“We hold that the petitioner, as a former President of the United States, is entitled to absolute immunity from damages liability predicated on his official acts.”
The media, the Democrats, but I repeat myself, have all been lying to you. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.
Before prosecuting a president you have always had to stop and determine if what was done was in an official capacity or an unofficial capacity. It’s been like that for 200 years. That’s why you can’t charge bush 1, bush 2, or Obama with war crimes. Furthermore, the court made their stance on Trump quite clear. They did not dismiss any of his cases. If they were in his pocket, and he had this absolute immunity as you claim, all cases would be dropped.
Folks, it’s quite clear what the president can and cannot do. He can pardon, appoint, dismiss, and instruct the military to take actions and has full immunity to do so. Which of course the president must have full immunity for those actions. If you or I send a missle to kill people we would get charged. The president would not.
Moreover, presumptive immunity leaves the door wide open. The ruling says that any action taken with presumptive immunity may be challenged and that the burden is on the government to show that the action was not within the presidents duties, and failed to uphold the constitutional oath taken. If the president blatantly breaks the law that burden of proof would be childish to gather. The president is not above the law, and never was.
No? Can the president be charged with murder for telling the military to drone strike someone? No they cannot, because they are immune. They have to have some immunity in order to execute their duties.
Indeed it does. The president has always had immunity. This is civil immunity. There is also criminal immunity because you can’t prosecute the president for ordering the deaths of thousands of people. Unlike say, you know if I was responsible for thousands of deaths. Or even one death. The president must have some immunity to carry out their duty as commander and chief. We have laws against murder. Ever find it funny you can’t go after the president for murder? No, you never once considered it.
You locate a terrorist. You just so happen to have a couple guys who can bomb that terrorist. You murder the terrorist. You are charged with murder because the laws of this nation do not allow murder.
Same scenario, but now it’s the president. Please tell me what the difference is. Why can the president not be charged with a crime but you can? What would you call that?
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago...
The understanding of what is and isn’t an official act is severely lacking. An official act is within the duties of the president. The president can’t break the law and claim it was an official duty, lol.
It is a fundamental misunderstanding and mistake to believe that people don’t vote the way you want them too is because they are less intelligent than you.
The president acts through people. Asking the military to murder Americans on American soil is the easy slam dunk straight to pound me in the ass federal prison for life idea you’ve ever come up with.
The best example is first responders. They have immunity doing their duty. They cannot hesitate to perform their duty - such as giving life saving services - if they fear they are unsuccessful and are sued / thrown in prison. If they break the law though on duty it was never their duty to break the law and are therefore not immune. Take CPR. They might perform CPR and injure the person they are working over, or they might not save them. The family of that person cannot sue them, nor can a court convict them if they accidentally make things worse.
Same thing with the president. The president can’t break the law and say, “whoops, just doing my official duty”. It doesn’t work like that.
The president can’t kill anyone who opposes him. The president is subject to the laws just like anyone else. Breaking the law is not part of his official duty. Assassinating someone the president doesn’t like is against the law.
Assassinating an enemy of the United States is a different story. The president cannot claim a citizen of the United States with no criminal activity or record against the United States is an enemy. Furthermore, the military cannot use force on citizens of the United States. The FBI can, and the president doesn’t control the FBI the judicial branch does.
Because they are protecting our republic. A president shouldn’t fear being prosecuted by someone for their official acts when they are out of office, such as a political rival.
That’s because your fantastical scenario is exactly that, fantasy. You do not understand whatsoever the implications of the ruling because you cannot grasp the duty of the president, checks and balances, and the rule of law. Did they stop teaching civics in school?7
The discretion of official duty is left up to the trails court, not the supreme court. It’s literally in the ruling.
The president has always had immunity. This changes nothing.
If I order someone to be murdered in another country I can be prosecuted. If the president does it they cannot be prosecuted (if, obviously, it was for the protection of the United States). There is your example. SCOTUS didn’t give the president anything. The president already had it. Because SCOTUS doesn’t make law.
None of the judges on either side are making this absurd claim because it’s in the constitution article 2 section 3 and has been settled for 200 years. The president has to follow the law.
I read the decision. The dissent is so ludicrous no one takes it seriously. I’ve seen several discussions of lawyers breaking the decision down. The only part of the dissent that makes sense is Amy Conny Barrett’s examples.
“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law...
First - if I order an enemy of the US dead I can be prosecuted.
The president orders an enemy dead. That enemy is killed. The president cannot be prosecuted for that act.
What this ruling does - the president may also not be prosecuted for that act after they leave office.
That’s all this does. That’s it. If the president kills a maid in the White House he or she will go to prison because that is against the law and not within the duties of the office.
That’s not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
The highest court didn’t give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don’t want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn’t mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That’s ridiculous. The ruling even states that.
The president already had immunity before this ruling. You or I cannot send a missle to Iran to kill people. The president can. It’s been like this for 200 years. It was like this when Trump was president. The president didn’t gain any magic law dodging powers. They aren’t suddenly a genie that can do whatever they want.
Blatant misinformation and a fundamental lack of understanding of the ruling. Nothing changed. President cannot commit a crime and say it was in official capacity. Obviously.
The dissent said the president can now assassinate someone. The president enjoys no such authority, and therefore, the dissent must be discarded as not a serious opinion.
The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.
Based on the incredible hyperbole written in the dissent. Legal expert turned partisan hack quite quickly when they start talking about assassinations.
Sanders: Supreme Court Is “Out of Control” and Must Be Reformed (truthout.org)
Archived at web.archive.org/…/sanders-supreme-court-is-out-of…
Biden Campaign Brushes Off Idea of Reforming the Supreme Court (www.rollingstone.com)
On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that American presidents have “absolute immunity” from prosecution for any “official acts” they take while in office. For President Joe Biden, this should be great news. Suddenly a host of previously unthinkable options have opened up to him: He could dispatch Seal Team 6 to Mar-A-Lago...
Okay, Biden isn’t popular. But his policies sure are. (www.washingtonpost.com)
President Biden’s policy agenda is incredibly popular, much more popular than his opponent’s. But Biden the man? Not so much....
'There Are No Kings in America': Biden Blasts Supreme Court, Issues Dire Warning After Immunity Ruling (dailyboulder.com)
“(With) today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed. For all practical purposes, there are virtually no limits on what the president can do. It’s a fundamentally new principle and it’s a dangerous precedent because the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law...
The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially (www.thenation.com)
Macron is already over. Can anyone stop Le Pen? (www.politico.eu)
Rachel Maddow Warns That SCOTUS Trump Immunity Decision Is ‘a Death Squad Ruling’ | Video (www.thewrap.com)
AOC wants to impeach SCOTUS justices following Trump immunity ruling (www.businessinsider.com)
Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules (www.theverge.com)