All The Times Republican Supreme Court Justices Lied About Presidential Immunity Under Oath

[R34D]

Given the issue is Presidential immunity while engaging in duties of office and you're confusing that with American Law, we can clearly see who is the actual ignorant one here.

You can’t argue with her. She is completely dogmatic and bat shit crazy. Completely unhinged.

 

[R34D]

The chance of President Biden telling his followers to lock themselves in basements and sign forged electoral certificates in order to subvert an election is slim.

That act is why Trump needs immunity and what he will claim was an 'official act'.

The Hush Money case has already stalled and that happened before he was elected President and they are nevertheless claiming it was an 'official act'.

Biden is the one they lock in the basement.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

The immunity ruling will protect Biden from prosecution for dereliction of duty, treasonous behavior for not protecting our national security annd our borders and allowing terrorist entering our country.

President Biden doesn't need it because he doesn't commit crimes. The Supreme Court is trying to keep Donald Trump out of jail. Their ploy isn't going to work. All they've done is guaranteed Biden will pack the court after he's reelected.

 

[adrina]

President Biden doesn't need it because he doesn't commit crimes. The Supreme Court is trying to keep Donald Trump out of jail. Their ploy isn't going to work. All they've done is guaranteed Biden will pack the court after he's reelected.

I don't know if Biden will add additional SCOTUS judges. I think he should. Simply because it should be 13 - the same number of districts. I think it would be a smart policy move - especially to energize the democratic base and the youth. But I don't think he's there yet.

 

[R34D]

Hi traitor!

You can’t argue with this one. She is completely dogmatic and bat-shit crazy. Completely unhinged. She can’t possibly be dumb enough to believe what she writes. But then again, after reading some of her posts and her inability to comprehend current events, I shouldn’t be too surprised.

 

[adrina]

You can’t argue with this one. She is completely dogmatic and bat-shit crazy. Completely unhinged. She can’t possibly be dumb enough to believe what she writes. But then again, after reading some of her posts and her inability to comprehend current events, I shouldn’t be too surprised.

Who won the last election?

 

[TastySuckToy]

Desperate for attention.

Good girl. Your obedience pleases me.

 

[TastySuckToy]

You can’t argue with her. She is completely dogmatic and bat shit crazy. Completely unhinged.

You're right, but can still have a fun laugh teasing her kink/fetish.

 

[R34D]

You're right, but can still have a fun laugh teasing her kink/fetish.

It makes it even better when I picture Steve Carell laughing at her.

 

[adrina]

Fee Fi Fo Fum... I smell another alt dumb dumb.

 

[icanhelp1]

President Biden doesn't need it because he doesn't commit crimes. The Supreme Court is trying to keep Donald Trump out of jail. Their ploy isn't going to work. All they've done is guaranteed Biden will pack the court after he's reelected.

Perhaps you should read the ruling. Break down all three opinions, read for comprehension, it’s not centered around Trump. Since it was brought before the court the court had to render decisions based on isolating each type of immunity with an explanation. It’s not really about Trump.

• Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which "immunity must be absolute"
• Official actions "within the outer perimeter" of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity
• Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity

 

[adrina]

Perhaps you should read the ruling. Break down all three opinions, read for comprehension, it’s not centered around Trump. Since it was brought before the court the court had to render decisions based on isolating each type of immunity with an explanation. It’s not really about Trump.

• Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which "immunity must be absolute"
• Official actions "within the outer perimeter" of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity
• Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity

Why do you support someone for president who says they want to be dictator? See if you can rationalize it by just saying it's for one day. I'd like to see how you spin that. Why do you support someone who paid off a porn star to influence the election? Why do you support someone who called our men and women in service "suckers and losers"? Why do you support someone who added more to the debt faster than any other president in American history? Why do you support someone who openly shared American intel with Russian agents?

Tell us why.

 

[ll74]

W

Perhaps you should read the ruling. Break down all three opinions, read for comprehension, it’s not centered around Trump. Since it was brought before the court the court had to render decisions based on isolating each type of immunity with an explanation. It’s not really about Trump.

• Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which "immunity must be absolute"
• Official actions "within the outer perimeter" of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity
• Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity

They truly did a shitty job of clearly explaining what constitutes each. And adding evidence collection made it even worse. The lower courts will have issues.

 

[BrightShinyGirl]

Perhaps you should read the ruling. Break down all three opinions, read for comprehension, it’s not centered around Trump. Since it was brought before the court the court had to render decisions based on isolating each type of immunity with an explanation. It’s not really about Trump.

• Official acts that rely on core constitutional powers, for which "immunity must be absolute"
• Official actions "within the outer perimeter" of official responsibility, that require at least presumed immunity
• Unofficial actions while in office, from which the president has no immunity

The ruling is designed so that the Supreme Court itself gets to decide whether an action is "official" or "unofficial".

Anything Biden does will be deemed "unofficial" so he can be prosecuted.
Anything Trump does will be deemed "official" and allowed.

It's the legal embodiment of Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

 

[adrina]

W

They truly did a shitty job of clearly explaining what constitutes each. And adding evidence collection made it even worse. The lower courts will have issues.

The ruling is designed so that the Supreme Court itself gets to decide whether an action is "official" or "unofficial".

Anything Biden does will be deemed "unofficial" so he can be prosecuted.
Anything Trump does will be deemed "official" and allowed.

It's the legal embodiment of Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

"We'll know it when we see it."

 

[Lazaran]

The ruling is designed so that the Supreme Court itself gets to decide whether an action is "official" or "unofficial".

Anything Biden does will be deemed "unofficial" so he can be prosecuted.
Anything Trump does will be deemed "official" and allowed.

It's the legal embodiment of Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

Keep spoon feeding the baby (ineedhelp1) …

 

[icanhelp1]

W

They truly did a shitty job of clearly explaining what constitutes each. And adding evidence collection made it even worse. The lower courts will have issues.

The ruling is designed for certain charges and indictments to be litigated at the lower courts. But the complaints on lit are not about the ruling, more about the court decision itself. They whine that the immunity ruling is more about a Trump get out of jail free card. Nonsense, tired of arguing TDS. The ruling may keep Biden out of court.

 

[ll74]

The ruling is designed for certain charges and indictments to be litigated at the lower courts. But the complaints on lit are not about the ruling, more about the court decision itself. They whine that the immunity ruling is more about a Trump get out of jail free card. Nonsense, tired of arguing TDS. The ruling may keep Biden out of court.

My complaint is about the ruling, as I said it was.

They could've done better, been more concise. Instead they weren't and added presumption where none was needed....restricted contextual access where access is needed.

 

[icanhelp1]

My complaint is about the ruling, as I said it was.

They could've done better, been more concise. Instead they weren't and added presumption where none was needed....restricted contextual access where access is needed.

Trying to anticipate infinite hypotheticals is ridiculous. Presumption sheds light on what the president’s intent was… while believing his actions fell within constitutional bounds and norms. Need to take into consideration trusting legal counsel for actions thought to be legal. It certainly is convoluted to a degree but how many immunity cases have actually been litigated.

 

[ll74]

Trying to anticipate infinite hypotheticals is ridiculous. Presumption sheds light on what the president’s intent was… while believing his actions fell within constitutional bounds and norms. Need to take into consideration trusting legal counsel for actions thought to be legal. It certainly is convoluted to a degree but how many immunity cases have actually been litigated.

It's not about hypotheticals.

They weren't concise and they should've been. There's no excuse for it. So many rulings this cycle where they went out of their way to add stuff where it wasn't needed and didn't add stuff where it was.

It just means these cases/questions will return to the courts for another court.

And as I've said before, I trust the courts to refine and properly rule on each case...even as I may not be happy or agree.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

None of the justices serving on the court made any promises about how they would rule on any specific case.

 

[adrina]

None of the justices serving on the court made any promises about how they would rule on any specific case.

They never do. But they did say that Roe was settled law. They also said they respected stare decisis. Both of which were obvious lies.

The reality is that you are only defending them because they are conservative justices. If this had been done by any of the liberal justices, you would have started four threads by now on it. Instead you are justifying supreme Court Justice nominees committing perjury because you share their partisan ideology.

 

[wizzard426]

Ahahahahahaha what difference does it make!

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

They never do. But they did say that Roe was settled law. They also said they respected stare decisis. Both of which were obvious lies.

The reality is that you are only defending them because they are conservative justices. If this had been done by any of the liberal justices, you would have started four threads by now on it. Instead you are justifying supreme Court Justice nominees committing perjury because you share their partisan ideology.

None of them committed perjury.

 

[adrina]

None of them committed perjury.

In your opinion.

And you are in error.

Their words are plain for the world to see. Except for those trying to rationalize and get others to accept their obvious lack of adherence to their own words.