Posted on 07/02/2024 1:45:48 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Supreme Court Trump v. United States ruling that former presidents are entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution has significant implications for the ongoing legal battles surrounding Donald Trump. This ruling, widely perceived as a victory for Trump, has nuanced elements that warrant closer scrutiny, particularly in the comments made by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
The Court’s decision confirmed that presidents are protected from prosecution for official actions extending to the "outer perimeter" of their office, while unofficial conduct remains vulnerable to legal scrutiny. This distinction is crucial, as it provides a pathway for prosecutors to refocus their efforts on Trump's private actions.
Justice Barrett’s comments have created a critical, largely overlooked opening for Democrats and their Special Counsel. Barrett hinted that if prosecutors concentrate exclusively on Trump’s private acts, they might succeed in their legal efforts against him. This insight essentially offers a strategic roadmap for those aiming to hold Trump accountable.
The Biden campaign, or whoever his replacement is, can expedite the laser-focused case against Trump the campaigner, while niftily bogging down his campaign to fight the newly invented legal action. This perspective implies that Trump’s remarks and actions on January 6, for instance, might be reclassified as those of a candidate rather than a president, thus stripping him of immunity for those specific actions.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Amy is turning out to be somewhat of a disappointment.”
Not to me. I knew the first time I saw the press trying to interview her in her driveway that she was going to be Trouble with a capital T. So she’s not “turning out to be” a disappointment.
She oozed woke, uppity bitch from the get-go.
By that same logic, the District Court Judge who dismissed Heller's lawsuit against the District of Columbia should have had precedence over the higher courts (first the Court of Appeals that remanded the dismissal, then the SCOTUS who affirmed Heller's lawsuit).
Excuses excuses.... I guess Alito and Thomas are just not as bright as Miss Goody Two Shoes. At the exact moment the nation is collapsing into authoritarianism and censorship, Amy Conehead Barrett rides to the rescue of the side suppressing speech.
She’s a fake. She will always side with the DC party.
“How in the world are you going to establish harm if you’re not even going to sue the principal actors who committed the deed?”
Bullcrap. The US Government censored them. THAT was the issue at hand. Not the first time she has been a coward. She was sworn in a week before the 2020 election. She refused to get involved in the Pennsylvania case and left it a 4-4 case.
Pennsylvania kept accepting ballots for a couple of more weeks, including ones with no date.
She’s a coward who only exists to defend DC and be popular.
HEY, GERE...WAS HE ...PRESIDENT??? DID HE HAVE A RIGHT TO K NOW WHAT HAPPENED IN PENNSYLVANIA AND GEORGIA IN PARTICULAR OR NOT???
WAS HE A BARISMA AT STARBUCKS
I’m sorry...it’s barista
I’ve never been in a Starbucks shop
As a candidate, obviously. That was not an official duty.
The question was why didn’t SCOTUS find the same obvious government coercion that a lowly District judge found?
The other dog doesn’t hunt.
The harm is obvious and was intentionally done by the government. They cannot as a matter of precedent oppress our right by proxy which is exactly what took place in this case.
Doughty found that the govt coerced them into the censorship.Why didn’t SCOTUS find the same thing?
SCOTUS did not find the same thing as SCOTUS found there was a lack of standing. Plaintiffs sued the government and had the burden of proving that at least one plaintiff suffered a particular injury not shared by others. Plaintiffs did not sue the platforms that allegedly censored them, and did not provide a showing that any of them suffered a particularized injury at the hands of the government.
Standing is a constitutional requirement in every case to establish the jurisdiction of the court. Absent standing, the court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case on the merits. When SCOTUS found a lack of standing, it had no authority to proceed. Similarly, the lower courts had no jurisdiction to hear and decide the case either. The lower courts erred in finding standing where it did not exist.
In Murthy, Barrett, writing for the Court, found as related by the Syllabus:
Held: Neither the individual nor the state plaintiffs have established Article III standing to seek an injunction against any defendant. Pp. 8–29.(a) Article III’s “case or controversy” requirement is “fundamental” to the “proper role” of the Judiciary. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 818. A proper case or controversy exists only when at least one plaintiff “establish[es] that [she] ha[s] standing to sue,” ibid.—i.e., that she has suffered, or will suffer, an injury that is “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling,” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U. S. 398, 409. Here, the plaintiffs’ theories of standing depend on the platforms’ actions—yet the plaintiffs do not seek to enjoin the platforms from restricting any posts or accounts. Instead, they seek to enjoin the Government agencies and officials from pressuring or encouraging the platforms to suppress protected speech in the future. The one-step-removed, anticipatory nature of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries presents two particular challenges. First, it is a bedrock principle that a federal court cannot redress “injury that results from the independent action of some third party not before the court.” Simon v. Eastern Ky. Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41–42. Second, because the plaintiffs request forward-looking relief, they must face “a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 496. Putting these requirements together, the plaintiffs must show a substantial risk that, in the near future, at least one platform will restrict the speech of at least one plaintiff in response to the actions of at least one Government defendant. Here, at the preliminary injunction stage, they must show that they are likely to succeed in carrying that burden. On the record in this case, that is a tall order. Pp. 8–10.
(b) The plaintiffs’ primary theory of standing involves their “direct censorship injuries.” Pp. 10–26.
(1) The Court first considers whether the plaintiffs have demonstrated traceability for their past injuries. Because the plaintiffs are seeking only forward-looking relief, the past injuries are relevant only for their predictive value. The primary weakness in the record of past restrictions is the lack of specific causation findings with respect to any discrete instance of content moderation. And while the record reflects that the Government defendants played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation choices, the evidence indicates that the platforms had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment. The Fifth Circuit, by attributing every platform decision at least in part to the defendants, glossed over complexities in the evidence. The Fifth Circuit also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs, and platforms each as a unified whole. Because “standing is not dispensed in gross,” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 431, “plaintiffs must demonstrate standing for each claim they press against each defendant, “and for each form of relief they seek,” ibid. This requires a threshold showing that a particular defendant pressured a particular platform to censor a particular topic before that platform suppressed a particular plaintiff’s speech on that topic. Complicating the plaintiffs’ effort to demonstrate that each platform acted due to Government coercion, rather than its own judgment, is the fact that the platforms began to suppress the plaintiffs’ COVID–19 content before the defendants’ challenged communications started. Pp. 10–14.
Excellent analysis. I only hope that Biden is held accountable even if not prosecuted since he will most likely be incapable of being tried due to progressive dementia.
What is key is formally codifying that these acts are illegal so repeats by the next leftist that slithers into office are impossible. Biden basically ignored the law and he was not called to account. In future America needs to do better.
Fu ry, attention whore.
LOL
Well done.
Karen up the...
Questioning how our Gov works comes under Freedom of Speech.
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.