Sotomayor

[daleko]

Nov 11, 2024 17:28:47 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 11, 2024 17:04:26 GMT -5 daleko said:

In your far fetched example, if that LEO caused him to fear for his life, it could be legal homicide. And in the real world at least one former POTUS carried a gun in the White House and actually slept w a gun on his bedside table. And later, while running for POTUS again, like Trump, was shot.

In our thought experiment, the POTUS didn't like the way the guy parted his hair while he was sitting quietly reading a book. And for that, POTUS shot him dead.
Pardon okay, or not?

Well in Biden's case, a diminished capacity defense is possible. What was the book he was reading? If it was a book on the Kennedy/Lincoln assassination, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. And the cabinet was there? Sounds like a conspiracy to me and worthy of concern. Generally, a USSS agent is not in the room.

[dilligaf]

Nov 11, 2024 16:43:06 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 11, 2024 16:36:03 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

No one is totally above the law.
That's why we have impeachment protocol for a POTUS who goes too far.

Now .............  did a POTUS commit a REAL crime, or was it a crime manufactured by his political opponents' lawfare?
Additionally, the POTUS has power to pardon only FEDERAL crimes.

Nobody is above the law? If Scotus says a POTUS can pardon himself, it wouldn't be 'above the law', would it? It would be smack-dab in the middle of it.
Say he literally shoots a federal LEO dead in the Oval office, witnessed by the entire cabinet.
Should he be legally be able to pardon himself?
Impeachment doesn't address the criminality, only the fitness for office. But in this scenario, once removed, he's a murderer who has been pardoned by the POTUS. Now what?

Stop being stupid.
When has something like that EVER happened?
As long as we never elect another nutcase Demonrat as POTUS, you have nothing to worry about.
Should President Trump prosecute Bitem and Harris for their obvious malfeasance in office?

Relax and enjoy another GREAT 4 years under President Donald J. Trump.
I will.

[dilligaf]

Nov 11, 2024 16:49:00 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

Nov 11, 2024 16:37:24 GMT -5 Walter said:

As a thought experiment, the Q remains, regardless of whether or not SCOTUS says it is legal.
Should a POTUS be allowed to pardon himself for crimes, ANY CRIMES, he may commit?

You got it wrong. Since we don't know if a president can pardon himself, asking if a president should pardon himself is a moot point. I can think of at least one instance where the answer would be yes.

And what does any of Wally's stupidity have to do with Justice Sotomayor?

[Panama pfRedd]

Nov 11, 2024 18:23:14 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Nov 11, 2024 16:49:00 GMT -5 AlaCowboy said:

You got it wrong. Since we don't know if a president can pardon himself, asking if a president should pardon himself is a moot point. I can think of at least one instance where the answer would be yes.

And what does any of Wally's stupidity have to do with Justice Sotomayor?

It's a lot more than just common stupidity.

[dilligaf]

Nov 11, 2024 20:26:24 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Nov 11, 2024 18:23:14 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

And what does any of Wally's stupidity have to do with Justice Sotomayor?

It's a lot more than just common stupidity.

Why can't Demonrats just accept the fact that Americans do not WANT their tyranny in our lives?

Intelligent, freedom-loving American voters totally humiliated them.

Trump is already winning the war on criminal invasion into the United States, and the election isn't even a week old yet.
www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-win-casts-doubt-future-mexicos-migrant-caravan-2024-11-07/

[Panama pfRedd]

Nov 11, 2024 22:50:18 GMT -5 dilligaf said:

Nov 11, 2024 20:26:24 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

It's a lot more than just common stupidity.

Why can't Demonrats just accept the fact that Americans do not WANT their tyranny in our lives?

Intelligent, freedom-loving American voters totally humiliated them.

Trump is already winning the war on criminal invasion into the United States, and the election isn't even a week old yet.
www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-win-casts-doubt-future-mexicos-migrant-caravan-2024-11-07/

Simple answer- they have no sense and they have no shame

[ETGator1]

Nov 11, 2024 16:26:30 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 11, 2024 15:09:29 GMT -5 ETGator1 said:

It'll be a first, but, yes, the president has the power to pardon anyone including himself:

www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/the-supreme-court-and-the-presidents-pardon-power/ 

The lone exception is for a president to avoid impeachment. 

Trump doesn't have the time or inclination to go after Biden just like he didn't go after Clinton in 2017 for the good of the country, but Biden can't leave pardons to chance. Trump and Biden are meeting in the WH on Wednesday. I wouldn't be surprised to look back someday and find out it was a discussion item in the meeting. Although, this is not the kind of information that easily comes out. We waited 50 years to get information on the Kennedy assassination.   

I didn't ask if a POTUS had the power. That's never been tested at SCOTUS.
I asked SHOULD a POTUS pardon himself? Would you be okay with it regardless of how heinous the crime might be?
IOW, is a POTUS totally above the law?

What you are really asking is the president shielded from illegal acts not part of his official duties as president. The answer is no. The SCOTUS gave a wide shield of immunity for acts related to the presidency, but a president can't go kill anyone on the street corner and get away with it. THAT is the democrat talking point concern, isn't it? That crapola line of thought is over now that Biden's lawfare against Trump has failed. 

[Walter]

Nov 12, 2024 9:49:27 GMT -5 ETGator1 said:

Nov 11, 2024 16:26:30 GMT -5 Walter said:

I didn't ask if a POTUS had the power. That's never been tested at SCOTUS.
I asked SHOULD a POTUS pardon himself? Would you be okay with it regardless of how heinous the crime might be?
IOW, is a POTUS totally above the law?

What you are really asking is the president shielded from illegal acts not part of his official duties as president. The answer is no. The SCOTUS gave a wide shield of immunity for acts related to the presidency, but a president can't go kill anyone on the street corner and get away with it. THAT is the democrat talking point concern, isn't it? That crapola line of thought is over now that Biden's lawfare against Trump has failed. 

Let us examine your assertion that a POTUS could not legally shoot someone on the street. I agree with that. He would and should be held accountable. But like any criminal who violates federal law, a POTUS can pardon that criminal.

Meanwhile, SCOTUS has not ruled that a self pardon is unconstitutional.

So I repeat the Q, with a variation.

Would you agree or disagree with a SCOTUS decision that a POTUS can legally pardon himself as part of his enumerated constitutional powers?

[ETGator1]

Nov 12, 2024 10:26:28 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 12, 2024 9:49:27 GMT -5 ETGator1 said:

What you are really asking is the president shielded from illegal acts not part of his official duties as president. The answer is no. The SCOTUS gave a wide shield of immunity for acts related to the presidency, but a president can't go kill anyone on the street corner and get away with it. THAT is the democrat talking point concern, isn't it? That crapola line of thought is over now that Biden's lawfare against Trump has failed. 

Let us examine your assertion that a POTUS could not legally shoot someone on the street. I agree with that. He would and should be held accountable. But like any criminal who violates federal law, a POTUS can pardon that criminal.

Meanwhile, SCOTUS has not ruled that a self pardon is unconstitutional.

So I repeat the Q, with a variation.

Would you agree or disagree with a SCOTUS decision that a POTUS can legally pardon himself as part of his enumerated constitutional powers?

The link I provided earlier was a from a SCOTUS blog. According to that, the president can pardon himself except to avoid impeachment.

The SCOTUS ruling from this year narrows down immunity for official acts. That's why Merchan's case is going up in flames as he allowed all sorts of official acts testimony into the trial's evidence. Also, preservation for himself and his daughter. Merchan should have recused himself from day 1 for his political contributions and his daughters who actually provided services for Biden and Harris during the campaign. 

Should the president pardon himself? I guess it comes down to personal opinion and politics. It'll be fun watching people react on both sides of the aisle if it ever happens. 

[Walter]

Nov 12, 2024 11:17:04 GMT -5 ETGator1 said:

Nov 12, 2024 10:26:28 GMT -5 Walter said:

Let us examine your assertion that a POTUS could not legally shoot someone on the street. I agree with that. He would and should be held accountable. But like any criminal who violates federal law, a POTUS can pardon that criminal.

Meanwhile, SCOTUS has not ruled that a self pardon is unconstitutional.

So I repeat the Q, with a variation.

Would you agree or disagree with a SCOTUS decision that a POTUS can legally pardon himself as part of his enumerated constitutional powers?

The link I provided earlier was a from a SCOTUS blog. According to that, the president can pardon himself except to avoid impeachment.

The SCOTUS ruling from this year narrows down immunity for official acts. That's why Merchan's case is going up in flames as he allowed all sorts of official acts testimony into the trial's evidence. Also, preservation for himself and his daughter. Merchan should have recused himself from day 1 for his political contributions and his daughters who actually provided services for Biden and Harris during the campaign. 

Should the president pardon himself? I guess it comes down to personal opinion and politics. It'll be fun watching people react on both sides of the aisle if it ever happens. 

Was that a yes or a no?
Would you agree or disagree with a decision that gave a POTUS full power of self-pardon for anything he might have done?

[Panama pfRedd]

Look at poor walter flailing all over the map. Poor guy's losing his mind.

[Walter]

Nov 12, 2024 11:33:46 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Look at poor walter flailing all over the map. Poor guy's losing his mind.

Get the stick, boy!
Get the stick!

[Panama pfRedd]

Nov 12, 2024 12:41:07 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 12, 2024 11:33:46 GMT -5 Panama pfRedd said:

Look at poor walter flailing all over the map. Poor guy's losing his mind.

Get the stick, boy!
Get the stick!

And there's your proof.

[ETGator1]

Nov 12, 2024 11:19:45 GMT -5 Walter said:

Nov 12, 2024 11:17:04 GMT -5 ETGator1 said:

The link I provided earlier was a from a SCOTUS blog. According to that, the president can pardon himself except to avoid impeachment.

The SCOTUS ruling from this year narrows down immunity for official acts. That's why Merchan's case is going up in flames as he allowed all sorts of official acts testimony into the trial's evidence. Also, preservation for himself and his daughter. Merchan should have recused himself from day 1 for his political contributions and his daughters who actually provided services for Biden and Harris during the campaign. 

Should the president pardon himself? I guess it comes down to personal opinion and politics. It'll be fun watching people react on both sides of the aisle if it ever happens. 

Was that a yes or a no?
Would you agree or disagree with a decision that gave a POTUS full power of self-pardon for anything he might have done?

I won't disagree with SCOTUS. My answer is a clear no, including the comment I made above about POTUS shooting someone and not being able to get away with it. Nowhere did I say otherwise. 

[Walter]

Nov 12, 2024 15:55:31 GMT -5 ETGator1 said:

Nov 12, 2024 11:19:45 GMT -5 Walter said:

Was that a yes or a no?
Would you agree or disagree with a decision that gave a POTUS full power of self-pardon for anything he might have done?

I won't disagree with SCOTUS. My answer is a clear no, including the comment I made above about POTUS shooting someone and not being able to get away with it. Nowhere did I say otherwise. 

Thanks for clarifying.