this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Conservative

377 readers
11 users here now

A place to discuss pro-conservative stuff

  1. Be excellent to each other. Civility, No Racism, No Bigotry, No Slurs, No calls to violences, No namecalling, All that good stuff, follow lemm.ee's rules, follow the rules of your instance, etc.

  2. We are a Pro-Conservative forum. Posts must have a clear pro-conservative, or anti left-wing bias. We are interested in promoting conservatism and discussing things that might get ignored elsewhere. All sources are acceptable, however reputable sources with a reputation for factual reporting are preferred.

  3. Dissent is allowed in the comments, but try to be constructive; if you do not agree, then provide a reason which is backed up by references or a reasonable alternative interpretation of the provided facts. That means the left wing is welcome to state their opinions, but please keep it in good faith.

A polite request, not a rule, if you feel the need to report a comment, please don't reply to it.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/25/politics/takeaways-trump-immunity-supreme-court/index.html

I like how different headlines word it differently.

This is they’ll reject sweeping immunity.

This will be an interesting case for future and past presidents. Could Obama be charged with murder killing us citizens over seas?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

From what I'm hearing, it's very likely that SCOTUS will uphold that actions that are part of official duties will have presidential immunity, but other activities will not.

For example, let's say that terrorists were in a building in America, and Trump authorized a strike on that building, killing many civilians (just as an example). That would be an official action, qualifying him from immunity. But, if he does something like bash his wife's head in, even as president, he does not have immunity from that.

It's my understanding that this is the traditional view of the laws in question, I am not sure that Trump will be able to get that immunity expanded like he wants.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I think this will be a narrow focus on specific events. They don't want a broad rule that will keep coming up in court.

I admit this is a tough one, and no matter what happens, people will scream politics while ignoring how difficult this question is to answer.

People often scream politics when the answer is the correct one. Roe Vs Wade is a good example where it should have been ruled the way it had been ruled. I am pro-choice but the courts overstepped when creating roe.

Congress has the power to make laws, not the courts.