https://www.aol.com/news/supre...unity-143459478.html

""In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. But rather than do it themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to figure out precisely how to apply the decision to Trump’s case.""

They could have FUCKING decided that weeks ago.

I think it's probably the right decision as I believe that some immunity for OFFICIAL ACTS is implicit in the position.

I can't envision his speech as being an official act.

"Supreme Court overturns Declaration of Independence, Rules "Kings aren't so bad."

The immunity most likely should be conditional and not absolute.

Immunity if he has done something for the country!

Not try to over turn an election to satisfy his sorry arse!

Bad decision, or at least bad process. It will falsely lead some to believe trump gets a get out of jail free card.

quote:

It will falsely lead some to believe trump gets a get out of jail free card.

Like maybe his defense lawyers?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
The immunity most likely should be conditional and not absolute.

There is a difference between should be and would be. The founding fathers never imagined semi-automatic high powered rifles, or convicted criminals running for the presidency.And if the statutes can be abused, count on trump to do it.

Nobody is going to be able to credibly argue that trump's efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 election were "official acts" that come within the ambit of the immunity provided by the decision. I don't know why the reporting on the issue ignores this obvious fact.

So, it goes back to the trial court for a determination on that issue....which will come sometime in 2025 if we're lucky. And will then be appealed. Unless trump gets elected and just directs whatever ass-licking lackey he appoints to be the Attorney General to just dismiss the charges or he just pardons himself, setting off another two year legal battle on that issue.

The guy is bullet proof. Unless Biden wins.

Again, I am still processing this opinion. However, two things are clear.

1) subjective motivation of the President in acting are not considered. When a court analysis, makes factual findings, what is an unofficial act that does not receive immunity versus an official act that qualifies as immunity the court is not to inquire into the President’s motivation.

2) Immunity of the Chief Executive is not absolute.

I wonder how Sen. McConnell feels about his decision to let Trump escape conviction in the Senate, the Article III remedies. “ President Trump has not got away with anything, yet.” That was McConnell position then.

Interesting thought, let us just assume a President takes an action. The House impeached and the Senate convicts in that impeachment. Does such by Congress affirmatively stating the action was not an official act control in a subsequent Article III prosecution? Logically, the answer would be yes. Congress has by an act found the president action to be a high crime or misdemeanor. This, the act cannot be “official.” Practically, I do not see the S. Ct., agreeing. I don’t think this Court thinks too far down the road with its opinions.

We should all be considered with empowering a Chief Executive with immunity. Tyrants are made of such things.

Kind of a lame proposition, as this is an article ii v iii...

Let's see what the constitution says, in article iii

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,

Wow, zero thoughts need to be given to this massive difference, laid out in the constitution

No offense, but these are bunny trails.

At this point, the only issue is what is an "official act".

Acts directed at overturning official election results are not going to qualify.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:
Nobody is going to be able to credibly argue that trump's efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 election were "official acts" that come within the ambit of the immunity provided by the decision. I don't know why the reporting on the issue ignores this obvious fact.

So, it goes back to the trial court for a determination on that issue....which will come sometime in 2025 if we're lucky. And will then be appealed. Unless trump gets elected and just directs whatever ass-licking lackey he appoints to be the Attorney General to just dismiss the charges or he just pardons himself, setting off another two year legal battle on that issue.

The guy is bullet proof. Unless Biden wins.

Trump will argue that preserving the integrity of elections is a presidential issue, despite his efforts to soil said integrity.
If he had had 10,000 National Guard troops in Washington D.C. on January 6, would he have ordered them to disperse his supporters or seize ballot boxes?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Kind of a lame proposition, as this is an article ii v iii...

Let's see what the constitution says, in article iii

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,

Wow, zero thoughts need to be given to this massive difference, laid out in the constitution

Except you ate ignoring on purpose Congress can declare a presidential act “unofficial.”

Again, o do not believe the S. Ct., would ever consider a successful impeachment as dispositive of the issue. That does not change the Constitution clearly says Congress has that say.

The language clearly sets up another S. Ct., in the event a President is removed by Congress then prosecuted. Normally, we do not nominate and elect people who create such problems.

quote:

The language clearly sets up another S. Ct., in the event a President is removed by Congress then prosecuted.

Normally, we do not nominate and elect people who create such problems.

Let's consider what happened in Trump's first term as still clinging onto pseudo-"normal" times, compared to what will surly happen if he gets another term. Given the kowtowing of GOPers in congress something extremely extraordinary would have to happen for a successful removal and prosecution. There is no good reason to predict Trump won't be able to get a strangle hold on the whole system of governance. That path is mostly paved already, with loyalists, project 2025, and SCOTUS. We know what Trump's and Trumpism's dream is. It meshes well with far-right conservatives long-term plan they have been working on for many years. What are the barriers to full success? Such barriers have been chipped away, systematically, for years.

Could Hitler or Mussolini have been impeached and prosecuted, removed nonviolently? Why not?

You say "Normally, we do not nominate and elect people who create such problems". Think of it this way - the reason he will probably be nominated and might be elected is because some voters think he's the means back to some fantasy "normal", or perhaps "normal" created anew from the chaos. Anyway, "normal" to their liking. It's hard to imagine such thinking. But it's easy to imagine how hard it will fail. They are not in charge of "normal" - never have been and never will be.

In fact, the demise of nation states in history is normal, and we are on the brink, due to Trumpism, by the normal means historically.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-c...ofterror_chapter.pdf

Failed States, Collapsed States,
Weak States: Causes and Indicators

Nation-states fail because they are convulsed by internal violence and can
no longer deliver positive political goods to their inhabitants. Their govern
ments lose legitimacy, and the very nature of the particular nation-state itself
becomes illegitimate in the eyes and in the hearts of a growing plurality of its
citizens.

quote:

Acts directed at overturning official election results are not going to qualify.

“We fight,” he continued. “We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.”

Would the above qualify as subversive words calling for action or should they be understood as figurative expressions?

I find this to be an effort to subvert the election, do you?

Trump told Raffensperger, "What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ensperger_phone_call

The Supreme Court has allowed other courts to decide on his election denial.

I hope they throw the book at the bastard!

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Bertram:
I find this to be an effort to subvert the election, do you?

Trump told Raffensperger, "What I want to do is this. I just want to find, uh, 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...ensperger_phone_call

I consider the unconstitutional directive to VP Pence to decertify the election as an “unofficial act.” However, the Majority makes it clear this action is presumptively immune as an official act, and are skeptical that the presumption can be overcome.

Going further, ANYTHING he did while president is official!

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Kind of a lame proposition, as this is an article ii v iii...

Let's see what the constitution says, in article iii

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,

Wow, zero thoughts need to be given to this massive difference, laid out in the constitution

Except you ate ignoring on purpose Congress can declare a presidential act “unofficial.”

Again, o do not believe the S. Ct., would ever consider a successful impeachment as dispositive of the issue. That does not change the Constitution clearly says Congress has that say.

The language clearly sets up another S. Ct., in the event a President is removed by Congress then prosecuted. Normally, we do not nominate and elect people who create such problems.

living in that amount of fear must be hell on earth

quote:

living in that amount of fear must be hell on earth

Denial isn't a cure for fear, but works well as a sedative. eh? Especially if taken with a dose of bourbon whisky.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

living in that amount of fear must be hell on earth

Denial isn't a cure for fear, but works well as a sedative. eh? Especially if taken with a dose of bourbon whisky.

We do not hand loaded guns to toddlers, and we should not hand presidential immunity to a known abuser of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Saeed:
Going further, ANYTHING he did while president is official!

Does that include countless hours watching TEE VEE and playing golf?

How is it that for our entire history no President ever claimed he needed sweeping immunity yet all seemed to manage to muddle through?

Presidential duties do not involve committing crimes, and there is NO immunity to be found in the Constitution, in fact in the Impeachment clause it specifically states that even impeached and removed officials, to include a President, remain subject to prosecution.

The Federalist Society Court made this entire farce up of whole cloth with NO Constitutional basis for any of it.

Remember when Republicans were against "activist Judges"?

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Kind of a lame proposition, as this is an article ii v iii...

Let's see what the constitution says, in article iii

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,

Wow, zero thoughts need to be given to this massive difference, laid out in the constitution

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Except now bc of the Supreme Court we must determine what is an unofficial act.

I ultimately agree. I find it open.

Guy can bet when a president gets impeached, removed, and tried in criminal proceedings over the impeached behavior this will come up.

I would hope that fact pattern never presents itself.

I don't get why he should have protection for communication about shit that happened BEFORE he got elected IF that's what SCOTUS is allowing.

Is it now a four step process for a sitting POTUS?
1. Successful impeachment in the House and Senate trial with conviction and removal.
2. Indictment by State or Federal prosecutor
3. Preliminary judicial determination of the charged behavior as an official or unofficial act (Also to be a finding of fact by the trial jury with a necessary rebuttal of the presumption of “official act” by Judge and jury, like Miranda pretrial and case in chief).
4. Trial (including jury requirement of presumption rebuttal).

This current opinion, unfortunately, has to be somewhat colored by the jackleg stupidity of TDS sufferers in bringing local cases to remove Trump from ballots, indictments for a time-expired misdemeanor of improperly designating a legal fee, removal from ballots for sedition (never charged, btw, in any criminal proceeding), the Fani Willis debacle, the raid on MarLogo, Jack Smith’s rearranging evidence, etc.

If the TDS crowd had not lost reason in a mindless feeding frenzy, I’ll bet they could have found an allegation re Trump that would have withstood steps 2-4. Their impatience and self-righteousness probably has protected Trump from that forever… and won him the Presidency again. Payback is truly a MF.

So, I’m still pondering. Is a successful Senate trail a prerequisite if the POTUS is still in office? Probably. What do you do if the POTUS has quit or left at the end of term? Just go to step two, it would seem.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Kind of a lame proposition, as this is an article ii v iii...

Let's see what the constitution says, in article iii

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment,

Wow, zero thoughts need to be given to this massive difference, laid out in the constitution

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

quote:

Originally posted by frankinthelaurels:
Are they sure they want this ?? What if ole' Joe decides to honor his oath and declare about 25 loonies are domestic enemies of the constitution and orders action..he'd be just as immune as the treasonous traitor

The President can order anything, but those who carry out the orders aren't immune and therefore may be reluctant to do so.