BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Trump is entitled to some immunity in Jan. 6 case

The ruling seems logical to me. Presidential immunity is restricted to conduct related to the nation's business and does not extend to a president's personal affairs.

Excerpts from the ruling's Opinion of the Court section:

Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution.

Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position.

The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution. Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.

Trump v United States
 
DigitalDrifter said:
Here it is:


What you need to know​

  • JUST IN: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his presidency in a decision that will likely further delay a trial on the federal election subversion charges pending against him.
Click to expand...
Fuck SCOTUS! It's official. The highest court in the land, HAS BEEN BOUGHT!
 
DigitalDrifter said:
8 min ago

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer decries immunity ruling as other Democrats echo his concerns​

From CNN's Owen Dahlkamp and Morgan Rimmer
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer looks on during a news conference on June 5 in Washington, DC.
Kent Nishimura/Getty Images
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decision, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer condemned the majority’s ruling, calling it “a sad day for our democracy.”
The New York Democrat also said “the very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law. Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president.”
Other congressional Democrats have also expressed outrage over the decision.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, dubbed the ruling as “disastrous,” blaming an “extreme right-wing Supreme Court” for drastically weakening “accountability if a president attempts to use their office for criminal purposes.”
Rep. Frederica Wilson of Texas criticized the court, accusing them of not upholding the tenant of “equal justice under law.” She also highlighted that three Trump-appointed justices sided with the former president in the ruling.
Click to expand...
Fuck Schumer. He's a psycho to begin with
 
Shitlibs, keep your eye on the prize.... don't let the rule of law bring you down.

The prize:

biden dumber than fuck face.webp
 
Fort Fun Indiana said:
Oh please, explain. Explain the constitutional basis of presidential immunity.

This should be good.
Click to expand...
The only mention is High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which requires Congressional impeachment and removal. You folks should stop whining, it should have been worse.
 
Procrustes Stretched said:
Most of the people-of-the-cult must be freaked out.

Live Updates: Supreme Court Says Trump Is Partly Shielded From Prosecution​

The practical effect of the ruling raises the possibility of further delay of the case against the former president on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.

View attachment 969959

No absolute immunity?!?!

Here’s the latest on the ruling.​

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to some level of immunity from prosecution, a decision that may effectively delay the trial of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.

The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines.

Mr. Trump contended that he is entitled to absolute immunity from the charges, relying on a broad understanding of the separation of powers and a 1982 Supreme Court precedent that recognized such immunity in civil cases for actions taken by presidents within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities. Lower courts rejected Mr. Trump’s claim, but the Supreme Court’s ruling may delay the case enough that Mr. Trump would be able to make it go away entirely if he prevails in November.
Here’s what to know:
  • The ruling: The justices said that Mr. Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts taken during his presidency but that there was a crucial distinction between official and private conduct. The case returns to the lower court, which will decide whether the actions Mr. Trump took were in an official or private capacity.

  • The charges: The former president faces three charges of conspiracy and one count of obstructing an official proceeding, all related to his efforts to cling to the presidency after his 2020 loss. He was indicted last August by the special counsel, Jack Smith, in one of two federal criminal cases against him; the other relates to the F.B.I. raid on his private club, Mar-a-Lago, in August 2022 that recovered missing government documents.

  • Lower courts ruled against Trump: The trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington, denied Mr. Trump’s immunity request in December. “Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” she wrote.

    A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed in February, saying that “any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”

  • The timing: Even before the ruling, the court’s decision to take up the case already helped Mr. Trump’s strategy to delay his prosecution until after the November election in the hopes he will win and be able to stop it entirely.

  • Other Jan. 6 cases: The court heard two other cases this term concerning the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, both of which relate to Mr. Trump. One — an attempt to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot in Colorado under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which made people who engages in insurrection ineligible to hold office — was unanimously rejected in March.The other limited the use of a federal obstruction law to prosecute members of the mob who stormed the Capitol. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law.
Click to expand...

There was never a though that there was absolute immunity.

Pile of straw in the shape of a man.
 
1 min ago

Vance, one of Trump's possible VP contenders, says immunity decision is a "massive win"​

From CNN's Morgan Rimmer and Kit Maher

GOP Sen. JD Vance, one of Donald Trump’s possible VP contenders, posted on X that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision is, “a massive win, not just for Trump but the rule of law. I’m still digesting but this may well destroy all of Jack Smith’s case against the president.”

Vance included a picture of Trump’s reaction to the ruling within his post, where he wrote on Truth Social, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”
 
DigitalDrifter said:
Rep. Pramila Jayapal dubbed the ruling as “disastrous,” blaming an “extreme right-wing Supreme Court”
Click to expand...

Democrats are such whiners who cry like little brats everytime something does not go their way! The very BASIS of the Exec. Branch is that they are immune from prosecution for their official actions while in office because that is NECESSARY to protect a president from being influenced in his decisions! Now the Left whine that this fundamental necessity is extreme. Too funny--- the ol' double standard. :laugh2:

 
SCOTUS gives three tiers:

- Core constitutional acts (absolute immunity)

- Official acts (presumptive immunity)

- Unofficial acts (no immunity)

The lower courts can muddle through that mess over the course of months and in the meantime Trump becomes POTUS again.
 
  • Fact
Reactions: Ava
DigitalDrifter said:
1 min ago

Vance, one of Trump's possible VP contenders, says immunity decision is a "massive win"​

From CNN's Morgan Rimmer and Kit Maher

GOP Sen. JD Vance, one of Donald Trump’s possible VP contenders, posted on X that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision is, “a massive win, not just for Trump but the rule of law. I’m still digesting but this may well destroy all of Jack Smith’s case against the president.”

Vance included a picture of Trump’s reaction to the ruling within his post, where he wrote on Truth Social, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”
Click to expand...
Because everyone knows he is guilty as fuck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Biden Press Secretary Goes Full 'Baghdad Bob' Proclaiming Biden More Vigorous than Young Staffers

< Previous Thread

Several are saying Biden WILL STEP DOWN

Next Thread >

Similar threads

martybegan
Supreme Court hold Unanimously that being part of the Majority doesn't make it harder to sue for Discrimination.
Replies
1
Views
94
1srelluc
1srelluc
DigitalDrifter
BREAKING: SCOTUS says Trump can move forward with plan to ban trannies in the military
2
Replies
36
Views
448
DigitalDrifter
DigitalDrifter
C_Clayton_Jones
The Confrontation Between Trump and the Supreme Court Has Arrived
4 5 6
Replies
109
Views
1K
John Edgar Slow Horses
John Edgar Slow Horses
C_Clayton_Jones
Can We Trust Courts to Stop Trump's Lawlessness?
4 5 6
Replies
117
Views
875
OhPleaseJustQuit
OhPleaseJustQuit
Edgetho
SCOTUS Rules In favor Of Trump
Replies
14
Views
233
Doc7505
Doc7505

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom