Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
deleted (Original Post) Tripper11 Jul 2024 OP
Time for an official Gitmo rendition of the fat fuck unweird Jul 2024 #1
Your post is false and should be deleted Fiendish Thingy Jul 2024 #2
You didn't read the entire ruling. brooklynite Jul 2024 #3
That's not what the ruling was. bearsfootball516 Jul 2024 #4
No immunity for UNofficial acts. Think. Again. Jul 2024 #5
Sounds like it, but probably a catch to it. Irish_Dem Jul 2024 #8
yes, there would first have to be... Think. Again. Jul 2024 #10
Would be taken up to the SC who would rule everything is official. Irish_Dem Jul 2024 #11
I would think it's good, but now the lower courts Buns_of_Fire Jul 2024 #9
Wrong. ismnotwasm Jul 2024 #6
Delete your false post. emulatorloo Jul 2024 #7
 

brooklynite

(96,882 posts)
3. You didn't read the entire ruling.
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 10:34 AM
Jul 2024

(3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Alt-
hough Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure
that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of
future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not
support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694,
and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predi-
cated on the President’s unofficial acts. P. 15.

(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled
to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official
from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that
distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in partic-
ular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is
“a court of final review and not first view.” Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566
U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differ-
entiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how
to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allega-
tions covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on
those issues. Pp. 16–32.

Think. Again.

(17,115 posts)
10. yes, there would first have to be...
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 10:41 AM
Jul 2024

...some kind of trial to determine if any particular act is "official" or "unofficial".

Irish_Dem

(55,825 posts)
11. Would be taken up to the SC who would rule everything is official.
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 11:12 AM
Jul 2024

They just did it this way to sound like they are fair.

Buns_of_Fire

(17,783 posts)
9. I would think it's good, but now the lower courts
Mon Jul 1, 2024, 10:41 AM
Jul 2024

will have to dance around whether such-and-such is an "official" act or not -- a decision which will probably wind up being bounced right back to the Supremes. (IANAL)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»deleted