Posted on 07/01/2024 6:33:16 AM PDT by CFW
The Supreme Court will be issuing Opinions at 10:00 a.m. this morning for the October 2023 term. You can read the opinions released thus far at Supreme Court opinions.
The attorneys at scotusblog will be liveblogging the release of opinions from the pressroom.
There are four cases remaining undecided for the October 2023 term.
October sitting: All opinions have been released;
November sitting: All opinions have been released;
December sitting: All opinions have been released;
January sitting: All opinions have been released.
February sitting: There are three cases pending.
Corner Post v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, (an Administrative Procedure Act issue), and the two First Amendment cases. Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton.
March sitting: All opinions have been released.
And then there is the case we are all waiting for from the...
April setting: There is one case remaining undecided.
Which is the case of Trump v. U.S., No. 23-939 [Arg: 4.25.2024]
Issue(s): 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.
Opinion days are fun but nerve-racking. Join the fun, post your comments and insights here at the thread, and, say a prayer for the Justices!
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
The Justices issue Opinions in order of reverse seniority. (Example, if the first Opinion announced is written by Gorsuch, that means we will not hear from Jackson, Barrett or Kavanaugh today.) The reverse order is Jackson, Barrett, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Sotomayor, Kagan, Alito, Thomas, Roberts.
SCOTUS ping!
Thanks for the ping!
BTTT!!
my prediction is:
A president has absolute immunity for all public actions taken as part of his role as president. This is the easiest part to predict IMO
A president also has effective immunity for any action for which he has the power to pardon himself (basically any federal crime) This is harder to predict with certainty. But my reasoning is, if the court said otherwise, all presidents would simply pardon themselves of all crimes possibly committed while in office before leaving office. Which would “effectively” be the same as having immunity for all federal crimes.
State crimes are another matter though, so a president who murdered his wife for instance, could still be prosecuted for that, because a president cant pardon a state crime.
Should at least postpone any trials until after the election. If he loses, he's doomed.
Bookmark
I think that maybe the liberal justices might want to find for immunity as much as the conservative ones. If Trump does get in and previous presidents do not have immunity, the game is afoot and bad things might happen to the dems.
The blondes on Fox said Roberts would do the Trump case.
bkmk
“The blondes on Fox said Roberts would do the Trump case.”
That’s the assumption from most court watchers. And that Barrett will have the First Amendment cases which will be combined into one Opinion. We will soon see if that is correct.
Thanks for the Ping! Praying we get more good news today!!!
Simple solution already available in the Constitution.
For a President to be tried in the court system:
First, the house must deliver articles of impeachment specific to the alleged crimes.
Second, the Senate must then convict on those alleged crimes.
Third, then the President can be tried in the court system.
The first and second steps have not been performed.
The idea that any case involving the Fed is constitutional is just laughable. (Or cryable.)
It would seem this immunity would make Impeachment null and void.
Just mumbling to myself.
I think the decision will contain a surprise.
TexasFreeper2009 wrote: “State crimes are another matter though, so a president who murdered his wife for instance, could still be prosecuted for that, because a president cant pardon a state crime.”
And, if the ‘crime’ is committed on federal property, it remains a federal crime.
As well, there is a type of total immunity that would clearly be dangerous.
That’s what Steiner said, too.
the thing is whether it’s right or wrong, or whether you agree with it or not. In many ways the framers of the constitution gave the president nearly unlimited power, more or less an elected king. The only limitations being the powers expressly given to congress and the courts.
the court may be forced to read between the lines and effectively add to the constitution and say that a president “could” lose immunity if they are removed from office by impeachment.
I am not sure they will go that far though.
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.