I can't believe that conservatives are claiming this Supreme Court decision as a victory, while they also claim that the Clintons have people killed left and right.
So, assuming that someone like "Killary" becomes President and starts committing crimes left and right, is it going to be such a great decision then?
How is even hard to play out that theoretical and why haven't conservatives already done it? What if Biden, right now, ordered the DOJ to drop the case against Hunter Biden and to basically let him win the appeal? Would you be cool with that?
First Trumpers are not conservatives.
Trumpers do not do deep thinking. it is a WWF match to them and they just saw their opponent get hit with a chair. That's all. They like that.
Here is my take. I understand that SCOTUS had to say that some kind of presidential immunity exists and then formulate some test for it. And despite that fact that the Constitution makes ZERO mention of anything like “presidential immunity,” an activist Court can always find stuff in the Constitution that isn’t there if they try hard enough. And they did. I get it. It makes sense at some level to say a president can’t be sued civilly or criminally for certain things they do.
The SCOTUS went way overboard here, though. They went WAY further than the appeal asked them to. This ruling sets a dangerous get out of jail free pass for future presidents – one possible future president in particular, one who has a track record of crimes and criminal behavior and shows no signs of rehabilitation or ever being deterred. Trump is reading this as a license to destroy that he and everyone else previously did NOT know he had until today.
This SCOTUS opinion will eventually kill this case. It just guts the evidence the prosecution has. The prosecution is prohibited from even presenting evidence of Trump’s motives. Has anyone ever heard of a case where the prosecution can’t put in evidence or even argue about the defendant’s motives? I’d say it’s almost impossible to get a conviction of any intent crime without evidence motive. In a related move, they eliminated from evidence every public statement Trump made regarding the election on the grounds that “public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the other perimeter of his official responsibilities.” They also tossed all evidence of Trump leaning on the AG and DOJ (INCLUDING evidence that DOJ lawyers told him this stuff was illegal) and all evidence of leaning on Pence. Not just charges on that evidence (that weren’t filed anyway), but all EVIDENCE of them. According to the SCOTUS, normal rules of evidence do NOT apply to presidents: “The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard.” WTF? SCOTUS got way out in front here – basically making evidentiary rulings with new special rules for Trump on an evidentiary record that they ALSO complained was inadequate for making such rulings. If there was improper bias in this Opinion, it was here. Awful stuff.
For what little is left, the SCOTUS has REQUIRED that the district court conduct an evidentiary hearing (a trial within a trial) to determine what factual allegations in the Indictment (and probably other evidence the prosecution has) are ones that Trump has criminal immunity for, AND the SCOTUS has said that it will review (probably after the appeals court again) any decision on the evidentiary ruling at the district court, BEFORE any trial. That will take two years at a minimum. First the hearing, then the appeal, and the second SCOTUS ruling on this, which could remand all this stuff again, won’t be until July 2026 at the earliest.
Very disappointing. The SCOTUS really wanted to shut this case down, much more so than I would have thought even yesterday. Trump needed to be tried publicly on everything he and his co-conspirators did regarding the 2020 election. I don’t see that ever happening now.
One thing I’m wondering though, is whether the prosecution should now go after the rest of the fraudsters, like Eastman, Cheese, Boris Ephstyn (Russian), Kraken, Giuliani, etc. Does immunity pass on to them because they conspired with the President? How? Put them on trial just to show American citizens what Trump did and can’t be prosecuted for. That’s just preserving the record of what went on for future generations.
Trump v. United States: The case involves former President Donald Trump, who was indicted on four counts for conduct that occurred during his presidency following the November 2020 ele...
I always appreciate people who put a lot of thought into their posts, even though I strongly disagree with a lot of what you said. In summary, this case is not about whether the President is "above the law" or immune from prosecution. It says two things: 1) there is a difference between "official" acts as President and "unofficial" acts, and 2) for "official acts," the President has absolute immunity. Then, it says the case must return to the lower courts to settle the matter for unofficials acts (including ones that may be seen as "official," such as commication with the Vice President).
You wrote that Trump has a "history of crimes and criminal behavior." And I will concede that Trump has been convicted of certain crimes...which unfortunately undermines the very premise that the Court just gave Trump a blank check to take out Biden with Seal Team Six. How is possible for Trump to be tried and convicted? It's in the decision: those convictions were for unoffial acts (or those that pre-ceeded his Presidency). Your statement is biased and prejudicial, but you are allowed to make it as as American. Please remember that Trump has a right to appeal those convictions...and you have the right not to recognize their reversal, if it happens. But the final outcome matters.
You write that the Constitution has no clause concerning Presidential immunity. You are correct. But if you read the decision, you'll find Roberts making his case plainly: there is legal precedent to lay the foundation for this ruling and, more bluntly:
John Roberts wrote:
But there is no “ ‘separation of powers clause’ ” either.
Again, that's *from* the decision. We get the concept from Marbury v Madison, which is peppered liberally in the ruling.
Listen, I'm honestly surprised at the outcome. Trump doesn't need a win here to get the outcome he wants, because the case won't go to trial before the election. Roberts *hates* issuing rulings that have a whiff of politics to them (that's why he upheld Obamacare, calling it a "tax," when betting markets had the odds over 90% that it would be ruled unconstitutional; ahem...infuriating conservatives with his ruling).
FantasyScotus (a website that predicts outcomes) had this as 5-4 affirm, meaning the lower courts rulings against Trump would be upheld. I think Roberts lobbied hard to get one of the five conservatives (likely Kavanaugh, who didn't weigh in on the ruling), to join him. When he couldn't succeed, I think he joined the majority to give the ruling legitimacy, going so far as to write the opinion. You see spots of him hating the politics of it in the ruling itself; it's the only ruling I've ever read that makes reference to the dissents in the body of the ruling. Robert's likely hates it when the liberal justices read their dissents from the bench, as it makes them look irredeemably biased.
Tldr; NPR and MSNBC are way off on how they interpret the ruling; if you think Trump is a criminal already and now can literally get away with murder, try to adopt the opposing viewpoint: that these are politically motivated prosecutions meant to dismantle Trump's re-election bid. If you already believe that, flip the other way. Then read the decision (or the summary I gave above) and understand that this ruling doesn't say anything about either position.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
"Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial."
That crushes all cases. No?
I don't mean to jump on the conspiracy train like our right wingers do with literally everything they don't like. But I was a bit alarmed by how confident Trump was as well as Alina Hobbs that the SCOTUS had Trump's back a long time ago. They literally said out loud that they expected the SCOTUS would prove loyal and return the favor of their nominations. And when you look at the way that some GOP have done a 180 degree turn around and are now fully in line with Trump, it almost appears that it became known that the SCOTUS was going to bail Trump out despite the legal and logical failings of all his appeals. Look at Bill Barr. My goodness. He went from almost being a never Trumper right back to being a full blown M@ga supporter. It seems these types did not want to be on the wrong side if Trump walked free and became Prez again. This is precisely how Authoritarians take full power. They don't even need to punish people. It is just the threat that it is coming that will get everyone in line.
"Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial."
That crushes all cases. No?
I don't mean to jump on the conspiracy train like our right wingers do with literally everything they don't like. But I was a bit alarmed by how confident Trump was as well as Alina Hobbs that the SCOTUS had Trump's back a long time ago. They literally said out loud that they expected the SCOTUS would prove loyal and return the favor of their nominations. And when you look at the way that some GOP have done a 180 degree turn around and are now fully in line with Trump, it almost appears that it became known that the SCOTUS was going to bail Trump out despite the legal and logical failings of all his appeals. Look at Bill Barr. My goodness. He went from almost being a never Trumper right back to being a full blown M@ga supporter. It seems these types did not want to be on the wrong side if Trump walked free and became Prez again. This is precisely how Authoritarians take full power. They don't even need to punish people. It is just the threat that it is coming that will get everyone in line.
From the decision:
John Roberts wrote:
By contrast, when prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, we have consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity.
Later...
John Roberts wrote:
Similarly, when a subpoena issued to President Nixon to produce certain tape recordings and documents relating to his conversations with aides and advisers, this Court rejected his claim of “absolute privilege,” given the “constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch to do justice in criminal prosecutions.”
You are using a secondary source when you have no excuse not to read the decision, which is the first thing I linked to.
"Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial."
That crushes all cases. No?
I don't mean to jump on the conspiracy train like our right wingers do with literally everything they don't like. But I was a bit alarmed by how confident Trump was as well as Alina Hobbs that the SCOTUS had Trump's back a long time ago. They literally said out loud that they expected the SCOTUS would prove loyal and return the favor of their nominations. And when you look at the way that some GOP have done a 180 degree turn around and are now fully in line with Trump, it almost appears that it became known that the SCOTUS was going to bail Trump out despite the legal and logical failings of all his appeals. Look at Bill Barr. My goodness. He went from almost being a never Trumper right back to being a full blown M@ga supporter. It seems these types did not want to be on the wrong side if Trump walked free and became Prez again. This is precisely how Authoritarians take full power. They don't even need to punish people. It is just the threat that it is coming that will get everyone in line.
I think there a lot of people who would look forward to not having to vote anymore. It's only "a Republic, if you can keep it." Defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Tldr; NPR and MSNBC are way off on how they interpret the ruling; if you think Trump is a criminal already and now can literally get away with murder, try to adopt the opposing viewpoint: that these are politically motivated prosecutions meant to dismantle Trump's re-election bid. If you already believe that, flip the other way. Then read the decision (or the summary I gave above) and understand that this ruling doesn't say anything about either position.
Throughout the oral arguments the majority tried to make it appear that their entire motivation for making a "ruling for the ages" was their deep concern for rogue prosecutors putting a President in prison. Even Biden.
Yet, there is no evidence of Rogue Prosecutors putting President's in jail. And there are a boatload of guardrails that would make that nearly impossible without true crimes being committed. Such as prosecutable Evidence. Grand Jury. (see Andy McCabe and Durham grand jury failures). A jury of peers trial. Instead there is plenty of evidence of a Rogue President abusing their power. That is where the true danger is.
You are being dishonest when you claim Trump did not do the things he is charged with and instead it is just a political attack. That is why you avoid the first part of that sentence. Nobody claims that Trump did not do exactly what he is charged with. Instead, the gaslighting is simply that he shouldn't have been charged and that takes the discussion away from the awful and criminal conduct that Trump engaged in.
The bias of SCOTUS can be seen in the fact that they provided clear examples of Presidential acts that Trump is immune for. And those are some of the most damning and damaging evidence to convict Trump. They show his intent which is vital for a conviction. Yet, the SCOTUS did not provide any examples of Private acts that would not be immune. Instead they sent that back down to the lower court to hammer out for years and then they will ultimately wind up ruling on those after it gets appealed.
Tldr; NPR and MSNBC are way off on how they interpret the ruling; if you think Trump is a criminal already and now can literally get away with murder, try to adopt the opposing viewpoint: that these are politically motivated prosecutions meant to dismantle Trump's re-election bid. If you already believe that, flip the other way. Then read the decision (or the summary I gave above) and understand that this ruling doesn't say anything about either position.
Throughout the oral arguments the majority tried to make it appear that their entire motivation for making a "ruling for the ages" was their deep concern for rogue prosecutors putting a President in prison. Even Biden.
Yet, there is no evidence of Rogue Prosecutors putting President's in jail. And there are a boatload of guardrails that would make that nearly impossible without true crimes being committed. Such as prosecutable Evidence. Grand Jury. (see Andy McCabe and Durham grand jury failures). A jury of peers trial. Instead there is plenty of evidence of a Rogue President abusing their power. That is where the true danger is.
You are being dishonest when you claim Trump did not do the things he is charged with and instead it is just a political attack. That is why you avoid the first part of that sentence. Nobody claims that Trump did not do exactly what he is charged with. Instead, the gaslighting is simply that he shouldn't have been charged and that takes the discussion away from the awful and criminal conduct that Trump engaged in.
The bias of SCOTUS can be seen in the fact that they provided clear examples of Presidential acts that Trump is immune for. And those are some of the most damning and damaging evidence to convict Trump. They show his intent which is vital for a conviction. Yet, the SCOTUS did not provide any examples of Private acts that would not be immune. Instead they sent that back down to the lower court to hammer out for years and then they will ultimately wind up ruling on those after it gets appealed.
The only Rogue player here is Trump and his court of cronies are paving his way to dictatorship one sh!t decision at a time.
I can't believe that conservatives are claiming this Supreme Court decision as a victory, while they also claim that the Clintons have people killed left and right.
So, assuming that someone like "Killary" becomes President and starts committing crimes left and right, is it going to be such a great decision then?
How is even hard to play out that theoretical and why haven't conservatives already done it? What if Biden, right now, ordered the DOJ to drop the case against Hunter Biden and to basically let him win the appeal? Would you be cool with that?
First Trumpers are not conservatives.
Trumpers do not do deep thinking. it is a WWF match to them and they just saw their opponent get hit with a chair. That's all. They like that.
Maybe you ought to explain your thought process rather than explaining how people you don't agree with think?
Maybe you ought to explain your thought process rather than explaining how people you don't agree with think?
Ever since the SCOTUS took up this case, the right wing has made almost zero commentary on Trumps claim that he is totally immune from prosecution. If you can point to any threads defending it, I will change my view.
It is not difficult to know why immunity has been an off limit topic for our posters. It is because a 5 year old understands that begging for immunity is a confession of guilt without actually confessing.
Here is my take. I understand that SCOTUS had to say that some kind of presidential immunity exists and then formulate some test for it. And despite that fact that the Constitution makes ZERO mention of anything like “presidential immunity,” an activist Court can always find stuff in the Constitution that isn’t there if they try hard enough. And they did. I get it. It makes sense at some level to say a president can’t be sued civilly or criminally for certain things they do.
The SCOTUS went way overboard here, though. They went WAY further than the appeal asked them to. This ruling sets a dangerous get out of jail free pass for future presidents – one possible future president in particular, one who has a track record of crimes and criminal behavior and shows no signs of rehabilitation or ever being deterred. Trump is reading this as a license to destroy that he and everyone else previously did NOT know he had until today.
This SCOTUS opinion will eventually kill this case. It just guts the evidence the prosecution has. The prosecution is prohibited from even presenting evidence of Trump’s motives. Has anyone ever heard of a case where the prosecution can’t put in evidence or even argue about the defendant’s motives? I’d say it’s almost impossible to get a conviction of any intent crime without evidence motive. In a related move, they eliminated from evidence every public statement Trump made regarding the election on the grounds that “public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the other perimeter of his official responsibilities.” They also tossed all evidence of Trump leaning on the AG and DOJ (INCLUDING evidence that DOJ lawyers told him this stuff was illegal) and all evidence of leaning on Pence. Not just charges on that evidence (that weren’t filed anyway), but all EVIDENCE of them. According to the SCOTUS, normal rules of evidence do NOT apply to presidents: “The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard.” WTF? SCOTUS got way out in front here – basically making evidentiary rulings with new special rules for Trump on an evidentiary record that they ALSO complained was inadequate for making such rulings. If there was improper bias in this Opinion, it was here. Awful stuff.
For what little is left, the SCOTUS has REQUIRED that the district court conduct an evidentiary hearing (a trial within a trial) to determine what factual allegations in the Indictment (and probably other evidence the prosecution has) are ones that Trump has criminal immunity for, AND the SCOTUS has said that it will review (probably after the appeals court again) any decision on the evidentiary ruling at the district court, BEFORE any trial. That will take two years at a minimum. First the hearing, then the appeal, and the second SCOTUS ruling on this, which could remand all this stuff again, won’t be until July 2026 at the earliest.
Very disappointing. The SCOTUS really wanted to shut this case down, much more so than I would have thought even yesterday. Trump needed to be tried publicly on everything he and his co-conspirators did regarding the 2020 election. I don’t see that ever happening now.
One thing I’m wondering though, is whether the prosecution should now go after the rest of the fraudsters, like Eastman, Cheese, Boris Ephstyn (Russian), Kraken, Giuliani, etc. Does immunity pass on to them because they conspired with the President? How? Put them on trial just to show American citizens what Trump did and can’t be prosecuted for. That’s just preserving the record of what went on for future generations.
I always appreciate people who put a lot of thought into their posts, even though I strongly disagree with a lot of what you said. In summary, this case is not about whether the President is "above the law" or immune from prosecution. It says two things: 1) there is a difference between "official" acts as President and "unofficial" acts, and 2) for "official acts," the President has absolute immunity. Then, it says the case must return to the lower courts to settle the matter for unofficials acts (including ones that may be seen as "official," such as commication with the Vice President).
You wrote that Trump has a "history of crimes and criminal behavior." And I will concede that Trump has been convicted of certain crimes...which unfortunately undermines the very premise that the Court just gave Trump a blank check to take out Biden with Seal Team Six. How is possible for Trump to be tried and convicted? It's in the decision: those convictions were for unoffial acts (or those that pre-ceeded his Presidency). Your statement is biased and prejudicial, but you are allowed to make it as as American. Please remember that Trump has a right to appeal those convictions...and you have the right not to recognize their reversal, if it happens. But the final outcome matters.
You write that the Constitution has no clause concerning Presidential immunity. You are correct. But if you read the decision, you'll find Roberts making his case plainly: there is legal precedent to lay the foundation for this ruling and, more bluntly:
John Roberts wrote:
But there is no “ ‘separation of powers clause’ ” either.
Again, that's *from* the decision. We get the concept from Marbury v Madison, which is peppered liberally in the ruling.
Listen, I'm honestly surprised at the outcome. Trump doesn't need a win here to get the outcome he wants, because the case won't go to trial before the election. Roberts *hates* issuing rulings that have a whiff of politics to them (that's why he upheld Obamacare, calling it a "tax," when betting markets had the odds over 90% that it would be ruled unconstitutional; ahem...infuriating conservatives with his ruling).
FantasyScotus (a website that predicts outcomes) had this as 5-4 affirm, meaning the lower courts rulings against Trump would be upheld. I think Roberts lobbied hard to get one of the five conservatives (likely Kavanaugh, who didn't weigh in on the ruling), to join him. When he couldn't succeed, I think he joined the majority to give the ruling legitimacy, going so far as to write the opinion. You see spots of him hating the politics of it in the ruling itself; it's the only ruling I've ever read that makes reference to the dissents in the body of the ruling. Robert's likely hates it when the liberal justices read their dissents from the bench, as it makes them look irredeemably biased.
Tldr; NPR and MSNBC are way off on how they interpret the ruling; if you think Trump is a criminal already and now can literally get away with murder, try to adopt the opposing viewpoint: that these are politically motivated prosecutions meant to dismantle Trump's re-election bid. If you already believe that, flip the other way. Then read the decision (or the summary I gave above) and understand that this ruling doesn't say anything about either position.
I tend to agree that the legal implications of this ruling are being overblown in the liberal press. We already knew that presidential immunity for official acts was precedent and criminality would have to be shown by the prosecution to be outside "official acts". The constitution is clear that administering elections falls to the states so convincing a district court or a jury that doing so is not a core presidential act doesn't seem to be that high of a bar for the prosecution.
The real issue is that the Supreme Court could have stated the obvious back in December when Jack Smith formally asked them to do so rather than delaying the various proceedings 8 months when the time criticality of these cases is equally obvious. They could have gone a couple different ways at that time had they accepted Smith's request for a ruling, either saying forthright that the prosecution has to show acts are outside official presidential activities (essentially where they wound up) or hold a hearing on this specific case and declare whether or not the specific acts in this case were official duties or not. Instead they burned time and eventually decided it's for the lower court to decide the scope of official duties in this specific case without any real guidance to the lower court.
This post was edited 8 minutes after it was posted.
I can't believe that conservatives are claiming this Supreme Court decision as a victory, while they also claim that the Clintons have people killed left and right.
So, assuming that someone like "Killary" becomes President and starts committing crimes left and right, is it going to be such a great decision then?
How is even hard to play out that theoretical and why haven't conservatives already done it? What if Biden, right now, ordered the DOJ to drop the case against Hunter Biden and to basically let him win the appeal? Would you be cool with that?
First Trumpers are not conservatives.
Trumpers do not do deep thinking. it is a WWF match to them and they just saw their opponent get hit with a chair. That's all. They like that.
Always hilarious to see the dumbest people in society accuse others of not thinking deeply.
Trumpers do not do deep thinking. it is a WWF match to them and they just saw their opponent get hit with a chair. That's all. They like that.
Always hilarious to see the dumbest people in society accuse others of not thinking deeply.
Interesting response.
Play it out: If a Democratic President is clearly breaking the law left and right, but the crimes are within the scope of the job (giving them immunity), do you think you are going to like this SCOTUS decision?
I have no idea how you can say anything other than "no."
I tend to agree that the legal implications of this ruling are being overblown in the liberal press. We already knew that presidential immunity for official acts was precedent and criminality would have to be shown by the prosecution to be outside "official acts". The constitution is clear that administering elections falls to the states so convincing a district court or a jury that doing so is not a core presidential act doesn't seem to be that high of a bar for the prosecution.
The real issue is that the Supreme Court could have stated the obvious back in December when Jack Smith formally asked them to do so rather than delaying the various proceedings 8 months when the time criticality of these cases is equally obvious. They could have gone a couple different ways at that time had they accepted Smith's request for a ruling, either saying forthright that the prosecution has to show acts are outside official presidential activities (essentially where they wound up) or hold a hearing on this specific case and declare whether or not the specific acts in this case were official duties or not. Instead they burned time and eventually decided it's for the lower court to decide the scope of official duties in this specific case without any real guidance to the lower court.
Yes!
The SCOTUS sent the immunity question back to the lower court. And the lower court wrote a brilliant finding denying Trumps claim for immunity. If you forgot how good it was, have another read of it. In It they kept their arguments narrow and only ruled on the case before them. Trumps specific claims.
So then the ScOTUs takes up the appeal to that narrow ruling and makes a rule for the ages for Trumps possible 2nd term.
Proving they really wanted to weigh in.
Keep in mind that Project 2025 is now so much easier to implement with all these recent court ruling.
Always hilarious to see the dumbest people in society accuse others of not thinking deeply.
Interesting response.
Play it out: If a Democratic President is clearly breaking the law left and right, but the crimes are within the scope of the job (giving them immunity), do you think you are going to like this SCOTUS decision?
I have no idea how you can say anything other than "no."
What, you'll be fine with it?
Give me an example of a crime a president could commit that's within the scope of the job and doesn't violate the constitution.
Play it out: If a Democratic President is clearly breaking the law left and right, but the crimes are within the scope of the job (giving them immunity), do you think you are going to like this SCOTUS decision?
I have no idea how you can say anything other than "no."
What, you'll be fine with it?
Give me an example of a crime a president could commit that's within the scope of the job and doesn't violate the constitution.
I think you don't understand the decision.
If there aren't any examples, then why was the decision necessary and why are Trumpers celebrating it?
And yes, I do. I actually read the decision. I seriously doubt you have.
But I'll repeat the question that you failed to answer:
If a Democratic President is clearly breaking the law left and right, but the crimes are within the scope of the job (giving them immunity), do you think you are going to like this SCOTUS decision?
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Give me an example of a crime a president could commit that's within the scope of the job and doesn't violate the constitution.
I think you don't understand the decision.
If there aren't any examples, then why was the decision necessary and why are Trumpers celebrating it?
And yes, I do. I actually read the decision. I seriously doubt you have.
But I'll repeat the question that you failed to answer:
If a Democratic President is clearly breaking the law left and right, but the crimes are within the scope of the job (giving them immunity), do you think you are going to like this SCOTUS decision?
I seriously doubt you understand much of what you read.
Trumpers are celebrating the decision because it guarantees that Biden's prosecution of Trump will be shelved until after the election. The lower courts will now have to go through all of the charges and figure out which acts were official acts of the executive and which acts were not. This will take more than 4 months.
Anyone telling you this decision means the president can send Seal Team 6 to his political opponents house and have immunity is a moron.
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.
If there aren't any examples, then why was the decision necessary and why are Trumpers celebrating it?
And yes, I do. I actually read the decision. I seriously doubt you have.
But I'll repeat the question that you failed to answer:
If a Democratic President is clearly breaking the law left and right, but the crimes are within the scope of the job (giving them immunity), do you think you are going to like this SCOTUS decision?
I seriously doubt you understand much of what you read.
Trumpers are celebrating the decision because it guarantees that Biden's prosecution of Trump will be shelved until after the election. The lower courts will now have to go through all of the charges and figure out which acts were official acts of the executive and which acts were not. This will take more than 4 months.
Anyone telling you this decision means the president can send Seal Team 6 to his political opponents house and have immunity is a moron.
OK, others will say that this was well established LONG ago, but you clearly aren't capable of a real conversation.
Give me an example of a crime a president could commit that's within the scope of the job and doesn't violate the constitution.
I think you don't understand the decision.
If there aren't any examples, then why was the decision necessary and why are Trumpers celebrating it?
And yes, I do. I actually read the decision. I seriously doubt you have.
But I'll repeat the question that you failed to answer:
If a Democratic President is clearly breaking the law left and right, but the crimes are within the scope of the job (giving them immunity), do you think you are going to like this SCOTUS decision?
And here's a nice snippet from the decision you either didn't actually read or didn't understand if you did.
"(1) When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 456 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action. But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary responsibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.” Id., at 756. The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC). In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose."
This line alone is absolutely devastating to Biden and Jack Smith's prosecution.
I seriously doubt you understand much of what you read.
Trumpers are celebrating the decision because it guarantees that Biden's prosecution of Trump will be shelved until after the election. The lower courts will now have to go through all of the charges and figure out which acts were official acts of the executive and which acts were not. This will take more than 4 months.
Anyone telling you this decision means the president can send Seal Team 6 to his political opponents house and have immunity is a moron.
OK, others will say that this was well established LONG ago, but you clearly aren't capable of a real conversation.
You insult me by telling me I didn't read the decision and then clutch your pearls and run away when I'm not nice to you.
If there aren't any examples, then why was the decision necessary and why are Trumpers celebrating it?
And yes, I do. I actually read the decision. I seriously doubt you have.
But I'll repeat the question that you failed to answer:
If a Democratic President is clearly breaking the law left and right, but the crimes are within the scope of the job (giving them immunity), do you think you are going to like this SCOTUS decision?
And here's a nice snippet from the decision you either didn't actually read or didn't understand if you did.
"(1) When the President acts pursuant to “constitutional and statutory authority,” he takes official action to perform the functions of his office. Fitzgerald, 456 U. S., at 757. Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action. But the breadth of the President’s “discretionary responsibilities” under the Constitution and laws of the United States frequently makes it “difficult to determine which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action.” Id., at 756. The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC). In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose."
This line alone is absolutely devastating to Biden and Jack Smith's prosecution.
It also means that DJT - if re-elected - has no basis to prosecute Biden
