╌>

SCOTUS hears arguments in Presidential immunity Case.

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  3 months ago  •  108 comments

SCOTUS hears arguments in Presidential immunity Case.
Dr. FRANKLIN was for retaining the clause, as favorable to the executive. History furnishes one example only of a first magistrate being formally brought to public justice. Every body cried out against this as unconstitutional.


Link to quote: Here’s What the Framers of the Constitution Said About Impeachment | Truthout


The former president's lawyers say all presidents are immune from prosecution for anything they do in office, otherwise those who hold the office will be intimidated by future prosecutions. There are at least 3 justices who will question that.   Thus, the only way to hold a president criminally accountable, Trump's attorneys might argue, is if a president is first impeached in the House of Representatives and then convicted by two-thirds of the Senate. This is an important decision which will involve future presidents. I'm thinking that the Court will find a middle road allowing a President limited immunity.

Meanwhile on his way to court, Donald Trump stopped to talk with construction workers.  They were chanting 4 more years and USA USA USA.

GMAk-rCWMAA9Lw3?format=jpg&name=small

Yesterday on the campaign trail, Joe Biden for the second time urged voters to choose freedom over democracy. Does he even know what he is saying?


In other news:

Universities are surrendering to the protestors, who are their creations. Once upon a time an economist named Arnold Kling, published a book in which he distinguished between what have to now be regarded as Marxists and Conservatives. Progressives see the world as a struggle between the oppressor and the oppressed, and they try to help the oppressed. Conservatives see the world as a struggle between civilization and barbarism, between order and chaos and they try to protect civilization. So it now seems.

“Go back to class,” Speaker Mike Johnson told protesters while visiting Columbia. He suggested calling in the National Guard.

At the University of Texas, police officers in riot gear blocked protesters and arrested at least 20 of them.

Trump said the demonstrations were even worse than Charlottesville.

President Biden signed a bill with aid for Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan, calling it “a good day for world peace.”
The bill includes $1 billion in humanitarian aid. “Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said.

Three Arizona Republicans voted with Democrats to repeal the state's abortion law. The bill now goes to the Arizona Senate.

The U.S. secretly shipped new long-range missiles to Ukraine.





Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    3 months ago

Good morning.

OIP.EJWiEl1QyTbU6WjJ4rAVqwHaD4?w=336&h=180&c=7&r=0&o=5&pid=1.7

GMBEM5XWYAAYXZh?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 months ago

hypothetically, if SCOTUS grants trump full immunity for his actions as president, and as soon as that decision comes down, biden can order the secret service and the FBI to liquidate him and his family, along with every male justice on the SCOTUS, every house rep and senator that voted against election certification, every fake elector, every co-conspirator, every J6 insurrectionist, and every one of trump's elected supporters across the US.  ... see how that works? 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago

I like a comment I saw on twitter. If the Supreme Court rules a president has absolute immunity , Biden can have all the conservative justices on the Supreme Court immediately arrested. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago
if SCOTUS grants trump full immunity for his actions as president

I hope you don't think this will be a decision between full immunity and zero immunity.

This court is going to define the limits.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 months ago

But that would resemble an insurrection of sorts. And he can order all he wants. I recall a time in history when a man with a funny little mustache ordered some genocide and the old "the boss told me to do it" didn't hold water then or now as convictions of those that followed those orders are still, or were, being hunted down and prosecuted.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.1.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.3    3 months ago

Limited immunity does Trump no good. He needs absolute immunity and that is what his lawyer is arguing for.  That is why his lawyer, arguing in front of the Supreme Court, said that whether or not a president would be immune from charges resulting from his ordering the assassination of a political rival would depend on the individual circumstances. 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.5  devangelical  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.3    3 months ago

[]

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    3 months ago
Biden can have all the conservative justices on the Supreme Court immediately arrested. 

How very Putin of him.  Now on what grounds would they be arrested?  Hurting the feelings of the left and Democrats? Oh, wait, that's what started all this in the first place. 

On what orders?  Dictator Traitor Joe?  Surely not on a Constitutional or legal authority.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    3 months ago

And you don't see how that protects Biden as well?

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
1.1.8  evilone  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    3 months ago
Limited immunity does Trump no good. He needs absolute immunity...

Trump does not need immunity. Trump only needs to push the worst of these cases out past Nov and win the election. If that happens these cases will be killed and buried. This request on an immunity ruling is just part of the stalling tactic.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.9  devangelical  replied to  evilone @1.1.8    3 months ago

... and the robert's SCOTUS is now officially complicit in that stalling tactic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    3 months ago
This court is going to define the limits.

That would be appropriate.   Given they took this case, one would hope they did so in order to establish clarity on this matter.   It would be a real shame if the end result of them taking the case is to simply formulate directives and push same back to a lower court to resolve.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.10    3 months ago
 It would be a real shame if the end result of them taking the case is to simply formulate directives and push same back to a lower court to resolve.

That's literally the role of the Supreme Court in our system. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.11    3 months ago

No that is NOT literally the role.   The SCotUS does not exclusively impose parameters and then push resolution back to the lower court.   The SCotUS most definitely also acts as the final deciding agent.   Sometimes it remands, other times it makes the final decision.

So, again, it would be a real shame if the end result of the SCotUS taking this case is to simply remand to a lower court.   Since they took this case, one would hope that they did so to resolve it.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1    3 months ago

That would be absolutely awesome and take care of a lot of our problems.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @1.1.9    3 months ago

BINGO

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    3 months ago

I am listening. Trump's case is failing miserably...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2    3 months ago

How do you know?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 months ago

Dreamer it seems

256

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 months ago

The list of talking points.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.3  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 months ago

Because I am listening to the hearing live on YouTube. Even the conservative Justices are eating Trump's Lawyer's lunch...

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JBB @2.1.3    3 months ago

Perception is a funny thing when arrived at subjectively.................

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JBB  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.4    3 months ago

Even Fox News is agreeing with my analysis...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.6  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @2.1.5    3 months ago

Feel free to post links.

I am at work and would love to see if what you are stating is even close to reality.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @2    3 months ago

you are completely correct. the trump lawyer has been on the defensive from the beginning of this hearing

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3  devangelical  replied to  JBB @2    3 months ago

it was never about trump's legal standing, it was all about delaying the legal process.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @2.3    3 months ago
it was all about delaying the legal process.

You do know the right to a speedy trial is for the defendant, not to suit the prosecution.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.3.2  Ronin2  replied to  devangelical @2.3    3 months ago

Go tell it to Hunter Biden.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.3.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.3.1    3 months ago

I'm entertained by a criminal defendant professing his innocence and using every tactic available to delay his day in court, while simultaneously complaining about how long the process is taking, as well as watching a man claiming absolute innocence now asking the court for total immunity while he was holding elected office.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
2.3.4  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @2.3.2    3 months ago
Hunter Biden.

Everyone drink! 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3  JohnRussell    3 months ago

watching it. judging by the majority of the justices questions and comments they are not buying the trump lawyers bullshit.

NONE of them appear to be completely agreeing with Trumps lawyer. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3    3 months ago
NONE of them appear to be completely agreeing with Trumps lawyer. 

That is what I meant in the article. I think they will allow for limited immunity as a middle road. There will simply be some things that a president won't be immune from. 

Maybe by late July they'll have a ruling.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
3.1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 months ago

One think to keep in mind is that the results of this will effect Biden.  

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
3.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 months ago
Maybe by late July they'll have a ruling.

it should be tomorrow.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.1.3  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.1    3 months ago

Yes, if Trump wins this case then Biden can legally have Trump arrested and summarily executed for "National Security" reasons and get away with it because it is an "official act". Am I Right?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.1    3 months ago

It will effect every President in the future.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.2    3 months ago
it should be tomorrow.

From Jack Smith's lips to God's ears!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    3 months ago

Oh ya, Trump is getting the electric chair.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
3.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    3 months ago

And Biden can be arrested for the same thing.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
3.1.8  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.4    3 months ago

To include the current POTUS.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
3.1.9  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @3.1.8    3 months ago

oh yes.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    3 months ago

GMBEkaPaoAE12_R?format=png&name=small

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 months ago

Do you consider letting everyone into the country a crime? At least a violation of the presidential oath?

You see, every president will be subject to this shit, all because the left wants to get Trump.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 months ago
Do you consider letting everyone into the country a crime?

of course not. migrants have a right to claim political asylum. if you dont like that, get the policy changed. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    3 months ago
migrants have a right to claim political asylum.

Not from inside the country and you know there are more than asylum seekers waltzing across the border.

People have the same right to claim that Biden violated the Constitution as you do to claim that Trump somehow incited a riot.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 months ago
Do you consider letting everyone into the country a crime?

You realize that illegals made it into the country while trump was in office, right?

all because the left wants to get Trump.

Nope, just want him held accountable for his criminal activities. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
4.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.3    3 months ago
You realize that illegals made it into the country while trump was in office, right?

What does that have to do with the entire third world being invited into the US?


Nope, just want him held accountable for his criminal activities. 

The ones that Bragg can't name?

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
4.2  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 months ago

Keeps him out of court proceedings. Immunity would stop the bullshit.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 months ago

If Democrats believe in the law and the Constitution why do they shit on them daily?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @4.3    3 months ago

If Democrats believe in the law and the Constitution why do they shit on them daily?

We do, that's why trump is on trial. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5  JBB    3 months ago

The Justices are destroying Trump's lawyer...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5    3 months ago

We'll see if you're right come September.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1    3 months ago

You are dreaming. It is happening live right now. Trump's lawyer is being devastated by both conservative and liberal Justices...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    3 months ago

I have it on too. I haven't seen him devastated yet.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @5.1.2    3 months ago

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
5.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @5.1.3    3 months ago

We know how she's voting.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6  Right Down the Center    3 months ago

Yesterday on the campaign trail, Joe Biden for the second time urged voters to choose freedom over democracy. Does he even know what he is saying?

Not for several years now

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    3 months ago

Off topic...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.1    3 months ago

No sir, I determine topic here!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
6.1.2  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.1.1    3 months ago

I can have an opinion and my opinion is that he is off topic...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.1.3  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @6.1.2    3 months ago

He is citing the article and btw everything is on topic.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @6.1    3 months ago
Off topic...

Interesting considering I am responding to a direct quote of the article.  Exactly what makes responding directly to a question in the article off topic?  I will wait.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.1.5  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @6.1.2    3 months ago
I can have an opinion and my opinion is that he is off topic...

Yes you can but the fact is not the same as your opinion.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.2  MrFrost  replied to  Right Down the Center @6    3 months ago
Yesterday on the campaign trail, Joe Biden for the second time urged voters to choose freedom over democracy. Does he even know what he is saying?

Trump said he wants to be a dictator. How is that supporting democracy?

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.2.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  MrFrost @6.2    3 months ago

Why do you guys keep promoting things out of context even after it has been debunked?  It was clear when he said for one day and with regards to drilling and closing the border.  They are called executive orders and every president does them on their first day.  

Continuing to promote it just chips away at any credibility pf anyone that tries and use it like it is an attack on democracy.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.2  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.1    3 months ago

When asked if he would be a dictator, a sane candidate would have said "no, but I am planning to use executive orders". Of course that wont do for Trump , because he has fanboys and fangirls who want him to be a dictator. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.2.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    3 months ago

Yes, he must not be sane because he did not use the words you needed him to although the meaning was obvious to anyone without a heaping helping of TDS.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.2.4  JohnRussell  replied to  Right Down the Center @6.2.3    3 months ago

I dont know what your bs is supposed to prove, but I told you what was going on. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
6.2.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.4    3 months ago

He said on day 1 he would "drill baby drill" and close the border.

That is not being a dictator.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.2.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.4    3 months ago

Just pointing out your BS and constant twisting of the truth.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
6.2.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.5    3 months ago

Why let facts get in the way?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
6.2.8  charger 383  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2.5    3 months ago
He said on day 1 he would "drill baby drill" and close the border.

2 very good things we need done

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7  Right Down the Center    3 months ago

The bill includes $1 billion in humanitarian aid. “Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said.

Nothing like throwing an impossible problem over the fence Joe.  Of course if they got rid of Hamas all the aid would reach the people it is supposed to but I don't think that is what Joey meant.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
7.1  JBB  replied to  Right Down the Center @7    3 months ago

Also, off topic...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @7.1    3 months ago

He is quoting from the article.

What's the joke?  Let us in on it.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
7.1.2  JohnRussell  replied to  JBB @7.1    3 months ago

it is interesting that since trump is losing badly at the supreme court his followers here want to immediately change the subject

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.1    3 months ago

That's what happens when some don't read their articles.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    3 months ago

I guess you didn't read anything other than Trump in the article.

Why am I not surprised.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.3    3 months ago

It's like that NY jury: All they can focus on is who the defendant is.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.1.6  Right Down the Center  replied to  JBB @7.1    3 months ago

Wrong again

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
7.1.7  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @7.1.2    3 months ago

Responding to a direct quote from the article is changing the subject because the comment is not about Trump.

Perfect example of TDS

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
7.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Right Down the Center @7    3 months ago
“Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said.

I'ts hilarious that he told Israel that and not the terrorists.  Wonder who he's supporting.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.2    3 months ago

Let's see:

Biden just signed the aid bill and new missiles have been shipped over night to Ukraine.

Aid for Gaza must reach the Palestinians "without delay."

For Israel: "the check is in the mail."

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.2.1    3 months ago
For Israel: "the check is in the mail."

For Hamas:   Don't worry about the American hostages Hamas. Do what you want with them.   Biden will make sure the money train keeps rolling. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.2.3  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.2    3 months ago

Please tell us who controls Gaza right now?

Hamas might still be a presence but they hardly are in control.

The IDF is in control whether they want the responsibility or not. 

Nothing coming into Gaza legally enters w/o Israel's tacit approval. It was that way before Oct 7; it sure as hell is that way now.

If any of the aid does reach Hamas it will be by Palestinian civilians that are still loyal to it. Don't think there are that many of those left that aren't more concerned about fighting for their own survival.

What is hilarious is that Brandon thinks Israel wants anything to do with the aid. The US will be responsible for transporting it into Gaza, securing it, and distributing it. Think aid workers are eager to head to Gaza?

At this point the best that Gaza Palestinians can hope for is Israel to hit Rafah- remove what it thinks is the last of Hamas. It will be bloody and Palestinian civilian casualties will be high; but it will still be less than sitting around and waiting while they die from starvation, exposure, and lack of medical care. 

Besides, I want to see what Israel does once they have "defeated" Hamas? Will they cave to the Zionist extremists that want to resettle Gaza? Will they turn Gaza into a real prison- and start moving Palestinians out of the West Bank and into Gaza? 

Even more importantly I want to see if the far left protesters screaming "they are Hamas" suddenly lose interest and disappear? They really don't care about the Palestinians suffering in Gaza. Hell, they probably don't know about Israel's ever growing illegal settlements; IDF & settlers killing and harassment of Palestinians; and continue displacement of Palestinians. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
8  JohnRussell    3 months ago

Trump's lawyer has completed his argument. On a scale of 1 to 10 , for effectiveness and persuasion, I'd give him a 2. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
8.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @8    3 months ago

I have a feeling you would have given him a 2 even if your didn't listen to it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.2  Sparty On  replied to  JohnRussell @8    3 months ago

Factoring in triggering, that makes it a 6 or 7 … at least.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9  Ronin2    3 months ago
“Israel must make sure all this aid reaches the Palestinians in Gaza without delay,” Biden said.

Is Brandon mentally impaired more than normal?

Israel isn't going to receive the aid, transport it into Gaza, protect it in the process, or distribute it to where it is needed.

The very most Israel will do is stay out of the way; maybe. If they don't see anyone that they think is Hamas around. Then all bets are off. Aid workers, their security, and innocent Palestinians beware of incoming impending death.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
9.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @9    3 months ago
The very most Israel will do is stay out of the way; maybe.

You mean like they have done in the past.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
9.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @9.1    3 months ago

You think Israel has stayed out of the way?

.

The   Gaza flotilla raid   was a military operation by Israel against   six civilian ships   of the " Gaza Freedom Flotilla " on 31 May 2010 in   international waters   in the Mediterranean Sea. Nine of the flotilla passengers were killed during the raid, with thirty wounded (including one who later died of his wounds). [1] [2]   Ten Israeli soldiers were wounded, one seriously. The exact sequence of events is contested, in part due to the IDF's confiscation of the passengers' photographic evidence. [3]   The   flotilla , organized by the   Free Gaza Movement   and the Turkish   Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief (İHH) , was carrying humanitarian aid and construction materials, intending to break the Israeli naval   blockade of the Gaza Strip .

The Israeli Navy warned the flotilla via radio to stop approaching the naval blockade and to change course to the   port of Ashdod . This request was denied and on 31 May 2010, Israeli   Shayetet 13   naval commandos boarded the ships in international waters from speedboats [4]   and helicopters. Aboard the Turkish ship   MV   Mavi Marmara , the Israeli Navy faced resistance from about 40 of the 590 passengers, including IHH activists who were said to be armed with iron bars and knives. [5]   During the struggle,   nine   activists were killed, including eight   Turkish nationals   and one   Turkish American , and many were wounded. On 23 May 2014, a tenth member of the flotilla died in hospital after being in a coma for four years. [6]   Ten of the commandos were also wounded, one of them seriously. [5] [7]

According to a UN report, all activist deaths were caused by gunshots, and "the circumstances of the killing of at least six of the passengers were in a manner consistent with an extra-legal, arbitrary and summary execution." [8] [9]   The five other ships in the flotilla employed   passive resistance , which was suppressed without major incident. According to the UN report, several of the passengers were injured and the leg of one was fractured. [8] [10]   The ships were towed to Israel. Some passengers were deported immediately, while about 600 were detained after they refused to sign deportation orders; a few of them were slated for prosecution. After international criticism, all of the detained activists were also deported. [

Sweeping Israeli restrictions on the movement of people and goods, at times exacerbated by restrictive policies by Palestinian authorities, curb access to assistive devices, health care, and electricity essential to many people with disabilities. Chronic power outages in particular jeopardize the rights of many people with disabilities who need light to communicate using sign language, or need equipment powered by electricity to move, including elevators and electric mobility scooters.

“More than a decade of Israeli restrictions have robbed people with disabilities in Gaza of their freedom of movement, and often access to the devices, electricity, and technology they need to communicate or leave their homes,” said   Emina Ćerimović , senior researcher in the disability rights division at Human Rights Watch. “These policies, alongside the failure of Hamas authorities to address the lack of accessibility across Gaza and widespread stigma, contribute to making life in Gaza extraordinarily difficult for many people with disabilities.”
Between August 2018 and October 2020, Human Rights Watch interviewed 37 Gaza residents with physical, visual, and hearing disabilities, and family members of six children and one 18-year-old with disabilities. Human Rights Watch also interviewed representatives of 31 international and local organizations operating in Gaza, a representative of a company that imports assistive devices, and local government officials.

Since 2007, Israeli authorities have imposed a generalized travel ban that deprives the two million Palestinians in Gaza of their freedom to leave the 365-square-kilometer strip, outside of narrow exceptions. Israeli authorities have also sharply restricted the entry and exit of goods from Gaza. Israel’s closure of Gaza, exacerbated by Egyptian restrictions on its border with Gaza, limits access to health care, clean water, and electricity, as well as educational, economic, and other opportunities.

That is hardly staying out of the way.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
9.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ronin2 @9.1.1    3 months ago

All that and nothing about supposedly stopping aid.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
10  Sean Treacy    3 months ago

I saw an article in a "respectable" left wing online magazine yesterday (forget which one) premised on the idea that Special Counsel Smith's ONE JOB is to convict Trump before the election.  That perfectly encapsulates how fucked up many progressives' view of the justice system is. The "one job" of any prosecutor is to obtain the just result. That's it. Hurrying a case to interfere in an election is the opposite of that. Which is why the DOJ has longstanding guidance to avoid timing a prosecution to effect an election, yet the left is openly demanding that happen and Smith is complying with their partisan agenda.  

Here's a good, though long, summary of the issues at stake from a far left anti-Trump site (lawfare) laying out just what's at issue and how silly the idea of letting the Court of Appeals slapdash opinion stand would be. This is about defining the power of the Presidency and deserves a ruling that isn't designed for speed.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11  JohnRussell    3 months ago
7j56a-Uj_mini.jpg
Ian Bassin @ianbassin
·
1h
Wow. Not backing off. Trump’s lawyer just told the Supreme Court Trump could assassinate his opponent and would still be immune from prosecution. Trump said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it.
=================================
(((Mike McElwee)))
@MJMcElwee
·
If this were a movie, the Supreme Court would agree that the President had absolute immunity, and just as Trump was raising his fist in victory, he is shot dead by a sniper on orders by President Biden, using his new immunity powers.
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
11.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @11    3 months ago
and just as Trump was raising his fist in victory, he is shot dead by a sniper on orders by President Biden, using his new immunity powers.

So that sniper would be willing to be executed for murder? (immunity doesn't apply to people following illegal Presidential orders) .

Also interesting that the SPecial Counsel's attorney just said a President has an absolute defense to any criminal act if his AG tells him it's legal. So per the Special Counsel, if a President gets a yes man appointed AG, he can do whatever he wants.   Obviously, there's a lot to be sorted out and the idea of a blanket "no immunity ever" is simply not a serious answer. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
11.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @11.1    3 months ago

Only absolute immunity helps Trump. That is why he has someone advocating for it. 

Whether or not trying to rig an election is an "official" act is not a Supreme Court decision. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
11.1.2  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.1    3 months ago

Don't kid yourself.

The only reason Brandon and the Democrats don't want absolute immunity is they already have it. Ask Brandon, Hunter, Bill and Hillary Clinton, etc.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
11.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @11.1.1    3 months ago

I don’t really care if it helps trump or not.  Getting the issue resolved correctly matters and it appears the court will articulate a meaningful standard  providing some protection to the president short of absolute immunity that the district court can apply to trumps actions, 

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
11.1.4  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @11.1.2    3 months ago

[]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
12  JohnRussell    3 months ago

as seen on twitter -

Dear U.S. Supreme Court: If you’re going to appoint and anoint a king today could it please be someone more intellectually curious and ethically worthy than Donald J. Fucking Trump? Thanks for your time,
 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
13  JohnRussell    3 months ago

apnews.com   /article/supreme-court-trump-capitol-riot-prosecution-immunity-72c885c07c77970d4380206f87b2d8ca

Supreme Court seems skeptical of Trump's claim of absolute immunity but decision's timing is unclear

By MARK SHERMAN 6-7 minutes   4/25/2024


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court seems highly skeptical of former President Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from prosecution, but it’s less clear that the justices are headed for a quick resolution.

Chief Justice John Roberts was among at least five members of the court Thursday who appeared likely to reject the claim of absolute immunity that would stop special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump on charges he conspired to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.

Arguments were in their second hour by late morning.

The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision could be as important as the outcome. Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee, has been pushing to delay the trial until after the November election, and the later the justices issue their decision, the more likely he is to succeed.

Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, two of Trump’s three high court appointees, suggested that former presidents might have some immunity and that in this case, lower courts might have to sort out whether that applied to Trump. That could further delay a trial.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the other Trump appointee, seemed less open to arguments advanced by Trump lawyer D. John Sauer.

Smith’s team is asking for a speedy resolution. The court typically issues its last opinions by the end of June, about four months before the election.

Trump, the first former president charged with crimes, had said he wanted to be at the Supreme Court on Thursday. Instead, he was in a courtroom in New York, where he is   standing trial   on charges that he falsified business records to keep damaging information from voters when he directed hush money payments to a former porn star to keep quiet her claims that they had a sexual encounter.

Trump’s lawyers argue that former presidents are entitled to   absolute immunity   for their official acts. Otherwise, they say, politically motivated prosecutions of former occupants of the Oval Office would become routine and presidents couldn’t function as the commander in chief if they had to worry about criminal charges.

AP AUDIO: No one is above the law. Supreme Court will decide if that includes Trump while he was president.

AP Supreme Court writer Mark Sherman reports the court is going to decide if former President Trump can be tried for his actions following the last presidential election.

Lower courts have rejected those arguments, including a unanimous three-judge panel on an appeals court in Washington, D.C.

The   election interference conspiracy case   brought by Smith in Washington is just one of four criminal cases confronting Trump.

Smith’s team says the men who wrote Constitution never intended for presidents to be above the law and that, in any event, the acts Trump is charged with — including participating in a scheme to enlist   fake electors in battleground states   won by Biden — aren’t in any way part of a president’s official duties.

Nearly four years ago, all nine justices rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from a district attorney’s subpoena for his financial records. That case played out during Trump’s presidency and involved a criminal investigation, but no charges.

Justice Clarence Thomas, who would have prevented the enforcement of the subpoena because of Trump’s responsibilities as president, still rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity and pointed to the text of the Constitution and how it was understood by the people who ratified it.

“The text of the Constitution … does not afford the President absolute immunity,” Thomas wrote in 2020.

The lack of apparent support on the court for the sort of blanket immunity Trump seeks has caused commentators to speculate about why the court has taken up the case in the first place.

Phillip Bobbitt, a constitutional scholar at Columbia University’s law school, said he worries about the delay, but sees value in a decision that amounts to “a definitive expression by the Supreme Court that we are a government of laws and not of men.”

The court also may be more concerned with how its decision could affect future presidencies, Harvard law school professor Jack Goldsmith wrote on the Lawfare blog.

But Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said the court never should have taken the case because an ideologically diverse panel of the federal appeals court in Washington adequately addressed the issues.

“If it was going to take the case, it should have proceeded faster, because now, it will most likely prevent the trial from being completed before the election,” Roosevelt said. “Even Richard Nixon said that the American people deserve to know whether their president is a crook. The Supreme Court seems to disagree.”

The court has several options for deciding the case. The justices could reject Trump’s arguments and unfreeze the case so that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan can resume trial preparations, which she has indicated may last up to three months.

The court could end Smith’s prosecution by declaring for the first time that former presidents may not be prosecuted for official acts they took while in office.

It also might spell out when former presidents are shielded for prosecution and either declare that Trump’s alleged conduct easily crossed the line or return the case to Chutkan so that she can decide whether Trump should have to stand trial.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at   .

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
14  JohnRussell    3 months ago

There is something very interesting about all this that is not often discussed, especially by conservatives. 

The right wing consistently makes the claim that "Jan 6th" was only about the events of that date . This is to give some sort of cover to Trump. 

But that is hardly at all what is being discussed at the Supreme Court today. 

 
 
 
Hallux
PhD Principal
15  Hallux    3 months ago

It will be of interest if SCOTUS in some act of masochism ties itself and the other major powers into a knot of Gideon proportions.

Another observation: The Founders were not Gods, far from it.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
15.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Hallux @15    3 months ago
The Founders were not Gods, far from it.

good thing no one claims they were! 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
16  Hal A. Lujah    3 months ago

The elephant in the room here is that there has never in the history of this country been a need to even discus this argument until the most uniquely unqualified person to have ever entered politics was elected POTUS.  Those who want Trump to return to that position clearly have the main goal of tearing down democracy and replacing it with the same types of government that dominate all the worst countries in the world.  After it happens those same dumbasses will continue to solely blame their enemies for the irreversible damage that they themselves are responsible for.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
16.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @16    3 months ago

They want us to become a shit hole country

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Senior Guide
16.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.1    3 months ago
They want us to become a shit hole country

Agree, hopefully Joe is not given the opportunity to complete the trip to shitholia.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
16.1.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @16.1    3 months ago

... over my dead body.

 
 

Who is online




26 visitors