Posted on 04/10/2024 5:20:52 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator
“Immunity” in the sense of presidential immunity isn’t absolute. Trump’s lawyers aren’t arguing that it is. Merely that there is an orderly process delineated in the Constitution for holding the leader of the executive branch accountable: impeachment in the House, trial in the senate, conviction/removal or acquittal. All in keeping with separation of powers.
This prevents local rogue DAs (for example) from weaponizing their offices and engaging in the absurdities we’re witnessing in the Bragg and Willis circuses.
In a sane and rational country where the Constitution is still followed you’d be right.
Sadly, I don’t believe we are in a sane and rational country anymore.
L
I stand in agreement!
If the country were sane and rational, those who weaponize the law would be dead, punished for crimes against the Republic
Fair enough. On what are you basing you predictions upon? I agree that should be the case, but I have little faith in some of the so-called Supreme Court “conservative” judges who tend to rule based upon their personal beliefs, not the Constitution itself. Quite similar to how the liberal judges rule.
Agreed, but they have Congress by the ba!!s and own everyone at DOJ.
They are fearless of EVERYTHING but Trump’s return to the Executive.
If they succeed in their election fraud, I can only hope the Russians follow through.
Let’s hope, this persecution of Trump is beyond belief, we need some sanity in our justice system.
Since the case was accepted on an expedited basis, there were at least 5 Justices open to the basic contours of the argument, as opposed to the preposterously simpleton DC appellate ruling. I have a hunch Roberts was among the 5.
While he’s not my cup of tea, he’s generally an institutionalist and may well be appalled at the systemic abuse of the judicial system and the way Democrats have turned courts, judges and juries into just tools of electoral politics, rather than impartial justice. The whole thing has demolished any remaining confidence people still had in courts as the ultimate safeguard against abuses in the political arena. A decision to affirm presidential immunity may go a long way toward restoring such confidence and allow the judicial system to resume its institutional role as neutral arbiter.
And why did courts refuse to address 2020 and why will SCOTUS rule against DJT here? Three words:
SCOTUS will not want to be accused...yet again...of handing the Presidency to a particular candidate. And that goes double for handing it to DJT.
I hope to God I'm wrong.
PS: it's obvious even to Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley that any guilty verdict handed down in these cases will be overturned on appeal...but that won't be until next year...or 2026...or 2027.
Seems reasonable, but is there something beyond impeachment and Senate conviction for treason?
(Asking for obvious reasons.)
Please see my comments in post 8.
I expect they will declare Presidents are immune from prosecution for most “official acts as President” but not from everything any President may have done while in office.
The question will then become, in this case, what is Trump claiming was an official act that he is now being prosecuted for.
They may rule on that as well, but in typical fashion will probably kick that back down to the lower court for further debate first.
Bush v Gore was falsely portrayed as “election interference” in Bush’s favor. Actually, the decision (7-2) affirmed the equal protection clause and, by a 5-4 vote, remanded the case back to the Florida Supremes (who were the real election meddlers).
A decision by the current SCOTUS to affirm presidential immunity would be a step in restoring judicial impartiality — taking the judicial system out of deciding election results. The toxic weaponization of the judicial system we’re witnessing today is precisely why the Founding Fathers wrote, in black letter, those safeguards in our Constitution.
“The whole thing has demolished any remaining confidence people still had in courts as the ultimate safeguard against abuses in the political arena.”
That toothpaste can never be put back in the tube. Once trust is lost in the system by any significant portion of a society it’s impossible to restore it. It’s never been done, at least not to my knowledge.
Sorry to be such a downer but that’s just how I see it. Even if Trump wins, and I do believe he will, this garbage is not going to stop. I think they’ll double down and the rioting will be even worse than last time around.
I hope and pray I’m wrong. But I don’t think I am.
L
It sounds like a simple question before the court. The president has a duty, as the chief executive, to see that election laws are properly applied. Trump was doing that.
If Smith is allowed to treat Trump as a civilian for his actions as president, then every retired military officer could be brought up on murder charges and civil rights violations.
EC
Suppose Biden ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate Trump. Would Biden be completely immune from any prosecution as long as 34 of the Democrats in the Senate refused to convict him on an impeachment vote?
A sweeping claim of presidential immunity sounds fine as long as you like the President who’s claiming it.
I hope you are correct, but the GOPe supporters hate Trump & his MAGA supporters, and that includes the Supreme Court.
Restoring that trust will take more than just one decision by the high court, no doubt. It’ll be a long, hard slog. Trump will have a truly historic opportunity to reshape the courts in a lasting way once he’s back in office. That in itself will go a long way to gradually restoring confidence, though it could be generational.
Exactly, which is precisely the point. Notice the absurd lengths that had to be traversed to concoct criminal cases against Trump. Be it Smith, Bragg, Willis — all had stitch together utterly untested, novel legal theories to charge Trump. None of the activities described in any of the indictments even remotely rises to the level of criminality. Carrying out official duties is not a crime — no matter how hard Democrats try to make them crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.