Legal/scotus thread

Garmel said:
Presidents have a lot of leeway. You can make the argument some of Biden's other actions should have gotten him into legal trouble like the student debt thing but I don't want to see presidents come under legal fire for their decisions. I don't like Biden but he shouldn't be prosecuted for it.
Click to expand...

But should they? We’ve spent the past 8 (well, 30+) years now taking turns claiming the other guy is breaking the law and abusing his power as President. If they actually are doing something illegal and corrupt, why wouldn’t we want to prosecute? I don’t personally care if there’s a chilling effect to that possibility. Every other lawmaker and person in this country has to do their work without these protections, so why would we make the most powerful person in the country also the least legally culpable for their actions?
 
mqt said:
But should they? We’ve spent the past 8 (well, 30+) years now taking turns claiming the other guy is breaking the law and abusing his power as President. If they actually are doing something illegal and corrupt, why wouldn’t we want to prosecute? I don’t personally care if there’s a chilling effect to that possibility. Every other lawmaker and person in this country has to do their work without these protections, so why would we make the most powerful person in the country also the least legally culpable for their actions?
Click to expand...

I think they should have a broad amount of immunity. It should be a high bar. At the end of the day if the citizens don't perform their due diligence there is no mechanism that can protect us against that. We should not pretend otherwise.

From a legal perspective though we will have to make some new precedent in this case with regards to what falls within "official acts." In his opinion Roberts does offer some interesting "guidance" on how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts (starting on page 4 of the document below).

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
 
Last edited:
We don't need presidents trying to run the country while trying to fight off charges which 99% would be nothing more of a political nature.
 
It's always fun when the communists use the word "democracy" a word that is no where to be found in our constitution

There is one institution that is not under control of the left and they cannot stand it

[Tw]1807814421168710111[/tw]
 
Garmel said:
We don't need presidents trying to run the country while trying to fight off charges which 99% would be nothing more of a political nature.
Click to expand...

I think that’s actually a really great point, but it does fall into the same pitfall of needing more direct safeguards for a President abusing that power. But I suppose it’s all moot until a court uses this ruling as precedent for wrongdoing that’s more obviously illegal.
 
Justice Jackson raises an interesting (and perhaps unintentionally funny) question by asking if the fact that the president has the power to remove the attorney general protects him from prosecution if he chooses to use poisoning as the means of removal.
 
sturg33 said:
Again... using a term nowhere to be found in our constitution
Click to expand...

"[W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; . . . It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified[.]3"


Pretending that the framers weren't looking at a democracy as part of the framework of constructing the republic is being intentionally obtuse.
 
I welcome the left to challenge the results of the 2024 election.

Please use every avenue to do pure existence testing of all votes. Only way to ensure Trump doesn't steal the election!
 
zitothebrave said:
"[W]e may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; . . . It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified[.]3"


Pretending that the framers weren't looking at a democracy as part of the framework of constructing the republic is being intentionally obtuse.
Click to expand...

they wanted a system where the will of the people would be represented in our government

they explicitly did not want a democracy.

which is why the word is absent in our founding document
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top