Trump WON SCOTUS Immunity, says Ruling 'BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY'
POTUS is immune from prosecution for J6
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision determining that former presidents, such as Trump, are immune from criminal prosecution for conduct involving official acts during their tenure in office. However, they are not immune from unofficial acts.
The Democrats' hope that the Jack Smith J6 case would disintegrate in the wake of this ruling is probably gone.
Read the full decision here.
The panic in DC continues, for both Biden’s failures in the debate and the likely prosecution a Trump administration will levy against deep state actors.
Bloomberg,
As Bloomberg notes, the decision - which kicks the ball back to the lower court - 'all but ensures' that a trial won't happen in Trump's classified documents case before the November election.
The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.
Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law professor, observes that the current issue is whether official acts are considered such. He also notes that the ruling will "further delay the lower court proceedings," but Trump will be required to contend that his actions are within these navigational beacons.
Turley posted this on X,
...Note this language: Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
..."The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. When the Vice President presides over the January 6 certification proceeding, he does so in his capacity as President of the Senate. "
Another X user highlighted this paragraph from the SCOTUS decision,
KEY PARAGRAPH: "Taking into account these competing considerations, the Court concludes that the separation of powers principles explicated in the Court’s precedent necessitate at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility. Such an immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"
The against against Trump headed by Jack Smith is being questioned as a result of this decision, says an X user.
Justice Thomas' concurrence in Trump v. U.S. is hugely significant. He questions whether Special Counsel Jack Smith's office is constitutional.
"If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President."
Justice Sotomayor writes in a scathing dissent that the decision "makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law."
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
…
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.
Trump posted this on Truth Social,
Please tell us what you think or let us know if we got something wrong.
Much love,
Justin Deschamps is a researcher, omniologist, podcaster, and business consultant who has committed himself to restoring the knowledge, reason, and goodwill that helped the founding fathers create the greatest nation on earth.