Posted on 10/14/2023 6:42:38 PM PDT by bitt
Everyone knows he has absolute immunity. Any surprise why the democrat press or Fox never mentions that?
As for Biden snd being demonic, he’s nothing like could be waiting in the wings. Some day an AOC or worse will occupy the office licking their chops at the doors Trump opened. But hey, if you’re happy, then so be it.
From the article: In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from civil liability for acts within the outer perimeter
You were saying?
If this duly applies to all Presidents from this day forward this would mean the President is a de facto dictator that could break every law in the land as long as he can control at least a 3-5 senators that themselves can benefit from that presidents actions while in office.
This is a very dangerous precedent is enacted, of which i doubt greatly. First of all The documents case occurred after the president left office when he failed to return said documents back to the government, secondly the NY case occurred before Trump was elected president. Both the Jan. 6 and GA cases may fall within that statute but i doubt it would hold water.
Yeah, like Biden.
So, can a president rob a bank, murder someone, commit treason ... and as long as he makes it to the end of his term, get away with it?
Trump is arguing that presidents, even after their term is over, are absolutely immune from criminal prosecutions arising out of their acts in office.[...] In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from civil liability for acts within the outer perimeter.
The Motion in Trump cites the Opinion in Nixon v. Fitzgerald as authority for its interpretation of absolute immunity.
The Opinion in Nixon v. Fitzgerald clearly indicates there is unqualified immunity from civil liability, but that the immunity does not appear to extend to criminal actions.
NIXON v FITZGERALD, 457 US 731, 755-759 (1982)
Opinion of the Court
CIn defining the scope of an official's absolute privilege, this Court has recognized that the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity's justifying purposes. Frequently our decisions have held that an official's absolute immunity should extend only to acts in performance of particular functions of his office. See Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S., at 508-517; cf. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S., at 430-431. But the Court also has refused to draw functional lines finer than history and reason would support. See, e. g., Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S., at 498 (privilege extends to all matters "committed by law to [an official's] control or supervision"); Barr v. Matteo, 360 U. S. 564, 575 (1959) (fact "that the action here taken was within the outer perimeter of petitioner's line of duty is enough to render the privilege applicable . ."); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S., at 363, and n. 12 (judicial privilege applies even to acts occurring outside "the normal attributes of a judicial proceeding"). In view of the special nature of the President's constitutional office and functions, we think it appropriate to recognize absolute Presidential immunity from damages liability for acts within the "outer perimeter" of his official responsibility.
Under the Constitution and laws of the United States the President has discretionary responsibilities in a broad variety of areas, many of them highly sensitive. In many cases it would be difficult to determine which of the President's innumerable "functions" encompassed a particular action. In this case, for example, respondent argues that he was dismissed in retaliation for his testimony to Congress—a violation of 5 U. S. C. § 7211 (1976 ed., Supp. IV) and 18 U. S. C. § 1505. The Air Force, however, has claimed that the underlying reorganization was undertaken to promote efficiency.
Assuming that petitioner Nixon ordered the reorganization in which respondent lost his job, an inquiry into the President's motives could not be avoided under the kind of "functional" theory asserted both by respondent and the dissent. Inquiries of this kind could be highly intrusive.
Here respondent argues that petitioner Nixon would have acted outside the outer perimeter of his duties by ordering the discharge of an employee who was lawfully entitled to retain his job in the absence of "'such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service."' Brief for Respondent 39, citing 5 U. S. C. § 7512(a). Because Congress has granted this legislative protection, respondent argues, no federal official could, within the outer perimeter of his duties of office, cause Fitzgerald to be dismissed without satisfying this standard in prescribed statutory proceedings.
This construction would subject the President to trial on virtually every allegation that an action was unlawful, or was taken for a forbidden purpose. Adoption of this construction thus would deprive absolute immunity of its intended effect.
It clearly is within the President's constitutional and statutory authority to prescribe the manner in which the Secretary will conduct the business of the Air Force. See 10 U. S. C. § 8012(b). Because this mandate of office must include the authority to prescribe reorganizations and reductions in force, we conclude that petitioner's alleged wrongful acts lay well within the outer perimeter of his authority.
V
A rule of absolute immunity for the President will not leave the Nation without sufficient protection against misconduct on the part of the Chief Executive.38 There remains the constitutional remedy of impeachment.39 In addition, there are formal and informal checks on Presidential action that do not apply with equal force to other executive officials. The President is subjected to constant scrutiny by the press. Vigilant oversight by Congress also may serve to deter Presidential abuses of office, as well as to make credible the threat of impeachment.40 Other incentives to avoid misconduct may include a desire to earn reelection, the need to maintain prestige as an element of Presidential influence, and a President's traditional concern for his historical stature.
The existence of alternative remedies and deterrents establishes that absolute immunity will not place the President "above the law."41 For the President, as for judges and prosecutors, absolute immunity merely precludes a particular private remedy for alleged misconduct in order to advance compelling public ends.
VI
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for action consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
__________41 The dissenting opinions argue that our decision places the President "above the law." This contention is rhetorically chilling but wholly unjustified. The remedy of impeachment demonstrates that the President remains accountable under law for his misdeeds in office. This case involves only a damages remedy. Although the President is not liable in civil damages for official misbehavior, that does not lift him "above" the law. The dissents do not suggest that a judge is "above" the law when he enters a judgment for which he cannot be held answerable in civil damages; or a prosecutor is above the law when he files an indictment; or a Congressman is above the law when he engages in legislative speech or debate. It is simply error to characterize an official as "above the law" because a particular remedy is not available against him.
- - - - - - - - -
Chief Justice BURGER, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion, but I write separately to underscore that the Presidential immunity derives from and is mandated by the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers. Indeed, it has been taken for granted for nearly two centuries.1 In reaching this conclusion we do well to bear in mind that the focus must not be simply on the matter of judging individual conduct in a fact-bound setting; rather, in those familiar terms of John Marshall, it is a Constitution we are expounding. Constitutional adjudication often bears unpalatable fruit. But the needs of a system of government sometimes must outweigh the right of individuals to collect damages.
It strains the meaning of the words used to say this places a President "above the law." United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974). The dissents are wide of the mark to the extent that they imply that the Court today recognizes sweeping immunity for a President for all acts. The Court does no such thing. The immunity is limited to civil damages claims. Moreover, a President, like Members of Congress, judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides—all having absolute immunity—are not immune for acts outside official duties.2 Ante, at 753-755. Even the broad immunity of the Speech and Debate Clause has its limits.3
__________1 Presidential immunity for official acts while in office has never been seriously questioned until very recently. Ante, at 750-752, n. 31. I can find only one instance in which, prior to our decision in Bivens v. Six Unknoum Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), a citizen sued a former President for acts committed while in office. A suit against Thomas Jefferson was dismissed for being improperly brought in Virginia, thus precluding the necessity of reaching any immunity issue. Livingston v. Jefferson, 15 F. Cas. 660 (No. 8,411) (CC Va. 1811).
2 In their "parade of horribles" and lamentations, the dissents also wholly fail to acknowledge why the same perils they fear are not present in the absolute immunity the law has long recognized for numerous other officials. At least 75,000 public officers have absolute immunity from civil damages suits for acts within the scope of their official functions. The dissenting opinions manifest an astonishing blind side in pointing to that old reliable that "no man is above the law." The Court has had no difficulty expanding the absolute immunity of Members of Congress, and in granting derivative absolute immunity to numerous aides of Members. Gravel v. United States, 408 U. S. 606 (1972).
We have since recognized absolute immunity for judges, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349 (1978), and for prosecutors, Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), yet the Constitution provides no hint that either judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides should be so protected. Absolute immunity for judges and prosecutors is seen to derive from the common law and public policy, which recognize the need to protect judges and prosecutors from harassment. The potential danger to the citizenry from the malice of thousands of prosecutors and judges is at once more pervasive and less open to constant, public scrutiny than the actions of a President.
3 In United States v. Brewster, 408 U. S. 501 (1972), we held that the Speech and Debate Clause does not prohibit prosecution of a Senator for accepting a bribe designed to influence his legislative acts.
Most of Biden’s documented crimes occurred while he was Vice President, so that theory is moot.
regulator’s post worth repeating:
****************
Um, duh.
If this weren’t true every President could look forward to being dragooned by the opposition as soon as he’s out.
It would be used as a blackmail threat to every sitting President: do something we don’t like and we’ll charge you after the fact with any thin thread we can string together.
“It’s not a precedent as it’s never been broached.”
That is weird logic. It is already in the law. Did you not read the article?
“As for Biden snd being demonic, he’s nothing like could be waiting in the wings.”
In your world, what is worst than inviting the nation to be invaded by millions and millions. As the investigator on the border said yesterday on Steve Bannon’s broadcast, the nation will collapse next year if it is not stopped.
It’s a theory. It’s not been tested.
Sure - but Trump’s persecutors do not care if the cases are thrown out “on technicalities” by higher courts. They just want those sweet, sweet headlines saying “TRUMP CONVICTED!” to appear in every media outlet some time in mid-2024. Their voters don’t even know what an appeals court is.
I’ve said many times these cases will never make it to a jury.
Supreme Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity
The democrats think they can overrule the Supreme Court as their action show not a safe move another Jan.6 move.
I agree. Fitzgerald is the lexus of "Unitary Executive" power.
In our no law new reality Biden will certainly argue being president gave him immunity for all priors by pardoning himself and his syndicate retroactively. A fourth dimension pardon of sorts. Wouldn’t surprise me. Not like the Biden clan would ever be held to account but it would at least be entertaining to watch the kayfabe in DC run with it.
Presidents should fear accountability. OTOH, so should prosecutors who bring bogus cases. That's where I think the fix needs to be.
Stop it. Trump is going to win and throw out the DOJ witch hunts.
Yes, I think you’re correct. I would rule nothing out, at this point. No laws have any effect on this band of hooligans.
Oh please, where's the sarc tag? Trump promised to "Drain the swamp" last time. Yet it looks to me more like he got flushed by the FDA and CDC. I'll bet you think he'll get a rework of the Civil Service Act through the Senate too.
Apparently you think the CIA and Hamas or Hezbollah are incapable of rigging a terrorist event that has Biden putting the country on lockdown just in time for the election, seeing as they've let G_d knows how many across the borders. I wouldn't at all be surprised if Kerry isn't pitching that to the Iranians.
How many illegals did Trump deport? Did they all go back to Mexico to get in line as he promised? And if you excuse that promise, what does that make of your plainly silly assertion?
Look at what's happening in Israel. Doesn't that "intelligence failure" in the process of sending Bibi packing have all the same fingerprints as does the CIA here?
The Deep State is global sirrah. If you think Trump will be able to do diddly about the DOJ, you just don't know how things work. I just got my 'mail-in ballot.' Who counts the votes?
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.