Supreme Court Immunity Decision

[Pommer]

And this justifies the opinion of many that Sotomayor is simply a political appointee and not a true Supreme Court Justice qualified for her position. Her hyperbole does her and her position a great injustice.

Many said the the notorious RBG was scaremongering when her dissent in Citizen’s United predicted the rise of monied-interests taking over the political realm, but here we are.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Many said the the notorious RBG was scaremongering when her dissent in Citizen’s United predicted the rise of monied-interests taking over the political realm, but here we are.

Then the liberals should push for an amendment allowing for only individuals to contribute to campaigns. Except that means unions and corporations led by liberal boards would be prevented from contributing to their campaigns and that would be a no-no........

 

[Pommer]

Then the liberals should push for an amendment allowing for only individuals to contribute to campaigns. Except that means unions and corporations led by liberal boards would be prevented from contributing to their campaigns and that would be a no-no........

This would require a functional Congress, this present one took a month to elect a Speaker after (for the very first time ever) chucking the old Speaker out.

 

[JSRG]

And this justifies the opinion of many that Sotomayor is simply a political appointee and not a true Supreme Court Justice qualified for her position. Her hyperbole does her and her position a great injustice.

How, precisely, are those specific statements hyperbole or prove she is simply a political appointee? Everything she said you quoted seems completely correct based on the majority opinion. The majority opinion, even when responding to the dissent, does not even deny them (let alone explain how they are wrong), and instead only dismisses them as "extreme hypotheticals".

I am not in any way a Sotomayor fan; she is my least favorite Justice on the court, and it's not particularly close either. But this specific criticism of her makes little sense to me.

 

[civilwarbuff]

How, precisely, are those specific statements hyperbole or prove she is simply a political appointee? Everything she said you quoted seems completely correct based on the majority opinion. The majority opinion, even when responding to the dissent, does not even deny them (let alone explain how they are wrong), and instead only dismisses them as "extreme hypotheticals".

I am not in any way a Sotomayor fan; she is my least favorite Justice on the court, and it's not particularly close either. But this specific criticism of her makes little sense to me.

I am not sure how anyone could read that post and NOT come to the conclusion that was not the reasoning and legal opinion of a Supreme Court Justice but simply the knee jerk reaction of a low level political hack. That is the kind of response I would expect to hear at a political rally. (This is not Pommer's comment. I accidently included it in his quoted post. It does belong to me.) civilwarbuff

 

[Pommer]

Wow, when did I become so darned acerbic?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Wow, when did I become so darned acerbic?

You are not. I will explain it by example. If Obama were tried and convicted of an extra-judicial killing (Bin Laden) since assassinations are illegal by law and his appeals would reach SCOTUS how likely would it be that Sotomayor would craft a decision to uphold the guilty verdict? Based on our knowledge of her support of liberal causes I believe most would be surprised if she did. This is an excellent reason why a good justice does not comment on things that some day may end up before the court.

 

[essentialsaltes]

You are not. I will explain it by example. If Obama were tried and convicted of an extra-judicial killing (Bin Laden) since assassinations are illegal by law and his appeals would reach SCOTUS how likely would it be that Sotomayor would craft a decision to uphold the guilty verdict? Based on our knowledge of her support of liberal causes I believe most would be surprised if she did. This is an excellent reason why a good justice does not comment on things that some day may end up before the court.

It's impressive how you've hypothetically convicted her of hypothetical hypocrisy in a hypothetical situation.

(I myself hypothesize that, whatever decision she reached in this hypothetical case, it would NOT be that the president is immune to prosecution.)

 

[civilwarbuff]

(I myself hypothesize that, whatever decision she reached in this hypothetical case, it would NOT be that the president is immune to prosecution.)

That is no surprise. But until something like this comes before the court all we can do is theorize. Hopefully justices will vote according to what they have publicly expressed in the past.

 

[Pommer]

You are not. I will explain it by example. If Obama were tried and convicted of an extra-judicial killing (Bin Laden) since assassinations are illegal by law and his appeals would reach SCOTUS how likely would it be that Sotomayor would craft a decision to uphold the guilty verdict? Based on our knowledge of her support of liberal causes I believe most would be surprised if she did. This is an excellent reason why a good justice does not comment on things that some day may end up before the court.

That’s as may be, but if you could alter the post that I quoted above to reflect that “my sentiments” on that post are actually yours, that’d be appreciated.

[I’ve had this happen too, and a run-in with the constabulary as well, it occurs when one quotes, then thinks better of it, deletes {without reloading the page} and responds to a completely different post. The original reply is still queued up in the forum software and your comments are attributed to the original poster one has quoted. I’d also like it if the “delete draft” was more easily accessible, but it is what it is.]

 

[wing2000]

And this justifies the opinion of many that Sotomayor is simply a political appointee and not a true Supreme Court Justice qualified for her position. Her hyperbole does her and her position a great injustice.

What about her argument is wrong?

The fact is, the POTUS is immune for any official act....according to the court's decision. Or do you think otherwise?

 

[civilwarbuff]

That’s as may be, but if you could alter the post that I quoted above to reflect that “my sentiments” on that post are actually yours, that’d be appreciated.

Maybe point that out for me; I don't see it.

 

[civilwarbuff]

What about her argument is wrong?

The fact is, the POTUS is immune for any official act....according to the court's decision. Or do you think otherwise?

All of this still has to be tested in court. Too many people (including Sotomayor who should definitely know better) are making leaps of supposition.

 

[wing2000]

All of this still has to be tested in court. Too many people (including Sotomayor who should definitely know better) are making leaps of supposition.

....Sotomayor (and the DC Court of Appeals) are laying out an extreme examples based on the court's ruling. That doesn't make it supposition.

 

[civilwarbuff]

....Sotomayor (and the DC Court of Appeals) are laying out an extreme examples based on the court's ruling. That doesn't make it supposition.

Until it is ruled on in court anything written about what will result from this decision is pure supposition colored by whichever side of the political spectrum one resides on.

 

[Pommer]

Maybe point that out for me; I don't see it.

I was speaking of post #105 wherein “I” said:
I am not sure how anyone could read that post and NOT come to the conclusion that was not the reasoning and legal opinion of a Supreme Court Justice but simply the knee jerk reaction of a low level political hack. That is the kind of response I would expect to hear at a political rally.

I do cut a good sentence, once and again, but I cannot claim this as one o’ mine.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Being "Commander in Chief" and having the power to pardon are clearly "core constitutional powers" of the presidency. Per the ruling, these have absolute immunity. Absolute. No point inquiring into whether a president's motives are corrupt. Absolutely immune.

In the first two cases, we'll have to rely on our military to refuse illegal orders in order to avoid the worst outcomes,

Supreme Court immunity ruling raises questions about military orders ​

A commander in chief with broad immunity from criminal prosecution would have more power and leeway in issuing controversial orders that the military is in most cases obligated to carry out, according to the chain of command.

Victor Hansen, professor of law at the New England School of Law in Boston, explained that service members still have to adhere to legal standards even if the president does not, and said the Supreme Court ruling “flips the dynamic on its head.”

“Now you have the subordinates who have not all of the authority but all of the responsibility,” said Hansen, who served a 20-year career as a military lawyer in the U.S. Army. “And you have a guy at the top who has all the authority and none of the responsibility.”

“It is, in my humble opinion, an absurd and damaging ruling,” he added.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I was speaking of post #105 wherein “I” said:
I am not sure how anyone could read that post and NOT come to the conclusion that was not the reasoning and legal opinion of a Supreme Court Justice but simply the knee jerk reaction of a low level political hack. That is the kind of response I would expect to hear at a political rally.

I do cut a good sentence, once and again, but I cannot claim this as one o’ mine.

Fixed, as best I can. Sorry for the mistake.

 

[Truth7t7]

Many said the the notorious RBG was scaremongering when her dissent in Citizen’s United predicted the rise of monied-interests taking over the political realm, but here we are.

And that would include Democratic monies toooo

To think Mark Zuckerberg gave $450 million to count votes in primarily democratic controlled precincts in swing states

 

[civilwarbuff]

A commander in chief with broad immunity from criminal prosecution would have more power and leeway in issuing controversial orders that the military is in most cases obligated to carry out, according to the chain of command.

2 BIG problems with this statement:
How would he have more power and leeway etc.....the so called 'professor of law' doesn't bother to explain this extraordinary claim (which means he probably can't).
What 'according to the chain of command' is he referencing? He quoted no one in the Chain of Command. Did you not bother to read the article?.....or did you just think it was appropriately liberal and no one would notice the lies?
You sure this isn't from the Onion and not The Hill?