• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

If the supreme court rules presidents due indeed have complete immunity from their actions...

bongsaway said:
Can Biden order seal team six to knock off trump?
Click to expand...

Technically, yes he could. He would be impeached for it surely, but he wouldn't have to serve any time. This is why I think the SCOTUS is going to rule a president doesn't have complete immunity.
 
Paradoxical said:
Jackboot Smith tell you to post that?
Click to expand...

If SCOTUS were to rule a president has complete immunity, he could. Until such time as the Constitution is changed to allow jail time for impeachments, if the SCOTUS rules that impeachment is the only thing that checks the president of his power and he has immunity outside the impeachment, than not only could he but he wouldn't serve any jail time for it.
 
DestinyInert said:
If SCOTUS were to rule a president has complete immunity, he could. Until such time as the Constitution is changed to allow jail time for impeachments, if the SCOTUS rules that impeachment is the only thing that checks the president of his power and he has immunity outside the impeachment, than not only could he but he wouldn't serve any jail time for it.
Click to expand...
It is stupid to suggest Trump committed a killing or that a president "could"
 
Paradoxical said:
It is stupid to suggest Trump committed a killing or that a president "could"
Click to expand...
You are saying this about a man who says on day one he would be a dictator for a day. It's stupid to suggest he wouldn't murder people.
 
DestinyInert said:
Technically, yes he could. He would be impeached for it surely, but he wouldn't have to serve any time. This is why I think the SCOTUS is going to rule a president doesn't have complete immunity.
Click to expand...
But if the POTUS was completely immune he/she could just corrupt the impeachment process.
 
Paradoxical said:
Jackboot Smith tell you to post that?
Click to expand...
That is a real possibility if the Supreme Court rules that a president has complete immunity. That's not what democracy is. No man in this country, even the president, has the right to be immune from prosecution from crimes he commits. If the SC rules in Trump's favor, then yes, it's an absolute privilege extended to President Biden to do whatever he wants to the GOP opposition, just get rid of them using any means at his disposal. That's what's at stake for the entire country.
 
HumblePi said:
That is a real possibility if the Supreme Court rules that a president has complete immunity. That's not what democracy is. No man in this country, even the president, has the right to be immune from prosecution from crimes he commits. If the SC rules in Trump's favor, then yes, it's an absolute privilege extended to President Biden to do whatever he wants to the GOP opposition, just get rid of them using any means at his disposal. That's what's at stake for the entire country.
Click to expand...
OK, thanks for that valuable tip.
 
How about starting with an "if" which is likely. Have you heard anything or read anything from literally ANY legal expert who thinks SCOTUS will rule 100% in Trump's favor and conclude any president has "complete" immunity? I haven't.
 
gbg3 said:
How about starting with an "if" which is likely. Have you heard anything or read anything from literally ANY legal expert who thinks SCOTUS will rule 100% in Trump's favor and conclude any president has "complete" immunity? I haven't.
Click to expand...

Didn't the title start with "IF"? I've already given my prediction that the SCOTUS will rule the president doesn't have complete immunity.
 
Reminder:



Chief Justice John Roberts' double-barreled rejection of President Trump's claims of immunity from grand jury and congressional subpoenas was a stunning end to a momentous term in which Roberts played perhaps the most pivotal role of any chief justice in close to a century.

In a remarkable series of decisions over the last month, Roberts has rebuked Trump on matters ranging from personal to policy.

In Thursday's decisions, with seven-justice majorities, Roberts once again pushed back on Trump's assertion of almost unlimited presidential power.
Click to expand...
 
gbg3 said:
How about starting with an "if" which is likely. Have you heard anything or read anything from literally ANY legal expert who thinks SCOTUS will rule 100% in Trump's favor and conclude any president has "complete" immunity? I haven't.
Click to expand...
I'm just going to assume that the Supreme Court will stall their decision until after the election. In fact, they have already given Trump the immunity he wants by stalling their decision and delaying his trial until after the election.
 
HumblePi said:
I'm just going to assume that the Supreme Court will stall their decision until after the election. In fact, they have already given Trump the immunity he wants by stalling their decision and delaying his trial until after the election.
Click to expand...
I agree, they'll pass and then say they'll rule on it later. ****ing republicans, talk about activist judges.
 
HumblePi said:
I'm just going to assume that the Supreme Court will stall their decision until after the election. In fact, they have already given Trump the immunity he wants by stalling their decision and delaying his trial until after the election.
Click to expand...
I think SCOTUS will not stall their decision until after the election. I believe their decision will be delivered in June.

There is no doubt the decision they reach could lead to time consuming processes which IMO could have already been undertaken by the trial court but instead, the trial court made a too sweeping analysis and one which can't stand the test of time and cover all presidents.
 
gbg3 said:
I think SCOTUS will not stall their decision until after the election. I believe their decision will be delivered in June.

There is no doubt the decision they reach could lead to time consuming processes which IMO could have already been undertaken by the trial court but instead, the trial court made a too sweeping analysis and one which can't stand the test of time and cover all presidents.
Click to expand...
If they stall their decision until June, it will still be way too late because that trial won't begin until after the election anyway.
 
Paradoxical said:
Jackboot Smith tell you to post that?
Click to expand...
Making up derogatory names undermines any possible credibility of a comment.

It's like admitting the comment lacks merit, lacks logic, so it has to be augmented with emotion.
 
DestinyInert said:
Technically, yes he could. He would be impeached for it surely, but he wouldn't have to serve any time. This is why I think the SCOTUS is going to rule a president doesn't have complete immunity.
Click to expand...
Welcome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom