Why would you. You think Trump needs to be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents but Joe Biden who was vice president and not allowed to handle classified documents when he did it. Is too old to be prosecuted. Yet he's fit to be president. Meanwhile he's three years older than Trump. But lock Trump up. How's grocery prices under your Democrats?
Question: If a president commits an act that plainly violates federal law while acting in the role of president, wouldn't that act by definition fall outside the scope of her or his constitutional powers as president and thus be considered a private act, opening her or him to indictment and prosecution in any case? This is surely what federal prosecutors of U.S. presidents will now argue. When they do, it seems, courts will be dealing with essentially the same questions as before, only recast as questions about substantial immunity under this ruling and the definitions of private and official acts for the president. There will still be the questions of whether a president acted outside the bounds of her or his constitutional authority and whether she or he broke any laws on the books. The problem, though, is that this ruling creates the false impression that U.S. presidents are above the law, both in the minds of future presidents-whether Republican, Democrat, or anything else-and in the minds of people everywhere. The Court has therefore made a big mistake in framing the issue in terms of official vs. private acts. Justices who voted with the majority should have realized that ruling in this way would be a mistake for these reasons. Did they fail to consider this argument altogether, did they entertain it and find it flawed, or did they consciously weigh it against other considerations? I guess I'll have to actually read both opinions to find out.
As a desertion said, we don't have a King. I have absolutely no faith in the Supreme Court even before this ruling. We have one justice that has been caught accepting lavish gifts. Another who has flown the flag upside down but blamed his wife. These justices are suppose to remain impartial or excuse themselves. I think it's about time some penalties or expulsion should be imposed on these justices. They are destroying our country since the reversal of Roe.
It would take a constitutional amendment to create a mechanism to hold them accountable for conduct that isn't a flat out violation of law, wouldn't it?
What about Joe Biden who was vice president and not allowed to handle classified documents taking them for whatever reason and leaving them in a Chinese ran program at Penn?
What about Joe Biden who was vice president and not allowed to handle classified documents taking them and leaving them in a Chinese ran program at Penn?
Beware of professional trolls who just amplify resentments and misunderstandings. The way to respond is with reason and balance. I don't hate the conservatives on the court. I do think they've made mistakes. I gather the main argument for this ruling is that violations of law by a president are supposed to be handled by the impeachment process, and that presidents are therefore supposed to enjoy a significant expectation that they won't be prosecuted for official acts, even after leaving office. In such a politically polarized climate there are heightened worries about politically motivated legal charges against presidents. The majority of the court thinks these considerations outweigh worries about presidents escaping justice. I still need to read the opinion though.
Have they made a ruling yet? Not that I have much faith in the Supreme Court lately.
Yup
Why would you. You think Trump needs to be prosecuted for mishandling classified documents but Joe Biden who was vice president and not allowed to handle classified documents when he did it. Is too old to be prosecuted. Yet he's fit to be president. Meanwhile he's three years older than Trump. But lock Trump up. How's grocery prices under your Democrats?
Question: If a president commits an act that plainly violates federal law while acting in the role of president, wouldn't that act by definition fall outside the scope of her or his constitutional powers as president and thus be considered a private act, opening her or him to indictment and prosecution in any case? This is surely what federal prosecutors of U.S. presidents will now argue. When they do, it seems, courts will be dealing with essentially the same questions as before, only recast as questions about substantial immunity under this ruling and the definitions of private and official acts for the president. There will still be the questions of whether a president acted outside the bounds of her or his constitutional authority and whether she or he broke any laws on the books. The problem, though, is that this ruling creates the false impression that U.S. presidents are above the law, both in the minds of future presidents-whether Republican, Democrat, or anything else-and in the minds of people everywhere. The Court has therefore made a big mistake in framing the issue in terms of official vs. private acts. Justices who voted with the majority should have realized that ruling in this way would be a mistake for these reasons. Did they fail to consider this argument altogether, did they entertain it and find it flawed, or did they consciously weigh it against other considerations? I guess I'll have to actually read both opinions to find out.
As a desertion said, we don't have a King. I have absolutely no faith in the Supreme Court even before this ruling. We have one justice that has been caught accepting lavish gifts. Another who has flown the flag upside down but blamed his wife. These justices are suppose to remain impartial or excuse themselves. I think it's about time some penalties or expulsion should be imposed on these justices. They are destroying our country since the reversal of Roe.
It would take a constitutional amendment to create a mechanism to hold them accountable for conduct that isn't a flat out violation of law, wouldn't it?
What about Joe Biden who was vice president and not allowed to handle classified documents taking them for whatever reason and leaving them in a Chinese ran program at Penn?
What about Joe Biden who was vice president and not allowed to handle classified documents taking them and leaving them in a Chinese ran program at Penn?
Beware of professional trolls who just amplify resentments and misunderstandings. The way to respond is with reason and balance.
I don't hate the conservatives on the court. I do think they've made mistakes. I gather the main argument for this ruling is that violations of law by a president are supposed to be handled by the impeachment process, and that presidents are therefore supposed to enjoy a significant expectation that they won't be prosecuted for official acts, even after leaving office. In such a politically polarized climate there are heightened worries about politically motivated legal charges against presidents. The majority of the court thinks these considerations outweigh worries about presidents escaping justice. I still need to read the opinion though.
La corte suprema dopo aver visto MAURIZIO CROZZA che imita joe biden ha sentenziato! "Meglio trump che questo rembambiden!😂