201
Trump immunity claim taken up by Supreme Court, keeping D.C. 2020 election trial paused
(www.cbsnews.com)
this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024
201 points (97.2% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3040 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's disgusting that they're even entertaining his claims, and a legitimate threat to our democracy if they decide that he does have actual immunity. Remember, Trump is claiming that everything, including treason and fraud, is covered by presidential immunity. By this logic, Biden could have Trump assassinated, and as long as Biden is a sitting president it would be legal.
Trump's claim has absolutely zero legal merit, but the Supreme Court has already been compromised. I will start planning to leave the country if they decide to uphold Trump's claim.
I mean, he should have him assassinated as a self-proclaimed enemy to Democracy. He obviously cannot under any circumstances be allowed back in that office. That's just facts.
Fun fact: presidential immunity does now show up anywhere in the Constitution or federal law. It is entirely an invention of the courts.
Nixon v Fitzgerald is the big case in question. And the court at the time -- corrupt as always -- gave the president broad immunity rather than, say, limiting the immunity to just acts related to the office of presidency. The SCOTUS basically said that only political solutions -- impeachment or elections -- can get past executive immunity. That's basically standing law. It's real fucking bad.
Also notable that this case should not have even been granted cert. There was already a settlement. The case was over. One must interpret the court's decision to grant cert in that case to be entirely based on their desire to legislate from the bench and do a favor to the office of the president.
The current very-corrupt SCOTUS picking up this Trump case leaves me very worried.
Worrying is pointless. Based on their decision to hear this case it is a 100% guarantee they have the votes to grant him immunity, and they know it. How they are stupid enough to believe that he won't immediately usurp their own power the second he gets back into the White House I will never know, but I am positive that is where we are headed. Every single piece of available evidence suggests we are in for a Trump dictatorship. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.
If Trump wins this case then Biden could just legally shot Trump in the head or order someone else to do it.
Kamela Harris can simply refuse to certify Treason Trump. Thats legal according to Cheeto Benito.
Depends on the timing, Trump may get back into the presidency before the ruling comes.
The case won't be resolved until Trump is your president next year.
Downvote all you want, you better show up at your polling location with all your family and friends and coworkers and neighbours on election day if you want to avoid it
Simple, Biden kills trump. If they forget that they were just arguing that the president is immune then Biden resigns. Harris pardons Biden. Then Harris appoints Biden to be vice president. Harris resigns. Biden appoints Harris vice president.
It would be fun to watch everyone that thinks Trump is immune change their minds.
The case won’t be resolved until Trump is ~~your president~~ Dictator in Chief next year.
Other than that I agree. People are going to downvote you out of fear, but that is precisely where we are headed. Even if he loses there will be a violent coup and a legislative coup to attempt to insert him anyway. If you don't think that is the plan then you are lying to yourself.
Seal Team 6 vs. Meal Team 6.
So this gets complicated but essentially the question before them is whether he has immunity for official acts, as the trial judge decided he did not.
My guess is the court will wait until the last day of their term, in July, to decide that he does have immunity for official acts. Then it'll get sent back to the trial judge who will fairly obviously rule that these were not official acts. Then Trump's attorneys get a couple more months of delay while they appeal it up the chain losing. This easily pushes his federal cases beyond the election.
After the election, depending on the results, this will 1) all be settled and he will face trial or 2) he becomes President and self pardons or otherwise kills the prosecutions.
Nowhere does this court case align with acts that the president performed in an official capacity - rather this is about things outside of the scope of his duties. Campaigning for example, is not an official duty. Attempting to subvert the outcome of an election is not an official duty. Trump is claiming that these things are on the "outer orbit" / fringe of his duties, so he's trying to argue that these are official acts, but that is not the case.
The argument that interfering with any part of an election is ANYWHERE associated with a President's official acts is farcical at best, and this should have been dismissed right out of the gate.
I completely disagree with how you are framing this as an argument about official acts (and I could have just misinterpreted I suppose). It makes it sound like the argument is whether he has immunity for official acts. Presidents DO have immunity for official acts, that's not the question here. It's a question on whether unofficial acts like electioneering are part of a president's duties, and they are squarely not.
Executive immunity isn't limited to official acts in any case. That limit has been theorized, but existing case law has not established it. The outcome of this SCOTUS case will likely be the official answer - and the only hope of any good outcome is that the court granted cert because they intended to establish that limit to limit presidential power.
While possible, I'm not optimistic that this is the intent.
The argument is over official acts because of the ruling of the District Court. The judge very specifically didn't rule on whether or not these were official acts but ruled that there's no immunity even for official acts. So in this case right now before the Supreme Court that's all they're going to evaluate. They spell it out in the grant of the writ of certiorari.
I think there's a substantial chance that there will be immunity for official acts. But that's also why I think it's fairly obvious that once it gets back to the District Court the judge will find these aren't official acts. It's just unfortunately going to burn up more time to get there.
I see that now after re-reading part of the ruling, thanks for guiding me there. What a mess.