The Soapbox

Los Angeles Hoo

Joined: 03/05/2014 Posts: 19654
Likes: 30073


His argument is not that the president is immune to everything despite...


...what the lefty liars are saying. His argument is that the president is immune from prosecution for acts that fall within his official capacity as president -- a standard of immunity, by the way, which also applies to both the judicial and legislative branches.

This question was adjudicated decades ago with respect to a case involving Nixon and CIVIL (not criminal) liability, and it was decided that the president has ABSOLUTE immunity from civil liability related to his official acts. Trump is arguing that the same immunity standard should and does apply to criminal liability. This question has never arisen before because we've never had a regime as corrupt as the Biden regime waging lawfare on its predecessor/current election opponent, forcing SCOTUS to provide an opinion on the matter.

There are multiple reasons why this standard of immunity should exist, including separation of powers issues and simple logistical issues, the latter being exemplified by exactly what is happening to Trump right now -- i.e., a spiteful, corrupt, partisan successor administration is trying to punish him, undercut the next election and corrupt our politics generally via lawfare by attempting to criminalize his actions as president. Obviously, it would have a chilling effect on our politics and presidency if presidents had to labor under the concern that they could be jailed in the future for carrying out the responsibilities of their office.

All this begs the question, of course, of whether the acts with which Trump is charged were actions taken within the scope of the presidency. He would argue yes, while Smith would argue no. In my view, the likely outcome of this appeal will be that SCOTUS will apply the same level of criminal immunity to the president as it does to civil liability, but probably will not decide whether Trump's actions were official. Thus, the case will get kicked back to Chutkan's court for an evidentiary hearing on that topic, where she will, of course, find in favor of Smith, and then the entire appeal process will begin again.

(In response to this post by HoosWillWin)

Posted: 02/28/2024 at 9:06PM



+1

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


Current Thread:
 
  
BREAKING: SCOTUS will hear TFG immunity appeal -- WaxHoo 02/28/2024 5:06PM
  SCOTUS should hear the appeal -- Fuzzy Dunlop 02/29/2024 10:14AM
  .** -- WaxHoo 02/29/2024 10:32AM
  He’s already had Trump arrested twice. ** -- Los Angeles Hoo 02/29/2024 10:28AM
  🐂💩 ** -- WaxHoo 02/29/2024 10:33AM
  Can someone (seriously) tell me the legal -- HoosWillWin 02/28/2024 7:57PM
  You’ve still got Stormy.🤣 ** -- JMHoo 02/28/2024 6:28PM
  Noooooooooooooo!!!!!!! ** -- JMHoo 02/28/2024 6:27PM
  They've always been virtually zero, and anyone who... -- Los Angeles Hoo 02/28/2024 6:15PM
  How would you know that question? ** -- 111Balz 02/28/2024 9:20PM
  Hear, hear. ** -- WaxHoo 02/28/2024 5:50PM
  Terminate, with extreme prejudice -- WahooKid 02/28/2024 6:16PM
  LAHoo thinks that. ** -- Seattle .Hoo 02/28/2024 8:00PM
  Republicans only, obviously ** -- WahooMatt05 02/28/2024 6:18PM
  Nonsense ** -- 111Balz 02/28/2024 7:50PM
  Your capitulation is accepted. ** -- Los Angeles Hoo 02/28/2024 7:27PM
  More fiction you have to tell yourself. ** -- SixerHoo 02/29/2024 08:29AM
  Yes! -- WaxHoo 02/28/2024 5:23PM
  No! -- WaxHoo 02/28/2024 5:09PM
  One hopes ** -- 111Balz 02/28/2024 5:09PM

Notice: Trying to get property 'queue' of non-object in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /data/www/sportswar.com/wp-includes/script-loader.php on line 2781
vm307