- 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
re: If the US Supreme Court would rule against Trump ...
Posted on 3/5/24 at 9:52 am to fwtex
Posted on 3/5/24 at 9:52 am to fwtex
quote:
Define an official act? POTUS is a 24/7 job so how do you define what is a personal act vs. official act?
Start with the enumerated powers of the Constitution
Then look at delegated powers from Congressional acts
2
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:If they analyze it on that limited basis, Trump won't get immunity.
t's difficult to argue that promoting a political rally to support him is an official duty of the President.
However, there is a reason J6 occurred. Trump was trying to pressure Pence into full utility of Electoral College rules in place at the time. He could thereby force the issue to the House, and get the House of Representatives to do what SCOTUS refused to do ... hear TX v PA arguments.
Put another way. Following the 2020 fiasco, had SCOTUS not cowered from the moment, had its members done their jobs, J6 would not have happened.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:18 am to LSU Pappa
quote:
I just do not see how they could allow this.
They can’t. This was always a delay game. Stall and hope they can land some horseshite conviction that sticks long enough to affect the election. After that, “oops, our bad. Sorry Donny”
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:25 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Start with the enumerated powers of the Constitution
Then look at delegated powers from Congressional acts
Enforce the laws passed by Congress. In this particular Trip case, How do you define if Trump was working within his powers to enforce election laws or working only to benefit his election?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:42 am to SlowFlowPro
So again according to you all that needs to take place once Biden leaves office is to charge him in a GOP stronghold location (my home county for instance , Forsyth GA for instance) for failing to inforce immigration laws?!
You’re essentially saying 12 jurors get to say what is and is not an official act of POTUS.
lol! Sounds good to me GOP prosecutors fixing to eat on Obama and then Biden whenever he leaves office
You’re essentially saying 12 jurors get to say what is and is not an official act of POTUS.
lol! Sounds good to me GOP prosecutors fixing to eat on Obama and then Biden whenever he leaves office
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:43 am to SlowFlowPro
Yea but you want to leave it up to a jury to decide what is an offical act…lol
Good luck with that
Good luck with that
This post was edited on 3/5/24 at 10:46 am
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:46 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The issue is trying to coral what he did into his official duties as President.
Without commenting on the merits of whether this activity is criminal, it's difficult to argue that promoting a political rally to support him is an official duty of the President.
I am not a lawyer but I would think the immunity should be complete and total unless the President is impeached by the house and convicted by the senate.
Everything that a President does should be considered immune. The hill that should be overcome would happen with impeachment and conviction.
This is a can of worms for all future Presidents that would be very problematic.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
However, there is a reason J6 occurred. Trump was trying to pressure Pence into full utility of Electoral College rules in place at the time. He could thereby force the issue to the House, and get the House of Representatives to do what SCOTUS refused to do ... hear TX v PA arguments.
In this example, every organized protest in DC would be an obstruction of government. The only reason anyone protest in DC is because that is where the government is located and they are trying to influence the government officials to a preferred outcome.
All the nutjobs protesters that disrupt hearings and verbally assault members of Congress would have to face the same fate.
As you can see their is much more unknown implications to the immunity argument should SCOTUS rule there is no immunity.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:48 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Trump was trying to pressure Pence into full utility of Electoral College rules in place at the time.
Again, probably not a Presidential duty. He was acting as a partisan, political candidate in that scenario.
quote:
He could thereby force the issue to the House, and get the House of Representatives to do what SCOTUS refused to do ... hear TX v PA arguments.
Only a few fringe theorists thought this was possible, let alone legal, so I don't think promoting a scheme that most rational observers will call illegal will also fall within Presidential duties.
quote:
had SCOTUS not cowered from the moment
They ruled correctly.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:48 am to fwtex
quote:
How do you define if Trump was working within his powers to enforce election laws or working only to benefit his election?
How does promoting a political rally do this?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:49 am to alphaandomega
Precisely and Slow wants to leave all of this up to a Jury thinking that roles won’t be reversed in future .
In fact if court says Presidents are not immune I would go ahead in a GOP district and grand jury indict Biden proactively so that he knows what awaits him once he leaves office
That’s only fair right Slow Flow? lol
You have some of the weirdest logic of any posters on this board
In fact if court says Presidents are not immune I would go ahead in a GOP district and grand jury indict Biden proactively so that he knows what awaits him once he leaves office
That’s only fair right Slow Flow? lol
You have some of the weirdest logic of any posters on this board
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:49 am to masoncj
quote:
So again according to you all that needs to take place once Biden leaves office is to charge him in a GOP stronghold location (my home county for instance , Forsyth GA for instance) for failing to inforce immigration laws?!
That's not a crime. That is also specifically within executive authority.
So no, that example won't work, either.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:50 am to masoncj
quote:
Precisely and Slow wants to leave all of this up to a Jury
The problem with your argument is basing it on this statement that is not a reflection of how things would work.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:52 am to SlowFlowPro
What trump did wasn’t a crime you Jack wagon and you know it
As they say, we can indict a ham sandwich and that’s definitely Joe Biden so again in a GOP stronghold I expect that there will be some indictments if immunity is not granted to Trump
As they say, we can indict a ham sandwich and that’s definitely Joe Biden so again in a GOP stronghold I expect that there will be some indictments if immunity is not granted to Trump
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:52 am to SlowFlowPro
It’s precisely how it would work
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:53 am to masoncj
quote:
What trump did wasn’t a crime you Jack wagon and you know it
I never said it was.
Go back to the post you replied to initially. It even clearly says the discussion is not about that:
quote:
Without commenting on the merits of whether this activity is criminal, it's difficult to argue that promoting a political rally to support him is an official duty of the President.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:54 am to masoncj
quote:
It’s precisely how it would work
If the President is immune for official duties, a prosecution over his official duties will never make it to a jury.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
So admit that Biden could be indicted in a GOP stronghold location, If immunity test fails ?
It’s ok you can say it…
It’s ok you can say it…
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:55 am to LSU Pappa
quote:
wouldn't this open up the door for any president to be potentially criminally prosecuted for something done in office once his presidency ends?
Yes
Posted on 3/5/24 at 10:55 am to SlowFlowPro
Any according to you a jury will now decide that
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News