You’re absolutely correct. This is the part that has been left out of every news article I’ve read, and is undoubtedly the most concerning:

And some Presidential conduct-for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018) - certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision. For those reasons, the immunity we have recognized extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.”

So it’s not just acts committed by the President, but also ordered by the President.

It’s also vague enough that charges can get bounced around lower courts indefinitely.

Thank you again for the link. I didn’t see it when I first searched.

Divorce is always good news.

https://youtu.be/9x9v3awkuG0

That’s probably true for the candidate that’s half a billion dollars in debt to NY, has “allegedly” sold government secrets to foreign entities, used his hotel to siphon millions from taxpayers by mandating it for governmental use, and hopes to become President to pardon himself from several crimes awaiting trial.

Biden’s sizable funds are campaign contributions. There are rules on how those are spent after the campaign ends.

Presidential candidates raise millions of dollars from donors and through political action committees during campaigns.

There are rules in place for how money can be used after a campaign ends. Permissible uses include charitable donations and donations to other candidates while personal use is prohibited.

Campaigns may refund money to donors or redistribute it with their permission if they drop out.

Super PACs may use leftover campaign cash to support the same candidate in other elections.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/042716/what-happens-campaign-funds-after-elections.asp

It may have died from the mercury.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/rfk-jr-parasitic-brain-worm-mercury-poisoning/

You’re right. This won’t convince a Trump voter to vote for Biden. They dismiss anything from “liberal news” which is every outlet besides the far-right. It’s been my experience that talking to a Trump supporter is kicking water uphill.

I wrote that to do what Biden’s campaign is failing to do, speak to all of his accomplishments next to Trump’s “accomplishments,” in hopes of informing the discouraged, disengaged, and disenfranchised.

He cannot. There are no vacancies.

The Constitution does not stipulate the number of Supreme Court Justices; the number is set instead by Congress. There have been as few as six, but since 1869 there have been nine Justices, including one Chief Justice.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-judicial-branch/#:~:text=The Supreme Court of the United States&text=The Constitution does not stipulate,Justices%2C including one Chief Justice.

There is no duration limit to the immunity ruling. If she deems the ownership of documents an official act, she could rule that immunity covers all acts related to the documents until their return.

deleted by creator

They’ll still be “presidents.” Putin is an “elected president.”

You’re half right. He won due to the Electoral College, but it was unfortunately legitimate.

In 2016 I voted for Bernie in the primary, and Hillary in the election.

Using my civic duty to compromise for the lesser of two evils does not make me a fascist.

Name calling is unproductive and childish. Have a conversation or find someone else to use as your stepladder to superiority.

That’s a good and terrifying point.

There will likely be more presidents than just Trump. Even if he manages to become dictator, he’s old and far from fit.

No. It’s new, and I haven’t seen the full transcript. I’m repeating what I’ve read in the news. Do you have a link so I can learn more?

I understand how the President could theoretically order an assassination then pardon. That was a good point I read in another thread.

I think it would set a very low bar for all subsequent Presidents if Biden used the new power to assassinate members of SCOTUS or Congress. The repercussions would be horrific.

As I said, it was a year and a half when he ended Title 42. It was two and a half years due to Federal court. Your initial claim was three and a half years. Is it that hard to admit that you’re wrong?

I’m done with your repeated misrepresentation of my argument, and childish suggestions that “he can just do what he wants” and tell the judge to “fuck off.”

Good night.

Congress could impeach Justices or increase the headcount to properly balance the Court. Those are the legitimate ways to challenge these rulings based on the checks and balances in our governmental design.

That would require Democrats to vote with high turnout for Senate and House elections.

That only applies to criminal prosecution. You really think Biden is going to off a dozen or so House members?

Read the thread you’re so confident in condemning.

I cited my statements while your friend here repeatedly made false claims.

The Mexican Border bill you’re referring to is an Executive Order, not congressional legislation. Trump’s border Executive Order was the Muslim ban. Neither of which required congressional approval, and therefore are directly equatable.

Maybe you two should get a place together in misinformation land.

They did it during covid.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/04/courtroom-access-faced-with-a-pandemic-the-supreme-court-pivots/