Just win after win after win.

Straight to finger pointing, classic. Yes, let’s figure out what political party the mentally ill child belonged too so we can blame it on that sides politics. Lol

Removed by mod

What merit is a person’s political affiliations if they’re mentally ill?

United States of America v. Ramiz Zijad Hodzic et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division, No.4:15CR49CDP/DDN, 9 May 2018

Lawful combatants enjoy “combatant immunity” for acts of warfare, including the wounding or killing of other human beings, “provided those actions were performed in the context of ongoing hostilities against lawful military targets, and were not in violation of the law of war.”

Let’s follow that logic.

You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.

Same scenario, but now it’s the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?

You disagree with 74 million people then?

Indeed it does. The president has always had immunity. This is civil immunity. There is also criminal immunity because you can’t prosecute the president for ordering the deaths of thousands of people. Unlike say, you know if I was responsible for thousands of deaths. Or even one death. The president must have some immunity to carry out their duty as commander and chief. We have laws against murder. Ever find it funny you can’t go after the president for murder? No, you never once considered it.

Why do you consider the Republican party racists? What makes the party as whole this way to you?

Well, didn’t take long to out yourself as a fascist did you?

I read the decision. The dissent is so ludicrous no one takes it seriously. I’ve seen several discussions of lawyers breaking the decision down. The only part of the dissent that makes sense is Amy Conny Barrett’s examples.

I copy and pasted from the 1981 ruling. Anyway, hope you have a good one!

I wonder why you’d prefer a partisan court?

Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It’s been like that for 200 years. That’s why you can’t charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.

Folks, it’s quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.

Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.

In 1982 SCOTUS made a decision on this:

“We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”

The media, the Democrats, but I repeat myself, have all been lying to you. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.

Falsifying business records is not election fraud is the eyes of the law.

The discretion of official duty is left up to the trails court, not the supreme court. It’s literally in the ruling.

The president has always had immunity. This changes nothing.

If I order someone to be murdered in another country I can be prosecuted. If the president does it they cannot be prosecuted (if, obviously, it was for the protection of the United States). There is your example. SCOTUS didn’t give the president anything. The president already had it. Because SCOTUS doesn’t make law.

Have a nice day / night.

Absolutely not. You’re insane, you wouldn’t consider anything I’d say.

That’s because your fantastical scenario is exactly that, fantasy. You do not understand whatsoever the implications of the ruling because you cannot grasp the duty of the president, checks and balances, and the rule of law. Did they stop teaching civics in school?7

The best example is first responders. They have immunity doing their duty. They cannot hesitate to perform their duty - such as giving life saving services - if they fear they are unsuccessful and are sued / thrown in prison. If they break the law though on duty it was never their duty to break the law and are therefore not immune. Take CPR. They might perform CPR and injure the person they are working over, or they might not save them. The family of that person cannot sue them, nor can a court convict them if they accidentally make things worse.

Same thing with the president. The president can’t break the law and say, “whoops, just doing my official duty”. It doesn’t work like that.