SCOTUS rules that Trump does have some immunity

[Hey Yo]

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court for the first time on Monday recognized that ex-presidents have immunity from prosecution for certain actions taken in office, as it threw out a judicial decision rejecting Donald Trump's bid to shield himself from criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss.

The court ruled 6-3 that while former presidents enjoy immunity for actions they take within their constitutional authority, they do not for actions taken in a private capacity. The ruling marked the first time since the nation's 18th century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the landmark ruling on behalf of the court's six-justice conserverative majority. The court's three liberal justices dissented.

The decision came in Trump's appeal of a lower court ruling rejecting his immunity claim. The court decided the case on the last day of its term.


https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/

[Hey Yo]

Schumer crying like a bitch

This is a sad day for America and a sad day for our democracy. The very basis of our judicial system is that no one is above the law,” Mr. Schumer, New York Democrat, wrote on X. “Treason or incitement of an insurrection should not be considered a core constitutional power afforded to a president.”

In another post, he called the ruling a “disgraceful decision by the MAGA SCOTUS — which is comprised of three justices appointed by Trump himself — enables the former President to weaken our democracy by breaking the law.”

In another post, he called the ruling a “disgraceful decision by the MAGA SCOTUS — which is comprised of three justices appointed by Trump himself — enables the former President to weaken our democracy by breaking the law.”

It undermines SCOTUS’s credibility and suggests political influence trumps all in our courts today,” he said.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/jul/1/chuck-schumer-decries-supreme-courts-presidential-/#:~:text=Senate%20Majority%20Leader%20Charles%20E, sad%20day%20for%20our%20democracy.

[rmt]

This rules applies to present and all future presidents - Republican and Democrat alike. What do these whining people want? For any President to be afraid to make decisions for fear of being sued later?

[gbaLL]

g pArTy

[Overdrive]

This rules applies to present and all future presidents - Republican and Democrat alike. What do these whining people want? For any President to be afraid to make decisions for fear of being sued later?

I think it's worrisome that people don't see the problem with this decision no matter if it's about Trump or any future dem/rep president. Yes, the leader of a country should be held accountable by law like any other person. It's pretty weird how much power people are ready to give a president while more often than not UScitizens talk about democracy, small government or even more libertarian stances. Taking away accountability from the president poses alot of danger even if it's only small steps so far.

Havin

[warriorfan]

I think it's worrisome that people don't see the problem with this decision no matter if it's about Trump or any future dem/rep president. Yes, the leader of a country should be held accountable by law like any other person. It's pretty weird how much power people are ready to give a president while more often than not UScitizens talk about democracy, small government or even more libertarian stances. Taking away accountability from the president poses alot of danger even if it's only small steps so far.

Havin

how many presidents have been prosecuted before this?

[Overdrive]

how many presidents have been prosecuted before this?

Historical? I honestly don't know, but I guess none. This point could be tackled in two ways, but that's besides my own point anyway. Why give the president more power? What's the expected positive outcome?

Do you guys support this, because it's caused by Trump or do you really support granting the president partial immunity even if it was some pink haired trans democrat?

[rawimpact]

Historical? I honestly don't know, but I guess none. This point could be tackled in two ways, but that's besides my own point anyway. Why give the president more power? What's the expected positive outcome?

Do you guys support this, because it's caused by Trump or do you really support granting the president partial immunity even if it was some pink haired trans democrat?

Because our congress is complete disaster... Presidents have to act with the best interest in mind, we cant go back and prosecute. Should we go after Bush for WMD claims? Dude acted to the best of his knowledge in the interest of US safety.

This means jack shit for trump at this point... this is for the future presidents.

[warriorfan]

It protects presidents from getting punished for doing the right thing.

Sometimes a president may be put in a situation to do something illegal even if it is beneficial to the U.s. citizens.

This new law eliminates conflict of interest. If a president has to break a few eggs to make an omelet, don’t penalize them after you ate your meal

[BurningHammer]

It protects presidents from getting punished for doing the right thing.

Sometimes a president may be put in a situation to do something illegal even if it is beneficial to the U.s. citizens.

This new law eliminates conflict of interest. If a president has to break a few eggs to make an omelet, don’t penalize them after you ate your meal

Technically, Biden would also have the same immunity to "do the right thing" too. Such as...

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/supreme-court-immunity-trump-biden-assassinate_n_66831f73e4b06575b36641d8


Legal experts said Monday that yes, as horrific and authoritarian as that sounds, the 6-3 decision (https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scotus-rules-trump-immune_n_662be328e4b0ab66ede48949) by the court’s conservative supermajority means that President Joe Biden could theoretically order that Trump be killed and be immune from criminal prosecution.

“Presumptively, he has the power to assassinate a rival,” John Dean, who was White House counsel to former President Richard Nixon, told HuffPost on a call with the Defend Democracy Project, a group that advocates for free and fair elections.

Making matters worse, said Dean, is that the court ruled that “official acts” by a president can’t be used as evidence of criminal conduct for “unofficial acts.” So in a hypothetical scenario involving Biden ordering people to kill Trump, his actual giving of the order would be potentially unavailable for evidence, he said.

[Hey Yo]

dumb ^^^^^^^

[Overdrive]

Because our congress is complete disaster... Presidents have to act with the best interest in mind, we cant go back and prosecute. Should we go after Bush for WMD claims? Dude acted to the best of his knowledge in the interest of US safety.

This means jack shit for trump at this point... this is for the future presidents.


It protects presidents from getting punished for doing the right thing.

Sometimes a president may be put in a situation to do something illegal even if it is beneficial to the U.s. citizens.

This new law eliminates conflict of interest. If a president has to break a few eggs to make an omelet, don’t penalize them after you ate your meal

You both base this on a benevolent leader that does a mistake with best intent in mind, but what if a malevolent leader is in charge?

[TheMan]

Because our congress is complete disaster... Presidents have to act with the best interest in mind, we cant go back and prosecute. Should we go after Bush for WMD claims? Dude acted to the best of his knowledge in the interest of US safety.

This means jack shit for trump at this point... this is for the future presidents.

LMAO, no way you really believe that.

[RRR3]

Because our congress is complete disaster... Presidents have to act with the best interest in mind, we cant go back and prosecute. Should we go after Bush for WMD claims? Dude acted to the best of his knowledge in the interest of US safety.

This means jack shit for trump at this point... this is for the future presidents.
This is your brain on conservatism.

[bladefd]

Because our congress is complete disaster... Presidents have to act with the best interest in mind, we cant go back and prosecute. Should we go after Bush for WMD claims? Dude acted to the best of his knowledge in the interest of US safety.

This means jack shit for trump at this point... this is for the future presidents.

No, it was specifically done for Trump. This was what he was hoping for and wanted. When it's a Democrat president trying to take advantage of this in the future, conservatives will be crying about how it's unfair that a president can have so much power.

[RRR3]

No, it was specifically done for Trump. This was what he was hoping for and wanted. When it's a Democrat president trying to take advantage of this in the future, conservatives will be crying about how it's unfair that a president can have so much power.
It's disastrous for Dems to have this power too, blade. And they currently have it. Biden could literally bomb Philadelphia tomorrow and be fine.

[Hey Yo]

No, it was specifically done for Trump. This was what he was hoping for and wanted. When it's a Democrat president trying to take advantage of this in the future, conservatives will be crying about how it's unfair that a president can have so much power.

Sentencing had been delayed in the hush money trial. Been moved to September 18th. :applause:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-trumps-hush-money-trial-delays-sentencing-supreme-court-immunity-rcna160028

[RRR3]

Sentencing had been delayed in the hush money trial. Been moved to September 18th. :applause:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/judge-trumps-hush-money-trial-delays-sentencing-supreme-court-immunity-rcna160028
You shouldn't be celebrating, you know Biden has immunity now right? He could kill anyone he wants. Pretty terrifying.

[Hey Yo]

You shouldn't be celebrating, you know Biden has immunity now right? He could kill anyone he wants. Pretty terrifying.

Typical Dem scare-tatic.

[Patrick Chewing]

You shouldn't be celebrating, you know Biden has immunity now right? He could kill anyone he wants. Pretty terrifying.

Isn't that what you bitch about all the time? That presidents drop bombs in other countries all the time?

[RRR3]

Typical Dem scare-tatic.
Huh? I just said it's bad BIDEN has this power. I wasn't even talking about Trump. Can you read?

[RRR3]

Isn't that what you bitch about all the time? That presidents drop bombs in other countries all the time?
Yes, but when has America ever considered imperialism a crime? You think the Dems won't take advantage of this to get away with even more shit? You're so busy salivating over Trump getting off you haven't considered the consequences. This is legitimately scary af regardless of which party is in office.

[Hey Yo]

Huh? I just said it's bad BIDEN has this power. I wasn't even talking about Trump. Can you read?

It's an extreme hypothetical for both sides. Sotomayor was saying the same stupid shit yesterday but of course using Trump's name and your girl AOC saying she's going to start the impeachment process for those who voted in favor of partial immunity. They act like Trump is currently our serving president.

[RRR3]

It's an extreme hypothetical for both sides. Sotomayor was saying the same stupid shit yesterday but of course using Trump's name and your girl AOC saying she's going to start the impeachment process for those who voted in favor of partial immunity. They act like Trump is currently our serving president.
It's not an extreme hypothetical for any side, a leader of state having carte blanche to do literally anything they want is never good. I wouldn't trust AOC with this power either, no one can be trusted with this power, that's the point. You're right that anyone using Trump right now as a reason this is bad is being hypocritical if they trust Biden with this power, the immediate concern should be the guy who's president.

[BurningHammer]

Meanwhile, at Trump's camp:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/02/trump-fake-elector-scheme-official-acts/74278205007/


A lawyer for former President Donald Trump has moved to challenge the former president’s conviction in a New York election interference trial, arguing that the evidence used to convict Trump now constitutes “official acts” that fall under the umbrella of presidential immunity.
In an interview with CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/01/politics/trump-challenge-hush-money-verdict-immunity-supreme-court/index.html), the attorney, Will Scharf, also argued that Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election qualify as official acts, which would shield the former president from prosecution.



:milton

[bladefd]

Yes, but when has America ever considered imperialism a crime? You think the Dems won't take advantage of this to get away with even more shit? You're so busy salivating over Trump getting off you haven't considered the consequences. This is legitimately scary af regardless of which party is in office.

Absolutely.

Trump has probably 5 years max to live from eating trash food and old age. This rules change would be forever. Conservatives will regret it the moment a Democrat takes a page out of the Republican book.

[SATAN]

https://i.kinja-img.com/image/upload/c_fit,q_60,w_1315/4dcf396882cdba480a557627b28cdc32.jpg

[warriorfan]

Absolutely.

Trump has probably 5 years max to live from eating trash food and old age. This rules change would be forever. Conservatives will regret it the moment a Democrat takes a page out of the Republican book.

unhinged.

:roll:

[Lakers Legend#32]

VP suck up candidate J.D. Vance says presidential immunity only applies to Trump not Biden.

There is your Republican justice.