Posted on 06/23/2024 3:57:33 AM PDT by MtnClimber
This week, the Supreme Court issued two opinions that do not bode well for the outcome of the NY case brought by Alvin Bragg.
The Supreme Court announced that it was adding another opinion day to its schedule -- Wednesday, June 26th. Among the pending cases is United States v. Trump, in which the court must decide to what extent presidential immunity shields the president from criminal prosecution for actions taken while in office.
While the content of the discussions during oral arguments are not a perfect indicator of how the court will rule, Scotus blog sat through oral argument and concluded the court is likely to side with Donald Trump to some degree:
With four of the court’s conservative justices -- Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh -- appearing to lean toward some form of immunity for Trump, the ruling may hinge on Roberts, who although relatively quiet seemed dubious about the reasoning of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, which he summarized as saying that “a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.” And although Dreeben stressed the “layers of protection” available to shield a former president from unwarranted prosecutions, such as the assumption that prosecutors will act in good faith and the need for a grand jury to return an indictment, Roberts asked Dreeben why the court shouldn’t send the case “back or issue an opinion saying that’s not the law?”
The timing of the release of the opinion -- should it occur on Wednesday -- is particularly significant because the following day is set for the debate between President Biden and Donald Trump, and there’s every indication that Biden’s strategy is to hammer on the criminal cases (and singular criminal conviction in New York) against his opponent.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Another reason for Biden to try to pack the court. Possibly before the election.
Try is the operative word. It didn’t work for FDR and it won’t work for Democrats.
Golly, I hope the decisions rendered just blows all these fake and manufactured “convictions” of Donald J. Trump right out of the water. And those of his underlings who were caught up in a series of “process crimes” related to the protection of the right of the President, ANY President, to not be held criminally charged with official acts of the office.
Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which are not official acts, do not enjoy this protection.
No, it won't work. But, they will have their talking points. "These rulings are not legitimate...the evil republicans kept our judges off the court." And likely they will try to push for what the court would have ruled if it had been packed with marxists.
This is a great article by Clarice, but i disagree with this one statement. Yes, the microphones will be shut off, but Trump and Biden are in the same room. Though it will not be heard over the air, brain addled Biden will hear Trump's voice. Trump will be able to kibitz and interrupt Biden, who, in his state of anger driven dementia, will babble incoherently to address Trump's interruptions. The public will hear only Biden's babbles.
The problem with ‘pushing’ for the result they want is in the codification of the statute that implements that ‘want.’
For instance, abortion has been deemed a STATES prerogative to govern and not a Federal right or issue. If the federal Congress and Administration implements a statute trying to end-around that, even if it is a ‘law,’ it is still Unconstitutional by USSC edict and would have to pass the Roe v Wade overturning ruling by the USSC. It would really have to be some kind of tricky/snarky backdoor way of implementing abortion without actually directly making it a ‘right.’ But, they will try it.
“Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which are not official acts, do not enjoy this protection.”
Sounds just like the charges that should be brought against the entire Xi-O-Biden regime.
They will send it back to the lower court to hear out. You also have Judge Cannon’s decision. I look for her to disqualify Smith to begin with. Why wouldn’t she? Even a non lawyer can see that the guy was illegally assigned the position.
The microphones of the candidates will be shut off, but the microphones of the "moderators" will not, and I expect the "moderators" to interrupt Trump repeatedly to make a "correction". They won't do that to Biden.
It appears the democrat party may get the crown or get it’s back broke.
Biden and party has proved the risk they are to freedom.
President needs to be impeached and convicted before he can be tried for actions he took in office. That was the founders intent and should be the courts decision. I don’t think it is even close, but what do I know.
I think Biden will be angry and animated, and drugged but I also think he will be tightly scripted and constantly spewing well memorized portions of speeches he has given dozens of times. He will also be tossed softball questions his team has likely been given in advance so I think he will do OK and anything short of falling over will be adjudged a triumph by the media.
That said it is not a bad thing for Trump if Biden is given the win because we need to keep him on the Dem ticket. Trump might even consider taking a dive in this debate though that is not in his nature.
It is only the President who has no protection for their behavior in the elected office?
Is "good behavior" for the Justices limited only to when they are on the bench hearing oral arguments or when they release their rulings?
Is "going to and returning from" Congress an official act of Congress?
So why are enemies of President Trump arguing that the President has no immunities for himself, or that they are so limited in scope to be narrower than even members of Congress and the Supreme Court enjoy?
The problem with trying to determine "core Presidential acts" is that this is often out of the control of the President; events will decide what is "Presidential" or not and will overtake the President's schedule.
For example:
When President Bush was reading a storybook to kindergartners on the morning of 9/11, was that a Presidential or personal act? I'd say it was presidential as the President is out meeting the people. Was it a "core" presidential act? I think many people could debate both sides of this, saying that "core" presidential acts are those that interact with Congress or involve meeting with foreign leaders, or when acting as Commander-in-Chief. You know... things spelled out in the Constitution.
So, if President Bush reading books to children is not a "core" Presidential act, would he not have immunity for doing it? Suppose that a parent didn't like the story Bush was reading and wanted to sue him for exposing their child to content not appropriate to the beliefs of the parents?
And then, when aides interrupted President Bush with the news of the plane crashes into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, did Bush suddenly "snap" into core Presidential mode? In other words, is there a switch that flips on and off outside of the President's control that categorizes his minute-to-minute existence as core, non-core, and personal, or do we just say the President is in a very fluid, dynamic, and often stressful role as the sole elected official of the Executive branch, and everything he does is core to the role?
Presidential immunity would finally put some backbone into the Senate to convict someone if properly impeached in the House, because impeachment conviction overrules Presidential immunity. We might finally see some impeachment convictions instead of political impeachments if SCOTUS rules that convictions were actually required in order to prosecute a former President.
-PJ
Agree. I have been making the same arguments. It is impossible to separate presidential actions into official and personal, especially when you are trying to distinguish them based on his motivation where personal and national interests are often impossible to separate. Does he not do something he thinks it is good for the country because it could personally benefit him and open him to subsequent indictment and conviction? If he believes an election was stolen is he required to not act or speak of it because it impacts him personally? How about if he knows for a certainty it was stolen? Does he do nothing to protect our democracy because his political opponents will indict him? These are the hypotheticals that should be considered not some far fetched stupidity like the president murders someone. However if you do want to consider murder by a president it has already happened under Obama with an extrajudicial drone strike on an american citizen the the DoJ said was fine as long as the DoJ approves of it.
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.