|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 1, 2024 20:17:45 GMT
Official acts include his speech and tweets prior to the Capitol riot and his attempts to pressure Mike Pence to refuse to certify Biden's election win. link
The ruling appears to be split along political lines with one 'Democratic' Justice being quoted:
Sonia Sotomayor, one of the justices, said the ruling would give a sitting president immunity for a decision to assassinate a political rival using “Seal Team Six” – the US Navy unit that killed Osama Bin Laden.
“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organises a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” she wrote.
“Let the president violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.
“Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.”
I think it's time the US changed the appointment system for justices of its supreme court.
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 1, 2024 20:46:23 GMT
Absolutely crazy ruling.
Are the Republican Justices really prepared to sell out the country like this for the sake of party loyalty?
Maybe Biden should offer to send a SEAL team to assassinate them one at a time until they change their minds. In an official capacity of course.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 1, 2024 21:17:59 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 1, 2024 21:57:49 GMT
America lasted nearly 250 years before going back to having a King.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Jul 1, 2024 22:07:37 GMT
Steve I don't think 'official' acts are listed because it is explained that non-official acts are as rare as hens teeth (i.e almost everything is 'official' once you're President) ..... so possible examples of when a President might speak in a non-official capacity are given instead.  |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 1, 2024 22:34:19 GMT
But the actual judgement says this:
'Whether the tweets, that speech, and Trump’s other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. Knowing, for instance, what else
was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. '
|
|
|
|
Post by vinny on Jul 1, 2024 22:48:30 GMT
This is what happens when you get corrupt politically appointed judges.
|
|
Saint
Observer
Posts: 1,111
Member is Online
|
Post by Saint on Jul 1, 2024 23:05:56 GMT
This is what happens when you get corrupt politically appointed judges. Just to go very briefly off topic: we told you that when the EU objected to the political appointment of judges in Poland. |
|
|
|
Post by Justice Hutchyns on Jul 1, 2024 23:21:17 GMT
Steve
Cheers Steve.
So a 'judgement' that sidesteps making an actual judgement, but indicates how the District Court should go about re-judging events. Will the District Court accept that 'you name it, it's official' or will they dig their heels in and attempt to breathe life into their 'unofficial' preference ? We'll have to wait and see, but if it's dragged out and returns to the Supreme Court, Trump could well be President by then ....... although I reckon the Democrats still have plenty of tricks (mostly dirty) up their sleeves, yet to deploy ....... America is a mess.
|
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188 
|
Post by borgr0 on Jul 1, 2024 23:45:59 GMT
All media are reporting that unofficial acts aren't covered - official acts are. I agree with the ruling. And it is constitutional as per the US constitution. Article II: Precedent goes back to parliamentary privilege in the UK where they also have parliamentary immunity, so it carries over to the USA and the intent of that article of the constitution is clear: to shield the president, VP and civil officers from lawsuits. Plus, the USSC is respecting precedent of previous USSC rulings. Wiki |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 2, 2024 10:17:39 GMT
Steve Cheers Steve. So a 'judgement' that sidesteps making an actual judgement, but indicates how the District Court should go about re-judging events. Will the District Court accept that 'you name it, it's official' or will they dig their heels in and attempt to breathe life into their 'unofficial' preference ? We'll have to wait and see, but if it's dragged out and returns to the Supreme Court, Trump could well be President by then ....... although I reckon the Democrats still have plenty of tricks (mostly dirty) up their sleeves, yet to deploy ....... America is a mess. 'Justice Hutchyns' brilliant. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 2, 2024 10:33:08 GMT
But the actual judgement says this: 'Whether the tweets, that speech, and Trump’s other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. Knowing, for instance, what else
was said contemporaneous to the excerpted communications, or who was involved in transmitting the electronic communications and in organizing the rally, could be relevant to the classification of each communication. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. 'Yes, I hadn't read the judgment when I posted and went on the BBC's report. I suspect, however, the lower court will encounter considerable difficulty in finding that the tweets and speech were 'unofficial' given the guidance and the inability of the court to enquire into the President's motives for ostensibly official acts or to use the President's private correspondence in evidence.
Clearly, it makes sense that the President should have a general immunity for official acts. What I struggle with is the idea that a president should have immunity for official acts when those acts serve to subvert the country's constitution. While I'm in no way an expert on the USA's constitution, I would have thought the Pence issue falls into that category as, I think, do the tweets and the speech.
For me, the most striking issue is the division of the justices on political affiliation. I think it distorts the principle of separation of powers and brings the law in the USA into disrepute.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 2, 2024 13:13:35 GMT
IMHO those tweets were never going to get him convicted, the 'just find me votes' phone calls to Geogia are the smoking gun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 2, 2024 15:14:29 GMT
IMHO those tweets were never going to get him convicted, the 'just find me votes' phone calls to Geogia are the smoking gun. note - "FIND VOTES " i.e. something that rightly should be found if 'lost' |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 2, 2024 16:46:29 GMT
That's one interpretation that'll fool some
|
|
