SCOTUS ruled Prez Trump is immune from prosecution in jack smith case.
More to follow, on Fox now.
Prez. Trump has immunity for “Official Acts”. SCOTUS.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for the first time that former presidents have some immunity from prosecution, extending the delay in the Washington criminal case against Donald Trump on charges he plotted to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss and all but ending prospects the former president could be tried before the November election.
In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices returned Trump’s case to the trial court to determine what is left of special counsel Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump. The outcome means additional delay before Trump could face trial.
The court’s decision in a second major Trump case this term, along with its ruling rejecting efforts to bar him from the ballot because of his actions following the 2020 election, underscores the direct and possibly uncomfortable role the justices are playing in the November election.
According to the majority, the President’s acts cannot be questioned if it is an official act. The office holder has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. That is simply insane.
At the heart of Article 2 lies a pivotal core role: the President, as commander-in-chief, holds a position of immense authority and responsibility. The Constitution details this “core” role. If the president uses this core power for personal criminal reasons, the court ruled that it matters not what the motive is, as it is an official act, and the President is immune.
Accordingly, if Biden, as commander-in-chief, orders Seal Team 6 to kill Trump, Biden would be immune from prosecution even if he was impeached and convicted by the Congress.
Eric, My Brother I Get it!
But as wage your concerns, SEAL team (6) Work for Trump. They are working Protecting him right now.
The President has NO Official Secret Service detail (as allowed by the .gov for ALL former Presidents). . He doesn’t trust them, the DOJ, None of them. Would you?
(Edit: I Know NOTHING, No real Intel, This is just MOO! My Opinion Only)
I didn’t read the SCOTUS ruling, and I’m not a constitutional scholar, but I don’t think the ruling goes that far from what I’ve seen summarized.
I think what they said was something like this, using the J6 situation as an example (my example, not theirs):
Normally it would be illegal for an average citizen to delay the certification of the election. However, if the President believes there is reason to delay it, say, for reasons of accuracy, he can legally take action to do so, as head of the executive branch.
They specifically said a president is not immune to prosecution for personal crimes. I suspect it would be up to the courts to determine what a personal crime is, I don’t know if it was set out in the ruling. Again, I only read some summaries.
The Majority’s key argument is that if a power is fundamental to the presidency, such as being the commander in chief of the armed forces, the courts are precluded from even inquiring about the motive behind any order. From the Courts’ Syllabus of the ruling,
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire
into the President’s motives….Nor may courts deem an action unofficial
merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
Accordingly, if the President wants to use the DOD or DOJ to further his own criminal enterprise, the Courts cannot question that, as these two offices are central of the President’s “core “Constitutional power.
No, that is incorrect; the ruling says that in those powers enumerated in the constitution, such as head of the executive branch or commander in chief, any acts under those powers are immune from questions from both the court and Congress, further acts that are possibly president are qualified immunity.
Democratic lawmakers lamented the conservative majority Supreme Court’s decision on Monday, granting presidents limited immunity for actions in their official capacity.
That is a nonsense, straw man argument. Such an order would be illegal and would not be obeyed. Checks and balances exist downward in the chain of command regarding using military force. Our servicemembers are not mindless drones who blindly follow any order.
The UCMJ given huge deference to the CoC, and now wth this ruling, the President motives in ordering the military to do something cannot be questioned. Say a General refuses an order, what happens to him? To say that something is illegal, so it cannot be done is a tautology.
Who now decides if the order is a non-offical act, as SCOTUS has said that the courts have no say in such core Constitutional duties. The President, alone, now decides what is an offical act.
I would think that conservatives would not want an imperial president and court, I was wrong
How do you say in AMERICAN, absophuckinlutely
With me you’ll ALWAYS know where you stand.
What we want ( speaking for myself and family ).
We want an AMERICAN PRESIDENT Not a terrorist pandering pedophile who can’t walk without taking a dump in his pants!
Or a disrespectful idiot who checks his watch as the flag draped coffins of the heroes he killed pass in review!
Most despicable act in history!
So, if President Trump wanted to, without prejudice, go after all that wronged him AND US, he has my total support! My life if necessary!
Too many assholes deceived us for too long and our grandchildren will be paying the price, long after I’m gone!
So the take home, assassinations of political rivals by the President are only a crime if a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not an official act.
She/They want to start a war… Be careful what you wish for.
Half truths, inuendo and lies.
LIBERAL JUSTICES ‘FEAR FOR OUR DEMOCRACY’
The court’s three liberal justices said the ruling gives presidents permission to use their official powers to break the law for any purpose.
In a written dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that under the interpretation presented in the ruling, a president could not be prosecuted for organizing a military coup, taking bribes or even ordering the assassination of a political rival.
“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. … With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor said.
The decision effectively gives a green light to all future presidents to commit as many crimes as they want while in office. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor put it, “the President is now a king above the law.”
Sotomayor led in the chilling dissent, joined by liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor’s dissent is charged with fierce criticisms of the decision, noting that the conservative majority “invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law” and “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”
