• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Absolute Immunity? Nope!

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I won't miss you. The rest of you have a nice day, I've said all I care to. But really guys, take a chill pill and give one to Sotomayor while you're at it, you could really imagine her hyperventilating while banging out her dissent.

See you next time, hopefully not too soon.
 
crashtech said:
I won't miss you. The rest of you have a nice day, I've said all I care to. But really guys, take a chill pill and give one to Sotomayor while you're at it, you could really imagine her hyperventilating while banging out her dissent.

See you next time, hopefully not too soon.
Click to expand...
I notice you did not engage with any substantive points.
 
fskimospy said:
I notice you did not engage with any substantive points.
Click to expand...
He won’t because he is ignorant clown. He answered no questions and now is attacking “liberal” justice. Seems clear he is magat concern troll, willfully ignorant or just dumb. Notice he didn’t say anything about the ethics of Thomas and Alito ruling on case with clear conflicts. Interesting that is.
 
These are the best law experts in the US? Anything the US President orders anyone in government to do is by definition official business. Biden should remove the justices that decided this due to gross incompetence.
 
APU_Fusion said:
He won’t because he is ignorant clown. He answered no questions and now is attacking “liberal” justice. Seems clear he is magat concern troll, willfully ignorant or just dumb. Notice he didn’t say anything about the ethics of Thomas and Alito ruling on case with clear conflicts. Interesting that is.
Click to expand...
Yes, it seems like the exchange was basically:

C: 'the ruling doesn't say what you claim'
Everyone else: 'yes it does because of A, B, and C. If you disagree, why?'
C: 'you're just mad at Trump'
 
sdifox said:
These are the best law experts in the US? Anything the US President orders anyone in government to do is by definition official business. Biden should remove the justices that decided this due to gross incompetence.
Click to expand...
Biden can’t remove federal judges/ justices. That power is reserved for congress by impeachment…and the (R)s ain’t never gonna impeach one of their own.
 
BoomerD said:
Biden can’t remove federal judges/ justices. That power is reserved for congress by impeachment…and the (R)s ain’t never gonna impeach one of their own.
Click to expand...
He can absolutely remove federal judges/justices now. General Fascist, I order you to take out these justices with military strike.

Official act is done. Immune. Not allowed to determine intent of act. The argument by Trump lawyers was literally a President can order seam team six to asssinate political rival and be immune from any repercussions.

Congress moves to impeach President for action. President removes opposition party to Guantanamo as terrorists and traitors. Official act. Immune. Not allowed to determine intent of act.

How is anyone not understanding the insanity and unamerican nature of this ruling?
 
No, technically the court just said the president can do anything he wants now. All he has to do is say it was related to his official capacity in upholding national security.
 
"They were a danger to national security, so under my powers as commander in chief as spelled out in the constitution, I had the threat to our great nation eliminated."
 
APU_Fusion said:
He can absolutely remove federal judges/justices now. General Fascist, I order you to take out these justices with military strike.

Official act is done. Immune. Not allowed to determine intent of act. The argument by Trump lawyers was literally a President can order seam team six to asssinate political rival and be immune from any repercussions.

Congress moves to impeach President for action. President removes opposition party to Guantanamo as terrorists and traitors. Official act. Immune. Not allowed to determine intent of act.

How is anyone not understanding the insanity and unamerican nature of this ruling?
Click to expand...
Yeah, not sure what people aren’t getting here. He can now kill SCOTUS if they do things he doesn’t like. Congress tries to impeach him? Kill them too. Someone tries to run for president against you? Killed.

All 100% legal now.
 
Basically the only remaining constraint on the president is if the military and/or federal law enforcement refuse to go along with his plan, which presumably means either a military coup or some sort of civil war.

That’s it. Everything else is up to the president as to if he wants to be a dictator or not.
 
APU_Fusion said:
He can absolutely remove federal judges/justices now. General Fascist, I order you to take out these justices with military strike.

Official act is done. Immune. Not allowed to determine intent of act. The argument by Trump lawyers was literally a President can order seam team six to asssinate political rival and be immune from any repercussions.

Congress moves to impeach President for action. President removes opposition party to Guantanamo as terrorists and traitors. Official act. Immune. Not allowed to determine intent of act.

How is anyone not understanding the insanity and unamerican nature of this ruling?
Click to expand...

OK, you’re right…anyone else joining me in this?

1719949889121.jpg
 
BoomerD said:
OK, you’re right…anyone else joining me in this?

View attachment 102271
Click to expand...
I refuse to succumb to lazy cynicism. Better things are possible: we just have to keep voting for it, pressing our elected officials, and engaging with one another. It's a slog, but we shouldn't give up, because it isn't going to be the white men that the most severe consequences are going to fall on.
 
kage69 said:
No, technically the court just said the president can do anything he wants now. All he has to do is say it was related to his official capacity in upholding national security.
Click to expand...
Not quite.
Thr argument they push is that in his official capacity as president, as defined by duties and whatever he is immune from prosecution.
So as president, telling his vice president to commit election fraud. Immune.
Telling state officials to commit election fraud. Not immune.

They toss out a lot of federalist touch Feely bullshit about the president should not have his feelings hurt because he has to be all Rambo and Thomas has some bull shit about special counsel and whatever.
The big wtf is the outer rim crap.

I new those fuckers secreted rim jobs at those billionaire orgy yacht outings.

Still reading....
Going to be interesting how Barret evolves as a Justice over time
 
pauldun170 said:
Not quite.
Thr argument they push is that in his official capacity as president, as defined by duties and whatever he is immune from prosecution.
So as president, telling his vice president to commit election fraud. Immune.
Telling state officials to commit election fraud. Not immune.

They toss out a lot of federalist touch Feely bullshit about the president should not have his feelings hurt because he has to be all Rambo and Thomas has some bull shit about special counsel and whatever.
The big wtf is the outer rim crap.

I new those fuckers secreted rim jobs at those billionaire orgy yacht outings.

Still reading....
Going to be interesting how Barret evolves as a Justice over time
Click to expand...
I think the justices are confusing Thomas Hobbes with the Founding Fathers, with a touch of the Nazi, Carl Schmitt (author of "The Problem of Parliamentary Democracy and believer of the idea that the executive must be able to act in the exception, even extra-legally), thrown in for good measure.
 
pauldun170 said:
Not quite.
Thr argument they push is that in his official capacity as president, as defined by duties and whatever he is immune from prosecution.
So as president, telling his vice president to commit election fraud. Immune.
Telling state officials to commit election fraud. Not immune.

They toss out a lot of federalist touch Feely bullshit about the president should not have his feelings hurt because he has to be all Rambo and Thomas has some bull shit about special counsel and whatever.
The big wtf is the outer rim crap.

I new those fuckers secreted rim jobs at those billionaire orgy yacht outings.

Still reading....
Going to be interesting how Barret evolves as a Justice over time
Click to expand...
Again, the President can remove those state officials unwilling to do his/her bidding to Guantanamo as terrorists and a danger to America. Official act. Immune. Can’t ask about intent.
 
APU_Fusion said:
Again, the President can remove those state officials unwilling to do his/her bidding to Guantanamo as terrorists and a danger to America. Official act. Immune. Can’t ask about intent.
Click to expand...
So, what you are saying is that you did not read the ruling and don't know that the president cannot remove state election officials.
 
pauldun170 said:
I'm referencing Barretts's comments on page 63-64

What page do you recommend
Click to expand...
That’s a concurrence and is not controlling. I would read the actual opinion. It is abundantly clear that the president is immune for all official acts and it expressly states communicating with other executive branch officials are official acts. For example, it mentioned that asking Pence to commit a coup was an official act.

So it could be true that talking to Arizona officials would not be an official act and he could be prosecuted, but ordering the military to kill them or for federal law enforcement to arrest them would be, and for those he would be immune.
 
Biden's new Executive Order Template

We have uncovered some information implicating ________ in a treasonous act. Regrettably, for reasons of national security, we cannot disclose neither the origin nor content of the fore-mentioned information. The only option available to us is to arrest the individual and strip them of any power they may have had.
 
Last edited:
fskimospy said:
That’s a concurrence and is not controlling. I would read the actual opinion. It is abundantly clear that the president is immune for all official acts and it expressly states communicating with other executive branch officials are official acts. For example, it mentioned that asking Pence to commit a coup was an official act.

So it could be true that talking to Arizona officials would not be an official act and he could be prosecuted, but ordering the military to kill them or for federal law enforcement to arrest them would be, and for those he would be immune.
Click to expand...

Depends. Official (or even lawful) use of Presidential power can be used to abuse power, sure. But these are functions of the Presidency as spelled out by the Constitution.

But ordering an extrajudicial killing of an American citizen does not fall under any Constitutionally described Presidential duty.

The problem is will the eventual appeal to the SCOTUS about said act be ruled as an official Presidential duty? We know how they will rule for him.

It's a bit of nuance but I think it matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top