SCOTUS: Presidents have Immunity for Official Acts

[Sonny Tufts]

Bribes and the like are not covered by the immunity, they are specific grounds for impeachment in the Constitution.

True enough, but the immunity addressed in the Trump case was immunity from criminal prosecution, not impeachment immunity..

 

[Swordsmyth]

True enough, but the immunity addressed in the Trump case was immunity from criminal prosecution, not impeachment immunity..

It specifically said Congress couldn't criminalize legitimate actions with his core powers, if they can't make it a crime they can't impeach him for it.

 

[acptulsa]

It specifically said Congress couldn't criminalize legitimate actions with his core powers, if they can't make it a crime they can't impeach him for it.

That's as wrong as saying that because a cop can't be prosecuted for something done on duty, a cop can't be fired either. When are you people going to step away from the alt-right MSM propaganda and realize that getting fired is not the same thing as going to prison? You're as bad as the progs screeching for Trump to be officially assassinated, which is another thing this ruling does not do.

 

[Swordsmyth]

That's as wrong as saying that because a cop can't be prosecuted for something done on duty, a cop can't be fired either. When are you people going to step away from the alt-right MSM propaganda and realize that getting fired is not the same thing as going to prison? You're as bad as the progs screeching for Trump to be officially assassinated, which is another thing this ruling does not do.

Congress doesn't get to fire the President, he's not a Prime Minister.
Quote the part of the Constitution you think allows him to be impeached without a crime.

 

[acptulsa]

Congress doesn't get to fire the President, he's not a Prime Minister.
Quote the part of the Constitution you think allows him to be impeached without a crime.

This ruling says he has immunity, Richard Nixon. It doesn't say, "But if the president does it, then it's not illegal." It says, he won't be jailed for breaking the law as an official act.

And the president isn't the only person in this country who can't be fired without screwing up first. It's the same thing as that double jeopardy hogwash phase you went through, riding the surf of your alt-right MSM brainwashing. Giving a person immunity for breaking a law doesn't negate the law, and firing a person doesn't put them in jail. These facts may not fit your narrative, but they're still stubborn like facts.

 

[Swordsmyth]

This ruling says he has immunity, Richard Nixon. It doesn't say, "But if the president does it, then it's not illegal." It says, he won't be jailed for breaking the law as an official act.

And the president isn't the only person in this country who can't be fired without screwing up first. It's the same thing as that double jeopardy hogwash phase you went through, riding the surf of your alt-right MSM brainwashing. Giving a person immunity for breaking a law doesn't negate the law, and firing a person doesn't put them in jail. These facts may not fit your narrative, but they're still stubborn like facts.

It says as long as it's a legitimate use of his core powers, and it defines his core powers to include firing people in the Executive Branch, that Congress can't make it a crime, and if they can't make it a crime they can't impeach him for it because they can only impeach for crimes.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

It specifically said Congress couldn't criminalize legitimate actions with his core powers, if they can't make it a crime they can't impeach him for it.

The Court didn't refer to "legitimate actions". It said, "The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers." These powers include the pardon power, so even if a President accepts a bribe in exchange for a pardon, the language of the decision suggests he can't be prosecuted.

But nowhere does the decision say he can't be impeached and removed from office for something for which he has prosecutorial immunity. Impeachment is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and the actions forming the basis for an impeachment needn't be criminal. For example, Judge John Pickering was impeached and removed for drunkenness.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not, however, comport with historical practice. Alexander Hamilton, in justifying placement of the power to try impeachments in the Senate, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official’s duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” a broad reading, “finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.”

Congressional Research Service, "Impeachment and Removal", page 7-8 (footnotes omitted) https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44260.pdf

 

[Madison320]

This headline cracked me up:


"Some ex-DOJ officials who worked for Trump fear the Supreme Court just made it easy for him to use the DOJ to attack foes"

https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/trump-doj-officials-supreme-court-made-easy-trump-attack-enemies-rcna160144

 

[Occam's Banana]

CLIP from SYSTEM UPDATE #292:

Supreme Court's Immunity Ruling is Being Radically Distorted
https://rumble.com/v55jsoi-supreme-courts-immunity-ruling-is-being-radically-distorted.html
{Glenn Greenwald | 04 July 2024}

​

 

[Swordsmyth]

The Court didn't refer to "legitimate actions". It said, "The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers." These powers include the pardon power, so even if a President accepts a bribe in exchange for a pardon, the language of the decision suggests he can't be prosecuted.

But nowhere does the decision say he can't be impeached and removed from office for something for which he has prosecutorial immunity. Impeachment is a civil matter, not a criminal matter, and the actions forming the basis for an impeachment needn't be criminal. For example, Judge John Pickering was impeached and removed for drunkenness.

It limited it to legitimate uses because it excludes things like taking bribes to do things.
The only grounds for impeaching him for firing government workers in the executive branch would be because it was criminalized by civil service laws.
It can't be violating his duty to the country unless you connect it to something like giving aid and comfort to enemies to make it Treason or something.

 

[jmdrake]

It specifically said Congress couldn't criminalize legitimate actions with his core powers, if they can't make it a crime they can't impeach him for it.

Impeachment is a political process! I had to explain this the other day to a Trump hater. It's funny to see Trump lovers and Trump haters come to the same stupid conclusion. This is affirmed in SCOTUS ruling that you are misconstruing.

The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution.

Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.

The Government for its part takes a similarly broad view, contending that the President enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for any action. It maintains this view despite agreeing with much of our analysis.
For instance, the Government does not dispute that Congress may not criminalize Presidential conduct within the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 133 (“[C]ore powers . . . can’t be regulated at all, like the pardon power and veto.”); see also id., at 84–85. And it too accords protection to Presidential conduct if subjecting that conduct to generally applicable laws would “raise serious constitutional questions regarding the President’s authority” or cause a “possible conflict with the President’s constitutional prerogatives.” Application of 28 U. S. C. §458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges, 19 Op. OLC 350, 351–352 (1995); see Brief for United States 26–29; Tr. of Oral Arg. 78. Indeed, the Executive Branch has long held that view. The Office of Legal Counsel has recognized, for instance, that a federal statute generally prohibiting appointments to “ ‘any office or duty in any court’ ” of persons within certain degrees of consanguinity to the judges of such courts would, if applied to the President, infringe his power to appoint federal judges, thereby raising a serious constitutional question. 19 Op. OLC, at 350 (quoting 28 U. S. C. §458); see id., at 350–352. So it viewed such a statute as not applying to the President. Likewise, it has narrowly construed a criminal prohibition on grassroots lobbying to avoid the constitutional issues that would otherwise arise, reasoning that the statute should not “be construed to prohibit the President or executive branch agencies from engaging in a general open dialogue with the public on the Administration’s programs and policies.” Constraints Imposed by 18 U. S. C. §1913 on Lobbying Efforts, 13 Op. OLC 300, 304 (1989); see id., at 304–306.
The Government thus broadly agrees that the President’s official acts are entitled to some degree of constitutional protection. And with respect to the allegations in the indictment before us, the Government agrees that at least some of the alleged conduct involves official acts. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 125; cf. id., at 128.
Yet the Government contends that the President should not be considered immune from prosecution for those official acts. See Brief for United States 9. On the Government’s view, as-applied challenges in the course of the trial suffice to protect Article II interests, and review of a district court’s decisions on such challenges should be deferred until after trial. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 69, 79–80, 154–158. If the President is instead immune from prosecution, a district court’s denial of immunity would be appealable before trial. See Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 524–530 (explaining that questions of immunity are reviewable before trial because the essence of immunity is the entitlement not to be subject to suit).
The Government asserts that the “[r]obust safeguards” available in typical criminal proceedings alleviate the need for pretrial review. Brief for United States 20 (boldface and emphasis omitted). First, it points to the Justice Department’s “longstanding commitment to the impartial enforcement of the law,” id., at 21, as well as the criminal justice system’s further protections: grand juries, a defendant’s procedural rights during trial, and the requirement that the Government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 22. Next, it contends that “existing principles of statutory construction and as-applied constitutional challenges” adequately address the separation of powers concerns involved in applying generally applicable criminal laws to a President. Id., at 29. Finally, the Government cites certain defenses that would be available to the President in a particular prosecution, such as the public-authority defense or the advice of the Attorney General. Id., at 29–30; see Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379, 384 (1937); Tr. of Oral Arg. 107–108.
​

Now I'll break all of ^that down into English. Even the conservatives on SCOTUS rejected Trump's immunity theory! And Trump never claimed that a president couldn't be impeached for "official acts"! But everybody, even the Biden administration, agreed there was immunity from criminal prosecution (not impeachment) for official acts. However the government wanted the immunity defense to have to be raised during the trial as opposed to pre-trial. Think of Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense claim. It didn't prevent him from being prosecuted but he was able to use to to prevent a conviction. It's the idea of "qualified immunity" versus "absolute immunity."

See: https://www.helbraunlaw.com/basic-guide-to-immunity-for-government-officials/

A. Absolute Immunity
Absolute immunity is a complete bar to a lawsuit, with no exceptions.[8] It generally applies to judicial officials like judges,[9] prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses [10]. The strong protection of absolute immunity is tempered by its limited application and duration. Absolute immunity is “strong medicine,”[11] reserved for comparatively few types of officials[12] and only applies so long as the official is acting in their judicial capacity. [13] For example, a judge is acting in their judicial capacity when they are hearing a case, but when they hire and fire court employees they are not, and are thus entitled only to qualified immunity[14].
B. Qualified Immunity
Like absolute immunity, qualified immunity is not just an affirmative defense to be raised at trial, it is the freedom from suit or the right not to be sued altogether.[15] Thus, issues of qualified immunity are to be addressed early,[16] in order to free officials from the hassle of trial. [17] Needless to say, one cannot receive any monetary remedy under Section 1983 from an individual protected by qualified immunity.
To win a lawsuit alleging a violation of Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that a constitutional right was violated. Assuming the court finds a constitutional right was violated, a plaintiff must also overcome the qualified immunity rule. The rule can be stated as follows: Qualified immunity protects government officials if their actions do not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known or if their actions were nonetheless objectively reasonable.[18] The rule breaks down into two inquiries. One, whether the right violated was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. And, two, whether the violation was nonetheless objectively reasonable at the time. If, in resolving the first inquiry, it is determined that the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity protects the official and the inquiries end. If instead it is determined that the right was clearly established, then, under the second inquiry, qualified immunity still protects the official if their violation was objectively reasonable at the time.[19] Thus, defendants in a civil rights case can (and will) attack the plaintiff on three fronts. They will argue that there was no civil right violation as required under Section 1983, that the right was not clearly established, and that their actions where objectively reasonable. They only need to win one of those arguments to win the case, whereas plaintiffs must win all three.​

Absolute immunity has nothing to do with whether or not Congress can "make something a crime" or whether or not Trump could be impeached for it. That would be like saying a judge could never be removed from the bench which is, of course, a patently ridiculous thing to assert.

 

[jmdrake]

It says as long as it's a legitimate use of his core powers, and it defines his core powers to include firing people in the Executive Branch, that Congress can't make it a crime, and if they can't make it a crime they can't impeach him for it because they can only impeach for crimes.

Did you even read the entire opinion?

Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. Indeed, if presumptive protection for the President is necessary to enable the “effective discharge” of his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his official papers and communications, id., at 711, it is certainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, and imprison the President himself for his official actions. At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754.

But as we explain below, the current stage of the proceedings in this case does not require us to decide whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute. See Part III–B, infra. Because we need not decide that question today, we do not decide it. “[O]ne case” in more than “two centuries does not afford enough experience” to definitively and comprehensively determine the President’s scope of immunity from criminal prosecution. Mazars, 591 U. S., at 871.​

 

[Swordsmyth]

Impeachment is a political process! I had to explain this the other day to a Trump hater. It's funny to see Trump lovers and Trump haters come to the same stupid conclusion. This is affirmed in SCOTUS ruling that you are misconstruing.

The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution.

Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.

The Government for its part takes a similarly broad view, contending that the President enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for any action. It maintains this view despite agreeing with much of our analysis.
For instance, the Government does not dispute that Congress may not criminalize Presidential conduct within the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 133 (“[C]ore powers . . . can’t be regulated at all, like the pardon power and veto.”); see also id., at 84–85. And it too accords protection to Presidential conduct if subjecting that conduct to generally applicable laws would “raise serious constitutional questions regarding the President’s authority” or cause a “possible conflict with the President’s constitutional prerogatives.” Application of 28 U. S. C. §458 to Presidential Appointments of Federal Judges, 19 Op. OLC 350, 351–352 (1995); see Brief for United States 26–29; Tr. of Oral Arg. 78. Indeed, the Executive Branch has long held that view. The Office of Legal Counsel has recognized, for instance, that a federal statute generally prohibiting appointments to “ ‘any office or duty in any court’ ” of persons within certain degrees of consanguinity to the judges of such courts would, if applied to the President, infringe his power to appoint federal judges, thereby raising a serious constitutional question. 19 Op. OLC, at 350 (quoting 28 U. S. C. §458); see id., at 350–352. So it viewed such a statute as not applying to the President. Likewise, it has narrowly construed a criminal prohibition on grassroots lobbying to avoid the constitutional issues that would otherwise arise, reasoning that the statute should not “be construed to prohibit the President or executive branch agencies from engaging in a general open dialogue with the public on the Administration’s programs and policies.” Constraints Imposed by 18 U. S. C. §1913 on Lobbying Efforts, 13 Op. OLC 300, 304 (1989); see id., at 304–306.
The Government thus broadly agrees that the President’s official acts are entitled to some degree of constitutional protection. And with respect to the allegations in the indictment before us, the Government agrees that at least some of the alleged conduct involves official acts. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 125; cf. id., at 128.
Yet the Government contends that the President should not be considered immune from prosecution for those official acts. See Brief for United States 9. On the Government’s view, as-applied challenges in the course of the trial suffice to protect Article II interests, and review of a district court’s decisions on such challenges should be deferred until after trial. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 69, 79–80, 154–158. If the President is instead immune from prosecution, a district court’s denial of immunity would be appealable before trial. See Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 524–530 (explaining that questions of immunity are reviewable before trial because the essence of immunity is the entitlement not to be subject to suit).
The Government asserts that the “[r]obust safeguards” available in typical criminal proceedings alleviate the need for pretrial review. Brief for United States 20 (boldface and emphasis omitted). First, it points to the Justice Department’s “longstanding commitment to the impartial enforcement of the law,” id., at 21, as well as the criminal justice system’s further protections: grand juries, a defendant’s procedural rights during trial, and the requirement that the Government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 22. Next, it contends that “existing principles of statutory construction and as-applied constitutional challenges” adequately address the separation of powers concerns involved in applying generally applicable criminal laws to a President. Id., at 29. Finally, the Government cites certain defenses that would be available to the President in a particular prosecution, such as the public-authority defense or the advice of the Attorney General. Id., at 29–30; see Nardone v. United States, 302 U.S. 379, 384 (1937); Tr. of Oral Arg. 107–108.
​

Now I'll break all of ^that down into English. Even the conservatives on SCOTUS rejected Trump's immunity theory! And Trump never claimed that a president couldn't be impeached for "official acts"! But everybody, even the Biden administration, agreed there was immunity from criminal prosecution (not impeachment) for official acts. However the government wanted the immunity defense to have to be raised during the trial as opposed to pre-trial. Think of Kyle Rittenhouse's self defense claim. It didn't prevent him from being prosecuted but he was able to use to to prevent a conviction. It's the idea of "qualified immunity" versus "absolute immunity."

See: https://www.helbraunlaw.com/basic-guide-to-immunity-for-government-officials/

A. Absolute Immunity
Absolute immunity is a complete bar to a lawsuit, with no exceptions.[8] It generally applies to judicial officials like judges,[9] prosecutors, jurors, and witnesses [10]. The strong protection of absolute immunity is tempered by its limited application and duration. Absolute immunity is “strong medicine,”[11] reserved for comparatively few types of officials[12] and only applies so long as the official is acting in their judicial capacity. [13] For example, a judge is acting in their judicial capacity when they are hearing a case, but when they hire and fire court employees they are not, and are thus entitled only to qualified immunity[14].
B. Qualified Immunity
Like absolute immunity, qualified immunity is not just an affirmative defense to be raised at trial, it is the freedom from suit or the right not to be sued altogether.[15] Thus, issues of qualified immunity are to be addressed early,[16] in order to free officials from the hassle of trial. [17] Needless to say, one cannot receive any monetary remedy under Section 1983 from an individual protected by qualified immunity.
To win a lawsuit alleging a violation of Section 1983, a plaintiff must prove, among other things, that a constitutional right was violated. Assuming the court finds a constitutional right was violated, a plaintiff must also overcome the qualified immunity rule. The rule can be stated as follows: Qualified immunity protects government officials if their actions do not violate clearly established rights of which a reasonable person would have known or if their actions were nonetheless objectively reasonable.[18] The rule breaks down into two inquiries. One, whether the right violated was clearly established at the time the violation occurred. And, two, whether the violation was nonetheless objectively reasonable at the time. If, in resolving the first inquiry, it is determined that the right was not clearly established, qualified immunity protects the official and the inquiries end. If instead it is determined that the right was clearly established, then, under the second inquiry, qualified immunity still protects the official if their violation was objectively reasonable at the time.[19] Thus, defendants in a civil rights case can (and will) attack the plaintiff on three fronts. They will argue that there was no civil right violation as required under Section 1983, that the right was not clearly established, and that their actions where objectively reasonable. They only need to win one of those arguments to win the case, whereas plaintiffs must win all three.​

Absolute immunity has nothing to do with whether or not Congress can "make something a crime" or whether or not Trump could be impeached for it. That would be like saying a judge could never be removed from the bench which is, of course, a patently ridiculous thing to assert.

SCOTUS did reject Trump's lawyers' arguments.
And they ruled that Presidents do have immunity for legitimate uses of their core powers and that those could not be criminalized.
They also ruled that they have presumptive immunity for all their official acts.

Impeachment is a political process, but it is one that must be predicated on High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And since Congress may not criminalize legitimate uses of core powers they may not call them High Crimes or Misdemeanors and use them to impeach.
All laws purporting to restrict legitimate uses of a President's core powers were just overruled, and that includes Impoundment as well, thanks for making me think enough to realize that.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Did you even read the entire opinion?

Taking into account these competing considerations, we conclude that the separation of powers principles explicated in our precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. Indeed, if presumptive protection for the President is necessary to enable the “effective discharge” of his powers when a prosecutor merely seeks evidence of his official papers and communications, id., at 711, it is certainly necessary when the prosecutor seeks to charge, try, and imprison the President himself for his official actions. At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 754.

But as we explain below, the current stage of the proceedings in this case does not require us to decide whether this immunity is presumptive or absolute. See Part III–B, infra. Because we need not decide that question today, we do not decide it. “[O]ne case” in more than “two centuries does not afford enough experience” to definitively and comprehensively determine the President’s scope of immunity from criminal prosecution. Mazars, 591 U. S., at 871.​

You are the one ignoring part of the ruling.
Presumptive immunity is for all official acts, they ruled POTUS had Absolute immunity for legitimate uses of his core powers.

 

[jmdrake]

Congress doesn't get to fire the President, he's not a Prime Minister.
Quote the part of the Constitution you think allows him to be impeached without a crime.

Separation of Powers. Impeachment is something that the Court does not have the power to review or overturn.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/

After petitioner Nixon, the Chief Judge of a Federal District Court, was convicted of federal crimes and sentenced to prison, the House of Representatives adopted articles of impeachment against him and presented them to the Senate. Following proceedings pursuant to Senate Rule XI-which allows a committee of Senators to hear evidence against an impeached individual and to report that evidence to the full Senate the Senate voted to convict Nixon, and the presiding officer entered judgment removing him from his judgeship. He then commenced the present suit for a declaratory judgment and reinstatement of his judicial salary and privileges, arguing that, because Senate Rule XI prohibits the whole Senate from taking part in the evidentiary hearings, it violates the first sentence of the Constitution's Impeachment Trial Clause, Art. I, § 3, cl. 6, which provides that the "Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments." The District Court held that his claim was nonjusticiable, i. e., involved a political question that could not be resolved by the courts. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
​

Those wonderful checks and balances that the founders put in the constitution that Trump is relying on for immunity allow a president to be removed for any reason and the courts do not have the right to overturn that.

Now the flip side is getting a 2/3rds majority in the U.S. Senate is hard as hell! That's what's different than a "Prime Minister" who can be ousted by a simple majority vote. The Republicans had a simple majority in the Senate when they went after Clinton. The Democrats had a simple majority when they went after Trump the second time. But neither were close to a 2/3rds majority.

 

[jmdrake]

You are the one ignoring part of the ruling.
Presumptive immunity is for all official acts, they ruled POTUS had Absolute immunity for legitimate uses of his core powers.

Yes. But they didn't rule that he couldn't be impeached! You simply have no freaking idea what you're talking about. The Courts do not have the right to overturn an impeachment!

 

[jmdrake]

SCOTUS did reject Trump's lawyers' arguments.
And they ruled that Presidents do have immunity for legitimate uses of their core powers and that those could not be criminalized.
They also ruled that they have presumptive immunity for all their official acts.

Impeachment is a political process, but it is one that must be predicated on High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
And since Congress may not criminalize legitimate uses of core powers they may not call them High Crimes or Misdemeanors and use them to impeach.
All laws purporting to restrict legitimate uses of a President's core powers were just overruled, and that includes Impoundment as well, thanks for making me think enough to realize that.

What part of "there is no judicial review of impeachment" do you not understand?

https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/56-judicial-review-of-impeachments.html#tc-908

Read ^that over and over again until it sinks in. If there is no judicial review of impeachment (and their isn't) and if you think your guy got wrongly impeached, then how exactly are you going to contest that impeachment?

 

[acptulsa]

Yes. But they didn't rule that he couldn't be impeached! You simply have no freaking idea what you're talking about. The Courts do not have the right to overturn an impeachment!

I tried to explain it to him. It's like he thinks the country's laws are all suspended whenever a diplomat leaves his embassy. I don't know why he can't fathom that immunity for breaking laws doesn't mean the laws weren't broken. He just goes on reposting the same misinformation in other threads like nothing happened, the way Zippy used to do after he lost debates.

I think he might be possessed. Maybe we found Nixon's ghost.

 

[jmdrake]

I tried to explain it to him. It's like he thinks the country's laws are all suspended whenever a diplomat leaves his embassy. I don't know why he can't fathom that immunity for breaking laws doesn't mean the laws weren't broken. He just goes on reposting the same misinformation in other threads like nothing happened, the way Zippy used to do after he lost debates.

I think he might be possessed. Maybe we found Nixon's ghost.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

 

[acptulsa]

When finding himself fighting for the hill Richard Milhouse Nixon died on, a thinking being pauses to reflect...