On Monday, the US Supreme Court sent the case of Trump v. United States back to a lower court in Washington, which per AP has the effect of "dimming prospect of a pre-election trial". The majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, found that:
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.
You can read the full opinion for yourself at this link.
Submissions that may interest you
https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1dsupsh/megathread_us_supreme_court_finds_in_trump_v/
46 comments
Well, the American experiment was fun while it lasted.
“Justice Sotomayor warns: In all uses of official power, “the President is now a king above the law.”
So they’re just not going to define official act at all so when he’s found guilty of inciting an insurrection, he can appeal that all the way to the supreme court as well. Must be nice for him to have them in his pocket.
Didn’t have Murrka becoming a dictatorship on my 2024 bingo card, but I guess i’ll tick it off anyway.
It took them 6 months to decide “maybe”
I’m a liberal. I did not vote for trump. I will not vote for Trump. I really don’t like the guy. But this IS the correct decision. They aren’t saying the president gets blanket immunity (after their term has ceased) for everything, just things that are related to the job of being president. Now it’s for a lower court to determine if his actions were done to serve the interest of the country and uphold is duties as president, or if they were to serve and benefit his private interests (i.e re-election campaign).
How can a President be impeached for official acts now?
The United States is now an oligarchy with a Supreme Leader.
[removed]
Are you guys going to do something about this? Because I will. You can be here and type away about Biden’s bad debate performance and dooming all day long, but I know what is at stake here
Do you? Take a moment and realize what will happen if Republicans and Trump win the election. Do what you can to prevent that from happening. There is no excuse
I do believe this the correct decision at the most superficial level and am kind of surprised the 3 liberal justices dissented. That being said, the opinion doesn’t do much to define what is official and unofficial – besides saying discussions between POTUS and VPOTUS are official acts.
They obviously want this to be argued in the lower courts and the funny thing is that the argument of what is official and isn’t is probably just going to end up back with them anyway. It was very much a kick the can down the road decision. 🤷♀️
Well, sic semper tyrannis.
Sometimes I wish I was a fascist and that the whole constitution was being rewritten before my eyes to enshrine my favorite dictator in power and privilege and with my world view overwriting all dissent. And then I remember we’re a democracy and it’s not supposed to work that way.
These dumbass conservatives and MAGA are like
“Hur hur hur look at the liberals squeel” and they see it as a victory.
They have no idea what they are celebrating.
They think it’s a Trump victory and don’t see the long term impact. This is a fucking disaster.
America’s downfall, brought to you in part by RBG and Biden’s hubris.
I mean, F Trump and SCOTUS, but how do we end up like this without D’s trying to hang on way past their expiration date?
Time to exit the matrix if you haven’t — the curtain is falling, and the truth of this country is lying there in plain sight.
It’s all an illusion to control US, and protect THEM. Voting will not fix this.
Time for Biden to arrest all 6 conservative judges and just call it an official act
The United States will resemble 1990s Yugoslavia by this time next year . I hope I’m wrong. I think I’m not .
Everyone is focusing on the unofficial vs official acts part, and that will have to be (and should be) sorted out in lower courts so that some sort of case law can be developed so that there’s a framework of precedent for making that distinction. That’s fair enough, regardless of what you think of the timing.
For me, the bigger time-bomb no one is latching onto is the “presumption of” immunity vs. absolute immunity. “Presumption of” is not absolute (for most official acts outside “core constitutional” ones). It means a benefit of the doubt or deference must be given that the president’s official acts are made in good faith (and hence not criminal) *unless*…unless some other burden of proof is reached.
The question is what is the burden of proof for that presumption to be overturned? Is it that congress has to impeach/convict first? Is it just that proof of a knowing criminal mens rea must be shown?? Is it some standard that “no reasonable person” could consider it a reasonable interpretation of the law?
To me that’s the bigger question that will really affect the direction of the country.
Stock market is tanking.
Does this mean that bribing a president for an official act is legal? Pardons are presidential acts. Can I bribe for a pardon legally?
There’s one thing he doesn’t have immunity from, it just needs to finally happen
This ruling has gotten me thinking that maybe its time for federal level elected and any congressionally approved/appointed officials to have some sort of additional set of laws they have to abide by like the military code of justice. Not that id trust the makeup of the nation as it stands right now to hold a convention to amend, we would be dissolved by the end of any such effort,lol.
I will say this, the lines of how compromised the 3rd box of liberty is in this nation just crept upwards in my mind. The enemies of this nation are using our own laws and the exploits in the system to wage pyrrhic lawfare on the rest of society.
The dems are gonna play softball with this and neuter themselves. Great job taking the high road guys, it really paid off! /s. Dems are pathetic. This is why Rs win, they dgaf. Dems need to play hardball
As an SEC Football fan, if you ain’t cheating, you ain’t trying
Hey, Biden administration: time to go scorched earth and force the GOP to make a law to prevent your power grab. It would be bipartisan because the dems are already outraged by this decision.
Immunity means immunity means immunity
Amazing to think about what these fraud fuckers are so scared of protecting a shit bag like Trump .
Pull the trigger Joe
Trying to stay in office is not an official act of the office. Campaigns are separate from the office and he acted on behalf of his campaign.
> 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.
the US has rulings from the 80s and 90s that say the same thing , idk why people are angry
I can’t say that I’m surprised. Unless I’m misinformed (which I could be), there isn’t a great mechanism for determining what is an official vs unofficial act.
So if he makes it an official act to execute people he doesn’t like, he’s immune to any prosecution? What makes it official, an executive order, a tweet, just the fact the president did it?
https://libguides.law.widener.edu/potus-power good source for what the core duties are.
Am I missing something? It seems like most responses are freaking out, but I thought this was the way everything was understood to work? No immunity for unofficial acts / official acts are protected
Well, that’s it. He is going to be king
It’s good to be the king
He was meant to be on trial back in April. It’s July. Three months of delay, they could’ve answered this back in December but nope. Even if they said no it doesn’t matter. They did their part, this is just icing on the cake.
Next case will be what is unofficial vs official. The court will find some obscure English law that they can use to infer textual founding fathers federalist paper blah blah blah blah…boom and now it is an official act. This court can make up anything they want and find some “justification” for it.
Not to mention years of litigation every time a crime is committed on whether it is an official/unofficial act. This gives defacto Kingship to the office of the Presidency. As long as you have the SC in your pocket, you now rule. And the new King will decide how far he wants to go for power.
gg gl next democracy.
Trump is such a corrupted degenerate. He truly represents all that’s wrong with this country. Absolute slime
I remember learning about checks and balances in school. Not so sure that exists as much anymore.
This ruling does nothing. They’re just saying he has immunity if it’s something done in the performance of his duties. Obviously crime is not part of his duties and won’t be protected
I think we have to start using Supreme in the context of including sour cream and tomatoes.
Official duties include trying to over turn an election I guess.
What’s an official act? Why, that’s for the courts to decide, of course! And is there any doubt how they’ll make their determinations?
An official act is what a Republican does, and an unofficial act is what a Democrat does.
Page 68 is Sotomayor dessent and is pretty damning.
So what’s the difference between “Full immunity” and “Presumption of immunity”?
I don’t even live in the US, I’m in the UK but I can’t help but follow everything you guys have going on with abject horror and concern.
You are our greatest and strongest allies in the world but it’s like watching a best friend make horrific choices again and again. 50% of you can see the madness and are desperate for it to stop watching helplessly but the other 50% are driving you off a cliff. I’d make a jibe comparing that to Brexit but I genuinely think your democracy is at stake so it wouldn’t be that funny really.
Hold up, so SCOTUS decides that former President to are entitled to some immunity, but not everything a president does is an official act. Then they refused to define what an official act is and send it back to the lower court. I’m not a SCOTUS expert, so why would they kick it back to a lower court to decide what’s official and what’s unofficial? It seemed like the perfect time to decide that and make it clear for all future presidents.