This doesn't mean that the president cannot be tried for some illegal act that was not their official duty. Murdering someone, for example.
Further, it should be noted that the lower court already did exactly what the supreme court remanded back to them. They said "we don't know what sorts of immunity are granted to a president, but if there is any they are not granted, it's overturning an election as is accused in this specific case".
The supreme court took up this case specifically to help donald trump and because they couldn't challenge the ruling given they made up their own facts to give the ruling they wanted to give.
That would be much more in line with the courts other decisions than asking a court to write the law
The ruling basically says the only way for the case to move forward is to determine what parts of Trump's conduct can be deemed "unofficial".
Disruption of a government proceeding is more appropriate. Had Trump did what he did on January 21st, 2021…you might have a case for insurrection.
For example, the president can deem opposition party leaders to be terrorists and then in an official capacity order them to be assassinated by the SEALs. He can grant blanket pardons to everyone involved while he himself enjoys absolute immunity for his official acts.
The Senate will never be able to impeach or convict you when you’ve killed off those who would do it.
This ruling makes the president a temporary dictator, and it’s reeeeeally easy to go from a temporary dictator to a lifetime one.
why is it so easy to just deem some group of people terrorists, without any evidence presented?
And if this is true, why can't biden do it today, and preempt trump from doing it?
And Democratic party are known to not want to rock the boat, so to speak.
Overthrowing....the government he was in charge of?
But if a president claims that a surgical strike to eliminate an "enemy of the country" was within their prerogative, then yes, a president can murder somebody without fear of consequences.
>> On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. Pp. 24–28.
Which seems a key window for the lower court to send the case back up.
Trump attempted to influence non-federal election officials.
Trump had no Presidential authority to do so. (Elections being run by the states)
Ergo, that was not an official act.
And it does make sense by the Supreme Court's reasoning: you can't restrict the President from running the executive branch, but you can hold him accountable for the things he does outside of the executive branch, which critically includes elections themselves.
it's my understanding that they can't use testimony or notes from advisors et. al. which is troubling since they are or can be the co-conspirators.
> Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. *Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.*
I.e. anything that would have a chilling effect on the President's ability to direct the executive
Outside of that, e.g. campaign staff, is a different matter. And I believe there's already a distinction between government employees and campaign employees (probably for campaign finance reasons).
That is where probably the blanket immunity comes into play. Its not definitionally blanket immunity, but it might as well functionally be blanket immunity.
"Such a problem this thing called 'law' that people made, doesn't let me govern. If only i could do everything i want without having to concern myself with such petty things."
I can't believe this is the type of argument people are using to defend this abysmal situation. The US should have invested more in teaching kids about fascism and identifying its signs. Unbelievable that people are so blind to what's going on.
It doesn't invoke sovereign immunity through a loud roar, but from an understood nod.
So its not necessarily that words don't have meaning. Its more of, the words can change meaning.
The Roberts court is just arbitrarily choosing whatever justification they happen to like for any given case to push an extremist agenda.
I'm as against this court as the next guy, but don't constitutional rights need to be, you know, in the constitution?
The constitution merely enumerates certain rights where the founders wanted to be extra clear that those things were rights, but it is not a limiting document.
The 9th amendment states this explicitly: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
[edit] removed the word militia to avoid confusion between historic and modern definition.
Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read:
>That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:
>The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as follows:
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
I pulled the quotes from this link, which has more text and discussion.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-2/ALDE_...
You’re utilizing one definition of a term that never had concrete meaning, so your reasoning is both imprecise and potentially erroneous.
It is hard to see why a state would feel the need to include the government's ability to own weapons at all, let alone in a document listing rights and protections for individual citizens. Furthermore, the statements already draw a distinction between the people and an army controlled by the government.
They could argue that if she came forward it would reduce American's faith in their government leading to instability or that it would provide an opportunity for our enemies to use the scandal to undermine national interests, or they could argue that the "vindictive ex" might expose secrets that she learned while in proximity to government officials, or even just lie and say she stole the secrets.
The president doesn't even have to murder her. The president can now disappear people in the middle of the night and ship them off to gitmo under the banner of "national security" and not tell anyone about it, and even if someone leaked that the cells in Guantanamo Bay were filling up even the supreme court wouldn't be allowed to see the evidence. Any trial at all would take place in secret military courts closed to the public.
This was the farthest thing from a moderate decision. It puts the president literally above the law. There is zero need for this kind of immunity when the actions a president takes while in office are legal, which is how we've gone nearly 250 years without ever once needing it.
I think you've been so riled up that you are worried over impossibilities. Judge Chutkan gets a pass at interpreting this, wait and see what she says about it. The kind of arguments you are suggest are wildly implausible and will never pass muster in any court, regardless of appointee. It explicitly isn't the intent of the decision.
If you want to say she is worried over impossibilities too that's fine but based on the facts of the case and how it was ruled, I don't see why its not a realistic concern.
Why obviously? If mistress is causing "harm" to other official actions would it not be official duty to prevent this harm? You and I may not buy such a defence but a sympathetic audience of allies?
> in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety
Admittedly it’s a bit contradictory, but still helpful I think. The pardon is the official act, and the president is immune from criminal prosecution (and legislation) of the form “it was a crime to give that pardon” without further qualification. The prosecutor cannot compel presidential records or testimony. All the other tools are still available to the prosecutor and the unofficial act of accepting a bribe is still a crime.
So if the pres has anyone who can kill someone for legal reasons this decision allows the pres to use that person to kill for illegal reasons.
Nothing new.