BREAKING: Supreme Court rules Trump is entitled to some immunity in Jan. 6 case

[two_iron]

Shitlibs, keep your eye on the prize.... don't let the rule of law bring you down.

The prize:

 

[marvin martian]

Sounds like possibly good news for the Unified Reich!

You gonna vote for Biden again??

LOL

 

[Cellblock2429]

Fuck SCOTUS! It's official. The highest court in the land, HAS BEEN BOUGHT!

/—-/ Well, if the SC is for sale, ask George Soros to buy them back.
Problem solved.

 

[Rogue AI]

Oh please, explain. Explain the constitutional basis of presidential immunity.

This should be good.

The only mention is High Crimes and Misdemeanors, which requires Congressional impeachment and removal. You folks should stop whining, it should have been worse.

 

[Billiejeens]

Most of the people-of-the-cult must be freaked out.

Live Updates: Supreme Court Says Trump Is Partly Shielded From Prosecution​

The practical effect of the ruling raises the possibility of further delay of the case against the former president on charges of plotting to subvert the 2020 election.

View attachment 969959

No absolute immunity?!?!

Here’s the latest on the ruling.​

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 is 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.
Here’s what to know:

• The ruling: The justices said that Mr. Trump is immune from prosecution for official acts taken during his presidency but that there was a crucial distinction between official and private conduct. The case returns to the lower court, which will decide whether the actions Mr. Trump took were in an official or private capacity.
• 
  
• The charges: The former president faces three charges of conspiracy and one count of obstructing an official proceeding, all related to his efforts to cling to the presidency after his 2020 loss. He was indicted last August by the special counsel, Jack Smith, in one of two federal criminal cases against him; the other relates to the F.B.I. raid on his private club, Mar-a-Lago, in August 2022 that recovered missing government documents.
• 
  
• Lower courts ruled against Trump: The trial judge, Tanya S. Chutkan of the Federal District Court in Washington, denied Mr. Trump’s immunity request in December. “Whatever immunities a sitting president may enjoy, the United States has only one chief executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” she wrote.
  
  A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit agreed in February, saying that “any executive immunity that may have protected him while he served as president no longer protects him against this prosecution.”
• 
  
• The timing: Even before the ruling, the court’s decision to take up the case already helped Mr. Trump’s strategy to delay his prosecution until after the November election in the hopes he will win and be able to stop it entirely.
• 
  
• Other Jan. 6 cases: The court heard two other cases this term concerning the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, both of which relate to Mr. Trump. One — an attempt to bar Mr. Trump from the ballot in Colorado under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which made people who engages in insurrection ineligible to hold office — was unanimously rejected in March.The other limited the use of a federal obstruction law to prosecute members of the mob who stormed the Capitol. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law.

There was never a though that there was absolute immunity.

Pile of straw in the shape of a man.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

1 min ago

Vance, one of Trump's possible VP contenders, says immunity decision is a "massive win"​

From CNN's Morgan Rimmer and Kit Maher

GOP Sen. JD Vance, one of Donald Trump’s possible VP contenders, posted on X that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision is, “a massive win, not just for Trump but the rule of law. I’m still digesting but this may well destroy all of Jack Smith’s case against the president.”

Vance included a picture of Trump’s reaction to the ruling within his post, where he wrote on Truth Social, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

/—-/ Well, if the SC is for sale, ask George Soros to buy them back.
Problem solved.

Deal! Time to appoint 4 new judges immediately.

 

[AquaAthena]

Here it is:

What you need to know​

• JUST IN: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Donald Trump may claim immunity from criminal prosecution for some of the actions he took in the waning days of his presidency in a decision that will likely further delay a trial on the federal election subversion charges pending against him.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24/index.html

 

[toobfreak]

Rep. Pramila Jayapal dubbed the ruling as “disastrous,” blaming an “extreme right-wing Supreme Court”

Democrats are such whiners who cry like little brats everytime something does not go their way! The very BASIS of the Exec. Branch is that they are immune from prosecution for their official actions while in office because that is NECESSARY to protect a president from being influenced in his decisions! Now the Left whine that this fundamental necessity is extreme. Too funny--- the ol' double standard.

 

[1srelluc]

SCOTUS gives three tiers:

- Core constitutional acts (absolute immunity)

- Official acts (presumptive immunity)

- Unofficial acts (no immunity)

The lower courts can muddle through that mess over the course of months and in the meantime Trump becomes POTUS again.

 

[Delldude]

Oh please, explain. Explain the constitutional basis of presidential immunity.

Maybe explain the constitutional basis for congressional immunity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1 min ago

Vance, one of Trump's possible VP contenders, says immunity decision is a "massive win"​

From CNN's Morgan Rimmer and Kit Maher

GOP Sen. JD Vance, one of Donald Trump’s possible VP contenders, posted on X that the Supreme Court’s immunity decision is, “a massive win, not just for Trump but the rule of law. I’m still digesting but this may well destroy all of Jack Smith’s case against the president.”

Vance included a picture of Trump’s reaction to the ruling within his post, where he wrote on Truth Social, “BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.”

Because everyone knows he is guilty as fuck.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Billo_Really]

/—-/ Well, if the SC is for sale, ask George Soros to buy them back.
Problem solved.

So now Biden can take out Trump as an official act?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Maybe explain the constitutional basis for congressional immunity.

Irrelevant.

So, give it a shot, or troll and tap out? Your call.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Deal! Time to appoint 4 new judges immediately.

And how would you propose to do this?

 

[Delldude]

Irrelevant.

So, give it a shot, or troll and tap out? Your call.

Is why the boss should also have similar immunity................

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So now Biden can take out Trump as an official act?

Absolutely. He should do it immediately and cement his legacy. Gotta wait until the criminal slob gets his passport back, so it can be done overseas.

 

[struth]

Whether it did or not the court had a chance to fix that here. I've already noted this. I hate when I have to repeat myself over and over.

There are no such protections in the Constitution.

Fix what? They had said it exist for hundreds of years.

There doesn’t have to be. All the Constitution does is create the govt and limit it.

The constitution doesn’t outline many legal doctrines, such as the marriage immunity, doesn’t mean they don’t exist

I mean what sort of idiot thought the govt could essentially prosecute itself? Haha

 

[DigitalDrifter]

5 min ago

Justice Thomas questions constitutionality of Jack Smith’s appointment​

From CNN’s Devan Cole

Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas, who joined the court’s majority opinion, wrote separately to raise questions about whether Attorney General Merrick Garland violated the Constitution when he appointed Jack Smith as special counsel.

Pushing fringe legal theory about the legality of Smith’s appointment in 2022 has been part of Donald Trump’s defense strategy in his classified documents criminal case in Florida, which also was brought by the special counsel. Trump’s attorneys have argued that Garland does not have legal authority to appoint someone as special counsel who hasn’t been confirmed by the Senate.

Thomas, too, appears to support that argument.

“And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed,” Thomas wrote in his concurrence. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

No other justice joined Thomas’ concurrence.