No SCOTUS rulling yet on the Immunity????????????

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Today they countered the emergency abortion ruling leaked yesterday and are kicking that back to the 9th circuit for appeal.

Bloomberg:
The court is likely to dismiss the appeal brought by Idaho officials, Bloomberg said.

In doing so the court would allow a lower court ruling in favor of the Biden administration to go back into effect.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion joined by two other conservatives, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, saying the court should not have dismissed the case.

Tomorrow is to be the last day for SCOTUS... and all the rest of the cases presented in 1 day? Very odd as they have only been doing two or three a day. It was two today

Either they will have to go well into July or they will decided to let some ride for a few months....

Either way... sure does not sound good for Trump at all.

And Jack Smith is bound to insist on a date being set for the real trial and not just hearings....

 

[BlessedPeace]

BBC host deletes joke about Biden having Trump murdered, mocks critics​

MSN

www.msn.com

I wonder if he has a job still?

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

BBC host deletes joke about Biden having Trump murdered, mocks critics​

MSN

www.msn.com

I wonder if he has a job still?

We fought a war to be totally separate from them.... but we just cannot seem to avoid their affronts.

In 2016 and some in 2020 you should have seen the literal free for all from a Brit and a few
Americans, defending our country.

 

[Scott Downey]

The 3 liberal SCOTUS judges refused to defend and protect the constitution of the US.
Not surprising at all to me as they don't like the way it was written. and want it interpreted to their way of thinking.

It's not unlike people interpreting bible verses to suit themselves....

Executive being the third branch of government, founders setup to not be a king, just a level below a king.
Yet they go and claim now a president is a king...with total undisputable authority...
They are just MAD that Trump prosecution has been thwarted.
If Biden or a dem POTUS did the same things, all the liberal dems would be supporting presidential actions and authority.

They have refused to prosecute Biden for the same things, like having government documents stored in his garage.

 

[Taken]

The 3 liberal SCOTUS judges refused to defend and protect the constitution of the US.
Not surprising at all to me as they don't like the way it was written. and want it interpreted to their way of thinking.

It's not unlike people interpreting bible verses to suit themselves....

Executive being the third branch of government, founders setup to not be a king, just a level below a king.
Yet they go and claim now a president is a king...with total undisputable authority...
They are just MAD that Trump prosecution has been thwarted.
If Biden or a dem POTUS did the same things, all the liberal dems would be supporting presidential actions and authority.

They have refused to prosecute Biden for the same things, like having government documents stored in his garage.

Nothing new…
* Average American citizens are ignorant of the words and meaning of the US Constitution.

* For decades “attorney’s” have been taught “case law” is the Supreme Law of the land.

* The US Government has for Decades operated the US Government as a “pure democracy” (mob rule), they Leaders … (which translates to Master…)
rather than a Republic according to the LIMITS of the US Constitution, for the benefit of ALL citizens Liberty Protection…AND they the Servants.

* Congress yearly writes hundreds of laws, adding to the tens of thousands of Unconstitutional laws in the 51+ volumes of Federal laws.

* They quibble over childish whining with childish tactics.

* They accuse whom is not yoked with them, of the dirty tricks they do.

One thing IS true…they, them…seek not the truth….and ARE NOT:
We, Us… indwelt with the Truth.

 

[SavedInHim]

Where does the Constitution say presidents have immunity? It doesn't. The SCOTUS are supposed to explain the law, not make law; but unfortunately that's what they've done for a long time. The Constitution allows for impeachment when a president is in office, but there's nothing that says they can't be prosecuted criminally after they leave office.

The founders all believed no one is above the law. The law is king; not, the king is law. If a president can't be held criminally responsible for acts they did while in office, Lord, help us all.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

Where does the Constitution say presidents have immunity? It doesn't. The SCOTUS are supposed to explain the law, not make law; but unfortunately that's what they've done for a long time. The Constitution allows for impeachment when a president is in office, but there's nothing that says they can't be prosecuted criminally after they leave office.

The founders all believed no one is above the law. The law is king; not, the king is law. If a president can't be held criminally responsible for acts they did while in office, Lord, help us all.

Well, Biden should be on his knees in thanks for this ruloing.

Those 13 families of the fallen troops in the Afghanistan withdrawl suicide bombing should have been prime pickings for a "shar" attorney to sue Biden over.... NOW HE IS SAFE

 

[BlessedPeace]

SCOTUS cannot create a law. They must consider related laws and decisions that relate to the current case and decide if precedent upholds or denies a relationship to the present case before them.

I.E. Is what they're being asked to decide now in favor of the plaintiff or defendant able to be granted or denied based on past rulings that can uphold or deny the particulars of the current case.

Not even Congress,under the Constitution,is immune from prosecution.

And it is true. This Trump decision by SCOTUS does make Biden immune from prosecution.

Which could be why the court that refused to hear Trump's case regarding The Steal actually seemingly ruled for Trump in this matter. When in truth,they were actually protecting Joe by intent. And Donald by implication.





Mississippi v. Johnson, 1866

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S3-5-1/ALDE_00013392/

 

[SavedInHim]

Well, Biden should be on his knees in thanks for this ruloing.

Those 13 families of the fallen tr in the Afghanistan withdrawl suicide bombing should have been prime pickings for a "shar" attorney to sue Biden over NOW HE IS SAFE

If a president (any president) can't be held legally accountable for the things he or she does while in office then we're all in a lot of trouble.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

If a president (any president) can't be held legally accountable for the things he or she does while in office then we're all in a lot of trouble.

This does not give him a license to kill someone.

It also does not give license for treason.

 

[BlessedPeace]

If a president (any president) can't be held legally accountable for the things he or she does while in office then we're all in a lot of trouble.

This decision outlives both Trump and Biden. It stands forever unless the court reversed itself in future. Which is rare. Only Congress can consider a cause to reverse a SCOTUS ruling. Which is next to impossible.

That being said, the powers that pull the strings of this world plot the coarse of its future in terms of centuries and millennia.

This SCOTUS decision could be the next building block for the one world government.

Meanwhile, America could find itself under Martial Law in future. Some unforseen event leads to a decree of Authoritarianism? Like what happened in the social experiment lite, COVID-19 lockdown.

Time will tell.
Decades ago I'd hear elderly folk talk about the contemporary political culture and the building blocks that were being laid even then.

They'd say they were glad to be old so as not to have to live through what's coming.
All these decades later, I now concur.

I feel sorry for the precious newborn entering our world right now.

 

[Jericho]

And it is true. This Trump decision by SCOTUS does make Biden immune from prosecution.

Not quite. Absolute immunity only applies to offical acts done within the confines of the Constitution. There is no immunity for unoffical acts. I'd wager there's a lot of unoffical acts Biden has done while in office.

 

[Taken]

Where does the Constitution say presidents have immunity? It doesn't.

Correct. Your words do not appear in the US Constitution.

The SCOTUS are supposed to explain the law,

No.
The SCOTUS is supposed to render an Opinion based IN the Law.

not make law; [/OUOTE]

Correct. Nor do they.

but unfortunately that's what they've done for a long time.

No. They render an Opinion based on majority Agreement.
Those not in agreement (descent) can voice their descent to the public, their descent will reflect in the record, but does not affect the majority agreement.

The Constitution allows for impeachment when a president is in office,

Correct. There is a Constitutional Provision and Protocol for Impeachment, per the House and Senate…

That has nothing to do with Charges claimed and filed by the People outside of the House and Senate, in a Courtroom.

but there's nothing that says they can't be prosecuted criminally after they leave office.

Depends on the Case, Jurisdiction, same as for any Citizen… Evidence, Statute of Limitations, Harm of what and to whom…etc.

Evidence was lacking agains Trump.
Media hype their person opinions and feelings, without regard to Law or Evidence.
So what? That is moot, irrelevant.

The founders all believed no one is above the law.

Sure. However, WHAT Law did Trump Violate, and WHAT is your Evidence an Unlawful Violation occurred?

The law is king;

False. The US Constitution is the Supreme Law. Thousands of UN-Constitutional Laws fill the US Federal Law Books.

Per the Founders, Federal Laws promulgated and enacted beyond the Limits of the US Constitution are no Laws at all.

If a president can't be held criminally responsible for acts they did while in office, Lord, help us all.

If ANYONE can not be held criminally responsible for ACTS they are CHARGED with Committing, AND there is No EVIDENCE to support the Charge….That is Justice uprightly served, and
That individual is free to go.

There is a plethora of Campaign Finance Laws and Regulations. Which Law DID Trump supposedly Violate? (which should clearly be understood, by the identity of the Law, IN the written Statues, Act, Number, Section, Sub-Section)…and the clear EVIDENCE, that law WAS violated?…and the consequence (also clearly written in the Penal Statutes, Act, Number, Section, Sun-Section) for violation of that Law?

 

[Scott Downey]

This ruling is why democrats want to pack the supreme court with chosen liberal democrat justices.
Why 9, why not 31?
Just more politics as usual from them democrats.

 

[Scott Downey]

Republicans, and some centrist Democrats, are broadly opposed to adding more justices to the Supreme Court. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) introduced a constitutional amendment in 2021 that would ensure only nine justices could serve on the court at a time. “The Democrats’ answer to a Supreme Court that is dedicated to upholding the rule of law and the Constitution is to pack it with liberals who will rule the way they want. The Supreme Court should be independent, not inflated by every new administration,” Cruz said in a March statement when he reintroduced the legislation.

Sen. Cruz Introduces Constitutional Amendment to Cement Supreme Court at Nine Justices | U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) today reintroduced his proposed constitutional...

www.cruz.senate.gov

 

[lforrest]

This ruing wouldn't make the president immune to impeachment, which is a power granted to Congress. So perhaps an official act of the president may be immune to prosecution, but it could still be grounds for impeachment.

 

[BlessedPeace]

The number of sitting jurists for SCOTUS has changed over the years.
The Constitution and Congress are in charge of the highest and lower courts.

I would hope there's a rule somewhere that precludes partisan packing of the highest court.

 

[BlessedPeace]

This isn't really a surprise.

House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court’s immunity decision​

Biden is giving an exclusive interview on NBC tomorrow night.

 

[Rella ~ I am a woman]

This isn't really a surprise.

House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court’s immunity decision​

Biden is giving an exclusive interview on NBC tomorrow night.

They have to get a full vote... majority rules... and that wont happen now.

Ill write to that Morelle, who looks like a Mafia boss at best and an enforcer more likely
and tell him Scotus is saving Biden's rear.

 

[bluedragon]

Where does the Constitution say presidents have immunity? It doesn't. The SCOTUS are supposed to explain the law, not make law; but unfortunately that's what they've done for a long time. The Constitution allows for impeachment when a president is in office, but there's nothing that says they can't be prosecuted criminally after they leave office.

The founders all believed no one is above the law. The law is king; not, the king is law. If a president can't be held criminally responsible for acts they did while in office, Lord, help us all.

Where does the Constitution say presidents have immunity? It doesn't. The SCOTUS are supposed to explain the law, not make law; but unfortunately that's what they've done for a long time. The Constitution allows for impeachment when a president is in office, but there's nothing that says they can't be prosecuted criminally after they leave office.

The founders all believed no one is above the law. The law is king; not, the king is law. If a president can't be held criminally Renfro k., n,. N.n ,,n. ,n. for acts they did while in office, Lord, help us all.

I would bet your opinion lacks one glaring issue in your position. Common sense.

Where does the Constitution say presidents have immunity? It doesn't. The SCOTUS are supposed to explain the law, not make law; but unfortunately that's what they've done for a long time. The Constitution allows for impeachment when a president is in office, but there's nothing that says they can't be prosecuted criminally after they leave office.

The founders all believed no one is above the law. The law is king; not, the king is law. If a president can't be held criminally responsible for acts they did while in office, Lord, help us all.

I can’t think of an example of a more illogical lack of credible thinking position than the one expressed here. This came from some left wing social media platform. to think like this begs the question. Where does abortion come from? Not in the Constitution. Then my favorite, where does separation of church and state come from. Not in the Constitution.

If there is no immunity………the FBI should raid the hold outs of Obama and Biden …both guilty of murder.

Every part of that post is not carefully or critically thought out.