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

[martybegan]

That'll protect him.

We must support the Unified Reich!

Why are you bringing up Austria-Hungary?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Stop trolling with hysterics.

No absolute immunity.

absolute immunity for every "official action" which is 99% of what a president does.

 

[struth]

You support giving even more power to the government?

Sovereign immunity is nothing new

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have to note the hypocrisy. The court over ruled RvW because they said no such protection exists in the Constitution.

Now they rule a president has certain protections despite there being nothing about that in the Constitution.

The supreme didn't over rule anything. They didn't make abortion legal or illegal. It's a state issue.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Biden campaign says immunity ruling "doesn’t change the facts"​

They are correct.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

Opinion was 6-3 along conservative-liberal lines​

From CNN's Dan Berman
The opinion was 6-3, with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority opinion and the three liberals dissenting.

 

[pknopp]

Sovereign immunity is nothing new

You didn't answer the question.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

absolute immunity for every "official action" which is 99% of what a president does.

When he's president it's official

 

[struth]

You didn't answer the question.

I did, you seem to think it was new and giving them more power. It’s not, they already had it

 

[pknopp]

The supreme didn't over rule anything. They didn't make abortion legal or illegal. It's a state issue.

And they ruled that way because they noted there is no such protection in the Constitution but here they found for a protection despite there no being any such protection in the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Jack Smith gets bitch slapped again.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

When he's president it's official

Yep. so anything the POTUS does they are immune for.

 

[debbiedowner]

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.

cop out by sending some back to lower courts.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Jack Smith gets bitch slapped again.

as did the country.

you all should be careful what you wish for.

 

[pknopp]

I did, you seem to think it was new and giving them more power. It’s not, they already had it

This institutionalized the idea. As I note, giving even more power to the government. A really bad idea.

 

[blackhawk]

You support giving even more power to the government?

It’s not a question of supporting more power to the government it was unrealistic to think the court was not going to give Presidents some immunity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

absolute immunity for every "official action" which is 99% of what a president does.

What Trump did surrounding attempts at obstructing the election. That is what it's all about, Little Alfie.

The legal cases charging Trump do not challenge the official duties of sitting President. What they challenge is what Trump did during a specific time frame. And they challenge the very definition of "official duties" in attempts to obstruct and steal an election.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

less than 1 min ago

Justice Barrett suggests that Trump should stand trial​

From CNN's Tierney Sneed

In a concurrence, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by former President Donald Trump in 2020, expressed frustration with how the court was sending the case back down for more proceedings.

“I would have framed the underlying legal issues differently,” Barrett said.

She suggested that because Trump’s wholesale challenge to the indictment had failed, at least some of the case could go forward.

She wrote “a President facing prosecution may challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment.”
“If that challenge fails, however, he must stand trial,” she said.

Barrett took issue with how the court had ruled that evidence from Trump’s official acts should be excluded from the trial, writing that there was no reason to depart from the “familiar and time-tested procedure” that would allow for such evidence to be included.

 

[debbiedowner]

Neither are the ghost of our founding fathers.

maga jumping for joy without realizing this applies to all Presidents in the past, present and future.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When he's president it's official

What is? Not everything. That is the ruling.