Trump immunity case

[seer]

Not sure what this will mean...

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution

The issue before the Supreme Court stemmed from Special Counsel Jack Smith's election interference case against former President Trump

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

The Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...on-prosecution

[rogue06]

That is going back to a lower court and therefore likely be decided after the election.

[seer]

That is going back to a lower court and therefore likely be decided after the election.

They did give a clear judgement - there is substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office. How it applies to Trump's case is what is going back to the lower court. In any case you are correct it will be pushed out unit after the election. It is win for Trump.

[Mountain Man]

I guess the issue is going to be whether or not the decades old tradition of presidents taking documents with them when they leave office is considered an official or an official act. I have a feeling this case is eventually going to end up back at the Supreme Court.

[seer]

I guess the issue is going to be whether or not the decades old tradition of presidents taking documents with them when they leave office is considered an official or an official act. I have a feeling this case is eventually going to end up back at the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting - the main point is that it is pushed back until after the election...

[rogue06]

Sotomayor is beside herself, declaring that the decision "gives Trump 'all the immunity he asked for and more" and this makes a president a king.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Roberts explains, OMB asserted far broader immunity than the limited one that the court recognized.

I'll note that the left's attempt to get Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves would have still resulted in the same verdict although by a 4-3 margin rather than a 6-3 one.

[seer]

Sotomayor is beside herself, declaring that the decision "gives Trump 'all the immunity he asked for and more" and this makes a president a king.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Roberts explains, OMB asserted far broader immunity than the limited one that the court recognized.

I'll note that the left's attempt to get Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves would have still resulted in the same verdict although by a 4-3 margin rather than a 6-3 one.

[CivilDiscourse]

This will test the claim that it's the republicans who don't respect the courts, and that democrats support the judicial process instead of attacking when things don't go their way.

[Sam]

This will test the claim that it's the republicans who don't respect the courts, and that democrats support the judicial process instead of attacking when things don't go their way.

The continued expression that to disagree with the merits of a court's stated reasoning, even when that reasoning is starkly opposed to precedent and the constitutional order, can be held in equal comparison to attacking judges and prosecutors as inherently corrupt on the flimsiest of pretenses is, again, just lazy contrarianism. It's not only devoid of objective analysis but antagonistic to it.

The question for this issue is "What can a president now do with sweeping presumptive immunity and the explicit ability to hide illegal intent behind a veil of advisors who can't be compelled to testify or produce documents that might refute the president's claim of acting with 'official intent'?' If the answer is "Well, the president can order criminal acts, pardon the people who commit those acts, and then evade prosecution by claiming the acts were official", then it's very much the wrong reasoning and the wrong ruling.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

The continued expression that to disagree with the merits of a court's stated reasoning, even when that reasoning is starkly opposed to precedent and the constitutional order, can be held in equal comparison to attacking judges and prosecutors as inherently corrupt on the flimsiest of pretenses is, again, just lazy contrarianism. It's not only devoid of objective analysis but antagonistic to it.

The question for this issue is "What can a president now do with sweeping presumptive immunity and the explicit ability to hide illegal intent behind a veil of advisors who can't be compelled to testify or produce documents that might refute the president's claim of acting with 'official intent'?' If the answer is "Well, the president can order criminal acts, pardon the people who commit those acts, and then evade prosecution by claiming the acts were official", then it's very much the wrong reasoning and the wrong ruling.

-Sam

If we're talking precedent, then there was never been a problem with presidents taking documents with them when they leave office until Trump did it.

[Diogenes]

The continued expression that to disagree with the merits of a court's stated reasoning, even when that reasoning is starkly opposed to precedent and the constitutional order, can be held in equal comparison to attacking judges and prosecutors as inherently corrupt on the flimsiest of pretenses is, again, just lazy contrarianism. It's not only devoid of objective analysis but antagonistic to it.

The question for this issue is "What can a president now do with sweeping presumptive immunity and the explicit ability to hide illegal intent behind a veil of advisors who can't be compelled to testify or produce documents that might refute the president's claim of acting with 'official intent'?' If the answer is "Well, the president can order criminal acts, pardon the people who commit those acts, and then evade prosecution by claiming the acts were official", then it's very much the wrong reasoning and the wrong ruling.

-Sam

And you accuse me of sophistry.

[Diogenes]

This will test the claim that it's the republicans who don't respect the courts, and that democrats support the judicial process instead of attacking when things don't go their way.

Democrats have been delegitimizing SCOTUS since McConnell took a play out of Reid's and Biden's playbook and gambled on Scalia's replacement.

[VonTastrophe]

Basically, it means that courts have to quibble about what an official act is (undefined in the Constitution) before a former President can be charged for a crime he allegedly committed while in office. Use Seal Team 6 to assassinate your political rivals. Is that an official act? Stage a military coup. Is that an official act? Suspend elections until further notice. Is that an official act?

Biden may have to consider using his newfound powers while the time is ripe. If Trump returns to power, you know that Biden will suddenly suffer from the disease common in Russian politics, Fall-Outa-Window-itis.

[Diogenes]

Basically, it means that courts have to quibble about what an official act is (undefined in the Constitution) before a former President can be charged for a crime he allegedly committed while in office. Use Seal Team 6 to assassinate your political rivals. Is that an official act? Stage a military coup. Is that an official act? Suspend elections until further notice. Is that an official act?

Biden may have to consider using his newfound powers while the time is ripe. If Trump returns to power, you know that Biden will suddenly suffer from the disease common in Russian politics, Fall-Outa-Window-itis.

ded

[Sam]

If we're talking precedent, then there was never been a problem with presidents taking documents with them when they leave office until Trump did it.

Manages to be both grossly untrue and ignorant of which of Trump's criminal cases we're talking about with this ruling.

-Sam