- 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
How does the presidential immunity trial look now?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:23 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:23 am
Do we have a good feeling on how SCOTUS will rule?
2
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:26 am to loogaroo
My guess is that they will rule against immunity.
The whole thing is a catch 22 though…
if they have immunity, shite’s on if they are in office because they can’t be held responsible.
If they don’t have immunity, you have the stage set for political prosecutions of the party out of power (warranted or not).
The whole thing is a catch 22 though…
if they have immunity, shite’s on if they are in office because they can’t be held responsible.
If they don’t have immunity, you have the stage set for political prosecutions of the party out of power (warranted or not).
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:28 am to loogaroo
I don't really know that the two cases are related from SCOTUS' POV.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:29 am to teke184
quote:
if they have immunity, shite’s on if they are in office because they can’t be held responsible.
If they don’t have immunity, you have the stage set for political prosecutions of the party out of power (warranted or not).
I presume that it will be a very narrow decision focused solely on whether specific acts alleged against Trump are part of the "duties" of the office.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:30 am to teke184
quote:
you have the stage set for political prosecutions of the party out of power
Pretty well have that now don't we?
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:34 am to teke184
quote:
if they have immunity, shite’s on if they are in office because they can’t be held responsible.
Impeachment will hold them accountable. If the Congress refuses to impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors then we, as a country, have failed to hold our local representatives accountable.
Forget politics. We must love our country.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:35 am to Indefatigable
There are a lot of legal experts that think the Court worded their acceptance of the writ in a way that favors a ruling for Trump and/or gave the court the ability to punt the case back to the appellate court effectively killing the case pre-election. The writ reads"
They now have the option to kick it back to the appellate level to decide if it was within his "official acts".
Several legal scholars argue they didn't need to review his official acts because Jack Smiths contention is they were not part of his official acts, but the court apparently took it to that level. Does it matter, who knows but that's how some have read the tea leaves.
quote:
Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
They now have the option to kick it back to the appellate level to decide if it was within his "official acts".
Several legal scholars argue they didn't need to review his official acts because Jack Smiths contention is they were not part of his official acts, but the court apparently took it to that level. Does it matter, who knows but that's how some have read the tea leaves.
This post was edited on 3/4/24 at 11:42 am
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:37 am to The Maj
quote:Im old enough to remember a sitting president being impeached for investigating a potential political rival.quote:
you have the stage set for political prosecutions of the party out of power
Pretty well have that now don't we?
Funny how it’s ok when they do it…
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:39 am to LSU5508
quote:
that's how some have read the tea leaves.
Seems like a pretty reasonable take.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:45 am to Indefatigable
quote:
look now? by Indefatigable
I don't really know that the two cases are related from SCOTUS' POV.
In the sense that the immunity argument is similar to SCOTUS concern of "what's next" if they rule against immunity. I think this will be the big deciding factor for immunity decision.
The DOJ is going to argue the ridiculous what if of the President commiting murder and having immunity, and hopefully the justices slap that as a ridiculous what if.
As far as the "What next"concern goes, if the President does not have immunity, then no one in government will have immunity. That will reverberate to all federal positions, state, and local. Every act will be subject to lawsuits and prosecutions.
So this CO decision does have some foretelling of the immunity case.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 11:50 am to fwtex
quote:
if the President does not have immunity, then no one in government will have immunity.
Wouldn’t they say that remedies are available to relieve a sitting president and if the Congress didn’t act, oh well.
Posted on 3/4/24 at 12:09 pm to loogaroo
quote:
Wouldn’t they say that remedies are available to relieve a sitting president and if the Congress didn’t act, oh well.
You would think.
The Sotomayors on the court may decide they can run with the Ad Absurdium argument on a dissent, unlike the Colorado case, but the majority argument would likely be “anything within the job duties of the President”.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News