BREAKING: The Supreme Court has sided with President Trump, ruling that presidents cannot be held cr

[MeganC]

A big win for Trump...

No, this is a big win for America. It helps defeat the leftist march to turn us into a banana republic! 

[Cyber Liberty]

iow, 3-3 but the three justices with illegal conflicts of interest (appointed by one of the parties to the suit) illegally refused to recuse.

Well said, DNC drone.

[mystery-ak]

https://twitter.com/julie_kelly2/status/1807772609423028515

[GtHawk]

https://twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1807804147330138305

pretty sure that ordering the assassination of an American citizen on American soil is not something considered an official immune act.

[PeteS in CA]

Looking past the hysteria, this means that Smith's burden of proof grew, yugely. He now has to prove that the act's for which he is prosecuting were not within Trump's constitutional or Presidential duties. There probably also will be a flurry of motions from Trump asking that many/most/all charges in the cases be dropped.

It should not need to be pointed out, but a President ordering the assassination of a political opponent is NOT within a President's duties. Less grossly obvious abusive actions could be duked out in court or under Congress' impeachment powers (or both).

As has been pointed out, this ruling recognizes immunity for the consequences of bad choices that are within Presidential duties, e.g. the planning of the withdrawal from Afghanistan or priorities assigned to the Border Patrol. So LIEden could not be sued or prosecuted for those deadly debacles (but impeachment would still be on the table, though our present hyper-partisan context make removal all but impossible).

[Right_in_Virginia]

Well that'd be one way the Dems could get rid of Biden...

The problem though is Kamala.

[Right_in_Virginia]

No, this is a big win for America. It helps defeat the leftist march to turn us into a banana republic! 

This was a big win for Trump @MeganC ---- he brought the lawsuit (the plaintiff)

[libertybele]

pretty sure that ordering the assassination of an American citizen on American soil is not something considered an official immune act.

'

MSNBC - and so the hysteria begins....  Trump is succeeding yet again. 

[Bigun]

This was a big win for Trump @MeganC ---- he brought the lawsuit (the plaintiff)

I'd say its a huge win for both.

[mountaineer]

A former U.S. Atty comments:

Brett L. Tolman
@tolmanbrett
The Dissent in the SCOTUS Immunity decision is actually low IQ analysis and quite ridiculous.  It’s actually entertaining to read. I haven’t seen anything quite like it.
3:08 PM · Jul 1, 2024

CJ Roberts tried to educate the twisted sisters but, given their low IQs, it probably was ineffective:

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸
@julie_kelly2
Chief Justice to Kagan, KBJ, and Sotomayor:

"Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, the significant constitutional questions that it raises, its expedited treatment in the lower courts and in this Court, the lack of factual analysis in the lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize the conduct alleged, the principal dissent would go ahead and declare all of it unofficial.

The other dissent, meanwhile, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and paradigms of its own concoction and accuses the Court of providing 'no meaningful guidance about how to apply [the] new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct.' It would have us exhaustively define every application of Presidential immunity. Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. While their confidence may be inspiring, the Court adheres to time-tested practices instead—deciding what is required to dispose of this case and remanding after 'revers[ing] on a threshold question.'"
11:42 AM · Jul 1, 2024

[Bigun]

A former U.S. Atty comments:

Brett L. Tolman
@tolmanbrett
The Dissent in the SCOTUS Immunity decision is actually low IQ analysis and quite ridiculous.  It’s actually entertaining to read. I haven’t seen anything quite like it.
3:08 PM · Jul 1, 2024

CJ Roberts tried to educate the twisted sisters but, given their low IQs, it probably was ineffective:

SOSDD for those loons!

[Right_in_Virginia]

I'd say its a huge win for both.

 

[mountaineer]

https://twitter.com/collinwood_j/status/1807788027692855746

Jarvis
@jarvis_best
As a lawyer, whenever I try to understand the scope and breadth of a SCOTUS majority opinion I always refer first and foremost to the hysterical woman who wrote the dissent. Surely that person can be trusted to frame the majority's holding accurately.
11:39 AM · Jul 1, 2024

Jay Collinwood
@collinwood_j
Sotomayor also cited Ta-Nahisi Coates in an opinion, so I wouldn’t be too concerned about how intellectually rigorous this is.
10:49 AM · Jul 1, 2024

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://x.com/ByronDonalds/status/1807816533743145409

[Ghost Bear]

Remember, when Democrats talk about what they fear a Republican president would do, it is because they themselves have thought about doing the same thing, and would do it in a heartbeat.

So when all these Democrats worry about Trump ordering hit squads on his political enemies, it's because that's what Democrats would do in his position.

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://x.com/charliekirk11/status/1807792684440179004

[Right_in_Virginia]

https://x.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1807810019616006639

[libertybele]

Remember, when Democrats talk about what they fear a Republican president would do, it is because they themselves have thought about doing the same thing, and would do it in a heartbeat.

So when all these Democrats worry about Trump ordering hit squads on his political enemies, it's because that's what Democrats would do in his position.

I have been praying for Trump's safety for awhile.

[Right_in_Virginia]

[berdie]

I'll ask a stupid question. If I read the decision correctly, it says that the President is exempt from prosecution for acts of a presidential nature.

So who decides what is presidential? Is a rally presidential?

[mystery-ak]

Clarence Thomas swipes at Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment in SCOTUS immunity case
Justice Clarence Thomas says there are 'serious questions' about Special Counsel Jack Smith's appointment
By Brianna Herlihy Fox News
Published July 1, 2024 2:16pm EDT

In the Supreme Court's monumental decision in former President Trump's immunity case, one justice questioned whether Special Counsel Jack Smith – at the helm of Trump's unprecedented prosecution – was constitutionally appointed.

On Monday, a 6-3 majority ruled that a president has substantial immunity for official acts in office, and sent the case back down to lower courts to determine which acts at the center of Trump's case were official.

"The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive," the opinion said.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas looked to "highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure" – the appointment of Jack Smith as special counsel.

"In this case, there has been much discussion about ensuring that a President ‘is not above the law.’ But, as the Court explains, the President’s immunity from prosecution for his official acts is the law. The Constitution provides for ‘an energetic executive,’ because such an Executive is ‘essential to… the security of liberty,'" Thomas wrote.

"Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. 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," Thomas said, adding that "[t]hose questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed."

Thomas explained that in this case, the attorney general "purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States."

more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/clarence-thomas-swipes-special-counsel-jack-smiths-appointment-scotus-immunity-case

[the OlLine Rebel]

So, this does not include non-presidential-term issues, correct?  I guess this is applicable for anything Trump is facing that he did DURING his term, not outside it.

[roamer_1]

So, this does not include non-presidential-term issues, correct?  I guess this is applicable for anything Trump is facing that he did DURING his term, not outside it.

Probably so - But likely could be argued that official proceedigs as a retired president would be likewise covered - Though that is incidental, as the President no longer has authority, nor does he wield presidential power...

For instance, speech not covered by personal free speech might be covered as a function of a retired president - That's just me spitballing, and not a proper legal argument.

[Bigun]

I'll ask a stupid question. If I read the decision correctly, it says that the President is exempt from prosecution for acts of a presidential nature.

So who decides what is presidential? Is a rally presidential?

IMHO it is as he is talking to constituents.

[catfish1957]

With last week's debate, and this SCOTUS decison.  Trump damned well better win this thing, or it's a bigger choke job than Hillary's '16 version of this shit show.