>No, the President can’t break the law if it concerns ‘official acts’. But they can if it’s an unofficial act! >But we won’t tell you the difference or even define either terminology comprehensively - we’ll leave it to the lower courts to do so after months or years of proceedings, because by then it’s too late!>What’s that you say? You think you found evidence of an unofficial act from the President? Well you can’t compel the president to speak on any acts henceforth, and the court cannot inquire about them under ‘official business’!>Gee, I’m sure glad this nation fought a war against Monarchy and sovereign immunity in its founding”How can anyone think this is a good thing?
>>472803460Your paraphrasing of their argument isn't actually what they said it all. It's still against the law. But it's Congress's duty to indict and remove the president from power, not the judicial branch. This is how the Constitution was ratified. If it's unacceptable then the states need to amend the Constitution.
>>472803460read the actual 5 page decision the only thing that changed is there now has to be a fact finding trial deciding what is an official and not personal (going after political enemies) act.This simply means a DELAY in trial which means they can't stump the trump before November that's the only reason they are freaking out because their fake and gay trials aren't working
>>472803575>Your paraphrasing of their argument isn't actually what they said it all. It's still against the law. But it's Congress's duty to indict and remove the president from power, not the judicial branch. This is how the Constitution was ratified. If it's unacceptable then the states need to amend the Constitution.It is what it says, and what you said is not a rebuttal. "Congress's duty to indict and remove the president from power" is not a criminal or legal process, it is a political one. "It's still against the law" does not matter if there is no sitting authority in America, right now, that can convict a President for a crime.Constitutional oversights and myopia was meant to be for the legislature for amendments and the judicial for interpretation; this is way off-base. I agree with your final statement.
>>472803460Niggers tongue my anus.Check deez nuts
>>472803764Share with me what is said in my post that goes amiss with your findings. My third stanza agrees with your first argument, my second stanza agrees with your second statement.
>>472803460>President breaks the law>Pardons himselfWhoa!
>>472804117Now he doesn't even have to do that! Another day, another win for the """REPUBLIC"""
>>472803839Well, you can have all your opinions about what you think of the process, but that is the process. Congress is the one who is to hold the president accountable, not the unelected bureaucratic judicial branch. And for those reasons. I'm sure there are plenty of arguments as to why the system is not perfect. And if you want to get a movement going to have the states recommend the Constitution that's perfectly fine. But that's what it would take.
>>472803460it's all very straightforward, you're just stupid
Democrats are trying to defend our democracy by imprisoning their political opponent and these fascist supreme court justices put a stop to that.
>>472804117The POTUS can absolutely pardon themselves and Trump will definitely do that.
>>472804213It isn't *the* process, your preaching to a baseless finding. Congress isn't the only one holding the President accountable. Judicial review came into play explicitly from the Marshall court in Marbury v. Madison, and since then we've had several case laws showing that Presidents are held accountable my the judiciary just as much as the legislative:US v. Nixon - ruled that presidents MUST comply with subpoenas and that EP (executive privilege) isn't absolute.Clinton v Jones - The president does not have immunity from civil suits for events taken before officeAll of which were honored. I don't know what you're talking about.
>>472804604??? How? If anything, they just gave them more power to. Now, with Biden (a democrat) in charge of the executive, he can face NO REPRUCUSSION if he tries to jail his present political opponents, because he can deem it an "official" act, and no court - based on what the SC ruled - can inquire on it OR compel his testimony, and no evidence to the contrary can be shared BECAUSE it can't be inquired through discovery. I'm getting told to read the fine-print when none of you niggers have
>>472803575So as long as dems have 34 senators, a dem president can do whatever he wants? Seems retarded.
>>472803460You're an idiot. Go back to school moron.
>>472803460They did define the difference>Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said a president “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”
>>472804288>>472804964Yawn.
>>472804978That's not exactly comprehensive. He now has absolute immunity over anything carried out as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces? Any pardons? And treatises? Any appointments? Any time to convene and adjourn congress?How is this not near absolutely power to one person, with no recall for accountability?
>>472803460>But we won’t tell you the difference or even define either terminology comprehensively - we’ll leave it to the lower courts to do so after months or years of proceedings, because by then it’s too late!Too late for what?
>>472803460>How can anyone think this is a good thing?HOw can anyone care? Shit's on fire and you're criticizing the kitchenware
>>472805335Yes, he can do whatever he wants so long as those actions are within his constitutional authority as the president.That's why Trump, Biden, and Obama haven't been thrown in jail for using the military to murder thousands of arab children
>>472804808>Now, with Biden (a democrat) in charge of the executive, he can face NO REPRUCUSSION if he tries to jail his present political opponents, because he can deem it an "official" act,Hey dumbass. Laws don't stop dictators, and if you ever find yourself in the position that you're able to apply law to a "dictator" clearly they're not actually what you think they are.If Biden is arresting people, the last thing on my mind is if it's possible to prosecute him years later after he's out of office.
Laying down the groundwork for project 2025 is all.
I dont see the issue with King Biden
ITT: manifested proof of civic education's failure
>>472806229Biden gonna be great
Are all of you retarded or am I the retard here? The President can retroactively state that some illegal operation was "official" and it can be deemed legal. What is stopping him from doing that? What's stopping any President from machine gunning a thousand "official" actions, clogging up any investigative ability people have? I don't understand how this is good in any way. Feel free to call me retard, dumbfuck, etc etc whatever.
>>472806771>The President can retroactively state that some illegal operation was "official" and it can be deemed legalCitation please
>>472806771>What is stopping him from doing that? The court decision said it's based on his constitutional powers.
>>472803460The SCOTUS always gives highly specific rulings because it does not want to drastically change things ruling one way or the other unless it has to like with the abortion ruling. That is the way they have always done things. To get further clarification on this issue is probably going to take multiple attempts at getting a case to the SCOTUS over a period of years.This is just formalizing what has already been happening in practice for the presidency.
>>472806853https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/>"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts wrote.How exactly am I misunderstanding this pls explain>>472806858Where did you read that?
>>472807037Page 1 of the majority decision, quoted >>472804978
>>472803460Nothing changed with this ruling. Leftist shills are just seething because the courts told them they have to follow the same rules that everyone else has been following all this time.
>>472803764if you officially declare your political enemies as threats to national security will you be allowed to go after them as an official act? say if you somehow got the department of homeland security to label an entire political organization as a terrorist group? how far can we actually stretch the limits here?
>>472807205Please let me know where I'm wrong here:The President declares a candidate as a threat against our nation, and has him assassinated in some way. He gets sued by the party that the candidate represented. The Supreme Court rules that the assassination is within the President's powers, as it was an official act, which shields him from criminal prosecution during his tenure. He can still be sued in civil court by the family.I promise you I'm not being bad faith here, as unbelievable as you might think that is.
>>472807484The pres doesnt just get to assassinate Americans. The Supreme court cant decide that. They need to go through all if the current legal means to do so. Anything less is unofficial.
>>472807318That is what Obama did so I don't see the problem when Trump orders the heads of the DOJ and FBI assassinated.
>>472807638Why does he not get to do that?
>>472807484if the supreme court actually ruled that the assassination of of a political candidate who constituted a national security threat is in fact an official act of presidential powers then yes i suppose that would be the case, but this has never been brought to the supreme court so, for now, outright assassination of domestic national security threats is not an implicit power of the executive office (as far as i know). much like everything else the president does, its a legal grey area until a president actually does it and we see how the rest of the government responds.
>>472807912So....... Until it happens, it's not explicitly legal? That's it???
>>472808089 >>472807912The ruling at the end also says that unless proven otherwise, it's probably all an official act, doesn't it?
>>472803460Don't care. I want the consitution to be abolished and Trump or any other NAtionalist to be crowned Emperor. Clearly the Supreme court does not give a single fuck about the constitution either, they realize it doesn't matter anymore. The country as we know it is near its end.
>>472808089yeah basically. this is how a lot of executive orders get counteracted, the president tries to do something unilaterally and congress or the supreme court rule that he can't do that because its not a power of the executive office. that's the whole point of checks and balances, but if you remove legal culpability from the picture in as broad a stroke as "official acts" when the president's actual powers are as vaguely definied as they are, and often have their limits pushed, it leaves a lot of potential room for shenanigans. this decision probably wont have any immediate effects, but somewhere down the line i'm sure some president is going to use this ruling as a means to do something shady and get away with it simply because the rest of the government was too lazy to act against it, or actively supported the action.
>>472808243I think? I don't have any understanding of this shit.
>>472803460>mfw no longer a war criminal
>>472803460There are some people on the other side I really want to see tried for sedition but it’s generally a good agreement to not keep arresting and persecuting the other side. It makes losing power too dangerous and corruption a more logical choice.
>>472803460Alito is a traitor to the United States and Thomas is a corrupt Uncle Tom
What fucking nation are you in? Picrel, you tucking treasonous fuck.Train the Whole Militia. Be competent in efficient killing. That's a mandate from The People to The People, or You to You.
>>472807484If the supreme court had ruled the president has zero immunity:Imagine the president is forced to make a very unpopular decision. With zero immunity, he could face bullshit lawsuits from political opponents. The president has to have SOME kind of immunity for carrying out his constitutional duties, no?>>472807668It is against the law. Prosecution against the president for this would have to prove that the assassination fell outside his constitutional duties. The ruling states the president has total immunity for carrying out constitutional duties, some immunity for carrying out official duties, and no immunity for carrying out personal acts. It's easy to imagine prosecution arguing that assassination of a political opponent is misuse of presidential power as a personal act, enriching himself to stay in office or launching the attack for a petty personal reason.>>472808459Nothing new, the supreme court always kicks the can down the road only getting slightly more specific with each case. It's exactly as you say, we'll find out how far it covers the president when some shady shit goes down and they try to justify it.
>>472808800The field nigger/house nigger feud rages on
>>472807318Not without chevron they cant
>>472808954>The president has to have SOME kind of immunity for carrying out his constitutional duties, no?But the ruling specifically argued for protection against criminal prosecution, which effectively removes criminality from the President's office.>outside his constitutional dutiesBut this is the issue. You can continually redefine anything as a "constitutional duty". Sending arms shipments to Israel is a constitutional duty. Invading the next shithole country is a constitutional duty. Arming Ukraine. Destabilizing some Latin American country. The only specific difference between anything I listed and assassinating a candidate is where the action is located, yes?
>>472811653>The only specific difference between anything I listed and assassinating a candidate is where the action is located, yes?No? It's completely different?
>>472806858He's fucking commander-in-chief, if anything he's the only one in American with codified, Constitutional rights to exercise the hypothetical that >>472806771 said. What a retarded rebuttal, you should feel bad.
>>472811034Chevron does not concern this ruling. Chevron was about administrative law - this isn't.
>>472808812Are you purposely retarded nigger? Your picrel is our current president and this ruling just gave him unequivocal legal grace. In case I need to show you through audience cards, THIS IS BAD!!!!
>>472803460Nobody cares
>>472813699Similar though in that both point to greyzones. Chevron determined greyzones with the legality of agency rules can be adjucated. And this ruling formalizes the same for Official Duties. Both rulings, as well, highlight how derelict in their duties Congress has been by not clarifying any of these matters into law. They pass two giant packages for weapons contractors and big pharma every year and that's basically it. With regard to Chevron, they could have and should have been reviewing agency rules and either codifying or nullifying them for the last 40 years. They've had 246 years to figure out what Official Acts are.
>>472813473That hypothetical is retarded is because you've already lost the plot by thinking like a Jew. If you think like a Jew, it doesn't matter what the judges actually rule because you just do what you want anyway. You can't control a lawless president through the law. If the president is sending out death squads to kill his opponents the power to prosecute him is pointless because of the following hypothetical>What if the president despite having no legal immunity simply kills the prosecutor trying to indict him, and tells the judicial branch to go fuck themselves because they have no actual power?
>>472814306>Guys!>Guys!>What if the president abuses his power!Retard that literally just woke up.
>>472814556You're speaking in good faith so I appreciate that. I mostly agree with sentences 2 and 3.(Sue me for reddit spacing) When it comes to Chevron, it really has absolutely nothing to do with this because the *short* version is that Chevron was not a doctrine used in any and all cases where the law was ambiguous, it was always about whether an administrative agency's interpretation of the law was permissible. The subjects under consideration here do not fall under administrative law [0] and so Chevron would never have been relevant.[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/administrative_law
>>472814652"RuH rOh RaGgY I sAiD sOmEtHiNg ReTaRdEd, BetTer BriNg Up (((THEM))) J E W S"Niggers like you are the reason I only come here when current events are popping nowadays lol
>>472814946>it really has absolutely nothing to do with this because the *short* version is that Chevron was not a doctrine used in any and all cases where the law was ambiguousPlease read the case law. It’s all explained for you, right there. Chevron came about explicitly because of ambiguity in federal regulations. “Reasonableness” is how they filled that gap and it’s a broad brush.
>>472804623How can you pardon yourself if you are never convicted?
>>472815285I said:>>Chevron was not a doctrine used in any and all cases where the law was ambiguousYou said:>>Chevron came about explicitly because of ambiguity in federal regulations.We are in agreement.
>>472804829You do realize it's the Attorney General that prosecutes? So with or without it would be damned near impossible to do so while he or she is sitting, even unlikely if it's the same party. They tried with Trump with the special counsel if anyone even remembers Mueller and he declined.
