BREAKING: The Supreme Court holds, 6-3, that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution for actions within their "conclusive and preclusive" authority and presumptively immune from prosecution for all official acts.
More to come at Law Dork: www.lawdork.com
Roberts has the opinion for the court. Thomas concurs. Barrett concurs in part. Sotomayor dissents for the Democratic appointees. Jackson also writes her own dissent. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
As to Trump:
- Absolutely immune from prosecution for DOJ discussions.
- Presumption of immunity for efforts to pressure Pence, but could be rebutted on remand.
- Discussions w state actors and Jan. 6 comments must be determined if they are official or not on remand.
Sotomayor is reading from her dissent. You cannot hear it because, despite having the capacity to do so, the Supreme Court does not livestream opinion announcements.
Thomas concurs to question the constitutionality of the special counsel's appointment.
Barrett concurs in part because she does not join a part of the court's opinion not allowing evidence of any official acts even to be admitted as evidence.
I mean, if you're asking a Secretary of State to "find" you more votes, that's you acting as a candidate, not an official act as the President. Come on. Hatch Act, anyone?
Did they address whether POTUS can have seal team six take out a political rival? I ask because having carte blanche to use DOJ however they want and pressuring VP to subvert the constitution seems just one step short of that.
It feels like breaking the law should immediately disqualify it as an "official act."
Maybe we could have a group of their peers decide whether or not they broke the law after lawyers for the defendant and the government present all the relevant information?
Should we assume that Trump could appeal those during the case or after judgement, because it feel like a "you have to wait till after judgement to appeal this"
You know it’s a bad decision if Thomas concurs.
That said, I’m not sure this would’ve gone any other way, and it’s not the unqualified win for Trump that some are already painting it as.
Excuse me, sorry to bother you, but I am totally Confused...what Acts can he be Held Responsible for? Is it being kicked back down to lower courts to decide? Thank you for your time
Yup, people have got to stop believing claims of stupidity or incompetence. The party that replaces Marshall with Thomas, RBG with Barrett, and feigns confusion about everything the left has to say right up until they appropriate it to spit at us (masks: my body my choice) knows what it’s doing.
If they thought there was a snowball's chance in Hell of him doing anything stronger than harumphing about it, they never would have had the guts to rule this way. They know that useless old mummy is no threat to their power grab.
He swore an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
I think he’s duty-bound to arrest the 6 members of the SCOTUS who just decided to make the president a king.
I agree. Also, investigating the GOP and various other rightwing organizations through the DOJ and IRS. Let’s we what the Heritage Foundation has on their books. I’m sure there’s something out of place.
I’d prefer he just remove the corrupt six and make clear that the executive branch will not recognize any precedent decided by them. Investigations of those organizations should only happen within the law.
I mean, purging the Roberts’ Court awful decisions like Citizens United and overriding the 14th Amendment should help with a fair election to avoid that, and allow lawful prosecution of the most corrupt GOP members…
