LinuxQuestions.org
Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 02-28-2024, 06:12 PM   #1
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 815

Rep: Reputation: 99
Trump's Immunity Claim


"Supreme Court agrees to consider Trump immunity claim in further delay of election interference trial" https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ase-rcna139026
 
Old 02-28-2024, 09:12 PM   #2
RandomTroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,954

Rep: Reputation: 270Reputation: 270Reputation: 270
I'm disappointed they took it. It isn't worth consideration. It's not in the Constitution.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 07:06 AM   #3
yancek
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, PCLinux,
Posts: 10,495

Rep: Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488
Pointless, abject cowardice on the part of the Court particularly in light of the fact that an Appeals Court already rules unanimously there was no such immunity. It is not often the Supreme Court will even agree to hear a case of an appeal when the appeal result was unanimous.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 08:11 AM   #4
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 815

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by yancek View Post
...It is not often the Supreme Court will even agree to hear a case of an appeal when the appeal result was unanimous.
Generally correct but time constraints are forcing their (SCOTUS) hand. I think that if the election was 2-3 years off that they may have waited for a trial, verdict and possible appeal. This case presents some issues that have never been adjudicated. Trump's claim that future Presidential decisions would be unduly tempered by fear of vengeful opposite party prosecution after office has, imo, some validity.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 08:35 AM   #5
yancek
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Distribution: Slackware, Ubuntu, PCLinux,
Posts: 10,495

Rep: Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488Reputation: 2488
This could be classified under 'be careful what you wish for'. That a president be prosecuted for actions taken that are part of his/her duties is one thing but what Trump is saying is that he can commit any acts totally unrelated to the office of the president. If the Supreme Court were to rule in his favor, that would mean 'crooked Joe Biden' would be able to do anything he wanted to Trump and not be prosecuted since he (Biden) is the current president.

Quote:
Trump's claim that future Presidential decisions would be unduly tempered by fear of vengeful opposite party prosecution after office has, imo, some validity
Trump has already stated publicly on a number of occasions that he would do this, so what's the complaint? That only he can engage in this kind of behavior but anyone else elected cannot?

Quote:
I think that if the election was 2-3 years off that they may have waited for a trial,
Could have been done except that Trump has been doing everything possible to delay the trial.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 09:56 AM   #6
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Distribution: Void, Slackware, Debian, OpenBSD
Posts: 7,342

Rep: Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746
I'm mystified that the SCOTUS made such an odd decision. I suppose it's not surprising given the fact that they're a conservative bunch. Jack Smith now has a poor chance of trying Trump prior to November 5, 2024. I'm hopeful Trump will be convicted soon in New York.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 11:53 AM   #7
RandomTroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,954

Rep: Reputation: 270Reputation: 270Reputation: 270
Kim Wehle, constitutional law scholar at U Baltimore, discusses this issue informingly on NPR's ‘Morning Edition’: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/12347...ution-in-april .

Quote:
Originally Posted by mjolnir View Post
Generally correct but time constraints are forcing their (SCOTUS) hand.
Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 12:14 PM   #8
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Distribution: Void, Slackware, Debian, OpenBSD
Posts: 7,342

Rep: Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomTroll View Post
Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.
Years ago I believe that Gorsuch ruled against absolute immunity. So if he follows his own precedent then he should rule against Trump.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 01:40 PM   #9
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 815

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitest View Post
Years ago I believe that Gorsuch ruled against absolute immunity. So if he follows his own precedent then he should rule against Trump.
I'm unaware of any recent case involving "absolute immunity" for a President. That doesn't mean that there wasn't one.

Edit: Presidents were given absolute immunity for "political" acts in the case that established judicial revue by scotus - Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Last edited by mjolnir; 02-29-2024 at 01:44 PM.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 01:55 PM   #10
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 815

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomTroll View Post
Kim Wehle, constitutional law scholar at U Baltimore, discusses this issue informingly on NPR's ‘Morning Edition’: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/12347...ution-in-april .


Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.
Roberts is a snake-in-the-grass. He won't come down on the losing side in one of the most important cases in SCOTUS history. I look for either a 6-3 decision to reject or 5-4 to affirm.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 02:42 PM   #11
mjolnir
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 815

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomTroll View Post
Kim Wehle, constitutional law scholar at U Baltimore, discusses this issue informingly on NPR's ‘Morning Edition’: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/12347...ution-in-april .


Time constraints would have been better-addressed by rejecting the case. It wouldn't surprise me if they affirm the appeals court decision. I expect Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson to affirm; Thomas and Alito to reject; uncertain about Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. 4 had to grant cert to take the case.
It's a nice link but Wehle essentially blames Garland for his lack of urgency in appointing a Special Prosecutor. Smith gathered huge amounts of 'testimony' over 2.5? years with a huge budget. Shouldn't the defense be given equal opportunity of discovery?

Last edited by mjolnir; 02-29-2024 at 02:45 PM. Reason: Spelling
 
Old 02-29-2024, 03:31 PM   #12
hitest
Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Location: Canada
Distribution: Void, Slackware, Debian, OpenBSD
Posts: 7,342

Rep: Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746Reputation: 3746
I am of two minds with regard to the recent shenanigans of the SCOTUS: Overturning Roe V. Wade and enabling a criminal president.
I am appalled that women have lost the right to make choices with their bodies and I find it awful that the SCOTUS is supporting Trump. On the other hand all of this is your fault. Voters elected republican presidents, congressmen, and senators. What did you think was going to happen?
If you're pissed off with the current state of affairs then vote the bastards out. It's your choice.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 07:39 PM   #13
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 10,650
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936
The SCOTUS has already ruled on "Article 2" many times in the past two hundred years. They concluded for example that he was immune from civil liability, but this is the first time that a political opponent has tried to put a President in prison. Nevertheless, the precedent is already clear.

The President is a one-person Branch of Government, given powers and responsibilities afforded to no other person. He must sometimes act when he has no "time" and "incomplete information." Yet he must sometimes act boldly. If another Branch, or a State or a County, could threaten him with prison for making a decision or a statement that they did not approve of, then of course they would do exactly that ... endlessly. And so it would be utterly impossible for the President to govern. Very soon, no one in his right mind would volunteer to hold the position, and "Article 2" would fall apart.

The Constitution does provide for "impeachment," requiring a super-majority of both Houses of Congress. And the SCOTUS has ruled that "successful impeachment" is a prerequisite for criminal prosecution. (The Constitution carefully states that impeachment is not a criminal indictment.) So, the President is not "above the law," but the entirely unique nature of his position is recognized.

There are over 2,000 counties in this country who can convene a Grand Jury. So, it only takes seven people and a zealous prosecutor. Each and every time the President made a decision, some Grand Jury somewhere would immediately indict him or her. At 12:01 PM on the end of the term, this President would promptly be arrested and would face more than 1,000 years in prison. You can easily see where this is going ... and, politics being what it is, there is no doubt that this is exactly what would occur.

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 02-29-2024 at 07:42 PM.
 
Old 02-29-2024, 10:57 PM   #14
RandomTroll
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2010
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,954

Rep: Reputation: 270Reputation: 270Reputation: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
this is the first time that a political opponent has tried to put a President in prison.
It's a court, not a political opponent and the defendant isn't a president.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
The President is a one-person Branch of Government...
Your argument gives the president the right to assassinate his political rivals, as his lawyers have argued he has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
The Constitution does provide for "impeachment,"
What if he has senators he suspects of 'disloyalty' assassinated?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
The SCOTUS has ruled that "successful impeachment" is a prerequisite for criminal prosecution.
I missed this decision. I've heard it debated recently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
the President is not "above the law,"
But the president and a third+1 of the surviving senators are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sundialsvcs View Post
There are over 2,000 counties in this country...
Just because a grand jury indicts doesn't put anyone in prison.

Do you want Biden to exercise these powers? Obama? Clinton?

NPR's Nina Totenberg discusses the issue usefully on 'All things considered': https://www.npr.org/2024/02/29/12350...munity-hearing
Lee Kovarsky expresses an opinion worth considering in 'Trump Should Lose. But the Supreme Court Should Still Clarify Immunity.': https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/29/o...-immunity.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...immunity-case/ is also thoughtful

Last edited by RandomTroll; 02-29-2024 at 11:52 PM. Reason: Remove mistake.
 
Old 03-01-2024, 10:33 AM   #15
sundialsvcs
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Feb 2004
Location: SE Tennessee, USA
Distribution: Gentoo, LFS
Posts: 10,650
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936Reputation: 3936
I surmise that you already know “your intended outcome,” and all that I can say is: “be careful what you wish for.”

Donald Trump is “the ultimate evil.” Uh huh. Don’t you know how utterly bloodthirsty “politics” can be? Only one person at a time gets to be “President,” and he is surrounded by ever-envious hangers-on who simply want to take him down.

There would be no “Presidential Libraries.” There would only be prison cells equipped with tombs.

Going forward, it wouldn’t simply be any particular Officeholder: it would become The Office, Itself. Because now you need only eight people – seven jurors and one ambitious prosecutor – to “bring down a President.” And you can now multiply this over two thousand times. The desire would be irresistible. It would begin on day two of his-or-her term.

Every “podunk county, anywhere” would promptly jump on, and millions of “not-so-secret dollars” would be spent to “encourage” all of them. (Think: “color revolution.”)

Please don’t try to suggest to me that “actual human politics” is not PRECISELY like this …

Last edited by sundialsvcs; 03-01-2024 at 10:44 AM.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sarah Palin and Donald Trump have babies? jamison20000e General 39 01-06-2016 04:04 PM
Donald Trump vows to ban Muslims entering US MEINKS General 88 12-22-2015 01:43 PM
i being trying to install immunity debugger on my linux system and found it very diff muiadedeji Linux - Newbie 2 07-20-2010 05:06 PM
virus immunity raphtor Linux - Newbie 10 10-02-2008 10:23 PM
LXer: Why Linux Servers Trump Windows SBS LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 06-08-2006 10:21 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration