bUt i WaNt HiM iMpEaChEd
1 Like
Your opinion is noted, that does not mean the court is going to wad up the constitution and throw it in the garbage.
See, you encouraged these clowns to push it too far.
Impeachment is the constitutional method to remove a sitting President, throwing them in jail or arresting them, is not.
The constitution plainly says what the method of removing a sitting President from office is and it doesn’t include anything other than Impeachment.
You pushed it too far. You made him think he was invincible and because he’s a moron leading a D-list team they made a legal argument so unconscionable they lost the shred of protection they had.
Ask anyone here with legal training how often lawyers don’t make arguments in appeals because they don’t want to risk a precedent being set.
1 Like
As if this is the final ruling, get real.
You’re crying like it is. When the Second upholds this and SCOTUS doesn’t hear it because they don’t want to rule on it, you’ll still be crying.
They made the argument that the president is completely above the law and got slapped down for it because they’re morons. Morons you support and enable.
5 Likes
The Supreme Court is not going to allow a sitting US President to be removed from office in any manner that is not impeachment. Enjoy your fantasy because that is all it is.
Nixon v Fitzgerald
Taken at face value, the Court’s position that, as a matter of constitutional law, the President is absolutely immune should mean that he is immune not only from damages actions but also from suits for injunctive relief, criminal prosecutions and, indeed, from any kind of judicial process. But there is no contention that the President is immune from criminal prosecution in the courts under the criminal laws enacted by Congress, or by the States, for that matter. Nor would such a claim be credible. The Constitution itself provides that impeachment shall not bar “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, § 3, cl. 7. Similarly, our cases indicate that immunity from damages actions carries no protection from criminal prosecution.
Clinton v Jones
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/95-1853.ZS.html
The principal rationale for affording Presidents immunity from damages actions based on their official acts-- i.e., to enable them to perform their designated functions effectively without fear that a particular decision may give rise to personal liability, see, e.g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 749, 752, and n. 32–provides no support for an immunity for unofficial conduct.
Scotus I think will issue a small ruling on this stating that the president isnt fully immune from lawsuits. Certain ones from the public, like taxes ( not by state mind you) are not valid.
There is no presidential immunity for criminal acts in any situation or for civil cases occurring outside of office. A state tax fraud case, whether criminal or civil, falls into those categories.
Donald might want to consider stepping up the timeline of the Obama investigations, and declaw the DEMOCRAT Party before it does real damage to himself and therefore America.
1 Like
Lol, now his groupies threaten civil war to protect a convicted criminal. Wow!
4 Likes
Your quote from Nixon v Fitzgerald is from the dissenting opinion, not the opinion of the court.
Clinton v Jones was about immunity in civil lawsuits.
Maybe that will wind up being the opinion for the highest courts to hear this case. They hardly are precedent, though.
Thanks saved me the trouble. He should have read the majority opinion, which said in part…
Justice Story’s analysis remains persuasive:
There are . . . incidental powers belonging to the executive department which are necessarily implied from the nature of the functions which are confided to it. Among these must necessarily be included the power to perform them. . . . The president cannot, therefore, be liable to arrest, imprisonment, or detention, while he is in the discharge of the duties of his office, and, for this purpose, his person must be deemed, in civil cases at least, to possess an official inviolability.
Section V of the majority opinion addresses the dissent, can’t seem to get copy to work on it from my iPad though. But it points out why absolute immunity while in office does nat make him above the law.
Maybe, maybe not, what about when a state drags a more popular President off to jail on state charges at some future date though?
I am not threatening anything. And it has nothing to do with Trump personally but rather the office of the President that cannot function if it’s holder can be dragged into court on criminal charges, which may or may not be justified and may or may not be politically motivated. Sorry but state prosecutors and judges don’t get to remove Presidents from office, that is the sole province of voters or congress in the event of impeachment.
But the ruling in the OP says nothing about removal from office.
You’re arguing about something that isn’t in the ruling under discussion. Impeachment is a different animal entirely (although one would imagine it could follow). Note this comment applies to everyone discussing impeachment in this thread, you just won the quote.
Nonsense, if you are prevented from carrying out the duties of the office you have been effectively removed from office. Arrest and or imprisonment is removal from office, period.
