Posted on 07/01/2024 7:52:52 AM PDT by Dr. Franklin
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, ruled that a former president has absolutely immunity for his core constitutional powers– and is entitled to a presumption of immunity for his official acts, but lack immunity for unofficial acts. . But at the same time, the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of Trump actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.
That part of the court’s decision likely ensures that the case against Trump won’t be tried before the election, and then only if he is not re-elected. If he is re-elected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s decision, joined by his fellow conservatives. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
....
Monday's decision to send the case back to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan all but guarantees that there will be no Trump trial on the election interference charges for months. Even before the immunity case, Judge Chutkan indicated that trial preparations would likely take three months. Now, she will also have to decide which of the charges in the Trump indictment should remain and which involve official acts that under the Supreme Court ruling are protected from prosecution.
Even after Judge Chutkan separates the constitutional wheat from the chaff, Trump could seek further delays, as immunity questions are among the very few that may be appealed prior to trial.
(Excerpt) Read more at npr.org ...
It’s not a bad summary.
They downplayed the ‘presumptive immunity’ part of the ruling with that headline...
Applies to Biden too and all past presidents?
Maybe this thread won’t be pulled
IMHO, if insuring that American elections are conducted free and fair, in accordance with the law, and protected from foreign hacking of voting machines is a duty of POTUS, then Trump must have absolute immunity from criminal prosecuation for working to stop the 2020 Big Steal. Thus, the immunity issue is dependent on Trump’s belief, even if not accepted as true, that the 2020 election was stolen.
You can almost hear Nina crying and screaming as she types this article.
So his conviction in New York is still there?
Yes, until it is appealed on various constitutional and state law grounds. Trump’s defense in that case was completely unrelated to presidential immunity, so this case didn’t matter regarding the New York case.
An ugly, angry dissent by the Wise Latina. Not surprising.
My source, Zen Master, was dead on again.
He said months ago, 6-3 immunity.
I noticed that the first thread on this subject was pulled. Now we’ve got multiple threads on the same subject.
Hey, we paid for it, we might as well use it when it is suitable.
How much does this mean that partisan radical judges can pick and choose for themselves which ‘acts’ are “official”?
Presidents are still liable for crimes they commit in office, like treason or taking bribes, but for official acts, immune.
The thread that was pulled just said Trump had absolute immunity. That is not the case. He has absolute immunity for core Constitutional duties, and presumed immunity for other official duties, but no immunity for non-official acts.
That could still bring into question immunity for 'election interference.'
First one didn’t have a link.
Question to be decided is what is an official act.
Lot’s of wiggle room there.
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.