Thursday, July 4, 2024

President Biden Blasts Supreme Court's "Dangerous Precedent"?

Somewhere somehow, an appointed leader must have immunity from using discretion.  Meade did not pursue LEE after Gettysburg and he like3ly should have.  Yet there was no case on what he could know.  Same for Midway .

In both cases it was time to break off to simply measure your losses.  Because you could not know.

These were decisive victories. most battles are actually more of a draw.

Your leader was on point and made his best decision. your position is would of, should of, could of.

I personally do not see just how Gettysburg and Midway could have gone any better.  Yet we hear nitpickers.

The president mast have absolute immunity and the SC is correct to establish rules of engagement.  a good president makes sure he never needs to use it.

"The American People Should Dissent, I Dissent" - President Biden Blasts Supreme Court's "Dangerous Precedent"


TUESDAY, JUL 02, 2024 - 03:45 AM

Update (2000ET): Despite the Supreme Court's direct ruling that "the President is not above the law", President Biden delivered lying remarks to the American people this evening about the "terrible disservice to the people of this nation" that SCOTUS delivered today.

President Biden directly attacked SCOTUS (and the 'far-right' justices that Trump appointed) for "gutting voting rights and civil rights, taking away a woman's right to choose, and today's decision that undermines the rule of law of this nation."

Then he lied some more, telling Americans that "my predecessor sent a violent mob to the US Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power..."

Biden quoted directly from Justice Sotomayor's dissent (which was remarkably political and perfectly bite-sized for today's social media-consuming listener) where she said, "...with fear for our democracy, I dissent", to which Biden added "so should the American people dissent, I dissent."

"Biden was only able to speak for 3-4 minutes and refused questions from even his most reliably allies in the press, as per usual. He is apparently unwilling or unable to speak without the teleprompter."

This is what the leader of the free world has been reduced to...

We strongly suggest putting down all sharp objects and emptying your mouth of food before watching...

* * *

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in a 6-3 vote that former presidents, including Trump, enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during tenure in office, but he's not immune from unofficial acts.

As Bloomberg notes, the decision - which kicks the ball back to the lower court - 'all but ensures' that a trial won't happen in Trump's classified documents case before the November election.

The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.

"Just as former presidents have immunity from civil liability for official acts, they have immunity from criminal prosecution unless they are impeached and removed from office for the crime alleged. This decision is supported by the writings of the framers of the Constitution, the text of the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent," wrote X user Martin Harry.

As constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley notes, now "the issue is whether what constitutes official acts," adding that the ruling will "further delay the lower court proceedings, but Trump will have to argue that his actions fall within these navigational beacons."

"The lower court judge has been highly favorable for Jack Smith in the past. Yet the court is arguing that there is a presumption of immunity for their official acts beyond the absolute immunity on core constitutional powers."

No comments: