BREAKING: The Supreme Court has sided with President Trump, ruling that presidents cannot be held cr

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Let's settle this between us... Is there at least an inferred immunity built into the Constitution?

I would say yes, wrt official actions. If he is operating in good faith to fulfill the operation of the office of president, he is acting as an agent of the United States. The US corporately picks up that bill, to include any liability.

If there isn't that means that a DA can haul a President on whatever charges he wants, and all it will take is 12 to convict him. After a grand jury too I guess. For nearly any act a President can take could probably be construed as criminal by somebody.

I dunno, maybe i don't have the legal background to argue about this.

[roamer_1]

If there isn't that means that a DA can haul a President on whatever charges he wants, and all it will take is 12 to convict him. After a grand jury too I guess. For nearly any act a President can take could probably be construed as criminal by somebody.

I dunno, maybe i don't have the legal background to argue about this.

Me neither. IANAL. But what you say makes sense.

[GtHawk]

That's beautiful and all.  But not a word of that anything to do with RICO.  Again, what law did these four Justices violate?

Hmmm, couldn't the same argument then be used against justices appointed by Barry and Brandon that ruled against Trump?

[roamer_1]

In the end, what matters is that it's the right call - Which I think is true.
If it's the right call, then political associations and/or ramifications are rendered moot - As is proper.

[Sighlass]

By accepting a Supreme Court appointment and then hearing a case involving the appointer as a defendant, then voting in said defendant's favor. Pattern of behavior. Justices owe their seats to the defendant. Defendant had a reason for choosing those three judges.

Imagine a President Maranzano appointed judges Luciano, Gambino and Bonanno to a federal court, one that handles organized crime. Then, Maranzano is arrested for mafia activity while out of office. Luciano, Gambino, and Bonanno vote to acquit, overwhelming the other votes and letting Maranzano walk.

Other than the names, that's exactly what happened.

Understand where you are coming from @jmyrlefuller ... But someone had to judge in matters such as this... and the vetting process of the SCOTUS is suppose to have the highest vetting (we no longer see that)... We had Ginsburg voting on Gay Marriage when she (and others) had performed the ceremonies. Perhaps then she (both shes) should of stepped down in judgement, but being the last court to have say so in Presidential matters, I really don't see where they could recuse themselves and not leave right the opposite left to judge (pun not intended). At some point you have to say this is the best we can humanly do.

[Kamaji]

There are only very limited grounds in which a judge can be required to recuse him/her self, and neither includes the fact that one of the parties coincidentally happens to be the president who appointed that judge.  See, e.g., Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co.:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-22.ZS.html#content

[MeganC]

This was a big win for Trump @MeganC ---- he brought the lawsuit (the plaintiff)

I agree with that too!!!

HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!!!