Moscow shooting

[Mas-sa-suta]

I don't like any of those things, but you know you're talking about budget dust there, right? In order to get some of what the Republicans wanted they had to let the Democrats get some of what they wanted. It's how the process works and whining and crying about it and refusing to compromise only ensures we get nothing, and we shut down the government. Shutting down the government is only a good thing in the irrational minds of the MAGA faction. It never saves a dime after they're over and Republicans get the blame. Probably rightfully when Republicans refuse to compromise.

It's a fact that we can't fix this overnight. I know you don't deal with facts, but you should make an effort.

A few more republican-approved tidbits..

$740K for a Latino LGBT organization in Seattle
$4Million for an "economic justice lab' in Connecticut
$2.5Million to two hospitals that do late-term abortions
$2.5 Million to a clinic in Oregon which does transgender hormone therapy on children.

Is this what the republicans wanted?

No?

What did the republicans get that they wanted?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

So, you’re claiming you’re not suffering from dementia? You’re just not an inhabitant of reality and you just don’t know any better. That’s sad too, but I don’t feel bad about pointing out how stupid your posts are.

Move on from gaslighting.

Turn the page on your primer, Company man..

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

You brought up private individuals as part of the deep state. Lobbyists, Hunter Biden err.. Jared, Military Contractors, etc, big donors, etc.

The court of appeals in the district of columbia case got it 100% correct. The case law they cite was impeccable. I guess the Supreme Court by overruling Roe v Wade was part of the deep state then-- at least the republicans. They took away rights that existed for 50 years.....Think about that, with one wave of the hand they nullified a constitutional right that existed for 50 years.

As for prosecutors cherry picking laws--I feel this is all about your perception that Trump is being treated unfairly rather than anything of substance.

Abortion as a Constitutional Right?

You know you are intentionally repeating this falsehood.

27 years and 5 states, hmmmm?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

A few more republican-approved tidbits..

$740K for a Latino LGBT organization in Seattle
$4Million for an "economic justice lab' in Connecticut
$2.5Million to two hospitals that do late-term abortions
$2.5 Million to a clinic in Oregon which does transgender hormone therapy on children.

Is this what the republicans wanted?

No?

What did the republicans get that they wanted?

Oh and;

$10Billion funding to the WHO
$300 Million MORE for the Ukraine debacle
$200 Million for a new FBI Headquarters

ALSO, continued funding for EcoHealth Alliance..who funded gain-of-function research in the Lab at Wuhan, creating Covid-19, and funding bio labs in Ukraine.

Not one dollar to Border security walls.

Must be what the republicans wanted.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

So you are admitting that you are a propagandist.

Finally you admit what I've known for a long time.

That doesn't even make sense. I don't spread Russian propaganda, you do. Own it. Admit it.

 

[Mark Milton]

Abortion as a Constitutional Right?

You know you are intentionally repeating this falsehood.

27 years and 5 states, hmmmm?

It wasn't? Or is this part of the game where your next card is "the election was rigged"-the Trump card so to speak?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Goodness, that is flat out wrong. It is a 57 page opinion that goes through the entire history of presidential immunity--all the way down to Madison. It was a tip to tale analysis of the law, and it was 100% correct.

You are referring to Holder's comments when he testified about how he has discretion to not prosecute. Big deal. Name a prosecutor who doesn't. But you also left out the part where he said "“We don’t prosecute every violation of federal law,” he said. “We don’t have the capacity to do that and so what we try to do is make determinations about how we use our limited resources.” He then cited the Obama admin's decision to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. He then went into prosecution for drug use and said "we can't go after every user--we are looking for the supplier and originator."

The CA is wrong about all of it. All public officials have immunity for discretionary acts within the essential functions of their jobs. We can’t operate without it. The question is what are the essential job functions for a president who is never off duty.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Could you share with the board the part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights mentioning abortion?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

That doesn't even make sense. I don't spread Russian propaganda, you do. Own it. Admit it.

What did the Republicans get Company man?
Should be easy for you...

 

[Mark Milton]

Could you share with the board the part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights mentioning abortion?

I'm always baffled by the dopey question of "where does it say abortion in the Constitution". The Constitution of course does not mention abortion. Nor does it mention that you have a right to watch porn, which you no doubt would say "that is my constitutional right". And it is, because the Supreme Court said it was, despite the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. Nor does it say you have the right to travel, and on and on. These tired old canards simply don't fly.

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison's doing to ensure that the Bill of Rights (and Constitution) is not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. The language could not be more clear. Justice Goldberg,citing Madison was very clear on this in that the 9th Amendment “shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive". His concuring opinion in Griswold (no doubt you ought to appreciate--the right to buy and use contraceptives), was then used --along with the 14th Amendment, to provide certain rights not specifically referenced in the Constitution but contemplated as exisiting. In the example of abortion, in English colonies, women had the right to abortion up to the time of the quickening--i.e,. the time the women feels the baby move in the uterus. Ben Franklin wrote abortion recipes in several books, and commentary from that time period was very clear--it was a woman's choice. Unless of course you were a black slave woman, then the woman had no right to anything.

So the next time you are sitting in front of your computer watching pornhub and wearing your anal beads, you should take a deep breath, and give thanks to the Supreme Court for keeping you out of jail because of your purient interests.

 

[Mark Milton]

The CA is wrong about all of it. All public officials have immunity for discretionary acts within the essential functions of their jobs. We can’t operate without it. The question is what are the essential job functions for a president who is never off duty.

You've conflated civil lawsuits with with criminal, so that won't do at all. The Constitution only recognizes congressional immunity under the speech and debate clause. Historically, the framers were very clear on immunity and knew the power of immunity. You should read the briefings on this issue. Trump's brief carefully avoids this question. The governement does not, nor do the amicus briefs.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You've conflated civil lawsuits with with criminal, so that won't do at all. The Constitution only recognizes congressional immunity under the speech and debate clause. Historically, the framers were very clear on immunity and knew the power of immunity. You should read the briefings on this issue. Trump's brief carefully avoids this question. The governement does not, nor do the amicus briefs.

i haven’t conflated anything. The immunities are pretty much the same.

Im not talking about speech and debate immunity. I cited the proper analys on immunity a few weeks ago and I don’t feel like going back and finding it for you. The gist is exactly as I said. All officials must have immunity for essential functions. The CA analysis is wrong because it didn’t recognize that obvious point. But this doesn’t mean Trump has immunity. He could be found not immune with the proper analysis. .

 

[Mark Milton]

i haven’t conflated anything. The immunities are pretty much the same.

Im not talking about speech and debate immunity. I cited the proper analys on immunity a few weeks ago and I don’t feel like going back and finding it for you. The gist is exactly as I said. All officials must have immunity for essential functions. The CA analysis is wrong because it didn’t recognize that obvious point. But this doesn’t mean Trump has immunity. He could be found not immune with the proper analysis. .

You said "All public officials have immunity for discretionary acts within the essential functions of their jobs". That relates to liability for torts. There is no such thing as blanket immunity for criminal acts. If Trump or any president accepted bribes during office you think that should be covered under some nebulous non constitutionally or statutorily granted immunity? Or maybe Trump raped a woman while in office and claimed he was doing it while get a briefing. IMMUNITY! Seems to me James Madison and Thomas Jefferson called bullshit on that type of nonnsense. And they did, and they wrote about it.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

I'm always baffled by the dopey question of "where does it say abortion in the Constitution". The Constitution of course does not mention abortion. Nor does it mention that you have a right to watch porn, which you no doubt would say "that is my constitutional right". And it is, because the Supreme Court said it was, despite the fact that it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. Nor does it say you have the right to travel, and on and on. These tired old canards simply don't fly.

The Ninth Amendment was James Madison's doing to ensure that the Bill of Rights (and Constitution) is not seen as granting to the people of the United States only the specific rights it addressed. The language could not be more clear. Justice Goldberg,citing Madison was very clear on this in that the 9th Amendment “shows a belief of the Constitution’s authors that fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive". His concuring opinion in Griswold (no doubt you ought to appreciate--the right to buy and use contraceptives), was then used --along with the 14th Amendment, to provide certain rights not specifically referenced in the Constitution but contemplated as exisiting. In the example of abortion, in English colonies, women had the right to abortion up to the time of the quickening--i.e,. the time the women feels the baby move in the uterus. Ben Franklin wrote abortion recipes in several books, and commentary from that time period was very clear--it was a woman's choice. Unless of course you were a black slave woman, then the woman had no right to anything.

So the next time you are sitting in front of your computer watching pornhub and wearing your anal beads, you should take a deep breath, and give thanks to the Supreme Court for keeping you out of jail because of your purient interests.

As a married Christian, pornography, and deviate behavior, in which you seem to be well-versed, are not part of my world.
You affirmed that the so-called Constitutional Right to abortion does not appear in the document or BOL, which is what I claimed.

You should know that gaslighting is wasted on me.

 

[Mark Milton]

As a married Christian, pornography, and deviate behavior, in which you seem to be well-versed, are not part of my world.
You affirmed that the so-called Constitutional Right to abortion does not appear in the document or BOL, which is what I claimed.

You should know that gaslighting is wasted on me.

Your question was: "Could you share with the board the part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights mentioning abortion?"

Abortion rights were a constitutional right for 50 years. The republican controlled Supreme Court said it was, and with clear logic and basis for it. I'm sorry if you are having a difficult time with comprehension. Hope that improves.

The balance of your comment seems to be very much "I know you are but what am I".

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You said "All public officials have immunity for discretionary acts within the essential functions of their jobs". That relates to liability for torts. There is no such thing as blanket immunity for criminal acts. If Trump or any president accepted bribes during office you think that should be covered under some nebulous non constitutionally or statutorily granted immunity? Or maybe Trump raped a woman while in office and claimed he was doing it while get a briefing. IMMUNITY! Seems to me James Madison and Thomas Jefferson called bullshit on that type of nonnsense. And they did, and they wrote about it.

Did Obama have immunity for ordering a drone hit on an American citizen in Yemen?

 

[Mark Milton]

Did Obama have immunity for ordering a drone hit on an American citizen in Yemen?

I presume you are referring to the ACLU CIVIL lawsuit and Al-Aulaqi's CIVIL suit. If so, those cases were dismissed because of a lack of standing. Immunity wasn't discussed in either case. Furthermore, the Bush, Obama and Trump regimes asserted, and rightfully so, there was nothing unlawful.

But you've answered a question with a non-sequitur question.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

nothing unlawful

In other words, immunity.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

Oh and;

$10Billion funding to the WHO
$300 Million MORE for the Ukraine debacle
$200 Million for a new FBI Headquarters

ALSO, continued funding for EcoHealth Alliance..who funded gain-of-function research in the Lab at Wuhan, creating Covid-19, and funding bio labs in Ukraine.

Not one dollar to Border security walls.

Must be what the republicans wanted.

New information coming to light:

The Leviathan is currently borrowing $85k per second, and now is adding $1 trillion in New debt every 95 days.

The last two spending bills include some interesting items in addition to the ones I posted earlier:

$388k to Columbia University.
( on background, Columbia charges $12,500 to prospective students for a three week Summer preparatory session. Columbia has an endowment of $12.6 Billion)

$1.5 million to encourage video gaming in New York

$1 million to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to install solar panels on a Community Center.

$249k to the Baltimore Symphony.

$2 Million to build a kelp and shellfish nursery in Maine.

$1 Million to Martha's Vineyard Hospital.

DOUBLED the budget of The National Science Foundation, which recently paid for:

$1 Million to study if Sunfish are more aggressive if given tequila or gin.

$750k to determine if Japanese quail are more sexually active when fed cocaine.

The last two spending bills combined included 7,000 earmarks totaling $14 Billion

ALL BORROWED!

 

[Mark Milton]

In other words, immunity.

Immunity doesn't mean lawful. Lawful means that there was a statute, or otherwise, that permitted the killing of an American citizen, who was acting as an enemy combatant. Immunity never entered the picture. In fact, if you read the Government's briefs in both matters, they never addressed immunity. Nor did either court. Or the court of appeals.

I mean, all you have to do is read the opinions. They are there for you read in black-and-white. If you can't read it, or don't want to read it, your willful ignorance is not going to make you right. You've been provided chapter and verse of why you have been so patently wrong. And yet from you, all we've received is opinion without citation or otherwise. I feel like this is like listening to someone talk about how J.P. Morgan tried to kill the important passengers on the titanic so that he could start a world bank

 

[CO. Hoosier]

immunity doesn't mean lawful. Lawful means that there was a statute, or otherwise, that permitted the killing of an American citizen, who was acting as an enemy combatant. Immunity never entered the picture,

I mean, all you have to do is read the opinions. They are there for you read in black-and-white. If you can't read it, or don't want to read it, your willful ignorance is not going to make you right. you've been provided chapter and verse of why you have been so patently wrong. And yet from you, we've received is opinion without citation or otherwise. I feel like this is like listening to someone talk about how J.p. Morgan tried to kill the important passengers on the titanic so that he could start a world bank

‘The king can do no wrong” is the foundational principle for all legal immunity. Nixon famously said “ If the president does it it isn’t illegal”.

You are over thinking this. The CA opinion about immunity is a huge fail and you are going down the same track trying to defend its approach. Think about what you said in post #173. You don’t understand what immunity for essential job functions means.

 

[Mark Milton]

‘The king can do no wrong” is the foundational principle for all legal immunity. Nixon famously said “ If the president does it it isn’t illegal”.

You are over thinking this. The CA opinion about immunity is a huge fail and you are going down the same track trying to defend its approach. Think about what you said in post #173. You don’t understand what immunity for essential job functions means.

I can't explain your ignorance. And your quote about the "king can do no wrong" is EXACTLY why it doesn't exist in the United States and never did. I mean you citing Richard Nixon for proof that this absolute immunity exists. It does not. No court ever said it did. If there was an absolute immunity (which there isn't), why would Ford need to pardon Nixon? Read the internal memo as to why.

You haven't read the opinion from the DC court of appeals--that is abundantly clear. If you did, you had no understanding of it. You've botched and conflated 3 separate areas of law for reasons that are very clear--dogma and willful blindness.

I've asked you to provide back up for your point. You can't or won't--because it doesn't exist. I will ask one more time, find me one case where a federal employee was granted immunity from felony prosecution for illegalities he or she did while holding said position.

 

[dbmhoosier]

Your question was: "Could you share with the board the part of the Constitution or Bill of Rights mentioning abortion?"

Abortion rights were a constitutional right for 50 years. The republican controlled Supreme Court said it was, and with clear logic and basis for it. I'm sorry if you are having a difficult time with comprehension. Hope that improves.

The balance of your comment seems to be very much "I know you are but what am I".

What a dumbass. You should read the 10th Amendment sometime. The decision wasn't made to ban abortion it was done to send the issue back to the states where it had always belonged. The Roe decision was always a Constitutional abomination.

 

[Mark Milton]

New information coming to light:

The Leviathan is currently borrowing $85k per second, and now is adding $1 trillion in New debt every 95 days.

The last two spending bills include some interesting items in addition to the ones I posted earlier:

$388k to Columbia University.
( on background, Columbia charges $12,500 to prospective students for a three week Summer preparatory session. Columbia has an endowment of $12.6 Billion)

$1.5 million to encourage video gaming in New York

$1 million to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to install solar panels on a Community Center.

$249k to the Baltimore Symphony.

$2 Million to build a kelp and shellfish nursery in Maine.

$1 Million to Martha's Vineyard Hospital.

DOUBLED the budget of The National Science Foundation, which recently paid for:

$1 Million to study if Sunfish are more aggressive if given tequila or gin.

$750k to determine if Japanese quail are more sexually active when fed cocaine.

The last two spending bills combined included 7,000 earmarks totaling $14 Billion

ALL BORROWED!

Tip O'Neil conned the government into providing 14.8 billion dollars of pork barrel allocations to help pay for the big dig. That was over a course of 15 years. A project plagued by corruption, delays and the money grab bag.

The guy out of Alaska who got hundreds of millions for building the infamous "bridge to nowhere".

Unfortunately, if you pull up spending bills from the 1970s on, you will see the appropriations committees for house and senate insert a whole ton of spending allocations that favor themselves and their friends. Nudge, Nudge, Wink, Wink and nobody cares on the committees

 

[Mark Milton]

What a dumbass. You should read the 10th Amendment sometime. The decision wasn't made to ban abortion it was done to send the issue back to the states where it had always belonged. The Roe decision was always a Constitutional abomination.

The irony of your post isn't lost on me. Nevertheless, I'm familiar with the 10th amendment: any powers that are not specifically given to the federal government, nor withheld from the states, are reserved to those respective states, or to the people at large. You've missed the larger issue, namely, is there a constitutional right to abortion. The issue of 10th amendment is irrelevant because the Constitution trumps all. I'm sorry that you have a sheer lack of understanding and seem to be relying upon some language from some antiquated blog.

 

[cosmickid]

What a dumbass. You should read the 10th Amendment sometime. The decision wasn't made to ban abortion it was done to send the issue back to the states where it had always belonged. The Roe decision was always a Constitutional abomination.

You must be a glutton for punishment. You sit there and read MM decimate simplistic arguments from both mas and CoH regarding Consitutional law and now YOU want to throw your hat into the ring? No wonder you kept reposting all those fake polls promising a "red wave" to the point of humiliation...

But carry on. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds you and mas trying to match wits with MM thoroughly entertaining...

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I can't explain your ignorance. And your quote about the "king can do no wrong" is EXACTLY why it doesn't exist in the United States and never did. I mean you citing Richard Nixon for proof that this absolute immunity exists. It does not. No court ever said it did. If there was an absolute immunity (which there isn't), why would Ford need to pardon Nixon? Read the internal memo as to why.

You haven't read the opinion from the DC court of appeals--that is abundantly clear. If you did, you had no understanding of it. You've botched and conflated 3 separate areas of law for reasons that are very clear--dogma and willful blindness.

I've asked you to provide back up for your point. You can't or won't--because it doesn't exist. I will ask one more time, find me one case where a federal employee was granted immunity from felony prosecution for illegalities he or she did while holding said position.

I have read the opinion. I know it is the wrong analysis. I have briefed and litigated immunity cases up to the 10th cir level. Absolute immunity indeed exists in the form I have described. Do you think Trump can sue Judge Engoron or James? No. Absolute immunity is why.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I have read the opinion. I know it is the wrong analysis. I have briefed and litigated immunity cases up to the 10th cir level. Absolute immunity indeed exists in the form I have described. Do you think Trump can sue Judge Engoron or James? No. Absolute immunity is why.

@Mark Milton I really shouldn’t reply bc I don’t know what I’m talking about but coh I “feel” like mark is right here. That you’re making extensions and connections that don’t exist.

Think about the 1980s shit and qualified immunity related to same. There’s a statutory framework. Same with state gov and immunity and notice requirements etc.

Tort immunity.

All of that shit is inapposite to the pres. there is no statutory framework etc that applies. Extrapolating from the constitution the question as it relates to the president turns on official acts and that’s essentially it. It’s a question of first impression and hence good the s.Ct. is taking it up but the immunity matters and analysis you rely on do not apply

 

[Mark Milton]

I have read the opinion. I know it is the wrong analysis. I have briefed and litigated immunity cases up to the 10th cir level. Absolute immunity indeed exists in the form I have described. Do you think Trump can sue Judge Engoron or James? No. Absolute immunity is why.

Civil Suit bro. Civil Suit. Totally different--the point I made several times. As I said, you've conflated the issues between criminal and civil. When Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton, the Supremes rightly said there wasn't a blanket immunity. When Robert Ray was independent counsel investigating, not surprisingly, he determined, and rightfully so, that Clinton had lied his ass off--like he had his entire life, and that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Clinton for actions he took while in office. He chose not to.

I would ask again, if the President of the United States commits a crime/felony, whatever, while in office, please cite to one case that says the President is immune from criminal prosecution. Not a civil suit, but a criminal proceeding.

 

[Mark Milton]

@Mark Milton I really shouldn’t reply bc I don’t know what I’m talking about but coh I “feel” like mark is right here. That you’re making extensions and connections that don’t exist.

Think about the 1980s shit and qualified immunity related to same. There’s a statutory framework. Same with state gov and immunity and notice requirements etc.

Tort immunity.

All of that shit is inapposite to the pres. there is no statutory framework etc that applies. Extrapolating from the constitution the question as it relates to the president turns on official acts and that’s essentially it. It’s a question of first impression and hence good the s.Ct. is taking it up but the immunity matters and analysis you rely on do not apply

Bro, would rather be talking about Barca and Messi's hot wife

 

[mcmurtry66]

Bro, would rather be talking about Barca and Messi's hot wife

And I feel more comfortable talking about what happens if a palm frond falls on your head on las olas at happy hour before watching Messi play

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Civil Suit bro. Civil Suit. Totally different--the point I made several times.

Cite the case that makes that distinction for official immunity and I’ll comment about it.

I would ask again, if the President of the United States commits a crime/felony, whatever, while in office, please cite to one case that says the President is immune from criminal prosecution. Not a civil suit, but a criminal proceeding.

the perfect example is Obama’s order to kill an American citizen. That order given by any civilian is murder. You claiming that Obama’s order was “legal” is simply begging the question. Why is it legal?

BTW, I agree with your other examples. I never claimed any of that was immune. I think your obvious misunderstanding of my point is the problem here.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

@Mark Milton I really shouldn’t reply bc I don’t know what I’m talking about but coh I “feel” like mark is right here. That you’re making extensions and connections that don’t exist.

Think about the 1980s shit and qualified immunity related to same. There’s a statutory framework. Same with state gov and immunity and notice requirements etc.

Tort immunity.

All of that shit is inapposite to the pres. there is no statutory framework etc that applies. Extrapolating from the constitution the question as it relates to the president turns on official acts and that’s essentially it. It’s a question of first impression and hence good the s.Ct. is taking it up but the immunity matters and analysis you rely on do not apply

There are many kinds of immunity and waivers of immunity.

Federal Common law official immunity.
State common law official immunity
State tort immunity and statutory tort waivers.
State common law tort waivers
Federal tort immunity and tort claim act waiver
Section 1983 waiver and qualified immunity reinstatement.
Eleventh Amendment immunity.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Obama’s order to kill an American citizen

weighing in when i shouldn't because i'm guessing but i think we're going to find out. i think that's where we MAY get some clarity as to what constitutes official acts. and i don't think whether it's otherwise criminal/civil is germane. i think how official acts gets "defined" is dispositive as it relates to the president. immunity in other contexts, whether qualified re 1980s claims or state/statutory etc is inapposite - in response to your above post and the types of immunity

 

[CO. Hoosier]

i think how official acts gets "defined" is dispositive as it relates to the president. immunity

I think that is exactly right. That distinction applies to all public officials and is one the CA failed to discuss. I don’t envy the Supremes in trying to define that. It will hafta be a case by case analysis. I think Trumps J6 speech is as close to the line as you can get.

 

[Mark Milton]

Cite the case that makes that distinction for official immunity and I’ll comment about it.


the perfect example is Obama’s order to kill an American citizen. That order given by any civilian is murder. You claiming that Obama’s order was “legal” is simply begging the question. Why is it legal?

BTW, I agree with your other examples. I never claimed any of that was immune. I think your obvious misunderstanding of my point is the problem here.

You state "Cite the case that makes that distinction for official immunity and I’ll comment about it." I have no idea what distinction you are referencing. I commented on the distinction between Tort (civil) and Criminal.

You also state "the perfect example is Obama’s order to kill an American citizen. That order given by any civilian is murder. You claiming that Obama’s order was “legal” is simply begging the question. Why is it legal?" Because the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military force said it was--a congressional act. The Supreme Court had already ruled that that the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not apply to the military use of deadly force under the AUMF." If the Fifth Amendment did apply (which the court said it didn't because Al Awlaki and others were considered enemy combatants (which I said earlier)), the killing would have been a clear violation of due process on the Fifth Amendment. I would urge you to read the two opinions on this and how nobody argued "even if this is true, we still have immunity for criminal acts."

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

You must be a glutton for punishment. You sit there and read MM decimate simplistic arguments from both mas and CoH regarding Consitutional law and now YOU want to throw your hat into the ring? No wonder you kept reposting all those fake polls promising a "red wave" to the point of humiliation...

But carry on. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds you and mas trying to match wits with MM thoroughly entertaining...

In any match involving wit, you'd be done by halftime.

 

[Mark Milton]

weighing in when i shouldn't because i'm guessing but i think we're going to find out. i think that's where we MAY get some clarity as to what constitutes official acts. and i don't think whether it's otherwise criminal/civil is germane. i think how official acts gets "defined" is dispositive as it relates to the president. immunity in other contexts, whether qualified re 1980s claims or state/statutory etc is inapposite - in response to your above post and the types of immunity

For torts/civil suits, I agree. For actions that are criminal, any criminal action taken in furtherance to "official acts while in office" would be blessed.

The other point, and I don't remember the statute, but I believe it lowers the threshold from absolute immunity for constitution torts to qualified immunity. I'm too lazy to look it up

 

[mcmurtry66]

For torts/civil suits, I agree. For actions that are criminal, any criminal action taken in furtherance to "official acts while in office" would be blessed.

Agreed

 

[mcmurtry66]

For torts/civil suits, I agree. For actions that are criminal, any criminal action taken in furtherance to "official acts while in office" would be blessed.

and while i'm gambling and guessin i'll predict that it's possible the composition of the court makes a difference but using instincts/the smell test trump's acts do not give rise to immunity and do not constitute official acts as contemplated