US supreme court to decide on Trump’s claim of presidential immunity

Justice Kagan asked a key question concerning Trump's attempt to escape justice. The intent of the Founding Fathers:

Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?"
​

Presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution.

 

Yes it very clearly does.

Read the case. They very clearly stated the example that a POTUS has immunity in national security concerns but the question was literally posed, “can they then have a political rival assassinated”.

 

The POTUS is immune from civil prosecution, but has no special protection when he commits a criminal act.

To believe that a POTUS can have immunity when he breaks the law is totally insane.

 

This makes no logical sense though: How can the President be protected from civil prosecution(meaning that the actions taken would be lawfully dubious if not illegal save for the President’s role) and at the same time not if he/she commits a criminal act?

Where’s the difference? And could there ever be a good enough line?

This question requires more thought than “omg, he’d be a king” because the logic we’ve gone under for every POTUS prior to Trump, thanks to Trump now has faulty lines no one is going to entirely agree with

 

Not at the moment. Tough case.

 

If the Supreme Court rules that a president is immune to criminal prosecution, does that mean that Biden could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot Trump?

 

if the Court rules the President has full immunity it basically blows up the Constitution, he would have no checks, even that of the ultimate law, the Constitution

They won’t rule he has full immunity, instead, they muddle the question, in a 5-4 decision will rule that immunity comes down to the individual circumstances surrounded the act, if he is acting on personal motivation or in the interests of the country. This will add a whole new layer to Smith’s prosecution and additional grounds for Trump to appeal and appeal and appeal

 

The distinction is clearly stipulated in the law.

I would add that Trump's lawyers claim that POTUS could have a political opponent assassinated without worry of criminal prosecution if he was not previously impeached by Congress.

 

Again, that would mean that President Biden can stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot Trump.

​

 

WRONG!
Quite the opposite...
Should the SC want to retain any credibility;
The ONLY Decision should be 9-0 AGAINST Trump...

 

I concur with that assessment. I feel that the worst that will happen is it will delay the Jan. 6th case too long so it falls after the election. I think this is the main goal of the Trump supporters on the court, to delay. If Trump wins the election, I would assume the charges would fade away to oblivion, or even dismissed entirely, which would be a shame.
If, however, the SC rules that essentially the president is immune, Trump better hope that Biden has some mercy in his bones, because that would open up a whole can of worms for anyone opposing the sitting president. I can't see this scenario becoming reality, but there is that possibility.

 

If they were to rule in favor of Trump, then every POTUS from now on would be a Roman emperor.

 

I really don't understand how a lawyer could get up and make that argument UNLESS:

1)It was for no other reason than to get their one particular client off with no consideration whatsoever for the Constitution and/or our form of government
OR
2) It is meant to waste time(run out the clock) until the election.

 

Scotus can thread that needle

 

What I hope that happens and what I believe is any president should have immunity regarding the official duties and official decisions made as part of the official job of president. But anything personal a president does, anything not directly related to the official duties of the job of president or official decision in that a president makes in that job shouldn’t be protect. No immunity. No immunity for the Watergate break in as that wasn’t part of the official duties of the job of the presidency. No immunity in dealing with the unofficial and non-related aspects of the job of the president of running for reelection, campaigning, holding rallies etc. Trying to overthrow an election through fake electors or telling a secretary of state to find 11,780 votes has nothing whatsoever to do with the official duties of the office of president.


Simply stated, no immunity for anything a president does not related to his official capacity in fulfilling the job as president, no immunity for personal conduct and actions. Immunity needs to remain intact for official duties and decisions directly related to the job of the presidency.

 

That's the goal.

 

Why 5-4?
Should they "thread that needle" it should be 9-0...

 

FULL immunity? That's silly. Since he didn't actually commit any crimes I guess they could make him immune to "nothing"?
Strange times these are
I'm hoping it goes like this:
DELAY the lawfare, Win election, PARDONS and then revenge (lots of it)

 

Assassinating a political rival is in no way a presidential activity. But presidential activities encompass far more than national security concerns.

 

Just the exact opposite is true.

 

If he didn’t commit any crimes there wouldn’t be any need to go to court claiming immunity lol

 

I can see some logic in that, but SCOTUS cannot appropriately thread that micro-holed needle hiding deep in the haystack. The question is presidential activities versus personal activities. I can think of an example or two that is pretty clear, but a million examples where the line is totally fuzzy and so subject to personal whim -- does not make good law.

 

WHAT???!!?

 

If the sexual abuser were innocent of the 91 felony counts with which he has been charged, he would be insisting on speedy trials in all such adjudications to clear his name before the election. He know the substantive evidence and mountain of sworn testimony by Republicans against him is overwhelming.

Thus, he is desperately seeking delays in the hope that he can capture the White House and appoint flunkies that will make the charges disappear.

His strategy of evading justice will work in three of the four cases, apparently, and his hope is that a compliant Supreme Court will send the case back to lower courts for further proceedings which would rule out a trial here as well before the election.

 

You are correct, the usual Trump Justices repeatedly raised questions on linguistics seemingly aimed at muddling the question telegraphing they will send it back to the lower Court for clarification and elucidation, ergo, delay

Interesting consideration raised by Jackson was what would a newly elected President do knowing going in he has full immunity for anything he did