- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: SCOTUS isn’t going to mess with immunity
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
Katanji will vote to ring Trump up.
I would have liked to heard Kagan. I don’t necessarily agree with her, but she at least takes the law seriously.
Brown and Sotomayer are not serious people.
I would have liked to heard Kagan. I don’t necessarily agree with her, but she at least takes the law seriously.
Brown and Sotomayer are not serious people.
1
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:41 pm to Rebel
quote:
If they rule he has to stand trial, FJB and every president after him will be prosecuted.
Only if FJB engages in lots of non-executive alleged criminality
*ETA: some do exist. They could revive the documents case, for example, if the SOL hasn't run.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 3:41 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:41 pm to Rebel
quote:
Katanji will vote to ring Trump up.
That's not really an issue before the court. That's for the merits.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:45 pm to RollTide71
I don’t like the path SFP is on, but damn dude. No need to go personal.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:48 pm to Rebel
These melty boomers have no idea how funny their ad hom flailing is, and always has been, to me.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 3:59 pm to Epaminondas
quote:
Go back and read the section you quoted:
"but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law."
Trump was not convicted by the Senate. If he had been, he would have been removed from office.
You are making a 1L mistake reading the language. The language points out that an impeachment/conviction/removal from office are not the sole remedy. It does not, however, state or even imply that impeachment is required for a separate criminal prosecution to be undertaken.
In fact, the ability to have a separate criminal prosecution without an impeachment conviction seems completely logical. There was a vociferous argument by Trump that you can not be impeached once you leave office but the lack of conviction made the issue more or less moot. It is easy to see a situation where a president committed a crime during his tenure in office not covered as a public act which was not discovered until years after he/she left office. It makes little sense in most situations for congress to take up impeachment and trial in such a case.
The problem with either process is that they can be purely political in nature.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:02 pm to The Boat
quote:
If a politician doesn't first have to be removed from office to lose immunity ...
So, you're saying that a decision on whether presidential immunity exists is contingent on whether he is removed from office after conviction for an impeachment?
He does enjoy immunity from prosecution while in office. Here's the catch ... he's not in office right now, and any decision regarding his immunity to prosecution for decisions made while in office will hinge on whether the acts in which he engaged are within the scope of the Constitutional authority provided to the Executive.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:03 pm to Obtuse1
The language in the Constitution about impeachment seems clear to me:
In the case of a SITTING President, impeachment is required before a criminal prosecution can commence. That makes sense practically as well - otherwise a President could be easily hamstrung by various politically charged cases in various states while he is in office.
But that does not apply in this case because Trump is not a sitting President, he is a former President - so impeachment has nothing to do with whether he can be criminally charged with anything.
In the case of a SITTING President, impeachment is required before a criminal prosecution can commence. That makes sense practically as well - otherwise a President could be easily hamstrung by various politically charged cases in various states while he is in office.
But that does not apply in this case because Trump is not a sitting President, he is a former President - so impeachment has nothing to do with whether he can be criminally charged with anything.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 4:24 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Clearly someone hasn't read the actual Constitution
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:27 pm to JimEverett
quote:
But that does not apply in this case because Trump is not a sitting President, he is a former President - so impeachment has nothing to do with whether he can be criminally charged with anything.
But it does apply. Trump was in office and he was acquitted by the Senate on the charge of insurrection. By your premise DA’s and states could prosecute a former president for anything they did while in office. Like Alito said a true banana republic.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:35 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
He does enjoy immunity from prosecution while in office. Here's the catch ... he's not in office right now, and any decision regarding his immunity to prosecution for decisions made while in office will hinge on whether the acts in which he engaged are within the scope of the Constitutional authority provided to the Executive.
Bullshite, so immunity exists only in office, but the minute you leave the presidency they can prosecute you on everything you did while in office. Then it’s not immunity. It doesn’t turn off like a light switch. Actions taken after you leave office are another story.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:38 pm to da prophet
quote:
But it does apply. Trump was in office and he was acquitted by the Senate on the charge of insurrection. By your premise DA’s and states could prosecute a former president for anything they did while in office. Like Alito said a true banana republic.
What about (alleged) crimes that didn't get an impeachment vote? Just in the ether?
quote:
By your premise DA’s and states could prosecute a former president for anything they did while in office
This can avoid the real issues with limited immunity for executive actions, like every other government position with a similar limited immunity.
Then it's only non-executive actions that may violate the law at issue. Hopefully there would not be many from a President
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:40 pm to da prophet
I’m afraid if they give blanket immunity to Trump then Biden starts the wet work.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:42 pm to da prophet
quote:
Bullshite, so immunity exists only in office, but the minute you leave the presidency they can prosecute you on everything you did
Everything? No. Did you read everything you quoted?
quote:
will hinge on whether the acts in which he engaged are within the scope of the Constitutional authority provided to the Executive.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 5:54 pm to da prophet
quote:
But that does not apply in this case because Trump is not a sitting President, he is a former President - so impeachment has nothing to do with whether he can be criminally charged with anything.
But it does apply. Trump was in office and he was acquitted by the Senate on the charge of insurrection. By your premise DA’s and states could prosecute a former president for anything they did while in office. Like Alito said a true banana republic.
Neither of the Impeachments of Trump had to do with insurrection.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 6:24 pm to Obtuse1
re '1L mistake reading the language'. Thats the whole point of Smiths henchman wanting to avoid a clear immunity standard, using a case by case DOJ litmus test that can be used to shutdown presidential power for the next 100 years. Its a power grab, that if you had any geopolitical knowledge was rampant in Pakistan, Venezuela , Ecuador, and most of Africa
Posted on 4/25/24 at 6:55 pm to da prophet
quote:
...so immunity exists only in office, but the minute you leave the presidency they can prosecute you on everything you did while in office.
I didn't type that, at all. Do you read?
Posted on 4/25/24 at 8:49 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.
After Congress convicts (removed from office via impeachment and senate convicts) then they can be indicted.
Posted on 4/25/24 at 8:53 pm to tigeraddict
Nothing in that part you quoted reads exclusivity or sequentiality into anything.
It plainly states you can be impeached and then also criminally prosecuted. Impeachment doesn’t insulate you from criminal prosecution.
It plainly states you can be impeached and then also criminally prosecuted. Impeachment doesn’t insulate you from criminal prosecution.
This post was edited on 4/25/24 at 8:54 pm
Posted on 4/25/24 at 9:01 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
t plainly states you can be impeached and then also criminally prosecuted. Impeachment doesn’t insulate you from criminal prosecution.
I’m certainly no lawyer but doesn’t the part about “convicted party” indicate that the criminal indictments needs to be predicated on being found guilty in an impeachment proceeding?
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News