Healthcare must save the life of a pregnant woman, but she can be criminally charged for unborn child neglect and/or murder
Trump and Trump alone is immune from all prosecution at all levels and in all jurisdictions, but all other presidents are subject to any and all prosecution
Bonus: Boof bro chugs beer out of a bong shoved up Thomas' ass on a lobbyist yacht. Gorsuch doesn't participate but sneaks a glance at Gini's exposed ankles and Coney-Barret looks down her nose at women who didn't just go dump their babies off at the hospital before their health issues began in the first place.
Boof bro chugs beer out of a bong shoved up Thomas' ass
I want to will this prediction into existence.
Can they rule in favor of presidential immunity without setting precedent? I’m not an attorney, but I’m under the impression that the ruling can be used in future defense of presidential wrongdoing.
Their ruling would have to be incredibly narrow and focused exclusively on Trump's crimes in order to not apply to any other presidents, unless they commit the same crimes as detailed in the ruling.
given the way they have been ruling lately, and given the schedule, this is what I'm expecting.
I see. So it’s unlikely to see exclusivity without exceptional bias, and more likely will be applicable to future presidents if passed?
Predictions:
Homelessness can be a felony
Healthcare must save the life of a pregnant woman, but she can be criminally charged for unborn child neglect and/or murder
Trump and Trump alone is immune from all prosecution at all levels and in all jurisdictions, but all other presidents are subject to any and all prosecution
Bonus: Boof bro chugs beer out of a bong shoved up Thomas' ass on a lobbyist yacht. Gorsuch doesn't participate but sneaks a glance at Gini's exposed ankles and Coney-Barret looks down her nose at women who didn't just go dump their babies off at the hospital before their health issues began in the first place.
I want to will this prediction into existence.
Can they rule in favor of presidential immunity without setting precedent? I’m not an attorney, but I’m under the impression that the ruling can be used in future defense of presidential wrongdoing.
Their ruling would have to be incredibly narrow and focused exclusively on Trump's crimes in order to not apply to any other presidents, unless they commit the same crimes as detailed in the ruling.
given the way they have been ruling lately, and given the schedule, this is what I'm expecting.
I see. So it’s unlikely to see exclusivity without exceptional bias, and more likely will be applicable to future presidents if passed?