452
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
452 points (96.9% liked)
politics
19088 readers
1585 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The question isn't novel though.
The foundation of the Constitution (and any legitimate constitutional government) is that the law applies to everyone, even the executive.
This question of presidential immunity was answered in 1788 with an emphatic "no." There was no reason for them to take this case other than to delay the ruling.
If the question isn’t novel then please cite Supreme Court cases that have dealt with the question of executive immunity from criminal cases or just do what seems to be impossible on the internet: admit you’re wrong.
No one is denying that this may be an open-and-shut case but the Supreme Court has never taken up the question so…. it’s novel.
I assume you're going to admit that you were wrong now? Or is that impossible on the Internet?
Please explain why the president would need to provide evidence for a trial that was unconstitutional.
That case was about executive privilege, not criminal statutes.
My reply was three sentences long. Please try not to get distracted, this will be on the test.
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/d.c.-circuit-rules-trump-is-not-immune-from-prosecution
Read the district court's well cited and researched ruling doing exactly that.
Not a Supreme Court case. Why are you getting upvotes?
Hmmm I wonder.
Could it be because, as I said, this ruling cites multiple supreme court cases in context? That it provides you exactly what you asked for if you'd simply read it?
Nah, that can't be it. Guess it'll remain a mystery.