Previous post
Well, SCOTUS sure ended the term with a big bang! Presidents and former Presidents do have absolute immunity for ‘core’ constitutional powers.
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former President Donald J. Trump is entitled to some level of immunity from prosecution, a decision that may effectively delay the trial of the case against him on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election. The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines.
Mr. Trump contended that he was entitled to absolute immunity from the charges, relying on a broad understanding of the separation of powers and a 1982 Supreme Court precedent that recognized such immunity in civil cases for actions taken by presidents within the “outer perimeter” of their official responsibilities. Lower courts rejected Mr. Trump’s claim, but the Supreme Court’s ruling may delay the case enough that Mr. Trump would be able to make it go away entirely if he prevails in November.
While the New York Times equivocates, the fact is the SCOTUS ruling is in Trump’s favor.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
But it also serves as a warning to the courts and their rushes to judgement when they let politics overrule their objectivity. As Jonathan Turley points out on X…
The decision today also reminds citizens that it is more important to get these questions answered right than fast. For all of the criticism of Judge Cannon in Florida for holding hearings and considering arguments, this is why it is important to give serious and sufficient attention to these questions. Judge Chutkan was praised for her speed in supporting Smith’s effort to try Trump before the election. She was wrong as was the D.C. Circuit. I do not blame them in an area with good arguments on both sides. However, speed should not be the measure of performance for the courts.
It was a politically charged and rushed decision that declared President Trump has no immunity whatsoever.
The decision itself is instructive and well worth reading. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion and the ruling was 6-3 with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting. Here’s a few notable items from the opinion itself.
The Supreme Court doesn’t have to decide if official acts have presumptive or absolute immunity.
Because the lower courts decided on a “highly expedited basis” nor did they engage in a thorough analysis and didn’t brief any of that TO the Supreme Court, SCOTUS will send the case back to the lower courts for further review.
What’s VERY notable here is SCOTUS pointing out that there hasn’t been any court in the history of the United States that has ever considered how to determine the difference between an official and unofficial act by the President.
An example used in the ruling points out that Trump’s discussions with the acting Attorney General were readily categorized as official. However, it’s also pointed out that the lower court’s ruling determined without analysis that Trump’s interactions with Pence, state officials (Georgia comes to mind), individuals, and his commentary to the public at large were supposedly “unofficial acts.” SCOTUS points out that that determination is difficult to prove.
SCOTUS did affirm that President Trump is does have absolute immunity from prosecution involving discussions with Justice Department officials.
This ruling is huge on multiple levels. And again, it’s well worth reading it thoroughly, including Sotomayor’s temper tantrum, I mean dissent.
“The damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law,” she wrote. “The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were not so single-minded.”
Boy howdy, is she ever mad and full of doom and gloom! Her final line is just classic. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.” Gosh darn she’s so sad!
Her dissent and the reaction thus far is exactly why should we all read this decision thoroughly.
Sen. Blumenthal just declared that his :stomach turns with fear and anger" over this opinion as the work of "extreme and nakedly partisan hacks – politicians in robes.” The rule of law may demand greater intestinal fortitude from those who have relentlessly attacked this Court.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) July 1, 2024
Richard was one of those, as was Schumer, who threatened the Court if rulings don’t go their way. I’m waiting for the “pack the court” calls to happen in 3,2,1…
This was an absolutely asinine take by Sotomayor in her dissent.
The Supreme Court just ruled that if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent, he would be immune from criminal prosecution
— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 1, 2024
This isn't a joke pic.twitter.com/U7orUZQ7l9
Of course, AOC had to chime in.
Filing articles of impeachment against SCOTUS because they ruled in a way you don't like is an actual assault on our system.
— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 1, 2024
It's indicative of someone who does not take their oath to the Constitution seriously and doesn't belong anywhere near a position of authority. https://t.co/fg8vPKClOv
I agree one thousand percent! Needless to say, President Trump is quite pleased with this ruling.
Cameron says: The Supreme Court just ruled that if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent, he would be immune from criminal prosecution
Damn, these people are almost as much fun as a basket of kittens. The only difference is that kittens are useful.
I intend on filing articles of impeachment upon our return.
Someone might want to advise Donkey Chompers that there are only specific things you can impeach someone over. Making a decision that twists your panties in a knot is not one of them.
Cameron says: I just remembered that Obama had an American killed via drone strike. But I’m sure that dude would argue “that’s different because reasons!”
A reader says: Ummm… so I guess you all are ok with a president as de facto king and the Supreme Court as king makers? Because giving him absolute immunity— which for all you “strict constitutionalists” isn’t even in the constitution— puts the president above the law. There is also no parsing of official vs. unofficial which Judge Chutkin will get to decide. The bright side is that the upcoming evidentiary hearing on this matter, whenever it occurs, will put all the evidence in the open and it can happen before the election.
You also realize this applies to Biden… and Obama.. and Clinton, right? So all those calls that they should be in prison for *insert crime du jour here* also don’t apply because whatever the acts are can be called official. And since there’s no actual test of official acts vs. not official it can be left up to court discretion up to and including the Supreme Court. See, isn’t this fun?
I just love how the pocket constitutionalist types ignore it when it allows them to get power. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And that little ol’ victory over a “tyrant king” we’ll be celebrating in three days was all about pushing back against someone who thought they were above the law. The Founders are rolling in their graves right about now. But go ahead and celebrate. If Trump does win in November all bets are off and you’ll have your king/god/dictator and all the lovely trappings that go along with it. I’m sure the Germans, Italians, and Russians of the last century would love to share their experiences with you if you were willing to listen. (Assuming they were the ones that survived.)
P.S. Turley, is as usual an idiot who tells you what you want to hear so he can be liked. He’s wrong, but what else is new…
Scott says: Once again, you prove there is no limit to your stupidity, or ability to be wrong. Though I will admit, I often ask myself if you’re really that stupid, or you’re just lying to advance the agenda… I tend to believe it’s a bit of both. You have not one iota of concern for the Constitution, or the intent of the Founders, let alone even the slightest understanding of those things. But you sure do enjoy making an ass of yourself on the internet..
Based on that, I’ll follow the advise of Sun Tsu, and not interrupt an enemy when he’s making a mistake ( if you were even the tiniest bit educated, you’d know how he was, and what he was saying, but as you’ve proven before, you’ll make a hash of what he had to say as well.
Que says: Oh look. The wannabe Constitutional “expert” is back, winging her hands that Trump is going to now make himself king.
Since she believes herself to be more knowledgeable than Turley, a real-life law professor, allow me this take by attorney and National Review editor Dan McLaughln — who is no fan of Trump:
“Democrats, the Court’s liberals, and left-leaning voices in the media are leaning into two ridiculous arguments: that this decision turns presidents into kings, and that it gives them a green light to murder political opponents without consequence.
On the first point, of course, presidents are still not kings. They can be voted out of office: If Donald Trump was a king, he would not need to ask the voters to give him his job back. They can serve no more than eight years. They can be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate. They can give orders to the executive branch to do things, and courts can issue orders to stop those things from happening. They can’t write their own laws. As the Court reminded us in just the past week, the agencies who report to the president can’t run their own court systems or decide the scope of their own authority. And presidents, like anyone else, can be civilly sued or criminally charged for their private acts, even those taken during their time in office. That’s why Trump himself is reporting ten days from now to a Manhattan courtroom for criminal sentencing over checks he wrote at his desk in the Oval Office, for which he was hauled before a jury by a county prosecutor. It’s why a state attorney general was able to sock him with almost half a billion dollars in fines.“
Cry more.
Cameron says: “so I guess you all are ok with a president as de facto king and the Supreme Court as king makers?”
You and your kind have been acting like that since Obama. Remember “I have a pen and a phone” when he was mad about the pace of laws getting passed? Remember when he murdered an American without due process via drone strike?
And now, do you remember Biden ignoring the Supreme Court and admitting it when he signed an executive order forgiving student loans?
You are out of your depth and sinking like a rock.
7 Comments