Swim Bike Run
Slowtwitch.com
  • Login >
Slowtwitch.com
Search menu
Hot Forum Topics

Poll

Comfort While Cycling
How much does comfort while cycling influence your overall race performance?
View Results


Home > Forum > Lavender Room > Absolute Immunity Case

Lavender Room

Back To ForumPrint Thread

Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Tri
Classifieds
Lavender
Jobs
Notices
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [BigDig] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nutella
Apr 26, 24 13:14
Post #101 of 114 (576 views)
BigDig wrote:
Nutella wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:


Nutella said that the price of gas went down $1.70 per gallon.


It did
U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Dollars per Gallon) (eia.gov)
June 2022 $4.929
January 2024 $3.075

Now back on topic. Do you believe any President, not just Trump, should be immune from prosecution for criminal acts he committed while in office?

Why do you do this? You take the highest point and the lowest point and then quote that. Did it technically happen? Yes. But those are dates that no one would pick except that they are the lowest and highest prices. It now throws the rest of your argument into doubt because you cherry picked data for this one.

And yes, like Jim I have been also paying over $5 for gas for a couple years. I don't blame Biden for it, but it is a fact.

My point was clear, gas prices have dropped significantly since their short-term peak. Biden does not control them, or much else, in the economy.

Now back on topic. Do you agree with Kavanaugh when he says that pardoning Nixon was "one of the better decisions in presidential history"? If the President has "absolute immunity" why would Nixon need a pardon?
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral
Apr 26, 24 13:21
Post #102 of 114 (573 views)
jimatbeyond wrote:
trail wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
Barks&Purrs wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
I am paying $5.39 for a gallon of regular gas.


What does the price of gas/tea in China have to do with presidential immunity?



Nutella said, Biden has "Lowered gas prices by $1.70 per gallon".

The price of gas in my area has gone up.



What do you think about granting a President the power to use the military to illegally snatch away everyone's guns as an official act of office, and then not allowing that President to be prosecuted for it? Maybe you'd trust President Trump with that freedom. Would you trust the next President after Trump's 2nd term?

Would you trust that impeachment would do the trick, with the 2/3 Senate requirement for conviction?

Remember that the FBI/ Justice Department could do nothing while that President were in power. We've already established that a President cannot be prosecuted while in office.

I am absolutely astonished at the some of the "conservative" justices going into full pretzel logic to shit on fundamental conservative principles.

I remember back in the Obama administration all the crazy fears about Obama collaborating with the UN to not leave office and take everyone's guns. A few current SCOTUS justices, "Let's grant the President the freedom to actually attempt or even accomplish all that crazy stuff with no accountability whatsover, except maybe impeachment. And if he's impeached he's free to go...no criminal prosecution."


The 2nd Amendment exists to stop a President from taking guns from the citizens.

He might get away with it for a short amount of time, but eventually the people will respond and stop it.


So the 2nd amendment exists to stop a president from taking guns from citizens?

That may just be the dumbest reason for an amendment.

So if the 2nd amendment didn’t exist, people would willingly give up their guns. But since it exists, people are willing to murder law enforcement to keep them.

Why exactly does its existence lead to the murdering? Wouldn’t they murder anyway?
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [Nutella] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BigDig
Apr 26, 24 13:48
Post #103 of 114 (547 views)
Nutella wrote:

My point was clear, gas prices have dropped significantly since their short-term peak. Biden does not control them, or much else, in the economy.

Now back on topic. Do you agree with Kavanaugh when he says that pardoning Nixon was "one of the better decisions in presidential history"? If the President has "absolute immunity" why would Nixon need a pardon?


No your point was not clear.

Biden inherited chaos from Trump. He has brought inflation down from 9.06% to 3.15%. He turned Trump's 14% unemployment to todays 3.8%. Lowered gas prices by $1.70 per gallon. Turned Trump's flaccid economy into the best economy in the world. *


That was what you said, it talked about Trump and nothing about the short term peak which was well after Trump left office.


As for Kavanaugh's statement I have no idea why you are asking me about that since I can't remember ever posting about Kavanaugh, Nixon, or this case.
------------------------------
The first time man split the atom was when the atom tried to hold Jens Voigt's wheel, but cracked.
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [BigDig] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nutella
Apr 26, 24 14:20
Post #104 of 114 (524 views)
BigDig wrote:

No your point was not clear.


Sorry I was not more clear.

When I hear the "Biden raised gas prices" talking point I think of mid 2022 when the GOP was spewing this lie nonstop. They put "I did that" stickers on gas pumps, made the rounds on TV news shows, and wrote bad faith opinion pieces pushing the lie that the spike was Biden's fault. The same folks who slapped those "I did that" stickers on gas pumps were silent as gas steadily dropped $1.70 a gallon in 6 months.

The reason I asked about Kavanaugh and Nixon was to try to get this thread back on topic..... it was one of the more bizarre parts of yesterdays hearing

Kavanaugh says ‘most people’ now revere the Nixon pardon. Not so fast. - The Washington Post
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [TriFloyd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ike
Apr 26, 24 14:49
Post #105 of 114 (500 views)
TriFloyd wrote:
SDG wrote:
So where is everyone on this immunity deal?

Have we seen enough to know the SC will either carve out some immunity to apply to Trumps specific actions in this case, or that they will send it back to the lower court, who will make a ruling sometime after the election, thereby making this case a waste of time as it relates to the election?

I predict that they will reject Trump's argument for absolute immunity and reject Jack Smith's argument for no immunity. Instead, they will conclude that, like the President's immunity from civil lawsuits, the President has absolute immunity from criminal lawsuits for acts falling within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibilities. Then, remand to the lower court to apply that standard to the facts of this case.

I think that is about where they will land, perhaps with a caveat. A judge has immunity for any decision they issue. But, a judge has no immunity for taking a bribe, even though the bribe is related to how they carry out their official duties (issuing a decision). I would think Presidential immunity follows a similar path.
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CCS_56_EX
Apr 26, 24 18:39
Post #106 of 114 (434 views)
Anyone that bitches about gas prices is a financial moron. Sucks to suck. Get your financial shit together and stop blaming the White House.
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [CCS_56_EX] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Apr 26, 24 22:39
Post #107 of 114 (376 views)
CCS_56_EX wrote:
Anyone that bitches about gas prices is a financial moron. Sucks to suck. Get your financial shit together and stop blaming the White House.


I'm not sure if you noticed, but I live in Mountain View, drive a GL 550, and the price of gas doesn't affect me at all.
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
scorpio516
Apr 27, 24 5:02
Post #108 of 114 (331 views)
ike wrote:
TriFloyd wrote:
SDG wrote:
So where is everyone on this immunity deal?

Have we seen enough to know the SC will either carve out some immunity to apply to Trumps specific actions in this case, or that they will send it back to the lower court, who will make a ruling sometime after the election, thereby making this case a waste of time as it relates to the election?


I predict that they will reject Trump's argument for absolute immunity and reject Jack Smith's argument for no immunity. Instead, they will conclude that, like the President's immunity from civil lawsuits, the President has absolute immunity from criminal lawsuits for acts falling within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibilities. Then, remand to the lower court to apply that standard to the facts of this case.


I think that is about where they will land, perhaps with a caveat. A judge has immunity for any decision they issue. But, a judge has no immunity for taking a bribe, even though the bribe is related to how they carry out their official duties (issuing a decision). I would think Presidential immunity follows a similar path.

Or a judge can have the state kill someone but can't murder someone.
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [DieselPete] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
tri_yoda
Apr 27, 24 12:28
Post #109 of 114 (278 views)
DieselPete wrote:
Agreed.

To Robert's question about whether accepting a bribe to name an ambassador is an official act, and therefore immune, and his response it that those two actions would have to be severed because part is official and part is private... but you can't indict on one part without the other...

It all serves to prove that arguably very smart people can sound very smart and somewhat convincing while arguing a position that is borderline or full-on bull shit.

"can sound very smart and somewhat convincing" to dummies (fixed it for you)

If your position is "bullshit" any intelligent person is going to see (or just smell it) through packaging.
In my experience the more elaborate the explanation the more likely it isn't true or accurate. Something about Occam's razor.

Or the old saying, "when the law is against you, argue the facts, when the facts are against you, argue the law". When both are against you, find lawyers who have worked for Trump they have experience in this area.
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral
Apr 27, 24 13:23
Post #110 of 114 (254 views)
ike wrote:
TriFloyd wrote:
SDG wrote:
So where is everyone on this immunity deal?

Have we seen enough to know the SC will either carve out some immunity to apply to Trumps specific actions in this case, or that they will send it back to the lower court, who will make a ruling sometime after the election, thereby making this case a waste of time as it relates to the election?

I predict that they will reject Trump's argument for absolute immunity and reject Jack Smith's argument for no immunity. Instead, they will conclude that, like the President's immunity from civil lawsuits, the President has absolute immunity from criminal lawsuits for acts falling within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibilities. Then, remand to the lower court to apply that standard to the facts of this case.

I think that is about where they will land, perhaps with a caveat. A judge has immunity for any decision they issue. But, a judge has no immunity for taking a bribe, even though the bribe is related to how they carry out their official duties (issuing a decision). I would think Presidential immunity follows a similar path.

Who came up with judicial immunity? Was it judges? Must be nice to be a judge.
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [jimatbeyond] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral
Apr 27, 24 13:27
Post #111 of 114 (252 views)
jimatbeyond wrote:
TheRef65 wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
I am paying $5.39 for a gallon of regular gas.

Where the hell do you live. I’ve been paying anywhere between 3.29 and 3.89 for over 4 years.


I live in Mountain View.

This was in Menlo Park a few days ago:

https://kion546.com/...ghest-in-california/

That is such a terrible news article. Shouldn’t the story be, “Why is this gas station charging $2 more per gallon than stations 1 mile away.” Isn’t that the actually interesting story here to investigate?
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
jimatbeyond
Apr 27, 24 13:46
Post #112 of 114 (233 views)
chaparral wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
TheRef65 wrote:
jimatbeyond wrote:
I am paying $5.39 for a gallon of regular gas.

Where the hell do you live. I’ve been paying anywhere between 3.29 and 3.89 for over 4 years.


I live in Mountain View.

This was in Menlo Park a few days ago:

https://kion546.com/...ghest-in-california/

That is such a terrible news article. Shouldn’t the story be, “Why is this gas station charging $2 more per gallon than stations 1 mile away.” Isn’t that the actually interesting story here to investigate?


They are charging more because the people that live/work near there don't care how much gas costs.
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [chaparral] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ike
Apr 27, 24 13:51
Post #113 of 114 (227 views)
chaparral wrote:
ike wrote:
TriFloyd wrote:
SDG wrote:
So where is everyone on this immunity deal?

Have we seen enough to know the SC will either carve out some immunity to apply to Trumps specific actions in this case, or that they will send it back to the lower court, who will make a ruling sometime after the election, thereby making this case a waste of time as it relates to the election?

I predict that they will reject Trump's argument for absolute immunity and reject Jack Smith's argument for no immunity. Instead, they will conclude that, like the President's immunity from civil lawsuits, the President has absolute immunity from criminal lawsuits for acts falling within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibilities. Then, remand to the lower court to apply that standard to the facts of this case.

I think that is about where they will land, perhaps with a caveat. A judge has immunity for any decision they issue. But, a judge has no immunity for taking a bribe, even though the bribe is related to how they carry out their official duties (issuing a decision). I would think Presidential immunity follows a similar path.

Who came up with judicial immunity? Was it judges? Must be nice to be a judge.

Yes. Here is an example where a judge was held immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken as a judge. The decision is not relying upon some statute or Constitutional provision creating the immunity.

https://casetext.com/...ommonwealth-v-tartar
Quote Reply
Re: Absolute Immunity Case [ike] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
chaparral
Apr 27, 24 13:55
Post #114 of 114 (223 views)
ike wrote:
chaparral wrote:
ike wrote:
TriFloyd wrote:
SDG wrote:
So where is everyone on this immunity deal?

Have we seen enough to know the SC will either carve out some immunity to apply to Trumps specific actions in this case, or that they will send it back to the lower court, who will make a ruling sometime after the election, thereby making this case a waste of time as it relates to the election?

I predict that they will reject Trump's argument for absolute immunity and reject Jack Smith's argument for no immunity. Instead, they will conclude that, like the President's immunity from civil lawsuits, the President has absolute immunity from criminal lawsuits for acts falling within the "outer perimeter" of the president's official responsibilities. Then, remand to the lower court to apply that standard to the facts of this case.

I think that is about where they will land, perhaps with a caveat. A judge has immunity for any decision they issue. But, a judge has no immunity for taking a bribe, even though the bribe is related to how they carry out their official duties (issuing a decision). I would think Presidential immunity follows a similar path.

Who came up with judicial immunity? Was it judges? Must be nice to be a judge.

Yes. Here is an example where a judge was held immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken as a judge. The decision is not relying upon some statute or Constitutional provision creating the immunity.

https://casetext.com/...ommonwealth-v-tartar

Probably shouldn’t have a system that allows this. Since they clearly have a bias in this.

If they want immunity, they can advocate for the legislation to implement it.
Quote Reply
Prev Next
Back To ForumPrint Thread

Our Partners

transition-DOT-area-AT-slowtwitch-DOT-com

Advertise with us

©1999-2024 Slowtwitch, Inc., and Slowtwitch.com
Reproduction of material from any Slowtwitch.com page
without written permission is strictly prohibited.