As predicted, it will now go to lower courts to determine what is a private action.6-3. Sounds like it's pretty much what was expected.
Read the holding I just posted. Trump got what he wanted.Tim Pool needs to actually read the decision.
Hear . . . . . .or see?I don't really care about the ruling - I just like to hear Alina Habba's take on it.
From the opinion: "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized."Read the holding I just posted. Trump got what he wanted.
Okay. Just wanted to make sure your priorities are in order.See, obviously.
You're welcome.I don't really care about the ruling - I just like to hear Alina Habba's take on it.
That’s routine stuff. Examining a public official’s motives when taking discretionary actions is off limits except in very rare circumstances. The test must be only objective.
They never expected to get the impeachment before the Senate requirement in a million years but you always aim high.From the opinion: "Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized."
Then why is motive always discussed in cases like the documents case?That’s routine stuff. Examining a public official’s motives when taking discretionary actions is off limits except in very rare circumstances. The test must be only objective.
Cripes. With this kind of stupidity, we have no hope.Liberals aren't just extremely stupid they're clinically insane. This clown is on Biden's payroll.
I only read the syllabus, but you are right except for one thing: the court distinguished between two types of official acts: core constitutional responsibilities, which get absolute immunity, and other official acts, which get "at least" presumptive immunity.I’m not reading anything hard now. So let me guess and tell me where wrong
Official acts immunity. Private acts no immunity. Sent down to try which won’t happen before election. If it gets tried judge will decide what acts have immunity and it will go back up again for the s.Ct. to decide on those acts
?????
So may help in dc (subject to interpretation /rebuttable blah blah). no help to docs caseI only read the syllabus, but you are right except for one thing: the court distinguished between two types of official acts: core constitutional responsibilities, which get absolute immunity, and other official acts, which get "at least" presumptive immunity.
The Federal cases are all dead. GA too most likely.So may help in dc (subject to interpretation /rebuttable blah blah). no help to docs case
Feel. Obviously.Hear . . . . . .or see?
I imagine if Trump wins he’ll test the immunity ruling over and over. Thanks SCOTUS for making it easier for a conman to con.The Federal cases are all dead. GA too most likely.
The DC cases are garbage and should be dead without immunity. SCOTUS knocked out the Sarbanes Oxley charge. The KKK voter fraud charge hasn’t been litigated yet, but that also makes no sense. The documents case is interesting. It’s criminal, not civil. The DOJ could have gone the civil route for document recovery, but no. It went criminal. Trump has defenses that Biden and Hillary did not have. Immunity will be an issue.So may help in dc (subject to interpretation /rebuttable blah blah). no help to docs case
Cannon will dismiss. Thomas gave the signal.The DC cases are garbage and should be dead without immunity. SCOTUS knocked out the Sarbanes Oxley charge. The KKK voter fraud charge hasn’t been litigated yet, but that also makes no sense. The documents case is interesting. It’s criminal, not civil. The DOJ could have gone the civil route for document recovery, but no. It went criminal. Trump has defenses that Biden and Hillary did not have. Immunity will be an issue.
Should SCOTUS have made a special Trump rule? It took the high road and wrote about immunity for any office holder.I imagine if Trump wins he’ll test the immunity ruling over and over. Thanks SCOTUS for making it easier for a conman to con.
Nothing like a 34 yr old bartender opining on s.Ct. rulings
And it will only cost ya one house and half (90%) your retirement.Feel. Obviously.
Is it any worse than 99% of twitter?Nothing like a 34 yr old bartender opining on s.Ct. rulings
Nope but they aren’t in congressIs it any worse than 99% of twitter?
One things for sure, this ruling will accelerate the already vicious attacks on the legitimacy of the court.
A lot of the tweets that make it here make it from a Russian computer center. I don't know if that is better or worse than a bartender.Nope but they aren’t in congress
I can't possibly imagine how this would help him in the docs case, but I'm sure they will try.So may help in dc (subject to interpretation /rebuttable blah blah). no help to docs case