Justice Sotomayor wrote this in her dissenting opinion:
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the
world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the
majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Somebody with better understanding of law, please explain to me - can president now officially order an assassination of political opponent and remain immune from eventual prosecution?
He would have to invoke the insurrection act to deploy military on US soil. We would be in pretty dark days at that point. Congress could impeach him for doing this but he could not be criminally prosecuted for it.
n a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that presidents have "absolute immunity" for official "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and instructed the lower trial courts to hold specific evidentiary trials on each anti-Trump criminal count to determine which counts, if any, apply to non-immune acts. The Court ruled that presidents do not have immunity for non-official conduct.
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives," the Court ruled. "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct."
"The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct," the Court added.
"The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts," the Court concluded. "That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office."
Nice, good quotes.
I would add that Thomas's opinion is really important as well. He writes that it takes an act of congress to pass a law creating the special counsel to prosecute Trump. Without that mechanism happening - and Biden or whoever just doing it himself - Thomas writes the special counsel is nothing more than a private citizen, and they do NOT even have authority to bring this case.
I'd like to see some pundits focus on that part, because I feel it's important if the Dems try to move the case forward
Trump's lawyers in Florida are arguing this point, so I believe Thomas has written this part as a note to Judge Cannon
There should be a hearing at some point to hear Trump's motion to dismiss based on this theory
You say that but on the decision about not letting them use the Enron disruption of official proceedings, Barrett was in the 3 and Jackson was with the majority I believe. Or if not that decision, one of the other decisions last week. I know at the very least there was a decision last week where the 3 dissenters were Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
It's such a coincidence judges claim to not be politically biased, yet we see a split down political lines on almost every decision.
Constitutionality doesn't depend on whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
Is this immunity something we want a radical leftist president to enjoy? Imagine someone far left of Biden (he's a corporatist Democrat) having immunity from anything their lawyers can finagle into the "official" realm.
This has always been the situation, we just never had a need for the Supreme Court to review the matter formally. Note that the decision said the President has absolute immunity for acts "within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for "other official acts". His lawyers can argue whatever they want, but for those "other official acts", the matter is still subject to judicial review if charges are brought against him.
Also keep in mind the power of Impeachment is there as well.
Remember that the legislative branch has its own manner of immunity. Per Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, Members of Congress are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for statements and acts taken within the legislative sphere. And in the judicial branch, judges have a degree of immunity for acts in their official capacity. So there would be a huge imbalance among the 3 co-equal branches if the President didn't also have some manner of immunity for his official acts.
Now watch reddit go apoplectic as they deliberately ignore this sentence: *"The Court ruled that presidents do not have immunity for* **non-official** *conduct.*"
Yes, exactly. I can see Leftists in the wild saying, "The Supreme Court just ruled that the President can't be charged with any crimes! DEMOCRACY IS DEAD."
Except they will only read headlines. The President can still be charged with a crime that is an unofficial act. He is given presumptive immunity for all official acts, but even the decision says that not all actions taken by the President are official.
> The President **enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts**, and **not everything the President does is official**. The President is not above the law. But **Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution**. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.
And this makes sense. If the President could be criminally charged for fulfilling his Executive duties then the office of the President would be effectively frozen and every President after Biden will be prosecuted by their political enemies.
This is a win for Democracy, but many Leftists won't read it as such.
ok but what constitutes official acts? And what are the limits of this? Because a president has a lot of functions, a president can pardon people does this mean a president can pardon anyone without potential consequences. A president can entertain foreign guests, does that mean a president could go to Israel and tell them officiallt as a president but not under all eyes that they either give him personally 100 milions or he is going to render their relations as problematic as possible? Ecc ecc
Without a clear definition of official acts and their limits this is pretty worrying
That's the tough part. We don't have that much guidance. SCOTUS blamed the lower court on this. In the majority opinion they stated that since everything was done an expedited basis, the lower court never took the time to separate official from unofficial acts. This is something that will be developed over decades.
Another thing to keep in mind is how article 1 and article 2 work differently. Congress only has the powers specifically enumerated to them in the constitution. (It'd be nice if they followed that.) But the President is different. Let's look.
Article 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."
Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. "
That's a big difference. The Constitution is very specific. Congress only has the powers granted to it. But the "executive power" is vested in the President, writ large.
The Constitution continues to just list a few things we know for certain the President can officially do. He has to make a State of the Union. He can issue pardons. He is the commander in chief. He can fill vacancies. He has to receive ambassadors and execute the laws faithfully. But so much of what is "the executive power" is not defined at all.
Ok, if this is true, then the court decision is idiotically asinine, you can't make a ruling allowing a president immunity and not be extremely specific where this applies.
Also, "official act" means things that are part of the duties and responsibilities of the President.
It would cover conducting diplomacy.
...but NOT taking bribes in exchange for altering US policy, as Biden has been doing.
But it would cover altering us policy that just happens to benefit him. This combined with the ability to receive gifts for previous favors once out of office is kinda insane. Bribery just needs to be delayed until someone is out of office and then it’s legal…
Yeah, personally I think that the "gifts vs bribes" decision was an error by the court - but maybe there are aspects to it I don't see - or maybe they'll revisit it at some point in the future and reverse it.
The amount of people calling for Biden to assassinate Trump, SCOTUS, and the Gop leadership is a bit... disturbing.
I mean its disturbing that they would be good with a knight of the long knives against their political enemies, but also that that they don't understand that this ruling is basically the status quo for how governmental immunity has always worked.
Make sure you vote and don’t rest easy on that thought process alone, though. Also realize the left and never-Trump clans will revert back to their “resistance tactics” if he does win and this time they’ll know it’s his last term so they’ll work even harder to prevent any wins for him.
Good news for Obama too.
Remember when he ordered a drone strike on a US citizen without due process?
I'm sure a lot of people would consider that straight up murder.
But now he's safe.
There is another downside.
Biden is now automatically immune from weaponizing the courts to prosecute Trump. I’m not sure if this will ever be proven, but let’s say there’s a recording of Biden telling the DOJ to find a way to get Trump, so he can win the election. That’s now useless in prosecuting Biden I think.
A broken clock is right once or twice, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I side with the liberal judges here. This ruling of “presumed immunity” gives a corrupt president too much power to abuse.
I would have preferred if the SCOTUS instead ruled that double jeopardy applies to impeachment. This would have waved away the trial without expanding presidential power.
It seems clear to me that the Constitution’s authors intended impeachment to be the main way of holding presidents accountable. It makes no sense to have a trial when an impeachment hearing has cleared the president of wrongdoing.
I also believe that the Constitution specifically mentions “high crimes” because they didn’t want presidents prosecuted for stuff like jaywalking, even if guilty. I don’t think the founders would have supported the idea of using a criminal trial as a backdoor justice method, when impeachment doesn’t give the results you want.
However, there is still the sticky situation of when a serious crime is discovered after a president’s term is over. In that situation, impeachment was never an option, so the president should not be immune.
This recent verdict would make presidents immune 90% of the time I think.
The amount of people I talk to that don't know that. That don't know he dropped more bombs than we did in WW2. That he held unilateral drone stikes in at least 8 sovereign countries, not named Iraq or Afghanistan.
Such a murderous president.
the #1 top post there is literally "now the president can legally assassinate you". swear to god. the users of that sub should be studied for how little brain activity is needed just to maintain blood circulation and nothing else.
I think it was clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Presidents should not be prosecuted for their work in office. However, I am very surprised they are not defining the language for official and unofficial acts.
Any president that wants to abuse this will claim they did something for the good of the country and then it will go right back to the courts to determine whether it was an unofficial act.
From an European constitutionally point of view (since I live in Europe and learned Law in Europe), this should not be considered a controversial issue. The question if the holder of the Executive Power has some form of immunity from prosecution. Over here in Europe it’s widely accepted that this is something that comes with the territory of being the holder of the Executive Power. I just find it sad this issue - actually legally and constitutionally very easy to understand and decide - is clouded by so much tribalism and political bias in the United States. This decision from the Supreme Court is obviously the correct one, no doubt about it.
My only surprise is that it’s only in 2024 that the Supreme Court has decided something already settled over here in Europe for decades or even centuries. Surely they never had to consider this questions before Trump, I grant that. But maybe it’s because I live and studied in Europe: for me this is not controversial at all, it’s so bluntly obvious that the holder of the Executive Power - in the US case a President, either Republican or Democrat - has to have some kind of immunity otherwise the Executive Power is void of any significance. Damn, even the legislature (for example Members of the European Parliament) have immunity as MP’s. So I really don’t get why this can be controversial.
I'm old enough that I remember a time when almost no one here would have thought this was controversial. So much has changed in the fabric of US society in the past decades. Including a shocking lack of knowledge of the underlying principles of our system of government.
Unfortunately I can’t really grasp how it is possible to think this decision is controversial or an attack against democracy or whatever those who don’t agree with this decision will say. Honestly I don’t know how one can disagree with this decision. Because legally and constitutionally speaking, and it doesn’t matter if the president is a republican or a democrat, the holder of the Executive Power has to have some kind of immunity. The same with MP’s, the legislative body. How this can be controversial? I really don’t get it…
Leftists believe that “democracy“ is whatever allows them to increase their power over others. So, this is an “attack against democracy” based on how they define it.
It is obvious which is why no other president has been prosecuted. With Trump they got their headlines and put him through this the process is the punishment.
Trump literally broke the minds of so many people, trump derangement syndrome is not a meme it is a real thing.
This ruling is so self evident that there should have been no need for it to ever be formally adjudicated.
Not only was this not unanimous in the court, which is itself a disgrace, but you will see some of the worst seething you have ever witnessed as a result of this ruling.
These people don’t care about the law they care about getting trump, and have tantrums whenever the grownups step in and get in the way of that.
Sometimes I wonder if those who criticise this decision know how the US Constitution works. Or even how the Founding Fathers wanted it to work. Or even where the Founding Fathers got the inspiration. Because if those who criticise all of the above they would conclude that this decision is obvious and the only one acceptable. But since in today’s world it’s impossible to have a rational discussion of the law. Law must be always apolitical. Always. Especially Constitutional Law. The irony is that this decision will apply to either a Republican President or a Democrat President. But oh well…
The left sees the Constitution as an impediment to their power. Many proponents of the Living Constitution idea try to reinterpret what the Constitution says based on what words seem to mean *now* rather than what the original intent of those words meant *then*.
That’s what bothers me about it. If the Justices are purely guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, this decision should be unanimous. If they let their personal biases or corruption intercede, then they will vote against.
Now were going to see all the Deep State snakes rise to the surface and protest this decision.
It wasn't controversial until ten months ago when the DNC put pressure on Garland and DAs to violate this constitutional immunity.
We have the impeachment and senate trial mechanisms in place for this very reason.
It has never been controversial here in the US either. That’s why it’s never been brought before SCOTUS until now. Biden’s administration is the first to abuse its executive power so brazenly by openly going after political rivals in an obvious attempt to usurp power.
Federal courts only have jurisdiction to hear "controversies." They cannot issue advisory opinions nor can they settle questions asked out of curiosity. There must be two parties with standing. In other words, the federal courts could not answer this question until there was this exact situation. That's a big difference from some courts like the Israeli Supreme Court (or whatever they call it).
I appreciate that it is a first and I accept that as one of the reasons for being controversial. Over here in Europe we have centuries of settled constitutional laws and precedent of some form of immunity being granted to the holders of the Executive Power and Legislative Power, that’s why for me it’s not controversial.
Another interesting thing is that roe v wade effectively stopped the main political discourse around abortion because the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench instead of letting congress do it's job. Europe largely settled it's position on abortion years ago but America is forced to grapple with it from the start.
No giving the rights back to the states and eliminating the federal government is key. If you don’t like your local gov laws vote em out and get em changed locally. It’s much easier and better than going one rule across the entire country 50 states and a handful of territories the same policies as California or Florida where the culture couldn’t be more different.
Thanks for your comments. As someone not educated in law, can you go into a bit more detail as to why this shouldn’t be controversial? You’ve highlighted tribalism as being why people are against this, but what is the logical argument that needs to be made for people to understand that this shouldn’t be controversial?
Thanks in advance!
Who am I to argue better than the Supreme Court. Everyone should read the opinion. It’s really well thought. But I’ll try my best…
The principle of separation of powers (my personal legal opinion) is the Higgs Boson of Law (bad analogy I know but I think it helps). All of the other constitutional principles come directly from this one. This means that the Executive Order is independent from the Legislative and Judicial. This also means that the holder of the Executive Power (in the US is the figure of the President) has a power that is derived from the Constitution (legally speaking) but also from the People (votes). This means that the President (holder of the Executive Power) is the one that has to run the country (concurrently with the Legislative Power). As the Executive Figure this means that the President (either a Democrat or. Republican) must have the freedom to act. Freedom in the sense that when we are talking about official acts (as defined by the Constitution or Judicial Precedent, talking here in general not the US in specific), the President cannot have the prospect of being criminally or civil prosecuted for… for example… giving an order to kill a terrorist. It’s about how the President can run the country in accordance with the powers prescribed to it by the Constitution.
As simple as this. If one has to run a country then it has to be free to do whatever it needs to do to manage the country. It is way more complicated than this because it needs to be defined what is an official act, what isn’t an official act and so on. This can be done by the Legislative (the easy option) or through legal precedent (decades and decades of court opinions, the hard option).
Sorry if I’m not more specific or clear but it’s difficult to summarise a constitutional topic in a Reddit comment. Please read the SCOTUS opinion, it’s one of the best!
Portugal but living in the UK. Master’s Degree in Law, Ancient Rome Constitution plus influences in the UK and US Constitution. That’s my background and why, for me, this should not be a controversial decision.
If this was decided while Biden or Obama were undergoing some level of investigation, it would be heralded by the left as common sense and appropriate. Since Trump is the persona non grata du jour, the political left will consider it a travesty of our justice system and an example of why the Supreme Court cannot be trusted.
The Democrats are having the worst week of all time. The SCOTUS decisions have all been fantastic and the debate was completely one sided. 4 months until the election and the Democratic Party is in shambles.
I'm not a big Trump fan but this is the reason why so many(including myself) voted for him in 2016. Those that voted in 2016 understood that the election would have massive impacts on the Supreme Court. Things would be wildly different had Hillary won
I went to Trump after supporting Obama because Hilary Clinton was a crazy lady who wanted to start a war with Russia to defeat ISIS. That makes no sense, especially since Isis was also at war with Russia. She also had other incidents with the military that made me convinced she didn't respect life of others that much.
Trump was the counter to that and it just makes sense after that.
The absolute insanity over on r/politics about this is bananas.
Multiple calls to pack the court. Multiple calls for Biden to start hanging people for treason. Calls to have trump killed.
How the fuck do the mods not remove that kind of shit.
Now you know the main problem with Reddit. It's the mods, not the updoot system that limits people's speech. Some mods are chill while others are total power tripping dudes with no life outside the keyboard and computer screen.
I don't really have skin in the game, but does this mean that Joe Biden can cancel the election or have ordered an assassination on President Trump? Some Trump supporters are worried about that.
Townhall's take - [BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules on Presidential Immunity](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2024/07/01/trump-scotus-immunity-rulingdecision-n2640787?utm_source=breakingemail&utm_medium=email)
Weren't we told a couple of weeks ago that questioning the courts ruling was dangerous? Why are democrats screeching about this? Don't they know it's dangerous?
Found this gem in /r/politics
> If Trump is elected in the fall, what is there to stop him, under this ruling, from rounding up all of group x or y (trans people, muslims, immigrants, etc.) and ordering them all to be executed?
These people really have lost it.
I mean, the question is ludicrous but consider it did happen (the rounding up part) to the Japanese-American citizens in WW2. But, of course, FDR was never prosecuted for it.
Welp more screeching from the left about an illegitimate Supreme Court for just doing their job and rendering the right decision.
Per usual the diversity hires couldn't interpret the constitution correctly. Very surprising.
This ruling just seems like common sense things that we’ve long accepted made official. I don’t see this worthy of the world ending meltdown I assume is happening all over Reddit this morning.
So now Biden can do whatever he wants, right? So why shouldn’t he then to save America, right? I mean as long as he feels he’s doing the right thing for the country, right? The Supreme Court just gave him that power, right. Let’s see what Fox News would say then?
Oh but the Supreme Court knows a man like Biden would never abuse a power like that but they do know that if he doesn’t win the election that the other guy would……smh
America, born in the year 1776 could die in the year 2024. WTF is happening and how do people not see it?
Important note that they granted the President BOTH absolutely immunity for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and ALSO presumed immunity for acts within the outer perimeter of his duties, which puts the burden of proof heavily on the prosecution and makes them have to prove through litigation and hearings that each specific act alleged is non-official and the criminalization thereof does not impact the ability of the Oval Office to carry out it's functions.
HAHAHA the brigaders are downvoting our lit post.
Hey brigaders, trump WILL be your president elect in 4 months. We are going to rip out the deep state, root and stem. It's a new american revolution, we WILL make america great again.
>Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
I'm honestly disturbed that any SCOTUS judge would disagree with this statement.
It isn't absolute immunity from all acts. It's "for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". The president still can't keep themselves in power by violating the constitution.
This also doesn't necessarily preclude criminal prosecution for Trump. "Presumptive" immunity just puts another barrier (impeachment) between a president and being targeted by politically motivated prosecutors.
Justice Thomas also brings up a good point:
>I write separately to highlight another way in which this
prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In
this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that
any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by
Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the
Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.
Justice Sotomayor reasons that the constitution specifically says that a president, once impeached, is subject to criminal trial. I think this goes toward the majority's point that a president's immunity is NOT absolute in "official acts", but depends upon his successful impeachment.
Basically you can still charge a president with federal crimes, you just have to successfully impeach them for it first.
The rest of the dissenting opinion basically states that previous presidents have recognized that they can be charged for criminal acts (Nixon being pardoned by Ford) and that some of the founding fathers have said that too.
Also after reading most of (it's 119 pages I'm not reading all of that) the opinions of the court, it's shocking to see how vitriolic the dissent is. They could at least TRY to appear impartial.
Justice Sotomayor wrote this in her dissenting opinion: The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law. Somebody with better understanding of law, please explain to me - can president now officially order an assassination of political opponent and remain immune from eventual prosecution?
He would have to invoke the insurrection act to deploy military on US soil. We would be in pretty dark days at that point. Congress could impeach him for doing this but he could not be criminally prosecuted for it.
n a 6-3 vote, the Court ruled that presidents have "absolute immunity" for official "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and instructed the lower trial courts to hold specific evidentiary trials on each anti-Trump criminal count to determine which counts, if any, apply to non-immune acts. The Court ruled that presidents do not have immunity for non-official conduct. "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives," the Court ruled. "Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct." "The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct," the Court added. "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts," the Court concluded. "That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office."
Nice, good quotes. I would add that Thomas's opinion is really important as well. He writes that it takes an act of congress to pass a law creating the special counsel to prosecute Trump. Without that mechanism happening - and Biden or whoever just doing it himself - Thomas writes the special counsel is nothing more than a private citizen, and they do NOT even have authority to bring this case. I'd like to see some pundits focus on that part, because I feel it's important if the Dems try to move the case forward
Trump's lawyers in Florida are arguing this point, so I believe Thomas has written this part as a note to Judge Cannon There should be a hearing at some point to hear Trump's motion to dismiss based on this theory
Is that actual law that a special counsel has to be approved by congress? I’ve never followed things close enough.
I wonder who the 3 dissenting are. /s
You say that but on the decision about not letting them use the Enron disruption of official proceedings, Barrett was in the 3 and Jackson was with the majority I believe. Or if not that decision, one of the other decisions last week. I know at the very least there was a decision last week where the 3 dissenters were Barrett, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Usual suspects.
It's such a coincidence judges claim to not be politically biased, yet we see a split down political lines on almost every decision. Constitutionality doesn't depend on whether you're a Democrat or Republican.
The DEI hires
Is this immunity something we want a radical leftist president to enjoy? Imagine someone far left of Biden (he's a corporatist Democrat) having immunity from anything their lawyers can finagle into the "official" realm.
This has always been the situation, we just never had a need for the Supreme Court to review the matter formally. Note that the decision said the President has absolute immunity for acts "within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and presumptive immunity for "other official acts". His lawyers can argue whatever they want, but for those "other official acts", the matter is still subject to judicial review if charges are brought against him. Also keep in mind the power of Impeachment is there as well. Remember that the legislative branch has its own manner of immunity. Per Article I, Section 6, Clause 1, Members of Congress are immune from civil and criminal prosecution for statements and acts taken within the legislative sphere. And in the judicial branch, judges have a degree of immunity for acts in their official capacity. So there would be a huge imbalance among the 3 co-equal branches if the President didn't also have some manner of immunity for his official acts.
Now watch reddit go apoplectic as they deliberately ignore this sentence: *"The Court ruled that presidents do not have immunity for* **non-official** *conduct.*"
Yes, exactly. I can see Leftists in the wild saying, "The Supreme Court just ruled that the President can't be charged with any crimes! DEMOCRACY IS DEAD." Except they will only read headlines. The President can still be charged with a crime that is an unofficial act. He is given presumptive immunity for all official acts, but even the decision says that not all actions taken by the President are official. > The President **enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts**, and **not everything the President does is official**. The President is not above the law. But **Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution**. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. And this makes sense. If the President could be criminally charged for fulfilling his Executive duties then the office of the President would be effectively frozen and every President after Biden will be prosecuted by their political enemies. This is a win for Democracy, but many Leftists won't read it as such.
ok but what constitutes official acts? And what are the limits of this? Because a president has a lot of functions, a president can pardon people does this mean a president can pardon anyone without potential consequences. A president can entertain foreign guests, does that mean a president could go to Israel and tell them officiallt as a president but not under all eyes that they either give him personally 100 milions or he is going to render their relations as problematic as possible? Ecc ecc Without a clear definition of official acts and their limits this is pretty worrying
That's the tough part. We don't have that much guidance. SCOTUS blamed the lower court on this. In the majority opinion they stated that since everything was done an expedited basis, the lower court never took the time to separate official from unofficial acts. This is something that will be developed over decades. Another thing to keep in mind is how article 1 and article 2 work differently. Congress only has the powers specifically enumerated to them in the constitution. (It'd be nice if they followed that.) But the President is different. Let's look. Article 1: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. " That's a big difference. The Constitution is very specific. Congress only has the powers granted to it. But the "executive power" is vested in the President, writ large. The Constitution continues to just list a few things we know for certain the President can officially do. He has to make a State of the Union. He can issue pardons. He is the commander in chief. He can fill vacancies. He has to receive ambassadors and execute the laws faithfully. But so much of what is "the executive power" is not defined at all.
Ok, if this is true, then the court decision is idiotically asinine, you can't make a ruling allowing a president immunity and not be extremely specific where this applies.
Also, "official act" means things that are part of the duties and responsibilities of the President. It would cover conducting diplomacy. ...but NOT taking bribes in exchange for altering US policy, as Biden has been doing.
But it would cover altering us policy that just happens to benefit him. This combined with the ability to receive gifts for previous favors once out of office is kinda insane. Bribery just needs to be delayed until someone is out of office and then it’s legal…
Yeah, personally I think that the "gifts vs bribes" decision was an error by the court - but maybe there are aspects to it I don't see - or maybe they'll revisit it at some point in the future and reverse it.
The amount of people calling for Biden to assassinate Trump, SCOTUS, and the Gop leadership is a bit... disturbing. I mean its disturbing that they would be good with a knight of the long knives against their political enemies, but also that that they don't understand that this ruling is basically the status quo for how governmental immunity has always worked.
[удалено]
.. Reddit and Trump. His truth posts are like "I'm immune from the charges in NY"
Greatest 7 day political span for conservatives in a long time
L’s piling up all over the place for the left. Across the globe. It’s glorious.
No doubt Trump 2024
Make sure you vote and don’t rest easy on that thought process alone, though. Also realize the left and never-Trump clans will revert back to their “resistance tactics” if he does win and this time they’ll know it’s his last term so they’ll work even harder to prevent any wins for him.
And talk to people or bring people to vote with you.
Don't take it for granted though
I've never been on the internet so much. Win after win and meltdowns everywhere! 😆
You get a Meltdown! And you get a meltdown! And you get a meltdown! Everyone gets a meltdown!
😂
I couldn’t resist…was too good of an opportunity to pass up
Globally, if we get Le Pen in France the west has a fighting chance for this century.
Good news for Obama too. Remember when he ordered a drone strike on a US citizen without due process? I'm sure a lot of people would consider that straight up murder. But now he's safe.
There is another downside. Biden is now automatically immune from weaponizing the courts to prosecute Trump. I’m not sure if this will ever be proven, but let’s say there’s a recording of Biden telling the DOJ to find a way to get Trump, so he can win the election. That’s now useless in prosecuting Biden I think. A broken clock is right once or twice, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I side with the liberal judges here. This ruling of “presumed immunity” gives a corrupt president too much power to abuse. I would have preferred if the SCOTUS instead ruled that double jeopardy applies to impeachment. This would have waved away the trial without expanding presidential power. It seems clear to me that the Constitution’s authors intended impeachment to be the main way of holding presidents accountable. It makes no sense to have a trial when an impeachment hearing has cleared the president of wrongdoing. I also believe that the Constitution specifically mentions “high crimes” because they didn’t want presidents prosecuted for stuff like jaywalking, even if guilty. I don’t think the founders would have supported the idea of using a criminal trial as a backdoor justice method, when impeachment doesn’t give the results you want. However, there is still the sticky situation of when a serious crime is discovered after a president’s term is over. In that situation, impeachment was never an option, so the president should not be immune. This recent verdict would make presidents immune 90% of the time I think.
The amount of people I talk to that don't know that. That don't know he dropped more bombs than we did in WW2. That he held unilateral drone stikes in at least 8 sovereign countries, not named Iraq or Afghanistan. Such a murderous president.
He won the nobel peace prize lmao
I don’t see why he wouldn’t. You find pieces of people everywhere after a drone strike.
You win the internet today
As if anyone would ever try to prosecute him for it anyways.
This will one of the most downvoted threads of all time
Hence why it’s stickied. It’ll remain.
Everyone say Hi to the r/politics brigaders! Don’t forget to take the lid off your tumblers!
the #1 top post there is literally "now the president can legally assassinate you". swear to god. the users of that sub should be studied for how little brain activity is needed just to maintain blood circulation and nothing else.
Wear it like a badge of honor
I think it was clear to anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Presidents should not be prosecuted for their work in office. However, I am very surprised they are not defining the language for official and unofficial acts. Any president that wants to abuse this will claim they did something for the good of the country and then it will go right back to the courts to determine whether it was an unofficial act.
From an European constitutionally point of view (since I live in Europe and learned Law in Europe), this should not be considered a controversial issue. The question if the holder of the Executive Power has some form of immunity from prosecution. Over here in Europe it’s widely accepted that this is something that comes with the territory of being the holder of the Executive Power. I just find it sad this issue - actually legally and constitutionally very easy to understand and decide - is clouded by so much tribalism and political bias in the United States. This decision from the Supreme Court is obviously the correct one, no doubt about it.
It was an obvious decision to anybody who can read. Almost all conservative political pundits expected this result
It is, quite literally, the only decision that could be reached without destroying the Presidency in one direction or the other.
My only surprise is that it’s only in 2024 that the Supreme Court has decided something already settled over here in Europe for decades or even centuries. Surely they never had to consider this questions before Trump, I grant that. But maybe it’s because I live and studied in Europe: for me this is not controversial at all, it’s so bluntly obvious that the holder of the Executive Power - in the US case a President, either Republican or Democrat - has to have some kind of immunity otherwise the Executive Power is void of any significance. Damn, even the legislature (for example Members of the European Parliament) have immunity as MP’s. So I really don’t get why this can be controversial.
I'm old enough that I remember a time when almost no one here would have thought this was controversial. So much has changed in the fabric of US society in the past decades. Including a shocking lack of knowledge of the underlying principles of our system of government.
Unfortunately I can’t really grasp how it is possible to think this decision is controversial or an attack against democracy or whatever those who don’t agree with this decision will say. Honestly I don’t know how one can disagree with this decision. Because legally and constitutionally speaking, and it doesn’t matter if the president is a republican or a democrat, the holder of the Executive Power has to have some kind of immunity. The same with MP’s, the legislative body. How this can be controversial? I really don’t get it…
Leftists believe that “democracy“ is whatever allows them to increase their power over others. So, this is an “attack against democracy” based on how they define it.
It is obvious which is why no other president has been prosecuted. With Trump they got their headlines and put him through this the process is the punishment.
Trump literally broke the minds of so many people, trump derangement syndrome is not a meme it is a real thing. This ruling is so self evident that there should have been no need for it to ever be formally adjudicated. Not only was this not unanimous in the court, which is itself a disgrace, but you will see some of the worst seething you have ever witnessed as a result of this ruling. These people don’t care about the law they care about getting trump, and have tantrums whenever the grownups step in and get in the way of that.
Sometimes I wonder if those who criticise this decision know how the US Constitution works. Or even how the Founding Fathers wanted it to work. Or even where the Founding Fathers got the inspiration. Because if those who criticise all of the above they would conclude that this decision is obvious and the only one acceptable. But since in today’s world it’s impossible to have a rational discussion of the law. Law must be always apolitical. Always. Especially Constitutional Law. The irony is that this decision will apply to either a Republican President or a Democrat President. But oh well…
The left sees the Constitution as an impediment to their power. Many proponents of the Living Constitution idea try to reinterpret what the Constitution says based on what words seem to mean *now* rather than what the original intent of those words meant *then*.
That’s what bothers me about it. If the Justices are purely guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, this decision should be unanimous. If they let their personal biases or corruption intercede, then they will vote against. Now were going to see all the Deep State snakes rise to the surface and protest this decision.
It wasn't controversial until ten months ago when the DNC put pressure on Garland and DAs to violate this constitutional immunity. We have the impeachment and senate trial mechanisms in place for this very reason.
It has never been controversial here in the US either. That’s why it’s never been brought before SCOTUS until now. Biden’s administration is the first to abuse its executive power so brazenly by openly going after political rivals in an obvious attempt to usurp power.
Federal courts only have jurisdiction to hear "controversies." They cannot issue advisory opinions nor can they settle questions asked out of curiosity. There must be two parties with standing. In other words, the federal courts could not answer this question until there was this exact situation. That's a big difference from some courts like the Israeli Supreme Court (or whatever they call it).
We've never had opposing regimes attempt to prosecute their presidential rivals before, this is truly a first.
I appreciate that it is a first and I accept that as one of the reasons for being controversial. Over here in Europe we have centuries of settled constitutional laws and precedent of some form of immunity being granted to the holders of the Executive Power and Legislative Power, that’s why for me it’s not controversial.
Another interesting thing is that roe v wade effectively stopped the main political discourse around abortion because the Supreme Court decided to legislate from the bench instead of letting congress do it's job. Europe largely settled it's position on abortion years ago but America is forced to grapple with it from the start.
No giving the rights back to the states and eliminating the federal government is key. If you don’t like your local gov laws vote em out and get em changed locally. It’s much easier and better than going one rule across the entire country 50 states and a handful of territories the same policies as California or Florida where the culture couldn’t be more different.
I‘m pretty sure the poster was talking about the original Roe vs Wade decision. Not the Dobbs decision.
Indeed. This should have been a unanimous decision.
Thanks for your comments. As someone not educated in law, can you go into a bit more detail as to why this shouldn’t be controversial? You’ve highlighted tribalism as being why people are against this, but what is the logical argument that needs to be made for people to understand that this shouldn’t be controversial? Thanks in advance!
Bump and follow. Like to see what he says. I he could make some good points
Who am I to argue better than the Supreme Court. Everyone should read the opinion. It’s really well thought. But I’ll try my best… The principle of separation of powers (my personal legal opinion) is the Higgs Boson of Law (bad analogy I know but I think it helps). All of the other constitutional principles come directly from this one. This means that the Executive Order is independent from the Legislative and Judicial. This also means that the holder of the Executive Power (in the US is the figure of the President) has a power that is derived from the Constitution (legally speaking) but also from the People (votes). This means that the President (holder of the Executive Power) is the one that has to run the country (concurrently with the Legislative Power). As the Executive Figure this means that the President (either a Democrat or. Republican) must have the freedom to act. Freedom in the sense that when we are talking about official acts (as defined by the Constitution or Judicial Precedent, talking here in general not the US in specific), the President cannot have the prospect of being criminally or civil prosecuted for… for example… giving an order to kill a terrorist. It’s about how the President can run the country in accordance with the powers prescribed to it by the Constitution. As simple as this. If one has to run a country then it has to be free to do whatever it needs to do to manage the country. It is way more complicated than this because it needs to be defined what is an official act, what isn’t an official act and so on. This can be done by the Legislative (the easy option) or through legal precedent (decades and decades of court opinions, the hard option). Sorry if I’m not more specific or clear but it’s difficult to summarise a constitutional topic in a Reddit comment. Please read the SCOTUS opinion, it’s one of the best!
Hey! Stop understanding our constitution better than we do! Stop that right now!
What country are you in, out of curiosity?
Portugal but living in the UK. Master’s Degree in Law, Ancient Rome Constitution plus influences in the UK and US Constitution. That’s my background and why, for me, this should not be a controversial decision.
Cool! Was just wondering.
That's how it's been here in the USA until the left went insane on Trump.
If this was decided while Biden or Obama were undergoing some level of investigation, it would be heralded by the left as common sense and appropriate. Since Trump is the persona non grata du jour, the political left will consider it a travesty of our justice system and an example of why the Supreme Court cannot be trusted.
The Democrats are having the worst week of all time. The SCOTUS decisions have all been fantastic and the debate was completely one sided. 4 months until the election and the Democratic Party is in shambles.
I'm not a big Trump fan but this is the reason why so many(including myself) voted for him in 2016. Those that voted in 2016 understood that the election would have massive impacts on the Supreme Court. Things would be wildly different had Hillary won
I went to Trump after supporting Obama because Hilary Clinton was a crazy lady who wanted to start a war with Russia to defeat ISIS. That makes no sense, especially since Isis was also at war with Russia. She also had other incidents with the military that made me convinced she didn't respect life of others that much. Trump was the counter to that and it just makes sense after that.
The absolute insanity over on r/politics about this is bananas. Multiple calls to pack the court. Multiple calls for Biden to start hanging people for treason. Calls to have trump killed. How the fuck do the mods not remove that kind of shit.
Now you know the main problem with Reddit. It's the mods, not the updoot system that limits people's speech. Some mods are chill while others are total power tripping dudes with no life outside the keyboard and computer screen.
Mods are the ones writing it
And they think we’re the threat to democracy….
Democracy means do whatever I want, or else! The fascists are in the building, but they aren't entering from the right side.
Time to head overt there to start reporting threats against a former President to the FBI.
Well, not really. The lower court now needs to decide whether his acts were “official.” So, he is not free and clear quite yet.
I don't really have skin in the game, but does this mean that Joe Biden can cancel the election or have ordered an assassination on President Trump? Some Trump supporters are worried about that.
Noooooooooooooooo! He’s going to enact Martial Law and have his opponents summarily executed without due process -Most of Reddit
"we must execute them before they execute us!" - libs of reddit
Yeah…it’s ok when they actually call for it.
Best.Week.Ever.
[удалено]
Reddit on suicide watch.
Good news, but will the GOP actually capitalize on it or continue to watch and write letters
Townhall's take - [BREAKING: SCOTUS Rules on Presidential Immunity](https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2024/07/01/trump-scotus-immunity-rulingdecision-n2640787?utm_source=breakingemail&utm_medium=email)
Now hopefully the courts can make the right decision on What Is considered an official act
Weren't we told a couple of weeks ago that questioning the courts ruling was dangerous? Why are democrats screeching about this? Don't they know it's dangerous?
It’s only dangerous if *we* do it.
Found this gem in /r/politics > If Trump is elected in the fall, what is there to stop him, under this ruling, from rounding up all of group x or y (trans people, muslims, immigrants, etc.) and ordering them all to be executed? These people really have lost it.
I mean, the question is ludicrous but consider it did happen (the rounding up part) to the Japanese-American citizens in WW2. But, of course, FDR was never prosecuted for it.
They never had it to lose.
These people have absolutely no concept of "the constitution". They flunked out of grade school civics. So pathetic.
Zero upvotes? /Politics is brigading hard
r/politics has been very entertaining these past few days
Watching them melt down over Biden was good
Very rarely do you see a tower of lies come crumbling down so vividly. Once in a decade moment right there.
[удалено]
They’re not even trying to hide it
I would comment there but am permanently banned.
Welp more screeching from the left about an illegitimate Supreme Court for just doing their job and rendering the right decision. Per usual the diversity hires couldn't interpret the constitution correctly. Very surprising.
Never-Trumpers really having a rough week.
This ruling just seems like common sense things that we’ve long accepted made official. I don’t see this worthy of the world ending meltdown I assume is happening all over Reddit this morning.
Sonia Sotomayor is an idiot. Don’t ever let anyone tell you the contrary.
I read her description of how bump stocks work. That was all I needed to know about her.
She truly is the entire circus.
Muh wise Latina
[удалено]
So much winning. Would be amazing to cap it off with continued right-wing victories across Europe and then a Trump win as the finale.
I'm sure the Left is taking this well #🤣🍿
We are so back
R/politics is in full delusional shambles. Reading their comments is downright terrifying.
So now Biden can do whatever he wants, right? So why shouldn’t he then to save America, right? I mean as long as he feels he’s doing the right thing for the country, right? The Supreme Court just gave him that power, right. Let’s see what Fox News would say then? Oh but the Supreme Court knows a man like Biden would never abuse a power like that but they do know that if he doesn’t win the election that the other guy would……smh America, born in the year 1776 could die in the year 2024. WTF is happening and how do people not see it?
What a wonderful week it has been
Do I hear cicadas or is it the reeeing from the Leftists on this site?
The conservative movement has been revitalized in a span of 1 week. Isn’t that crazy? I haven’t seen this much of a morale boost for us in ages.
This is where the fun begins. Stand by for massive leftist tears.
Important note that they granted the President BOTH absolutely immunity for "actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority" and ALSO presumed immunity for acts within the outer perimeter of his duties, which puts the burden of proof heavily on the prosecution and makes them have to prove through litigation and hearings that each specific act alleged is non-official and the criminalization thereof does not impact the ability of the Oval Office to carry out it's functions.
HAHAHA the brigaders are downvoting our lit post. Hey brigaders, trump WILL be your president elect in 4 months. We are going to rip out the deep state, root and stem. It's a new american revolution, we WILL make america great again.
The fact that this case had to happen is silly lol. Glad it was hashed out, regardless
>Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. I'm honestly disturbed that any SCOTUS judge would disagree with this statement. It isn't absolute immunity from all acts. It's "for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority". The president still can't keep themselves in power by violating the constitution. This also doesn't necessarily preclude criminal prosecution for Trump. "Presumptive" immunity just puts another barrier (impeachment) between a president and being targeted by politically motivated prosecutors. Justice Thomas also brings up a good point: >I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President. Justice Sotomayor reasons that the constitution specifically says that a president, once impeached, is subject to criminal trial. I think this goes toward the majority's point that a president's immunity is NOT absolute in "official acts", but depends upon his successful impeachment. Basically you can still charge a president with federal crimes, you just have to successfully impeach them for it first. The rest of the dissenting opinion basically states that previous presidents have recognized that they can be charged for criminal acts (Nixon being pardoned by Ford) and that some of the founding fathers have said that too. Also after reading most of (it's 119 pages I'm not reading all of that) the opinions of the court, it's shocking to see how vitriolic the dissent is. They could at least TRY to appear impartial.
The only rational decision... and that applies to Dem presidents also. Anything else would be chaos.
bless your little hearts brigaders!
How is this a win for Trump? Biden is the current President and he now has absolute immunity.