(( After 2 days of NO-posts ~ call 502~574~2111 )) >
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Kamala is being groomed for Pres, Pete Buttigieg 2nd .. *RAV*
Kamala is being groomed for Pres, Pete Buttigieg 2nd .. *RAV*
% Old Friends % >
Delbert >
Going up the Country > Good Song >
Tara Thompson >
Manhattan Transfer - Soul Food To Go (comical version) >
Waylong Jessning....Lonesome, On'ry and Mean >
Link to my Post here >
Trump Wins: Supreme Court Says Presidents Covered by Limited Immunity
JOEL B. POLLAK 1 Jul 2024 3:35
(Wonder how this affects the charges brought by the different states?)
The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump on Monday, holding in a 6-3 decision that presidents are covered by limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office.
The decision is here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
The Court held, according to the summary of the decision:
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.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion for the Court’s conservative majority, said:
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.
…
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted
for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the Court’s three liberals in dissent, writing:
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal
prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former
Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-wins-supreme-court-says-presidents-covered-by-limited-immunity/
Link to my post here >
Trump Wins: Supreme Court Says Presidents Covered by Limited Immunity
JOEL B. POLLAK 1 Jul 2024 3:35
(Wonder how this affects the charges brought by the different states?)
The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump on Monday, holding in a 6-3 decision that presidents are covered by limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office.
The decision is here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
The Court held, according to the summary of the decision:
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.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion for the Court’s conservative majority, said:
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.
…
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted
for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the Court’s three liberals in dissent, writing:
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal
prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former
Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-wins-supreme-court-says-presidents-covered-by-limited-immunity/
Trump Wins: Supreme Court Says Presidents Covered by Limited Immunity
JOEL B. POLLAK 1 Jul 2024 3:35
(Wonder how this affects the charges brought by the different states?)
The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump on Monday, holding in a 6-3 decision that presidents are covered by limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office.
The decision is here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
The Court held, according to the summary of the decision:
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.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion for the Court’s conservative majority, said:
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.
…
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted
for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the Court’s three liberals in dissent, writing:
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal
prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former
Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-wins-supreme-court-says-presidents-covered-by-limited-immunity/
Link to my last post here >
Trump Wins: Supreme Court Says Presidents Covered by Limited Immunity
JOEL B. POLLAK 1 Jul 2024 3:35
(Wonder how this affects the charges brought by the different states?)
The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump on Monday, holding in a 6-3 decision that presidents are covered by limited immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions taken while in office.
The decision is here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
The Court held, according to the summary of the decision:
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.
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the opinion for the Court’s conservative majority, said:
This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? Our Nation has never before needed an answer. But in addressing that question today, unlike the political branches and the public at large, we cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. In a case like this one, focusing on “transient results” may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic.
…
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted
for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor led the Court’s three liberals in dissent, writing:
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal
prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former
Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
The case will now be remanded, and will likely result in the dismissal of some or all of the charges facing the former president in federal court in Washington, D.C., relating to the Capitol riot of January 6.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/07/01/trump-wins-supreme-court-says-presidents-covered-by-limited-immunity/
" Big Thank You, K2 " ~ that's the link I wanted " .. !!
" Jill & Joe HAVE to be nervous over this Verdict " .. !!
" Big Thank You, GetMore " .. !!!
The Supreme's have Ruled *In-Favor* of Mr. Trump >link to follow ..
The Supreme's have Ruled *In-Favor* of Mr. Trump >link to follow ..
The Supreme's have Ruled *In-Favor* of Mr. Trump >link to follow ..
The Supreme's have Ruled *In-Favor* of Mr. Trump >link to follow ..
" Yep ~ waitin' ~ waitin' ~ Morning, Iggy " .. !
" Good Morning, Mr. Forrester " .. little nicer here 2day " .. !!
A Lot Of Things Different >
Sweet Home Chicago >
Always Alright (Live on SNL >
5 B!dens: 22 Businesses, 233 Bank Accounts, 175 LLCs,and not one Product or Service.
5 B!dens: 22 Businesses, 233 Bank Accounts, 175 LLCs,and not one Product or Service.
5 B!dens: 22 Businesses, 233 Bank Accounts, 175 LLCs,and not one Product or Service.
Nashville ~ 5 11 54 17
"G'Morning, Capgain >
I didn't realize Tucker was *that* funny ...
He can be really hilarious " .. !!!
Thank you ~ saw that earlier ~ then got sidetracked .. !!
" I (think) I heard 43Million tuned in " ... !!
"Happy BirthDay, tr8dervic" .. !!
" Just staying above da Sod " ... !
JUST IN: House Judiciary Committee Votes to Hold Biden Ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer in Contempt>
https://libertyonenews.com/just-in-house-judiciary-committee-votes-to-hold-biden-ghostwriter-mark-zwonitzer-in-contempt/
JUST IN: House Judiciary Committee Votes to Hold Biden Ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer in Contempt>
https://libertyonenews.com/just-in-house-judiciary-committee-votes-to-hold-biden-ghostwriter-mark-zwonitzer-in-contempt/
JUST IN: House Judiciary Committee Votes to Hold Biden Ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer in Contempt>
https://libertyonenews.com/just-in-house-judiciary-committee-votes-to-hold-biden-ghostwriter-mark-zwonitzer-in-contempt/
JUST IN: House Judiciary Committee Votes to Hold Biden Ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer in Contempt>
https://libertyonenews.com/just-in-house-judiciary-committee-votes-to-hold-biden-ghostwriter-mark-zwonitzer-in-contempt/
% Steep Canyon Rangers % ( HellOva Fiddler )>
Further Down the Road >
Various Artists - Voices That Care >