DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SCOTUS Hears Trump Imunity Case

I agree. I think that SCOTUS is gearing up to have the lower courts institute some type of a test. I could see what you are saying being somehow weighed into the test, ie how much of the decision is aimed at the benefit of the state vs the benefit of the personal interests.

When looking at those two extremes I agree with you. But there is a lot of gray area in between those two extremes. I don't think the court is only trying to look at the two extremes. I think they are also trying to look at the gray area in between and try to figure out exactly where the line is drawn. As I said before, trump has crossed the boundaries on so many things people never thought would be tested to this extent and I believe the objective is to answer the question of exactly where it's determined to be an official act and where it no longer becomes an official act moving forward.

I'm certainly not an attorney and maybe 05 can answer this part of it better than I can. But from what I gather they want to set the parameters of where that line is drawn. That makes the question somewhat more complicated than isolating it to the election.

Yeah I think you're in line with where I imagine this will be headed. For lots of landmark decisions, things get boiled down to a test, often times with specific parameters. It doesn't fully eliminate the "gray" as you put it, but it at least applies a standard that gets utilized across the board in attempts to "minimize" the gray and narrow the plurality of decisions.

For instance, on the constitutional law side we have the "strict scrutiny" test for laws that are passed which infringe upon a constitutional right. Under that test, such a law would be presumed to be invalid unless the Government demonstrates that the law or regulation "is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest, and that it uses the least restrictive means to achieve that purpose." (I'm having bar exam PTSD now as I write that).

As you can imagine, very few laws survive that test. Segregation being one of them. They used that standard test in Brown v Board of Education.

It is obviously apples and oranges with what we are dealing with here, aside from the fact it's establishing an objective standard in order to weigh instances and challenges that come before a court. I'm just throwing darts in the dark right now, but I could see something along the lines of what I mentioned before where the courts examine whether the act furthered a legitimate government interest of the State or whether the act furthered the interests of the individual. Obviously, I have no clue what will actually come from it, at least at this point.

Thanks. I just couldn't see a ruling that states a president does not have total immunity in any way addressing where the line is drawn or answering the question as to whether immunity was proper in this case. I felt it would certainly have to be spelled out better than that.

I believe our for fathers laid it out pretty well. And a former president asking the US Supreme Court for total immunity for anything they did as president should be an easy answer. NO! Next case.

We all seem to get stuck on this okay or not for a president for have his political opponent assassinated by seal team 6. This to me is a scenario that doesn't really resonate with the average person. Let's bring it a little closer to home. If granted total immunity, as president, trump could use the secret service to help him break into your house and rape your wife or daughter and there would be damn thing you could do about it.

"Power corrupts absolutely."

What else needs to be seen or heard. trump tried to void a valid election that he lost.

He then put together a fake elector scheme.

His voice is recorded in the Ga. case asking Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to find him the votes he needed to win.

If elected what do people expect? The Constitution means nothing to him. The Cabinet members he appointed want "nothing" to do with him.

SCOTUS wants to define limits of power? Imagine what the founding fathers of this country would say?

Imunity from the law? Repulsive.

I don't think they will grant total immunity, and Trump's attorneys even appeared to have backed off that point in oral argument in what appears to be a tactical concession. It's a larger question than what you are making it out to be, though. There's a high likelihood it will be remanded on the issue of what constitutes an "official" act. That is where the meat of the oral arguments have been.

I know that ST6 analogy had been used before from various analysts and correspondents, but I think that scenario was also something one of the justices (Kagan?) brought up.

I'm a taxpaying citizen. Born and raised here. My opinion matters and counts.

I watched J6 unfold and that's all I needed to see and hear. I watched as they attacked the capital. I watched while they broke into the building. I listened while the chanted Hang Mike Pence. I listened while they calling out Nancy Palosi's name. I watched as Josh Hawley ran away from attackers. I watched and listened while that chicken crap Moscow Mitch ranted on the floor of the senate that it was clearly Donald Trump behind the "ATTACK" on the capital. I watched and listened while Keven McCarthy put the blame for the "ATTACK" on Trump.

There is no way I got it wrong. NO WAY> It was an insurrection and Trump led the way.

Don't tell me that my opinion doesn't count. IT DOES

I am pretty certain this ST6 scenario was initially brought up by one of the appeals court judges (or whichever docket that ruled on it right before it went to the supreme court)

I think two element of personal gain would be financial and retention of office. The first is easy and covered by the constitution. The second is something that should be obvious, but was never an issue until Nixon and now Trump.

I don't think he meant it in the way that you're taking it.

Daman has no clue about what anyone says. He must not read the name of the poster to what is written.He jumped on Jester the other day when Jester was being sarcastic. It is quite obvious to everyone else who are Trump detractors.

I didn't say your opinion does't count.

I said from Trump's perspective you don't count because you are not a Trump Supporter and neither are you a possible Trump Supporter.

I'm afraid you are an example of one reason why Trump seemingly has gotten away with so much ..... instead of paying attention to the possible "WHY" Trump told another egregious blatant lie or did something attention grabbing .... you simply react to the words you hear. The media and many 'lefties' simply spin in ever faster circles dancing to Trump's tune. just how I see it.

And when he explained himself, I thanked him and said I was hoping he was meaning it that way.

I read the words,, I respond in kind. I don't try to read minds.

Got it,, Thanks

But how am I an example of a reason trump seemingly has gotten away with so much. If it were up to me, he'd have never gotten elected.

In most everybody’s perspective, trump supporters aren’t true Americans. Just saying.

Sure. Remind me again how many people voted for each candidate in the last election.

I think you are correct in your thinking. But because we have time constraints I would have hoped they would have tried to confine decisions on the case at hand. They will have the luxury of taking the time to deal with things after the election.

I agree with the time restraints, but no one (in position to influence it) is willing to say comment on it. It they do trump will claim election interference. In my opinion, not having these court cases before the election is election interference. If he is found guilty of any or all of these indictments voters should know that before they casr their vote. If he is found innocent of any or all of these indictments, then the voters should know that too.

The problem is they’re not a court of original jurisdiction. They’re basically at the top of an appeals chain. They can’t make the substance behind the decision. That’s for the trial courts to make. If they’re improper, then it goes up for appeal to be affirmed or remanded.

If anyone is interested in what trump's plan for office is; take the time and read it.

https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-interview/

The rise of a fascist dictatorship. Murica.

trump floats "the idea of dictatorship and says a lot of people like it."

https://www.bostonherald.com/2024/0...-he-floats-the-idea-of-being-a-dictator/

It is very disappointing that so many people in this country do not see the threat that trump represents to democracy.

I gave the US population way more credit.

Disheartening really.

Right which goes back to me asking why they needed to hear this case. It was decided by a lower court.

Because it was appealed. It goes from District Court to Circuit Court and then to SCOTUS if certiorari is granted.

I think his question was more ... why was the certiorari granted

Judge Luttig nailed this hearing’s primary consideration of complete immunity with one word, preposterous. He’s an actual conservative.

EDIT: He’s also still fighting for the disqualification o frump. :

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-719/299107/20240129171610494_23-719_Amici%20Brief.pdf

That's fair. I can actually see why in this case since it's such a hefty issue. That's not also to say that at least some of the justices, two mainly, may have had ulterior motives as well.

There ya go! LOL

As he should. I mean, if any other president did what he did, Just on Jan 6 alone, would we have ever allowed them to run again ever? I seriously doubt it.

According to many Goper’s, you don’t have to be a Trump supporter to vote for him. True Trump supporters aren’t true Americans. They’re fascist traitors supporting the continued insurrection of J6. And oh..remind me who lost, by nearly a landslide and cried like a baby over it

Calling nearly 50% of the voting unamerican population isn't helpful. It's exactly the same as Republicans saying Americans who are liberal Unamerican and don't represent true American values. Painting any large group as the same as the extremists is part of the problem.

I don’t think 50%, not even close. it’s more like 25-30% are hardliner MAGA minons according to polls. Ignoring these traitors isn’t helping at all.

You just said anyone that votes for him. You said they aren’t true Americans, they’re fascist traitors. It's a real easy read and your scroll finger won't even get tired. ^^

What I said. “ According to many Goper’s, you don’t have to be a Trump supporter to vote for him. True Trump supporters aren’t true Americans. They’re fascist traitors supporting the continued insurrection of J6. And oh..remind me who lost, by nearly a landslide and cried like a baby over it“

It’s an easy read. Try and keep up.