Comments by "nuqwestr" (@nuqwestr) on "Supreme Court signals MORE fallout from bombshell immunity case" video.

because they did not.
6
Did you read the opinion. Clearly states no president is above the law. what more do you want?
3
I read the opinion, it's online. Where does it say that? The Executive Branch always had "presumptive immunity", SCOUTS also said the Executive Branch does not have immunity from turning over evidence. They cannot ignore a subpoena. Nixon couldn't, and neither can Trump based on this ruling.
3
@johnruddick686 I agree, not sure Trump is the best test LOL
2
That's not what the ruling said, which is online, read it for yourself.
2
Court has power to subpoena evidence from the Executive Branch, that was upheld in this ruling, and the Nixon Tapes were cited. If there is evidence of a crime, the president could be indicted. What is wrong with MSNBC and the other "woke" hand ringers.
2
I read the opinion, because of the "presumptive immunity" of the office, the office is immune for "alleged" crime, but the judiciary still holds the right to subpoena evidence. If there is factual evidence of a crime, the president would not be immune to Impeachment or indictment.
2
You are reading his mind, which you cannot do under the law.
2
Did you read the ruling? It says no president is above the law. What's wrong with that?
2
FALSE: read the opinion, it's online, states clearly no president is above the law. the decision was not to protect Trump, but the executive branch from partisan LAWFARE. SCOTUS did the right thing, sent it back down to be clarified in this one case.
1
@dominikvonlavante6113 "presumptive immunity" was always there, and so was the power to subpoena evidence of a crime, like with Nixon. The court still has that power, nothing has changed. The even cited Nixon in the opinion, I've read it and agree.
1
@dominikvonlavante6113 Nixon had two cases of Executive immunity, one was civil, and cited a number of times in the SCOTUS opinion, Fitzgerald v Nixon (1982) ""In exercising the functions of his office, the head of an Executive Department, keeping within the limits of his authority, should not be under an apprehension that the motives that control his official conduct may, at any time, become the subject of inquiry in a civil suit for damages. It would seriously cripple the proper and effective administration of public affairs as entrusted to the executive branch of the government, if he were subjected to any such restraint." It is this concept of "prior restraint" that Fitzgerald v Nixon spoke to and the court just cited in its concept of "presumptive immunity". The Executive Branch has been protected in this way a number of times, all the way back to Aaron Burr, also cited in Trump v United States. Nothing was changed, only affirmed based on prior cases. The rest was sent back down to the lower court for clarity. SCOTUS said in the opinion it is NOT the "first view" but the "final review". This is not over.
1
@dominikvonlavante6113 "HELD, Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." - Trump v United States There is nothing in this that states ABSOLUTE immunity, just "at least presumptive immunity", which only means innocent until proven guilty, a right all citizens have. SCOTUS has the power of subpoena and right to discovery and can determine "official" and "unofficial". The balance of power holds true.
1
@dominikvonlavante6113 "(a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. " - Trump v United States I'll give this to you, as it is the first time its been stated in a criminal case, but the concept has been much more than just a "gentleman's agreement". It's been de facto the rule, the court just wrote it into an opinion.
1
No, on 1/6 he was still technically president until the day Biden was inaugurated. I looked it up, you can too.
1
@webportal6659 Yes, Trump was president until Biden took the oath of office. I checked. Did Trump commit a crime on 1/6. That's possible, and the DOJ has the legal right to subpoena evidence, that was affirmed by Trump v United States.
1
shame on you for not reading and understanding the ruling for yourself.
1
Sure, when Trump wins and both the House and Senate go GOP in Nov. LOL
1
SCOTUS did the correct thing, Smith charges were not well defined, the indictment was rushed, and they sent it back down. SCOTUS is not the "first view", but the "final view". Our system is intact. Trump 2024
1
@webportal6659 I've family members who won't read it, and don't want to even discuss it. It's more than a cult at this point, it is culture.
1
Cannon was not a party to this case?
1
When was that not true?
1
@cowtownokla I disagree. I'm a registered Dem in California, voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, did not vote for Trump in 2016, but did in 2020. My party went over the line when Pelosi tore up the State of the Union Address and floated a soft-coup impeachment over false allegations. You have it backwards. LOL, Pelosi is out today saying Biden is "sharp as a tack"
1
Nixon won a civil case brought in the 1980 by "Fitzgerald" which was mentioned many times in this ruling. You can read it online. The Executive Branch has "presumptive immunity" just like the other two branches of government, but the court still hold the power to subpoena evidence and discover a "crime" which would not be a "official act".
1
Read the opinion, clearly states no president is above the law, but the office has presumptive immunity, which just means presumed innocent, a right we all have.
1
@williamgosvener47 Are you saying by sending most of this case down it set the stage for "tests". I think that is correct. SCOTUS made it clear it is not the "first view" but the "final review". It's in the opinion. The court upheld evidentiary rules and power to subpoena, citing the Nixon Tapes case. SCOTUS did not just crown the office King, that's "woke" nonsense.
1
@brandex2011 Nixon tried that, it didn't work. United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court unanimously ordered President Richard Nixon to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials related to the Watergate scandal to a federal district court. Decided on July 24, 1974, the ruling was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal, amidst an ongoing process to impeach Richard Nixon. United States v. Nixon is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.
1
Roberts was not "elected", none of the Judges were "elected".
1
@markgibson4658 No, read the opinion, clearly states no president is above the law, the court still holds subpoena power just like it did with Nixon. Most of Trump v United States was sent back down to lower court.
1
no, but nice try.
1
FALSE, the ruling protects discovery and subpoena power, it's cited in the ruling itself. The Executive Branch is not immune from discovery, and the Nixon Tapes case was cited. You are incorrect.
1