- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
6-3. Not sure why there are dissents other than for political reasons. Immunity for core constitutional powers (i.e. appointing ambassadors and conducting relations with foreign nations), no immunity for non-official acts. Liberals argued for partial immunity in Clinton v. Jones, which the Court explains governs non-official acts.
The reason I bolded the foreign relations clause is because if there had been a conviction in Impeachment I, the SCOTUS would have overruled it. That is correct in my opinion. You can’t impeach a President for a discussion with a foreign power. There are a whole host of other reasons why Impeachment I was garbage, but fundamentally, the Democrats weaponized impeachment, and now we’re going to have impeachments in every administration, in my opinion.
-
Agreed re: impeachments, from now until the end of time. Democrats have also legitimized weaponization of the courts system. What are they going to do the next time it’s an election year and the Republicans decide to find a Republican jurisdiction, with a Republican-dominated court, a Republican prosecutor and a Republican jury?
Re: the immunity decision: Sotomayor wrote the dissent, Jackson wrote a separate dissent. Kagan also dissented.
Here’s the Q&A. Sotomayor’s questions are particularly pointed:
23-939_f2qg.pdf (supremecourt.gov)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.