• Welcome to our new home!

    Please share any thoughts or issues here.


SCOTUS: Presidents have Immunity for Official Acts

CaptUSA

Member
Joined
May 17, 2011
Messages
18,198
RELATED: Trump indictment #3: 2020 election & January 6th [US / federal]

Supreme Court says Trump has absolute immunity for core acts only
https://www.npr.org/2024/07/01/nx-s1-5002157/supreme-court-trump-immunity

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, ruled that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers — and is entitled to a presumption of immunity for his official acts, but lacks immunity for unofficial acts. But at the same time, the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of Trump's actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.

That part of the court’s decision likely ensures that the case against Trump won’t be tried before the election, and then only if he is not reelected. If he is reelected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s decision, joined by his fellow conservatives. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Monday's decision to send the case back to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan all but guarantees that there will be no Trump trial on the election interference charges for months. Even before the immunity case, Judge Chutkan indicated that trial preparations would likely take three months. Now, she will also have to decide which of the charges in the Trump indictment should remain and which involve official acts that under the Supreme Court ruling are protected from prosecution.

Even after Judge Chutkan separates the constitutional wheat from the chaff, Trump could seek further delays, as immunity questions are among the very few that may be appealed prior to trial.

Monday's Supreme Court decision came months after the court agreed to hear the case Feb. 28 and scheduled arguments for two months later. Court critics have noted that the justices could have considered the case as early as in December, when Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith unsuccessfully sought review of the same questions later put forward by Trump.

All of this stands in stark contrast to the way the court has handled other presidential power cases. In 1974 the justices ruled against President Nixon just 16 days after hearing oral arguments. The vote was 8-0, with Justice William Rehnquist recusing himself because of his close ties to some of the officials accused of wrongdoing in the case. And this year the court took less than a month to rule unanimously that states could not bar Trump from the ballot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kicking it back for a very billable do-over.

Will Rogers said:
Every time a lawyer writes something, he is not writing for posterity. He is writing so that endless others of his craft can make a living out of trying to figure out what he said.
 
https://x.com/JackPosobiec/status/1807796152353321226


Either that, or they finally learned how to meme.

A president should no more have absolute immunity for how he does his job than a cop should. And what they're saying is far from the only reason why. Did it ever occur to you how this might be used to shield officials from liability for biological warfare?

No wonder the two party system screws us every time. The Democrats think the president should be accountable for what he does, but think he should do too much. The Republicans say he shouldn't do anything, but should be able to do whatever the hell he wants. And nobody can figure out why we always get someone who does way too much of whatever the hell he wants.
 
Last edited:
More importantly, it occurred to them.

The GOP: SCOTUS picks to die for.

And people say this whole clown soap opera isn't just one big psyop. Sure is accomplishing very bad things like a psyop. If you don't want Biden to be completely immune from being held accountable, it's because you love Biden, right?
 
I don't like executive immunity, but I can understand how it helps to stabilize a governmental system. I wish Clinton, Bush, and Obama were all in jail for their crimes, but it never happened. So, I at least want consistency. Trump was already impeached, tried, and acquitted of these charges in the Senate. Double jeopardy is illegal.
 
Trump was already impeached, tried, and acquitted of these charges in the Senate. Double jeopardy is illegal.

For God's sake

that piece of parchment that Republicans claim to revere said:
[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...

All impeachment can put someone in jeopardy of is getting fired. The person who has not been twice in jeopardy of being canned hasn't worked a day in his life.

According to you, even if these GOP-picked SCOTUS justices weren't ruling in favor of tyranny, all a Clinton, Obama or Biden has to do to escape accountability is to get impeached. If he's found guilty, he only gets fired. His "life or limb" thus having been jeopardized, according to you, he cannot then be indicted, judged and jailed.

Why are you running cover for Biden, you Demoncrat?
 
Last edited:
All impeachment can put someone in jeopardy of is getting fired. The person who has not been twice in jeopardy of being canned hasn't worked a day in his life.

According to you, even if these GOP-picked SCOTUS justices weren't ruling in favor of tyranny, all a Clinton, Obama or Biden has to do to escape accountability is to get impeached. If he's found guilty, he only gets fired. His "life or limb" thus having been jeopardized, according to you, he cannot then be indicted, judged and jailed.

If that's true, there was no reason for Ford to pardon Nixon, if Nixon only faced losing his job. Impeachment 100% influences the judicial remedies. If trump was convicted in the senate, that's the same as determining he committed treason against the USA, and the penalty for treason can be death.
 
image.png
 
If that's true, there was no reason for Ford to pardon Nixon, if Nixon only faced losing his job.

Nixon quit. That put a quick halt to the impeachment process, for the same reason companies don't issue pink slips to people who have given their two weeks notice.

Nixon was then in real jeopardy, as he was holding no office and could therefore be indicted. Indictment is the road to jail. All impeachment was going to do to him was what he did to himself -- he made himself unemployed.

What's so damned difficult about this that Trump fanbois refuse to grasp it? It's so simple I'd be embarrassed if I had something this simple explained to me this often and I still didn't have a grip on it.

One more time, like y'all are kindergarteners: There are several kinds of trials, but only criminal trials put one in jeopardy of life or limb (or freedom). Civil trials don't. Impeachment trials don't. Only criminal trials do that. Why? Because neither paying damages nor getting fired is considered the same thing as hanging by the neck until dead.
 
Last edited:

//

Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity — including assassinate political rivals — so long as Congress can’t muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.

Torturing prisoners (Bush) ... drone-assassinating American citizens (Obama) ... bombing countries without Congressional approval (Biden) ...

Where could this "legal theory that a president [is] free to do nearly anything with impunity" possibly have come from?

It's such a baffling mystery!
 
I always find it interesting what simple concepts the entire MSM consider things that must be made complex and obfuscated. The I's have plenty of those: immunization, inflation and impeachment. I don't care how they try to redefine them or make them seem confusing. Immunizations are nothing but dead virus. Inflation is too much money supply for the demand. And to impeach someone is simply to fire them. It never stopped anyone from being indicted afterward, and never will.
 
Believe whatever you want. You obviously disagree with the Supreme Court ruling. Another L for you.

This ruling has zero effect on what I said. Zero.

What Nixon got in hot water about, for example, had nothing to do with his official duties. It is not a presidential duty to spy on your opponents during a reelection campaign. So if you think this ruling would have changed a thing in his case, you're wearing that L of yours.
 
[...]

Trump has raised fresh questions about his intentions if he regains power by putting forward a legal theory that a president would be free to do nearly anything with impunity — including assassinate political rivals — so long as Congress can’t muster the votes to impeach him and throw him out of office.

Torturing prisoners (Bush) ... drone-assassinating American citizens (Obama) ... bombing countries without Congressional approval (Biden) ...

Where could this "legal theory that a president [is] free to do nearly anything with impunity" possibly have come from?

It's such a baffling mystery!

https://x.com/AnarchoXP/status/1807940227962474926
1fZwfPe.png
 
Back
Top