User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:06:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MikeJGA: 6-3 against Trump. As usual, he chose the wrong hill to die on. No previous POTUS has ever claimed absolute presidential immunity. No other president has ever need to before now, it was always a given. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:07:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Lmfao. There’s no political motives in this case.
|
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:09:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4-AK: hypotheticalizing? …dude |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:09:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gotigers: 5-4 One of the soft conservatives, probably Roberts, will vote with liberals. I think it's 6-3. They're going to distance themselves from the DEI children. |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:11:06 PM EDT
[#5]
Well will the decision be made? Today? Tomorrow? October?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:11:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alex_F: TLDR: for those of us in Teams meetings who can't watch the video? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:12:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ZuoZongtang: Gorsuch asked Dreeban(justice department counsel)what would happen if a president held a sit in and had a mostly peaceful protest in front of congress. Because he objects to a piece of legislation that’s going through. In fact, delays those proceedings. Technically, that would be interrupting an official proceeding. Gorsuch asked Dreeban if that is prosecutable or not prosecutable at its core? Some official acts congress can criminalize and some they can’t. Dreeban’s answer was “probably not” This is kind of restating Jan 6 IMO. Anyone remember the Dem's sit in for a gun vote? Pepperidge Farm remembers... https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/democrats-stage-sit-in-on-house-floor-to-force-gun-vote-224656 |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:13:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MikeJGA: 6-3 against Trump. As usual, he chose the wrong hill to die on. No previous POTUS has ever claimed absolute presidential immunity. You inferred that vote count from the questions asked during oral arguments? |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:14:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MikeJGA: 6-3 against Trump. As usual, he chose the wrong hill to die on. No previous POTUS has ever claimed absolute presidential immunity. Because it was always understood that to prosecute a president you have to impeach and remove first. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:22:36 PM EDT
[#10]
To prosecute a former President is a dangerous precedent.
I could see this happening after everyone of them went out of office. Why even run? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:22:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hedonist: When does SCOTUS vote on this? |
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:23:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Bushamster21]
[#12]
I'm optimistic, I think it goes at least 7-2 in favor of Trump. I don't think the answer to this question is that complicated and anyone with more than 3 brain cells should have enough introspection to ask "How would I want this applied to a President I actually liked?" So it should be 9-0 but the three liberal justices have to share those brain cells between them so who knows how it gets applied.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:26:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DoverGunner]
[#13]
Tagged
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:28:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Imzadi: Because it was always understood that to prosecute a president you have to impeach and remove first. You can't impeach someone who isn't President. Trump isn't President. They should be laughed out of court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:35:43 PM EDT
[#15]
They are going off script and trying to pick fly shit out of pepper.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:38:16 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pmo12: You can't impeach someone who isn't President. Trump isn't President. They should be laughed out of court.  I guess the second impeachment trial in Feb 21 didn’t happen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:39:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dagger41: They are going off script and trying to pick fly shit out of pepper. They’re trying to find something to hang their hat on. It doesnt seem to be going well for them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:40:48 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: Lmfao. There’s no political motives in this case. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/subnetfavoritelol-1033.gif Trump slams NYC Judge Juan Merchan for denying his right to attend Supreme Court immunity hearing |
|
|
|
SGP
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:44:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: odiedodi]
[#19]
I'm reporting this faggot to disney for using copyrighted music for political purposes.
 Now he's telling people to vote for trump but his sign says it's an indictment celebration tour? I'm so confused. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:46:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Had to pause to take a phone call. Are they done?
|
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:48:00 PM EDT
[#21]
The DOJ wants to be placed above its master, what could go wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:50:21 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Smokey0844: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/n725075089_288918_2774-532.jpg I guess the second impeachment trial in Feb 21 didn’t happen. He was impeached by the house while still in office. The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:50:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Democrats always regret the alterations they make to our government.
If they win this round, they'll soon regret it, but they never learn. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:55:21 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: He was impeached by the house while still in office. The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. You left out the part where he wasn't convicted. The Dems didn't get what they wanted, so now here we are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:56:51 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. Common feature amongst DEI hires |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:57:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Its going to be a unanimous decision. The court isnt going to come down with a split decision, they rarely do with items that have this much impact. Most of Arfcom isnt going to like it either. Somehow this place has become okay with a President having absolute immunity for non official acts as President. Impeachment and trial is the act to remove a sitting president, if you believe that is the only mechanism, then sitting duck Presidents have carte blanche to do whatever they want, as no impeachment process will move fast enough prior to the President leaving office. The only penalty for impeachment is removal from office. There are a lot of Illinois congressmen behind bars for acts while sitting members of Congress, this is only unique because its the President. Expulsion from Government and trail in the federal/state court is nothing new for the other arms of Government and I am okay with it equally applying to the Executive branch. Especially why they foment a riot in an attempt to interrupt the certification of the election results.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:57:56 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hedonist: Democrats always regret the alterations they make to our government. If they win this round, they'll soon regret it, but they never learn. True. It reminds me of when Democrats lament that only government should have guns, and then when there's a President that they don't like they scream about the imaginary tyranny that he'll commit against them. Like Rachel Maddow with her ridiculous "Trump is going to put all of the gay people in camps" comment. What if they were armed Rachel? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:58:11 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4Teen_R: You left out the part where he wasn't convicted. The Dems didn't get what they wanted, so now here we are. What is the penalty for impeachment? That will give you a clue as to why the proceedings didnt continue |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:58:49 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4Teen_R: You left out the part where he wasn't convicted. The Dems didn't get what they wanted, so now here we are. I didn't leave anything out. I was correcting a false statement. Impeachment happens in the house, and he was impeached while still in office. Yes, we know he wasn't convicted but thats not the point. Regardless, the questions remains, how can former presidents be held accountable once they leave office? Or, should they even be? What if evidence of criminal actions don't come to light until after the president has left office? What if a president sells the nuclear codes to China during his last hour in office. Absolute immunity? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:59:18 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By glklvr: Originally Posted By azjeeper: Justice Brown comes across as a box of rocks. Both her and Sotomayor. Complete morons that a first year law student could outwit. In 2024? Doubt it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 12:59:55 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hedonist: Democrats always regret the alterations they make to our government. If they win this round, they'll soon regret it, but they never learn. I believe you are mistaken. They have never regretted anything and their changes have never been used against them. Our side isn’t interested in victory or at least their definition differs from ours. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:03:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: I believe you are mistaken. They have never regretted anything and their changes have never been used against them. Our side isn't interested in victory or at least their definition differs from ours. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mooreshawnm: Originally Posted By Hedonist: Democrats always regret the alterations they make to our government. If they win this round, they'll soon regret it, but they never learn. I believe you are mistaken. They have never regretted anything and their changes have never been used against them. Our side isn't interested in victory or at least their definition differs from ours. Harry Reid regretted his Senate majority rule when McConnel shoved a SCOTUS pick up their ass. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:03:16 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceChimp: Every Trump pick was at least a minor upgrade to the one they replaced. Barrett is approximately 87 million percent better than Ginsburg so far. That's it in a nutshell. Overall, we are waaaaay better off with the makeup of this court vs. the court before Trump. That's not to say it is perfect or even "excellent," as it still does things that make you scratch your head and wonder WTH they're doing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:03:53 PM EDT
[#34]
Disappointed that no one has lit themselves on fire yet.
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:04:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4Teen_R]
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: What is the penalty for impeachment? That will give you a clue as to why the proceedings didnt continue Your saying there wasn't a trial in the Senate, and that Trump wasnt found not guilty? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:10:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BobRoberts]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 4Teen_R: Your saying there wasn't a trial in the Senate, and that Trump wasnt found not guilty? He was acquitted for not reaching the required 2/3rd majority. He was not found "not guilty". The issue still stands that the only power the Senate holds is to remove and bar from office. Its not a criminal proceeding. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:12:15 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Its going to be a unanimous decision. The court isnt going to come down with a split decision, they rarely do with items that have this much impact. Most of Arfcom isnt going to like it either. Somehow this place has become okay with a President having absolute immunity for non official acts as President. Impeachment and trial is the act to remove a sitting president, if you believe that is the only mechanism, then sitting duck Presidents have carte blanche to do whatever they want, as no impeachment process will move fast enough prior to the President leaving office. The only penalty for impeachment is removal from office. There are a lot of Illinois congressmen behind bars for acts while sitting members of Congress, this is only unique because its the President. Expulsion from Government and trail in the federal/state court is nothing new for the other arms of Government and I am okay with it equally applying to the Executive branch. Especially why they foment a riot in an attempt to interrupt the certification of the election results. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:19:50 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: He was impeached by the house while still in office. The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. If you couldn’t do so, why even hold the senate trial after he left office? Regardless, I’m not arguing for blanket immunity which I think is not supported but I’m mainly laughing at the assertion that the DOJ is apolitical and there won’t be abuses because trust them. They basically want to be equal to the three branches themselves. IMO the impeachment process affords what might be the only safe guard to against a partisan DOJ targeting political enemies. Not the best solution, but considering how partisan things are, it might be a good idea to give the minority party a podium and the former president a chance at a defense before they’re drug through the court using lawfare. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:21:38 PM EDT
[#39]
Operation Mongoose?
Obama strikes Civilians with a Drone. Those were great questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:23:04 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wvfarrier: They will argue no immunity until Dem President gets accused of something I think Karen Jackson-Brown and the petitioner covered it. THis is just a one-off. Adhoc committees I think Karen recommended. From now on. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:23:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: He was impeached by the house while still in office. The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Low_Country: Originally Posted By Smokey0844: /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/n725075089_288918_2774-532.jpg I guess the second impeachment trial in Feb 21 didn’t happen. He was impeached by the house while still in office. The question is, how you can hold a president accountable for potential crimes committed while in office, once they are no longer in office. You can't. That's the entire idea behind the special protections afforded to the office. Why is this so hard to understand? The President is prosecutable by the impeachment process only, for anything that took place while in office. Once the President leaves office (after inauguration day) then he is held to the same prosecution process everyone else is, but only for CRIMES COMMITTED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:24:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hedonist: When does SCOTUS vote on this? May 9 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:26:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Don’t forget that the DOJ said the president did have full immunity as long as the AG blessed off on the action.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:27:05 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Actiondiver: This very interesting and the arguments would open up a serious can of worms. Sounds mostly like the DOJ is going for a power grab, usurping the power of the President, much like the commissars did in Soviet Russia under the Bolsheviks as arbitrators of what the President may do. I do not think the reasonable justices are having it. The usuals suspects are all 🤡 show it seems. that seemed to be the sell by the DOJ lawyer. Bureaucracy is practically a just God. can do no wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:27:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:30:08 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jpcdmd: You can't. That's the entire idea behind the special protections afforded to the office. Why is this so hard to understand? The President is prosecutable by the impeachment process only, for anything that took place while in office. Once the President leaves office (after inauguration day) then he is held to the same prosecution process everyone else is, but only for CRIMES COMMITTED AFTER HE LEAVES OFFICE. The senates ability to remove does not overlap or trump criminal liability. The Senate does not hold power to punish perpetrators of crimes, only to remove and bar them from further service. Do you really think the only penalty of a sitting President committing Treason would be their removal from office? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:31:07 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. But trust them. They only want to get this one guy. It won’t be abused by partisan prosecutions. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:32:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Meadowmuffin: Without qualified immunity, any former president could be charged or sued for any presidential acts while in office. Game over without immunity. It's just a one-off. They are going to fix it. DOJ has faith. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:34:04 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: The senates ability to remove does not overlap or trump criminal liability. The Senate does not hold power to punish perpetrators of crimes, only to remove and bar them from further service. Do you really think the only penalty of a sitting President committing Treason would be their removal from office? No but it could serve as a check against a partisan executive branch going after an opponent. You would then have two branches of the government in agreement and then the obvious court challenges would allow for the third to give truth input. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 1:36:43 PM EDT
[#50]
Oh shit Gorsuch just brought up drone strikes by Hussein
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
