- 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: Andrew Weissmann's intentional ignorance on checks and balances.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:55 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:55 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
To the extent I used that phrase at all ITT, it was earlier in the thread when Robin Masters was woefully and demonstrably wrong about the impeachment judgment clause.
Do you have a mole at the USSC? They are deciding on that argument as we type? Curious what makes you so sure. Especially considering their willingness to hear the case?
quote:
Sauer told the justices that presidents could only face criminal charges once they are impeached and convicted in the Senate. At the same time, he said such a prosecution could only happen under criminal statutes that make a “clear statement” to explicitly include the president.
2
Posted on 4/29/24 at 4:58 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Do you have a mole at the USSC? They are deciding on that argument as we type?
They will almost assuredly decide it based on the same limited immunity found everywhere else in government, which has NOTHING to do with this impeachment-removal theory.
quote:
Curious what makes you so sure.
They'll have to unwind a long series of precedents that aren't really litigated in order to come to a more politicized ruling.
quote:
Especially considering their willingness to hear the case?
It's a novel Constitutional issue because this specific scenario has never made it to the USSC with a President before. The closest was the Nixon civil immunity cases from the 70s. No criminal case involving a President has made it to SCOTUS for a confirmation (or unwinding) of precedent.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:02 pm to Robin Masters
quote:
Do you have a mole at the USSC?
Yes. I leaked the Dobbs decision.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News