interesting point about the SC immunity decision. any lawfags wanna address the second half of this?
(media.greatawakening.win)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (31)
sorted by:
It is a word salad, and I hate addressing ambiguous claims because as soon as you pin it down to something, someone can claim that the text was making a completely different point.
That said, instead of addressing their claim, let us use the same thought process and see where we land.
I would generalize it to "power of the president" for this discussion.
Lets take two examples and compare them.
Biden tells the Ukrainian prosecutor that unless they drop the case against Burisma in which Hunter is a stake holder, they wont release the billion dollars in aid.
Trump calls Zelensky and tells him he should look into corruption of Burisma and why the prosecutor was fired
In both these cases, the actions are very similar - telling a foreign government what their AG should be doing. However the motivations are entirely different.
With Biden, he had a personal stake and was using the power of his office to stop probe into his son's company.
In Trump's case he was trying to undo this corruption.
So I would say the question whether a President is abusing the power for political purposes will squarely lie in Mens Rea - the motivation behind the action.
So the conclusion would be opposite to what this chunk of text is trying to imply.
Careful with throwing word salad around. This isn't a food fight!
Well the lettuce looks wilted, and there isn’t any ranch. Soooo I’m cool with it being thrown. Kek!
Greek feta salad is the only salad, unless it’s Finnish grape salad, or egg salad, or mayonnaise and tuna, or niscoise with anchovies.
Ok, I’m hungry now.
Time for chicken wings with no salad.
did you seee! i found the answer!! 😁😊
Well done Anon! Seems to fit more clear.
Now…. can you find me some ranch? Kek!
Now I am hungry
everything but the last paragraph was written by me. If anyone is guilty of word salad here, it is me due to my lack of legal knowledge. Which is why I am bringing the discussion here.
Even then, it is not word salad. At worst it is lacking context.
The crux of the issue is this:
(from the SC decision:)
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
The lib was arguing that this makes any criminal prosecution impossible for lack of mens rea. However, I think I now see how he's being dumb.
But further input (from those with actual legal knowledge) is welcome.
..and seriously. everybody REALLY needs to stop abusing the term word salad. It is not a definition for things you don't understand, or for things lacking context. Libs are stupid, but they can form sentences. even the vast majority of what Biden says doesn't count as word salad. Even he tends to trail off and shut up when he stops making sense. (granted that could be because he's an actor, or following a script.. but my point stands.)
Making false accusations invites the same to be made against us.
The last paragraph was the word salad I was referring to. Not sure what the problem with that term is. It simply means a bunch of syntactically correct words that have no meaning.
As far as I know, nothing in the SC decision how to determine whether something is a official act or not. It leaves it open, and the lower courts are still able to hear arguments as to whether something is official or not.
There is no mention that motivation may not be considered at all.
it does make sense. actus reus and mens rea both have meaning, and are both requirements for convicting someone of a crime.
here was the response i finally managed to give, starting with the part of the decision he was referring to:
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
Does that clear things up for you? The decision does not say motive cannot be considered, except in considering whether or not an act counts as official. that does not preclude or inhibit any criminal prosecution against the president.
It is in fact another preventative measure against abuse of presidential power. It prevents any 'the ends justify the means' arguments in defense of the president against criminal prosecution.
weeeoooo i'm quite proud of myself for coming up with the correct response. i'm a bit out on a limb in my last paragraph, but i think i'm right there too.
I AM SO PLEASED TO HAVE WORKED OUT THE ANSWER TO THIS. COME AT ME, LIBTARDS
Is this taken from the SCOTUS decision?