Posted on 05/01/2024 5:23:16 PM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Following the nearly three-hour oral argument about presidential immunity in the Supreme Court on April 25, 2024, many commentators were aghast. The general theme, among legal and political experts alike, was a hand-over-the-mouth, how-dare-they assessment of the mostly conservative justices’ questioning of the attorneys who appeared before them in the case known as Trump v. United States.
Rather than a laser-focused, deep dive into the details of Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election, virtually all of the nine justices instead raised larger questions, peppered with hypotheticals – hello again, Seal Team Six! – about the reach of executive power, the intent of the nation’s founders and the best way to promote a stable democracy. Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s “I’m not focused on the here and now of this case” and Justice Neil Gorsuch’s “We are writing a rule for the ages” drew particular fire.
The headline and subheadline on the New York Times analysis by Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak complained that the court had taken “Trump’s immunity arguments in unexpected direction” with “very little about the President’s conduct.” And the story itself fumed that the justices had responded to Trump’s claim that he should not face charges as a “weighty and difficult question.”.....
Trump v. United States is a classic example. When attorneys for the former president filed their request with the court, the question presented by them was “Whether the doctrine of absolute presidential immunity includes immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s official acts.”
When it granted the petition in late February 2024, the court changed this language to “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
There is only one way constitutionally to address wrong doing by a President. That is impeachment then removal by the Senate. SCOTUS better not punt this thing. They have no choice but to address what effect, if allowed to proceed this would have on any past or future Presidents.
As much as I believe Roberts is compromised, I don’t believe they will fail us here. MHO
Is it pretty well universal that such a path takes up past the November election?
“I expect SCOTUS to punt back to the lower court(s) to further investigate the issue and staying the DOJ from continuing the case until the legal issues are resolved. ”
__________
Senator Linda Graham parroted that stance about a month ago, too.
The high court should take proactive steps to stave off corruption in the judicial system of this country then prosecute properly all true transgressions of our laws including the blatant and obvious election fraud that stole the 2020 election from President Trump.
This can’t stand
Some legal precedent regarding presidential powers is likely to come out of this case, whenever the decision is released.
That could be why justices were asking questions about issues unrelated to Trump’s specific situation. They know the results of this case could well be cited as a precedent years from now in some other case.
“Some legal precedent regarding presidential powers is likely to come out of this case”
Scotus has already upheld qualified immunity for other government officials, not sure how they could justify the president liable while judging lower level scumbags exonerated.
“Rather than a laser-focused, deep dive into the details of Trump’s attempt to subvert the 2020 election...”
Trump’s what?
what trump’s legal team is doing right?
2 words... Habba habba
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.