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
2951 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
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.