While his family was aware of how poorly he performed against Donald Trump, they also continue to think he’s the best person to beat the Republican presumptive nominee.
Not everything, but it’s incredibly easy to fall into something being an official act, and most things of consequences would end up there, especially if you’re a corrupt president planning to use this ruling. There are a few constitutionally-defined acts that are 100% absolute immunity, but the ruling also gives a presumption of immunity to other official acts that are not defined. That’s why they’re sending it back to the lower court - to determine which acts were official. Which will then be appealed and affirmed and then appealed back to the Supreme Court. But by the time they have to grant immunity, the election will be over. They very much did not want to make a decision about what acts were official so they wouldn’t have to make explicit that Trump is immune until after the election.
Thank you for the level-headed response. This is pretty much inline with what I’ve been reading.
Seems to me that this was not that consequential of a case. It was mostly just a confirmation of what we’ve already presumed. The larger issue that’s been pending since the 2020 election is if what he did was an official act.
I look forward to a decision about whether asking someone to find some extra votes is considered an official act.
This is an incredibly consequential case making entirely new law that is conveniently on a case by case basis and under the control of a corrupt court. Just read the dissents. And it overruled a unanimous ruling that Trump was not immune. Trying to downplay this is wrong.
I’m really not seeing how this changes much. If anything, it’s plausible this confirms at least one set of guidelines and, I think, makes the case against Trump easier.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while he was president, as well as the government’s claim that a former president is not “above the law” and can be criminally prosecuted for all actions done while in office.
Instead, the court ruled that some of the crimes that Trump is alleged to have committed are protected by immunity, but others may not be.
the court first determined that a president is absolutely immune for actions taken that are part of his “core” executive functions. These include the powers explicitly given to him in the Constitution, such as the pardon power and the power to remove executive branch officials, which are part of his “exclusive authority” into which neither Congress nor the judicial system may intrude.
For his noncore powers, which include all those not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution, such as the formulation of domestic policy, the court took a more nuanced approach.
The court also ruled in the immunity case that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for nonofficial, private conduct.
I hope this was a joke. If not, you grossly misunderstand the situation.
If it’s an official act, he could keep power. That’s the ruling by the corrupt court.
And official acts have guidelines. It is very clear that not everything a president does is an official act.
Not everything, but it’s incredibly easy to fall into something being an official act, and most things of consequences would end up there, especially if you’re a corrupt president planning to use this ruling. There are a few constitutionally-defined acts that are 100% absolute immunity, but the ruling also gives a presumption of immunity to other official acts that are not defined. That’s why they’re sending it back to the lower court - to determine which acts were official. Which will then be appealed and affirmed and then appealed back to the Supreme Court. But by the time they have to grant immunity, the election will be over. They very much did not want to make a decision about what acts were official so they wouldn’t have to make explicit that Trump is immune until after the election.
Thank you for the level-headed response. This is pretty much inline with what I’ve been reading.
Seems to me that this was not that consequential of a case. It was mostly just a confirmation of what we’ve already presumed. The larger issue that’s been pending since the 2020 election is if what he did was an official act.
I look forward to a decision about whether asking someone to find some extra votes is considered an official act.
This is an incredibly consequential case making entirely new law that is conveniently on a case by case basis and under the control of a corrupt court. Just read the dissents. And it overruled a unanimous ruling that Trump was not immune. Trying to downplay this is wrong.
I’m really not seeing how this changes much. If anything, it’s plausible this confirms at least one set of guidelines and, I think, makes the case against Trump easier.
https://theconversation.com/above-the-law-in-some-cases-supreme-court-gives-trump-and-future-presidents-a-special-exception-that-will-delay-his-prosecution-232907
You sound like the coworker that told me roe v wade being overturned wouldn’t change anything.
Read the dissents. No one who’s deeply involved in politics or law thinks this is a nothingburger.