SCOTUS: TRUMP IMMUNE FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR OFFICIAL ACTS

[certified hummus supporter 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

Beyond just Trump, this ruling seems like it would make it impossible to prosecute someone like W. Bush for crimes committed with regards to the War on Terror, prosecute Clinton for say, perjury in relation to the Lewinsky scandal, etc. But obviously the worst part of this ruling is the crimes it’s going to induce by future administration thanks to its carte blanche approach.

George W Bush should be immune for prosecution for what he did to Iraq

🤡🤡🤡

[Hindsight was 2020]

Lawfare fail.

Oh shut up you rw npc

No.  Show some respect for the law.

This has nothing to do with laws you hack

[Ancestral Republican]

I'm glad top legal scholars OSR and Green Line have ridden in on their horses to show us exactly why this is an atrocious outcome.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This is the most disillusioned about politics I have felt in a long, long time.

Let’s be honest here, violent revolution is the only way that we can save this country at this point, so we better start preparing sooner rather than later.

There is one other solution: That Biden uses his new powers before Trump uses them come january.

The Roberts Court just loaded a gun pushed the barrel of it up against the Constitution's heart, and  put Joe Biden's finger on the trigger. The only "question" is whether he pulls the trigger (probably not), or if the next Republican President does.

Personally I would like to see the White House make a direct query to the Supreme Court, requesting an opinion on whether, hypothetically, ordering SEAL Team Six to execute a half-dozen Supreme Court Justices would be covered by their ruling.

[BlueSwan]

This is the most disillusioned about politics I have felt in a long, long time.

Let’s be honest here, violent revolution is the only way that we can save this country at this point, so we better start preparing sooner rather than later.

There is one other solution: That Biden uses his new powers before Trump uses them come january.

The Roberts Court just loaded a gun pushed the barrel of it up against the Constitution's heart, and  put Joe Biden's finger on the trigger. The only "question" is whether he pulls the trigger (probably not), or if the next Republican President does.

Personally I would like to see the White House make a direct query to the Supreme Court, requesting an opinion on whether, hypothetically, ordering SEAL Team Six to execute a half-dozen Supreme Court Justices would be covered by their ruling.

...or just go ahead and order it.

[John Dule]

Beyond just Trump, this ruling seems like it would make it impossible to prosecute someone like W. Bush for crimes committed with regards to the War on Terror, prosecute Clinton for say, perjury in relation to the Lewinsky scandal, etc. But obviously the worst part of this ruling is the crimes it’s going to induce by future administration thanks to its carte blanche approach.

George W Bush should be immune for prosecution for what he did to Iraq

In the ordinary courts of law, yes. He should be put on trial at The Hague.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm glad top legal scholars OSR and Green Line have ridden in on their horses to show us exactly why this is an atrocious outcome.

Barack Obama agreed with me on this

[emailking]

What constitutes an official act? That can be a very interpreted different ways.

Official act Roberts says is the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers. And yes that's also open for interpretation but it's a little more specific at least.

One example of a "core constitutional power" is act as the commander in chief, by which he could order the military to perform a coup to stay in power (as mentioned in Sotomayors dissent).

That's her opinion anyway. It's debatable. I'm sure she wouldn't rule that way if the issue came before her.

Sure, it is her opinion, but I would trust a supreme court justice over a random Atlasian.

Sure but in fairness Robert's says in her opinion that she's wrong on this. So it's not just randoms saying she might be wrong.

[Ancestral Republican]

What constitutes an official act? That can be a very interpreted different ways.

Official act Roberts says is the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers. And yes that's also open for interpretation but it's a little more specific at least.

One example of a "core constitutional power" is act as the commander in chief, by which he could order the military to perform a coup to stay in power (as mentioned in Sotomayors dissent).

That's her opinion anyway. It's debatable. I'm sure she wouldn't rule that way if the issue came before her.

Sure, it is her opinion, but I would trust a supreme court justice over a random Atlasian.

Sure but in fairness Robert's says in her opinion that she's wrong on this. So it's not just randoms saying she might be wrong.

And why would we have any reason to trust Roberts?

[MasterJedi]

Too bad we don’t have LBJ as president. He’d have made the SC know that if they did something this stupid he would solve it to the letter of their law making ruling.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

Does this mean House Republicans no longer have standing to sue the Biden admin for his recordings with the Special Counsel?

[Green Line]

I'm glad top legal scholars OSR and Green Line have ridden in on their horses to show us exactly why this is an atrocious outcome.

Barack Obama agreed with me on this

Feeding a troll.

[BlueSwan]

What constitutes an official act? That can be a very interpreted different ways.

Official act Roberts says is the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers. And yes that's also open for interpretation but it's a little more specific at least.

One example of a "core constitutional power" is act as the commander in chief, by which he could order the military to perform a coup to stay in power (as mentioned in Sotomayors dissent).

That's her opinion anyway. It's debatable. I'm sure she wouldn't rule that way if the issue came before her.

Sure, it is her opinion, but I would trust a supreme court justice over a random Atlasian.

Sure but in fairness Robert's says in her opinion that she's wrong on this. So it's not just randoms saying she might be wrong.

Roberts is not the justice we should be concerned about. There is a deeply conservative majority without Roberts.

[SWE]

I'm glad top legal scholars OSR and Green Line have ridden in on their horses to show us exactly why this is an atrocious outcome.

Barack Obama agreed with me on this

I was skeptical on presidential immunity, but now that I know one of six living people who personally can benefit from it thinks it's good now I'm convinced. Brilliant and persuasive analysis as always

[Obama24]

This is the most disillusioned about politics I have felt in a long, long time.

Let’s be honest here, violent revolution is the only way that we can save this country at this point, so we better start preparing sooner rather than later.

There is one other solution: That Biden uses his new powers before Trump uses them come january.

The Roberts Court just loaded a gun pushed the barrel of it up against the Constitution's heart, and  put Joe Biden's finger on the trigger. The only "question" is whether he pulls the trigger (probably not), or if the next Republican President does.

Personally I would like to see the White House make a direct query to the Supreme Court, requesting an opinion on whether, hypothetically, ordering SEAL Team Six to execute a half-dozen Supreme Court Justices would be covered by their ruling.

...or just go ahead and order it.

[BlueSwan]

This is the most disillusioned about politics I have felt in a long, long time.

Let’s be honest here, violent revolution is the only way that we can save this country at this point, so we better start preparing sooner rather than later.

There is one other solution: That Biden uses his new powers before Trump uses them come january.

The Roberts Court just loaded a gun pushed the barrel of it up against the Constitution's heart, and  put Joe Biden's finger on the trigger. The only "question" is whether he pulls the trigger (probably not), or if the next Republican President does.

Personally I would like to see the White House make a direct query to the Supreme Court, requesting an opinion on whether, hypothetically, ordering SEAL Team Six to execute a half-dozen Supreme Court Justices would be covered by their ruling.

...or just go ahead and order it.

Hey, if the supreme court wants to turn the oldest democracy in the west into a dictatorship, maybe they should be the first to feel the consequences?

[Obama24]

This is the most disillusioned about politics I have felt in a long, long time.

Let’s be honest here, violent revolution is the only way that we can save this country at this point, so we better start preparing sooner rather than later.

There is one other solution: That Biden uses his new powers before Trump uses them come january.

The Roberts Court just loaded a gun pushed the barrel of it up against the Constitution's heart, and  put Joe Biden's finger on the trigger. The only "question" is whether he pulls the trigger (probably not), or if the next Republican President does.

Personally I would like to see the White House make a direct query to the Supreme Court, requesting an opinion on whether, hypothetically, ordering SEAL Team Six to execute a half-dozen Supreme Court Justices would be covered by their ruling.

...or just go ahead and order it.

Hey, if the supreme court wants to turn the oldest democracy in the west into a dictatorship, maybe they should be the first to feel the consequences?

But this ruling doesn't turn democracy into a dictatorship. It just codifies what was pretty much accepted practice into de jure. If Presidents didn't have immunity, every President who committed some illegal act or another would have been imprisoned. Every President since FDR has used the banner of officiality to do things that would be illegal for you and I. Whether you like it or not we've been living in a quasi-dictatorship for a long time, both of the unitary executive but also of an oligarchy.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Impeach Both-Sides Roberts. Impeach Coke Can Clarence. Impeach MAGA Sam. Impeach (reluctantly) Native Law Neil. Impeach Beer Brett.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Impeach Both-Sides Roberts. Impeach Coke Can Clarence. Impeach MAGA Sam. Impeach (reluctantly) Native Law Neil. Impeach Beer Brett.

So reaffirming what was effectively the status quo is impeach worthy .

If you want to blame anyone for Trump not going to trial by Election Day , blame Merrick Garland for waiting so long . If Garland brought the indiictment August 2022 rather than August 2023 you would have had a trial prior to the election even with all the appeals

[BlueSwan]

But this ruling doesn't turn democracy into a dictatorship. It just codifies what was pretty much accepted practice into de jure. If Presidents didn't have immunity, every President who committed some illegal act or another would have been imprisoned. Every President since FDR has used the banner of officiality to do things that would be illegal for you and I. Whether you like it or not we've been living in a quasi-dictatorship for a long time, both of the unitary executive but also of an oligarchy.

Not really, it expands it considerably - almost without limits. It's one thing to have a democratic norm that says that you shouldn't prosecute a president for all sorts of irrelevant stuff. It is quite another to basically make them immune from prosecution without any clearly defined exceptions. The NAVY team six example is very very relevant. As is the military coup example.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Impeach Both-Sides Roberts. Impeach Coke Can Clarence. Impeach MAGA Sam. Impeach (reluctantly) Native Law Neil. Impeach Beer Brett.

So reaffirming what was effectively the status quo is impeach worthy .

This particular status quo has always been unacceptable, so codifying it is morally criminal, yes.

[OSR stands with Israel]

But this ruling doesn't turn democracy into a dictatorship. It just codifies what was pretty much accepted practice into de jure. If Presidents didn't have immunity, every President who committed some illegal act or another would have been imprisoned. Every President since FDR has used the banner of officiality to do things that would be illegal for you and I. Whether you like it or not we've been living in a quasi-dictatorship for a long time, both of the unitary executive but also of an oligarchy.

Not really, it expands it considerably - almost without limits. It's one thing to have a democratic norm that says that you shouldn't prosecute a president for all sorts of irrelevant stuff. It is quite another to basically make them immune from prosecution without any clearly defined exceptions. The NAVY team six example is very very relevant. As is the military coup example.

No it doesn’t. Otherwise they would have thrown out the Jan 6th case as well which they did not

[Hindsight was 2020]

Impeach Both-Sides Roberts. Impeach Coke Can Clarence. Impeach MAGA Sam. Impeach (reluctantly) Native Law Neil. Impeach Beer Brett.

So reaffirming what was effectively the status quo is impeach worthy .

If you want to blame anyone for Trump not going to trial by Election Day , blame Merrick Garland for waiting so long . If Garland brought the indiictment August 2022 rather than August 2023 you would have had a trial prior to the election even with all the appeals

Snip

The actual issue isn’t about throwing out Trump’s current legal woes it’s about how he and his administration are going to do in a second term with this ruling in mind

[Obama24]

But this ruling doesn't turn democracy into a dictatorship. It just codifies what was pretty much accepted practice into de jure. If Presidents didn't have immunity, every President who committed some illegal act or another would have been imprisoned. Every President since FDR has used the banner of officiality to do things that would be illegal for you and I. Whether you like it or not we've been living in a quasi-dictatorship for a long time, both of the unitary executive but also of an oligarchy.

Not really, it expands it considerably - almost without limits. It's one thing to have a democratic norm that says that you shouldn't prosecute a president for all sorts of irrelevant stuff. It is quite another to basically make them immune from prosecution without any clearly defined exceptions. The NAVY team six example is very very relevant. As is the military coup example.

It literally says that lower courts have leeway to prosecute with all but constitutional core powers. It's actually a limitation in a sense.

''Presidential power has been dramatically expanding for half a century — and the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling falls in line with that trend, said Leah Wright Rigueur, a history professor at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

Still, she said, the Supreme Court’s punt to lower courts on the question of which actions are in a president’s official capacity leaves some potential for the absolute power of the presidency to be checked.

“I know the Trump people are crowing about this and saying yes, yes, we won, we won, this is a victory,” she said. “It’s actually not a victory. It’s a pass-off.”

Also,
''Immunity for former presidents is "absolute" with respect to their "core constitutional powers," Roberts wrote, and a former president has "at least a presumptive immunity" for "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility," meaning that prosecutors face a high legal bar to overcome that presumption.''

[DaleCooper]

It's almost like decriminalizing shoplifting or allowing tenants to not pay any rent. People may do it already, but telling them that they are allowed to is going to make it so much worse than it ever was. Presidents don't even have to pretend to adhere to the law anymore. Very pathetic, but this is where the current status quo goes to die, in my opinion. The laws we live by do not apply to them, they're proud of it, and they expect us to like it.