SCOTUS majority has proven that they don’t care what’s written in the constitution
That’s an odd take being that they’re heavily relying on Article II to define which of a president’s actions are immune and everything outside of that is either open to interpretation or absolutely NOT immune.
I appreciate the few level-headed people observing this historic event.
In the sense that the Constitution is above the law, yes.
The president is not obligated with protecting elections so that should not fall within absolute immunity. At best, the president appoints election-related officials and may pressure them to do something about an election, But acting unilaterally is not something a president is supposed to do. (In my opinion)
Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I really don’t know what she’s going on about and I’m a little concerned.
As I understand it, POTUS has absolute immunity for core acts as specifically defined in the constitution. There are other official acts the president may conduct that are not strictly defined. There’s a presumed immunity for these actions but that does not mean they can not be challenged or that a president can not be impeached. And then there are actions a person holding office as president of the US may conduct outside their role as president which are by no means immune from criminal prosecution.
So, from what I’m reading, this ruling hasn’t really changed very much. It actually seems to me that it holds a president more accountable for their actions as it strengthens the guidelines they must follow as president.
Now, how congress goes about utilizing these guidelines in a bipartisan matter is 100% always going to be a concern. There’s going to be a lot of back and forth and forth and back to more clearly define what “official acts” are. Because our politics are so toxic now, this is likely going to have a monumental impact on the momentum of the already agonizingly slow to do anything federal government.
So, it’s up to voters to decide if they want Washington to work for them in a meaningful dinner table manner or perpetually act as a court to hold politicians accountable for their actions. We still, currently, have the choice to move forward or stay stuck in 2020.
In regard to the Reich Constitution, POTUS has always had most of these rights. In instances of political unrest or natural disaster, the president has power to declare an emergency. Funding still has to be agreed upon by Congress.
Also, FWIW, SCOTUS very clearly states in the middle of Page 8 “The President is not above the law.”
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. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
If “maintaining the dignity of the office of President” is a core obligation of president, Trump could be impeached and convicted of that charge.
This is a lie.
I really don’t understand how people are twisting this so dramatically. The president is still bound by the law of the constitution. No president can just go on a killing spree. They still need to operate in an official capacity as POTUS. I mean, I understand we don’t want to give Trump a win under any circumstances but he most certainly can still be held accountable for his actions.
presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts,
This is simply not true. There are three levels of actions: core actions defined by the constitution, other official actions as president, and acts outside of being president. It’s the first “core” actions that are immune simply because they are defined in the constitution - pardons, appointments, etc. It’s like saying putting on your turn signal to make a turn is immune from prosecution. Other actions as president are presumed to be immune but that does not mean they are “absolutely” immune from prosecution.
Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.
This is 100% NOT TRUE.
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.
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.
And official acts have guidelines. It is very clear that not everything a president does is an official act.
I would encourage you to read the first couple paragraphs of this article so you are informed of your misunderstanding.
I hope this was a joke. If not, you grossly misunderstand the situation.
So, would official acts as president be legal by definition? Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?
And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)? How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?
Deleting my apparently wrong comment. Pft.
I appreciate you letting me know and I’m sorry you live with this. I genuinely do not understand it.
Nearly half of Americans now rate it “very serious,”
Americans are significantly less likely to view prejudice against Muslim people as a very serious problem (33%) than to say prejudice against Jewish people is.
Half of Democrats, compared with 18% of Republicans, say anti-Muslim prejudice is a very serious problem in the U.S., as do 30% of independents.
I’m a raised-catholic-agnostic democrat of mixed European heritage residing in an American east coast city. I barely have an opinion about Jewish people (see below). I have many Jewish friends which means nothing outside of a few weeks in December. I have never in my 45+ years witnessed anti-semitism. What I have observed in the past year is a strong opposition to the Israeli government and its support by the United States (finally). After 9/11, the anti-Muslim sentiment in this country was so immense that you could taste it in the air. Not to argue this is inaccurate but I just don’t feel that I live in the same reality as what’s being reported here.
The thing I’ve always considered odd about the Jewish population is the strong connection to a place and people and time whom most have never engaged with. It is what it is and I accept it but it’s unfamiliar to me. And it has absolutely no impact on my perception or opinion of any Jewish persons.
The tribalism and skewed perspectives we’re all capable of needs to be tempered.
Reddit has been generic for several years now. It’s, mostly, addictive trash content. I miss individual subs but the algorithm for popular / front page posts is doing the same thing every other social platform is doing. If that’s your jam, go for it. I value my time enough that I don’t need to be entertained by an algorithm. I hate it. A lot.
Edit:
I mean, I just went to reddit.com and the top post is a 21 year old married woman asking how to tell their 18 year old cousin they stink because they only shower every 3-4 days. THIS is engaging content? WTF is wrong with you people? This is why I’m thrilled to have left that dumbass platform.
Then they should be charged with whatever crimes they committed and face a jury of their peers to determine their guilt. That is not what this case is about.
I didn’t know “gay” was a people. I don’t go around calling straight people “my people”. How weird. Maybe you’ve got some prejudice against certain groups that don’t look like you.
That’s a fair comparison. I don’t think Biden is in this situation, yet. Could be worse - it could be Trump making his own unilateral decisions.
POTUS is not absolutely immune from acts outside their official core duties as outlined in Article II. They can still be impeached. Impeachment is little more than a review of actions to determine an indictment. Only upon conviction may a president be removed.