- 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
If the US Supreme Court would rule against Trump ...
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:24 am
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:24 am
and hold his immunity while in office doesn't extend to him once out of office and thus he can be prosecuted for something he did while in office (i.e. the Jan. 6th bullshite), wouldn't this open up the door for any president to be potentially criminally prosecuted for something done in office once his presidency ends?
I just do not see how they could allow this.
In other words when Trump wins back the presidency couldn't a republican AG move to prosecute Biden for any action he did in office that would be deemed criminal? Such as failure of dereliction of duty to intentionally allowing the US to be invaded and contributing to all the terrible crimes committed by illegals?
I just do not see how they could allow this.
In other words when Trump wins back the presidency couldn't a republican AG move to prosecute Biden for any action he did in office that would be deemed criminal? Such as failure of dereliction of duty to intentionally allowing the US to be invaded and contributing to all the terrible crimes committed by illegals?
8
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:26 am to LSU Pappa
How can you have immunity in office then be charged later? I’m not understanding your post
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:28 am to LSU Pappa
quote:
and hold his immunity while in office doesn't extend to him once out of office and thus he can be prosecuted for something he did while in office (i.e. the Jan. 6th bullshite), wouldn't this open up the door for any president to be potentially criminally prosecuted for something done in office once his presidency ends?
Not if the court rules he has immunity for official acts.
The question is if the USSC would make the determination that his conduct was an official act, or remand it back to the trial court to make this determination first prior to review.
I imagine since the case yesterday was clearly done in a way to be apolitical, which included violating the norms and protocols of appellate review, they would take a step forward to resolve the case in a way to remove any questions moving forward. However, since this case isn't as important, politically, as the one yesterday, it may not get this special treatment.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:28 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
How can you have immunity in office then be charged later?
He's imagining a ruling where immunity only extends to your time in office and it does not exist out of office.
I doubt that they rule that.
They may rule ACTS out of office don't get the immunity, but that wouldn't fit in his hypos.
This post was edited on 3/5/24 at 8:29 am
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:31 am to LSU Pappa
Isn’t it a problem that presidents have any immunity at all?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:34 am to momentoftruth87
I have little knowledge regarding the precise parameters of the DC decision that was appealed to the USSC. I am only going by the various reports I have heard and read and many constitutional experts seem to think the odds of the USSC to render a decision favorable to Trump is bleak at best. Thus, I guess I need to find the opinion to educate myself to the exact issue being reviewed.
This post was edited on 3/5/24 at 8:35 am
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:35 am to TDsngumbo
The unrest in this country had it been ruled oppositely would dwarf Jan. 6th in a major way
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:36 am to LSU Pappa
quote:
the odds of the USSC to render a decision favorable to Trump is bleak at best.
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.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:36 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
Isn’t it a problem that presidents have any immunity at all?
Do you even lawfare bro?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:43 am to SlowFlowPro
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.
What specifically are they alleging he did to interfere with a congressional proceeding?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:45 am to TDsngumbo
quote:
Isn’t it a problem that presidents have any immunity at all?
It would be impossible to govern if they didn't. Imagine 5,000 lawsuits being brought non-stop for 4 years because of decisions made by any president you don't like.
We know this would happen, because the president has immunity now and it's happening anyway.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:48 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?
Keep in mind sometimes it’s just Different too. Different circumstances, Different rules (or lack thereof)
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
Are you suggesting "ACTS in office" vs. "ACTS out of office" is actually holding the office vs. when you are no longer holding the office?
Or are you suggesting that there are things a president can do while being the president that can be "outside the official duties of office" to where presidential immunity doesn't apply?
I guess the correlation I am trying to make is like a "course and scope" argument. If one can make the argument that a sitting president did something outside the scope of his office (employment as president) then the immunity doesn't apply. This being in contrast to a president doing an action that is clearly within the scope of his office and thus is protected by the presidential immunity.
For instance (and this would never happen but I make this crazy hypothetical to make a point), if a sitting president were to sneak out of the white house one night and go rape or murder someone clearly he would be said to have committed a crime that had nothing to do with any official act of his office. Thus, one would argue that there is no immunity.
So is the Fed govt (Jack Smith) taking the position that Trump's actions that arguably caused or contributed to the Jan. 6th events were not "official actions of office" thus Trump should not have immunity for same?
Or are you suggesting that there are things a president can do while being the president that can be "outside the official duties of office" to where presidential immunity doesn't apply?
I guess the correlation I am trying to make is like a "course and scope" argument. If one can make the argument that a sitting president did something outside the scope of his office (employment as president) then the immunity doesn't apply. This being in contrast to a president doing an action that is clearly within the scope of his office and thus is protected by the presidential immunity.
For instance (and this would never happen but I make this crazy hypothetical to make a point), if a sitting president were to sneak out of the white house one night and go rape or murder someone clearly he would be said to have committed a crime that had nothing to do with any official act of his office. Thus, one would argue that there is no immunity.
So is the Fed govt (Jack Smith) taking the position that Trump's actions that arguably caused or contributed to the Jan. 6th events were not "official actions of office" thus Trump should not have immunity for same?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:54 am to philter
quote:
It would be impossible to govern if they didn't. Imagine 5,000 lawsuits being brought non-stop for 4 years because of decisions made by any president you don't like.
We know this would happen, because the president has immunity now and it's happening anyway.
This is why I don't think SCOTUS will attempt to narrow the scope. There are remedies already available to the congress. Our for fathers thought of this considering the tyranny of the British Crown.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:56 am to SlowFlowPro
Yeah I get that part. But he wouldn’t get arrested for crimes in office and afterwards he’s not going to break the law. That’s the confusing part because the immunity covers actions in office so no they can’t charge him afterwards that’s the point of immunity.
Posted on 3/5/24 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
Gotcha. Makes sense.
I do not think the mass media and the reports on the issue are very clear.
This argument would make more sense and to my knowledge the issue has never been raised in the courts.
Basically this is an argument b/w "Absolutely Immunity for any action regardless whether w/in the scope of office or not" vs. "Limited Immunity for only actions that fall within the scope of office".
I do not think the mass media and the reports on the issue are very clear.
This argument would make more sense and to my knowledge the issue has never been raised in the courts.
Basically this is an argument b/w "Absolutely Immunity for any action regardless whether w/in the scope of office or not" vs. "Limited Immunity for only actions that fall within the scope of office".
Posted on 3/5/24 at 9:04 am to LSU Pappa
quote:
Are you suggesting "ACTS in office" vs. "ACTS out of office" is actually holding the office vs. when you are no longer holding the office?
Uh, yeah.
quote:
Or are you suggesting that there are things a president can do while being the president that can be "outside the official duties of office" to where presidential immunity doesn't apply?
No.
quote:
So is the Fed govt (Jack Smith) taking the position that Trump's actions that arguably caused or contributed to the Jan. 6th events were not "official actions of office" thus Trump should not have immunity for same?
Correct. That is what they're arguing (and I believe the court is likely to base the ruling on).
Posted on 3/5/24 at 9:10 am to momentoftruth87
quote:
That’s the confusing part because the immunity covers actions in office
That may entirely depend on the type of action undertaken while in office.
There are 2 spectrums:
1. In/out of office
2. Within/outside of official duties
Posted on 3/5/24 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not if the court rules he has immunity for official acts.
Define an official act? POTUS is a 24/7 job so how do you define what is a personal act vs. official act?
Posted on 3/5/24 at 9:45 am to LSU Pappa
Obama ordered the killing of an American (suspected terrorist) extra judiciously. Why shouldn’t he be charged with murder if immunity is removed after leaving office?
Page 1 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News