- 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 4:58 pm to Robin Masters
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
0
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.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:02 pm to Indefatigable
quote:I've read the thread. Address your post totals in this thread vs SFP's. I'm just going on personal impressions here b(I've counted nothing), however I'd guess you'd be out of range. If I'm wrong I'll happily admit it.
You've not posted that much here.
---
Then you didn't read the thread
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:06 pm to NC_Tigah
That’s fair I suppose. And apparently I missed the pivot you and he went down.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:I've not seen that.
And apparently when I'm winning one.
Not being coy.
Just suggesting if you do the same IRL, you should be cognizant.
It is a tell. Trust me as someone who's taken advantage, then look for yourself.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:08 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
That’s fair I suppose. And apparently I missed the pivot you and he went down.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 5:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked how Trump’s absolute immunity claim related to the precedent of the Nixon pardon, and how it related to a seeming longstanding understanding that presidents could be subject to prosecution, and might need a pardon to prevent it: “So what was up with the pardon for President Nixon?” she asked. “I mean, if everybody thought that presidents couldn’t be prosecuted, then what was that about?
Is anyone else a little concerned that we have a SC justice that speaks from the bench in this manner?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 6:31 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Just suggesting if you do the same IRL, you should be cognizant.
I use it intentionally.
Again, what in the Constitution removes the President from that clause?
And, assuming it's extra-Constitutional, why are you relying on it for any guidance whatsoever?
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:38 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Now state prosecutions...that's much more of a spicy meatbal
Reading this thread raises interesting questions
Hypothetical:
Republican President is in New Orleans with Republican house and senate. Giving speech and there is a heckler. President walks off the stage and pulls a gun and kills the heckler.
Does the constitution prohibit LA from charging him with murder? Is he allowed to continue to serve absent some impeachment?
I have to believe, in this hypo, that POTUS can be charged and tried with murder even without impeachment.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 7:49 pm to dafif
quote:
I have to believe, in this hypo, that POTUS can be charged and tried with murder even without impeachment.
Exactly. It just doesn't make sense.
The reason federal prosecution is potentially limited is due to separation of power. This limitation does not apply to states.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:51 pm to dafif
quote:
Republican President is in New Orleans with Republican house and senate. Giving speech and there is a heckler. President walks off the stage and pulls a gun and kills the heckler. Does the constitution prohibit LA from charging him with murder?
No.
quote:
Is he allowed to continue to serve absent some impeachment?
We honestly don’t know. That issue has never been litigated and given the hypothetical, probably never will. Mostly because such a situation would absolutely result in impeachment and removal from a practical perspective.
It would be a constitutional crisis for sure.
quote:
I have to believe, in this hypo, that POTUS can be charged and tried with murder even without impeachment.
He can certainly be charged. Whether or not the State would have the power to compel his appearance at trial or try him in abstentia would be the legal issue of the century.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 8:52 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:56 pm to GumboPot
quote:
He want's the power to check the executive coming from the DOJ.
He wants unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch to check the executive.
He’s advocating for a soft coup and admitting the deep state is a thing.
Who is the real threat to democracy?
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 8:57 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 8:59 pm to Indefatigable
Having to jump all the way to murder to demonstrate a point on the matter I think is somewhat telling, and yes I know you weren’t the one who introduced that example. I think we would probably find much, much more common ground on the issue in that particular instance. But alas we’re back in the far opposite direction on severity of the alleged crime at hand.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:00 pm to davyjones
My reply wasn’t intended to be adversarial. I’d wager you and I land in the same corner on the merits of Trump’s charges. Though I don’t think the severity of the criminal charge is relevant to the core constitutional analysis.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 9:02 pm
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:08 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable
It says the party convicted...meaning after being removed from office by impeachment conviction.
Posted on 4/29/24 at 9:34 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
My reply wasn’t intended to be adversarial. I’d wager you and I land in the same corner on the merits of Trump’s charges. Though I don’t think the severity of the criminal charge is relevant to the core constitutional analysis.
I get all that and don’t doubt any of it. Which is why I felt the need to point out that the hypothetical wasn’t actually yours. So I suppose I may have ultimately been responding to the original post with that murder example, via your own response. So the question becomes……why didn’t I just reply to the original comment with the murder example? Answer: I have no idea.
But while I’ve got you on the “severity of the crime” aspect - the very fine art of application of discretion within the bounds of criminal investigation and prosecution is perhaps the most paramount aspect of the entire process. That’s literally where it all begins. The decision to “wield” that great authority and to implement the heavy force and authority that goes along with it. Not to mention the whole process ain’t exactly free or cheap.
As I’m certain you’re aware there are too many factors to possibly think of in a single sitting - both general ones and case specific ones - that may apply in a given matter. Many, many considerations of which a number of significant ones probably come to mind for you almost immediately…..severity of the situation likely being one of them.
Anyhow, much too long story made short, this sure seemed like a tailor made situation meriting restraint in that discretion as opposed to the actual aggressive decision that’s come to pass. Of course that’s a matter of opinion, for which mine counts for exactly zero. But as the days go by
I can’t help but feel like mine is being born out by problems piling up stemming from those discretionary decisions.
This post was edited on 4/29/24 at 9:45 pm
Posted on 4/30/24 at 7:04 am to spacewrangler
quote:
It says the party convicted...meaning after being removed from office by impeachment conviction.
It doesn't have any wording stating of inferring a causal relationship or requirement.
That wording is a comment about the implications of Double Jeopardy
Posted on 4/30/24 at 7:07 am to davyjones
quote:
But while I’ve got you on the “severity of the crime” aspect - the very fine art of application of discretion within the bounds of criminal investigation and prosecution is perhaps the most paramount aspect of the entire process. That’s literally where it all begins. The decision to “wield” that great authority and to implement the heavy force and authority that goes along with it. Not to mention the whole process ain’t exactly free or cheap.
That's exactly why the hypotheticals start with a potential state charge for murder. It really tightens the gap on the discretion angle, due to the severity of the crime.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:06 am to dafif
quote:That POTUS would either be removed vis-a-vis the 25thA or Impeachment.
Hypothetical:
Republican President is in New Orleans with Republican house and senate. Giving speech and there is a heckler. President walks off the stage and pulls a gun and kills the heckler.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 11:08 am to NC_Tigah
Why can federal judge be tried prior to impeachment, but the President cannot?
Page 8 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News