it doesn't involve enforcement and execution of Congress's decrees or his diplomatic duties?
If this is Trump qua private citizen / candidate, then immunity should not attach. And indeed, the president has no role in the selection of the incoming president. It's the Senate and the V-P who play the key roles.
