SCOTUS rules on immunity

[RedBreast21]

There is a very simple test for extra judicial killing.

Is it a justifiable act of self defense ? Same rules for civilians as government employees. Whether you're delivering a pizza in Philadelphia or manning a checkpoint in Yemen.

Past that, are they an enemy in a declared war ?

That's it. That, plus sentencing after a jury trial are the only acceptable ways to intentionally kill someone.

Can't get congress to declare war ? Then the goat fucker lives.

As for all the other decisions, certainly a president needs leeway. But it should be spelled out precisely what it is. The case where they need some legal review just shouldn't come up.

The fact that we put the mentally handicapped in charge of writing our laws is the root problem. If the laws were written properly there would be no ambiguity and the president wouldn't need immunity, he would know exactly what he can and can't do in a situation.

The case was not about a mentally ill person or cognitively declining person. The founders knew that the President needed to be able to make a decision quickly and timely if necessary in the best interests of the American people. It's that simple.

BTW, you are aware that Congress gave the authority to start a war without congressional approval, right?

We all need to know the facts when arriving at opinions.

Also, any actions, discussions among staffers and advisors is also covered. So the Braggs case is in big trouble and Trumps conviction likely repealed since Braggs used information that was clearly covered under the immunity clause.

The immunity clause was written by men far smarter than you or I and they couldn't nor could you write in enough scenarios to cover all circumstances.

Voting for the right person matters. Well if you really believe they would let the most ignorant among us control trillions in global wealth. lol

 

[spat]

The case was not about a mentally ill person or cognitively declining person. The founders knew that the President needed to be able to make a decision quickly and timely if necessary in the best interests of the American people. It's that simple.

BTW, you are aware that Congress gave the authority to start a war without congressional approval, right?

We all need to know the facts when arriving at opinions.

Also, any actions, discussions among staffers and advisors is also covered. So the Braggs case is in big trouble and Trumps conviction likely repealed since Braggs used information that was clearly covered under the immunity clause.

The immunity clause was written by men far smarter than you or I and they couldn't nor could you write in enough scenarios to cover all circumstances.

Voting for the right person matters. Well if you really believe they would let the most ignorant among us control trillions in global wealth. lol

Yea, I am aware that congress has abdicated much of it's responsibility. They simply don't want the responsibility of declaring war, despite the fact that the constitution was very explicit that they are the correct place for that to happen.

The entire body seems to be an exercise in avoiding responsibility. They are loathe to pass an actual law that clearly states anything. They prefer to pass vague bullshit that they can claim means anything they want to different groups, then blame the executive agencies when they make up the real law.⁰

That doesn't make it right.

Yes, the president is the correct place for rapid decision making. In no way does that mean he needs broad immunity.

What that means is that he needs clear boundaries.

 

[Bustedknees]

This means Biden is quilty of nothing also. And Hunter too with daddy's parden.

 

[livingston]

This means Biden is quilty of nothing also. And Hunter too with daddy's parden.

Biden and his crime family has been in business for decades if the truth were known. Just the fact alone that he stole classified papers as a senator , and had them stored all over the country. is enough to convict ... Let alone all the other dealings played fast and loose.

 

[tirwin1]

Yea, I am aware that congress has abdicated much of it's responsibility. They simply don't want the responsibility of declaring war, despite the fact that the constitution was very explicit that they are the correct place for that to happen.

The entire body seems to be an exercise in avoiding responsibility. They are loathe to pass an actual law that clearly states anything. They prefer to pass vague bullshit that they can claim means anything they want to different groups, then blame the executive agencies when they make up the real law.⁰

That doesn't make it right.

Yes, the president is the correct place for rapid decision making. In no way does that mean he needs broad immunity.

What that means is that he needs clear boundaries.

Absolutely correct. Congress has abdicated its responsibility. The idiots there would rather let the president or supreme court rule so they can fundraise off the results. It's a shame because the founders considered the legislative branch first among equals. They are now a distant third.