Read The Supreme Court Ruling On Presidential Immunity

[Harpy Eagle]

A president plays no part in elections. There is no “official” duty for a president to be involved in state election matters.

I agree, but I doubt SOCTUS will, and that is who will eventually decide.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

There are two issues. One is how the decision affects the Trump current and future prosecutions, and the already decided cases.

The second issue is the decision itself and how it affects the Office of the Presidency, and in effect the Executive branch of government.

Much of what to me is of most interest and concern (not alarm), is how most of what is being written about and argued in media has yet to be tested in the courts. I suspect that at some future date the decision will be revisited and amended if not challenged as being constitutionally valid.

I have long held an opinion of being for a strong and robust Executive. What that means exactly would fill a whole nother thread,.

Dante

I don’t understand the court’s “urgency” for lack of a better word, in now protecting a president from something no other president until the criminal one needed to ever even consider.

 

[Delldude]

Indeed, and almost everything is an official act.

Nope.

Do you think a president could order a political rival to be wacked and that would be an official act?

SCOTUS said that Tweets were official statements...aka an official act.

They would be presidential communications.

 

[Delldude]

*note: "Trump's imbecilic notion of absolute immunity struck down."

On June 30, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States (2024) that presidents have absolute immunity for official acts, but not for personal ones.