(02-29-2024 01:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 12:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 12:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 12:08 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 11:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So just to be clear, those of you on the right would be okay with any and all Dem presidents going forward having blanket immunity for all actions while President?

Of course not.

But should presidents face criminal charges for official acts in office? Say approving a drone strike on an accused terrorist or Iranian General? Slippery slope.

Whether you believe him or not Trump is saying it was his duty as president while he was in office to ensure that federal elections are fair and accurate. This is a slippery slope in both directions. Reason SCOTUS is hearing it.

I think SCOTUS should hear this. I think this is an important question.

As for the bold, if you are just asking my opinion I would argue it depends on the action. I personally think President's should have qualified immunity for criminal liability for official acts.

Absolutely qualified.

But who establishes the test to determine what acts are legal and official and when that immunity applies? When is that test applied? In real time or after they leave office?

Is that a political question or a legal one?

I think SCOTUS should establish what the test should be to determine if acts are legal and official.

This whole question is a Pandora's box that contains a can of worms.

(03-01-2024 09:03 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 11:51 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 11:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So just to be clear, those of you on the right would be okay with any and all Dem presidents going forward having blanket immunity for all actions while President?

uhhhhh, impeachment is still a real word … they mucked it with Nixon … this bs was inevitable after that…

nobody really gives a fk anymore … once the banana is peeled, it’s either consumed or rots immediately … our system is rotten to the core…

but wtfe and oh , wellzy … enjoy NPC status…

That's some high level philosophizing there!

if I can manage such in three lines or fewer (dot dot dots don't count ), I've accomplished muh goal ...

broheim!

(03-01-2024 08:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 02:42 PM)oruvoice Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 01:13 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 12:34 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-29-2024 12:25 PM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  I think SCOTUS should hear this. I think this is an important question.

As for the bold, if you are just asking my opinion I would argue it depends on the action. I personally think President's should have qualified immunity for criminal liability for official acts.

Absolutely qualified.

But who establishes the test to determine what acts are legal and official and when that immunity applies? When is that test applied? In real time or after they leave office?

Is that a political question or a legal one?

I think SCOTUS should establish what the test should be to determine if acts are legal and official.

If the Dems had packed the Supreme Court with 5 more like Ketanji, would you still say that the SCOTUS should determine the test?

Yes. I'd also say they should be the ones to determine it if there were 5 more ACB's on the court. This is actually an issue they need to clearly rule on and set the standard for what level of immunity the President should have, and I'd feel that way regardless of the political leaning of the court.

Are there not currently standards that apply? There must be else why would the concept of immunity even exist? I'm too lazy to dig deeper so maybe one of our more erudite attorney's can expand on that: what are the standards, are they laid out anywhere?

(02-29-2024 11:44 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  So just to be clear, those of you on the right would be okay with any and all Dem presidents going forward having blanket immunity for all actions while President?

Like assasinating a US citizen overseas because they were likely a terrorist?

I have no problem with immunity, and have,a BIG problem with a county prosecutor or city DA bringing charges concerning federal elections