- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
In light of todays appeals court ruling regards presidential immunity
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:48 pm
Maybe there are 26 state attornies general that need to indict Obama because of his similarity to a ham sandwich. And do it this week before the full appeals court panel rules
9
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:50 pm to Trevaylin
What do state attorneys general have to do with federal immunity?
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:55 pm to Trevaylin
2-1 vote. 2 Biden judges, one GWB judge. To be appealed to ussc who will defer until the DC circuit hears en banc.
Then to ussc.
Then to ussc.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What do state attorneys general have to do with federal immunity?
What do Colorado state officials have to do with Federal insurrection?
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:59 pm to Deplorableinohio
quote:
2-1 vote.
It was a 3-0 vote
Posted on 2/6/24 at 1:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:No doubt the same thing they have to do with federal insurrection.
What do state attorneys general have to do with federal immunity?
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:00 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
What do Colorado state officials have to do with Federal insurrection?
State eligibility requirements per state election codes.
That was easy.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:00 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (sometimes called Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the ACLU and CCR charge that the U.S. government’s killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen in 2011 violated the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
The killings were part of a broader program of “targeted killing” by the United States outside the context of armed conflict. The program is based on vague legal standards, a closed executive decision-making process, and evidence never presented to the courts, even after the killing.
LINK
quote:
The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the case presented only “political questions,” and the Court therefore lacked jurisdiction; that it would be inappropriate to recognize a damages remedy in this context; and that they have qualified immunity because they did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights.
In April 2014, the district court rejected the government’s argument that the case should be dismissed as presenting only a “political question,” but held that it was barred by “special factors.” One such special factor was that it would “impermissibly draw the Court into ‘the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation.’”
We did not appeal.
LINK
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:02 pm to GumboPot
quote:
it would “impermissibly draw the Court into ‘the heart of executive and military planning and deliberation.’”
That's where the immunity in that case is going to flow from. Clear executive functions under the Constitution.
Where Trump's immunity claims have issue is the lack of any such executive/Constitutional basis for the conduct underlying the accusations.
Executive immunity is a partial immunity for executive actions.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:03 pm to Trevaylin
I think what’s missing in all of this is that scotus will grant immunity for trump based on a limited ruling for this one case. He was acting in his offical duties to call fraud and investigate it in the election, which it 100% was.
Simply due the office of president being very limited to a few select folks …limited rulings would of course always be the case if this bull shite is brought by an opposing party for political gain which this is 100%.
Similar if Joe shoots and kills Jill tonight and of course dem Congress doesn’t impeach , he still could be prosecuted once he has left office.
Of course he could claim immunity and then it makes it way back to scotus where in another limited ruling scotus says he is not immune
Get the point ?
The very nature of trying to prosecute a former potus is extremely unique (it’s never happened before) and scotus could certainly say for this one case that trump is immune…and that doesn’t mean that absolves all future presidents from prosecutions
In fact scotus loves narrow rulings…they hate broad policy implications rulings
Will see what they decide to do but i think they narrowly call trump immune in this instance.
Simply due the office of president being very limited to a few select folks …limited rulings would of course always be the case if this bull shite is brought by an opposing party for political gain which this is 100%.
Similar if Joe shoots and kills Jill tonight and of course dem Congress doesn’t impeach , he still could be prosecuted once he has left office.
Of course he could claim immunity and then it makes it way back to scotus where in another limited ruling scotus says he is not immune
Get the point ?
The very nature of trying to prosecute a former potus is extremely unique (it’s never happened before) and scotus could certainly say for this one case that trump is immune…and that doesn’t mean that absolves all future presidents from prosecutions
In fact scotus loves narrow rulings…they hate broad policy implications rulings
Will see what they decide to do but i think they narrowly call trump immune in this instance.
This post was edited on 2/6/24 at 2:05 pm
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:04 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
federal insurrection.
What insurrection?
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:05 pm to Trevaylin
What about individual legislators? Are they still untouchable?
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:05 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That's where the immunity in that case is going to flow from. Clear executive functions under the Constitution.
I guess the 1st amendment is not under the constitution.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
Who gets to decide his offical duties oh wise sage? Democrats prosecutors and juries …lol
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:09 pm to GumboPot
Tell me about it…slow pro is very slow apparently
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:13 pm to Trevaylin
DOJ won't prosecute him.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:14 pm to masoncj
quote:
Who gets to decide his offical duties oh wise sage? Democrats prosecutors and juries …lol
The constitution, Federal appeals court judges and ultimately SCOTUS.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:what’s the relevance of the first amendment in an executive immunity conversation?
guess the 1st amendment is not under the constitution.
Posted on 2/6/24 at 2:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Where Trump's immunity claims have issue is the lack of any such executive/Constitutional basis for the conduct underlying the accusations.
I think you could argue that the President has a responsibility to ensure that Federal Elections are held without fraud and if he doesn’t believe they are has every right to exercise what authority he has as President. Whether he overstepped or misinterpreted his authority shouldn’t be relevant.
It’s not like he robbed a bank or had his generals seize control of the Capital.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News