Judge Roberts and the truth.

[Rockport Zebra]

Failing to support Supreme Court rulings is dangerous. He called out Trump supporters.

 

[BradStevens]

Failing to support Supreme Court rulings is dangerous. He called out Trump supporters.

Good.

 

[UncleMark]

Failing to support Supreme Court rulings is dangerous. He called out Trump supporters.

Trump has total immunity, no checks. You reap what you sow.

 

[BradStevens]

Trump has total immunity, no checks. You reap what you sow.

Only for official acts.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Only for official acts.

.
And, as we know, presidents also have checks for their official acts. The checks are different than federal criminal charges - but they’re checks nonetheless.

FTR, I’ve always taken it for granted that presidents couldn’t be criminally prosecuted for executing the official duties, rights and privileges of their office.

A case in point: it would’ve seemed preposterous for the DOJ to indict Barack Obama for ordering a deadly drone strike in Yemen against US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki.

 

[UncleMark]

Only for official acts.

You think Trump is going to be bothered by details like that? The Roberts court has emboldened Trump to the point where defying them would be feasible. Trump claimed he wanted to be like Jackson.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

You think Trump is going to be bothered by details like that? The Roberts court has emboldened Trump to the point where defying them would be feasible. Trump claimed he wanted to be like Jackson.

If so, I think his defiance would prove rather ephemeral.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You think Trump is going to be bothered by details like that? The Roberts court has emboldened Trump to the point where defying them would be feasible. Trump claimed he wanted to be like Jackson.

The Roberts court did not write about Trump. It wrote about the office of President.. It’s up to the trial courts to determine whether a particular act is immune under the framework the Supreme Court provided.