BREAKING: TRUMP WINS! Supreme Court Rules 6-3 on Presidential Immunity

originally posted by: Lazy88

originally posted by: Threadbarer

I won't be surprised if down the road these decisions are seen on a similar level to Marbury v. Madison in regards to the Judiciary seizing power from other branches.

Doesn’t the Supreme Court kinda “enforce” the constitution that limits the power of government. So the Supreme Court is grabbing power by limiting government. Ok….

no, all three branches enforce limits against each other, the rulings these justices have put forward recently have only expanded the courts power and also expanded executive power, nothing about this restricted any branch.

a reply to: namehere

can't wait till this gets turned around on trump and his allies

The Biden Administration has been going after Trump via the DoJ, FBI, CiA, Manhattan, Fulton county and unlawful special counsel Jack Smith for years.
Where ya been?
Can you wait until this gets turned around on all of them?
I can’t either.
It can’t come soon enough.

a reply to: grey580

www.supremecourt.gov... if you read the actual ruling they were kind of clear what they considered trumps "official acts"

and are as follows

The indictment alleges that as part of their conspiracy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to leverage the Justice De- partment’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors. According to the indictment, Trump met with the Acting Attorney General and other senior Justice Department and White House offi- cials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a letter from the Department to those States regarding such fraud. The indictment further alleges that after the Acting Attorney General re- sisted Trump’s requests, Trump repeatedly threatened to replace him. The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s use of official power. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The Executive Branch has “exclusive au- thority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Ex- ecutive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney Gen- eral—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial func- tions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the Presi- dent cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitu- tional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department of- ficials. Pp. 19–21.

so interactions with justice department Officials so thats one down the drain for potental charges

two

Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re- sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the Jan- uary 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 pro- ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump- tively immune from prosecution for such conduct. The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of in- trusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Pp. 21–24.

so not as clear but presumed to have immunity and may end up back at scotus most likely post election id imagine as they are off tell october?

The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s in- teractions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. In particular, the indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to convince cer- tain state officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their States, and thus electoral votes for Trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for Trump

now as it was done from his official presidential twitter account its a MAYBE and it was also referred to lower courts to try to re interpret ,and as they go on to say the presidents power to comunicate with the people it SEEMS he is more likely then not to enjoy immunity on that from as well . the ruling goes from page one to page 8 of the pdf then it goes on to various judges interpretations either concurring,separately concurring or dissenting with clarence tomas being the most "striking and interesting" for the words he used as far as right leaning justices go this will be my last snippit but it is HIGHLY relevent especially in context of a post Chevron ruling

J USTICE THOMAS, concurring. Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his offi- cial acts. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course. As the Court forcefully explains, the Framers “deemed an energetic executive es- sential to . . . the security of liberty,” and our “system of sep- arated powers” accordingly insulates the President from prosecution for his official acts. Ante, at 10, 42 (internal quotation marks omitted). To conclude otherwise would hamstring the vigorous Executive that our Constitution en- visions. “While the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 710–711 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a pri- vate citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former Presi- dent on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By re- quiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the Pres- ident—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. If there is

and

no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel oc- cupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A pri- vate citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President. No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue con- stitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to pro- ceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.

this here is the trap seemingly laid by overruling the chevron ruling one where they curtailed the power of federal agencies doing things NOT specifically laid out in law passed by congress ,if all the evidence was gathered by a special prosecutor who per at least Clarence's opinion was not authorized to do so then how can any of the evidence it acquired be legal? will that mean that the special counsels investigations evidence now be treated as fruit from the poisonous tree?and if such an investigation was illegal and or improper from the start what does that mean going forward? note him stating to the lower courts to FIRST solve this issue.

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: namehere

can't wait till this gets turned around on trump and his allies

The Biden Administration has been going after Trump via the DoJ, FBI, CiA, Manhattan, Fulton county and unlawful special counsel Jack Smith for years.
Where ya been?
Can you wait until this gets turned around on all of them?
I can’t either.
It can’t come soon enough.

i don't mean civilized means... because now its impossible to face any consequences for such actions. this is how south and central American presidential republics end up in chaos so often, and it seems we aren't so special anymore as the only American presidential republic to avoid such chaos, or we won't be soon.

a reply to: visitedbythem

now its a long way off but it looks likely based just soley on bad math for the democrats that team red will take the senate due to more democrats being up for re election then republicans in more states at risk to the dems then the republicans which at least initally takes impeachment back off the table.

In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives. Such a "highly intrusive" inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to ju- dicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitz- gerald, 457 U.S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on "every allegation that an action was unlawful," depriving immunity of its intended effect.

This is what the easily brainwashed left can’t get through their heads.
All the indictments against Trump are hollow.
They are allegations of intent, backed by other allegations of intent. 🤡

originally posted by: IndieA
Well here you have it.

BREAKING: TRUMP WINS! Supreme Court Rules 6-3 on Presidential Immunity – “Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers”

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled 6-3 that Trump has absolute immunity for his core Constitutional powers.

Former presidents are entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.

The Supreme Court ruled there is no immunity for unofficial acts. Jack Smith’s DC case against Trump will be delayed again as it bounces back down to the lower court.

THE COURT RULES FOR TRUMP!

Makes sense. Presidents are protected within their official duties, but not for their unofficial acts.

It's looking more and more like the Mar-A-Lago raid was an example of the weaponization of government after all, and one against a political opponent as well as former President. It's looking like some departments of government are in serious need of some major reforms.

So, what will this mean for:

Jack Smith and his lawfare case?
The FBI and DOJ?
The Biden crime family investigations?
The taxpayer?
The future of this great nation?

What it means is : Be carefull what you wish for

a reply to: IndieA

DEMS PANIC !


He’ll Send Seals After Opponents ! Then Put them in PRISON for LIFE !

LOLOLOLO(LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL......................


ALL PRAISE EMPEROR TRUMP ! ....................*)













............

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: IndieA

The President as a candidate is allowed on the call to ask for the specific number of votes to win the state?

Maybe that will happen this year. I'm sure you'll be fine with that, right? I wouldn't be.

Erm, the answer would be yes.
Why in the world would asking how many votes are required to win be illegal ?

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: namehere

can't wait till this gets turned around on trump and his allies

The Biden Administration has been going after Trump via the DoJ, FBI, CiA, Manhattan, Fulton county and unlawful special counsel Jack Smith for years.
Where ya been?
Can you wait until this gets turned around on all of them?
I can’t either.
It can’t come soon enough.

I want a bunch of them to "self destruct" from stress and fear, as Q predicted.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: IndieA

The President as a candidate is allowed on the call to ask for the specific number of votes to win the state?

Maybe that will happen this year. I'm sure you'll be fine with that, right? I wouldn't be.

Erm, the answer would be yes.
Why in the world would asking how many votes are required to win be illegal ?

The Secretary of State of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, testified in court last year that what President Trump was asking him to do was a herculean task, but it wasn't a request to fabricate votes. He was asked to find ballots that weren't counted for Trump and to find and throw out fake Biden ballots.

The Washington Post edited the audio to take out the details....leaving only "Find me 7,857 votes...". WaPo is going to be driven into bankruptcy by audits and investigations over the next 2 years.

PAYBACK / RETRIBUTION

a reply to: WeMustCare

Political Cheaters Will ALWAYS Fight Tooth and Nail to Protect their Blatant Crimes Against the People by using FAKE Outrage and Denial of Any Wrongdoing . The LAW is ALWAYS there to Question that . Thank God !

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: WeMustCare

Political Cheaters Will ALWAYS Fight Tooth and Nail to Protect their Blatant Crimes Against the People by using FAKE Outrage and Denial of Any Wrongdoing . The LAW is ALWAYS there to Question that . Thank God !

Tonight at 7:45pm ET

PRESIDENT BIDEN IS GOING TO PROVE TONIGHT HE CAN READ A TELEPROMPTER...

www.nytimes.com...

Yeah!

Looks like Biden will be addressing the nation in about an hour.

7:45 PM EST

In regards to today's decision.

originally posted by: WeMustCare

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: IndieA

The President as a candidate is allowed on the call to ask for the specific number of votes to win the state?

Maybe that will happen this year. I'm sure you'll be fine with that, right? I wouldn't be.

Erm, the answer would be yes.
Why in the world would asking how many votes are required to win be illegal ?

The Secretary of State of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, testified in court last year that what President Trump was asking him to do was a herculean task, but it wasn't a request to fabricate votes. He was asked to find ballots that weren't counted for Trump and to find and throw out fake Biden ballots.

The Washington Post edited the audio to take out the details....leaving only "Find me 7,857 votes...". WaPo is going to be driven into bankruptcy by audits and investigations over the next 2 years.

PAYBACK / RETRIBUTION

Yes, it was OBVIOUS he was asking how many FRAUDULENT ballots were needed to change the result.
The only people who think otherwise are the people who got fed a bunch of lies by a left wing media.
The whole accusation was and is ridiculous.

a reply to: WeMustCare

Will Joe even be Able to Talk Coherently after that Desaster of a Debate Performance ? He is Literally Dying before Our Eyes .

originally posted by: JinMI
Looks like Biden will be addressing the nation in about an hour.

7:45 PM EST

In regards to today's decision.

This might be fun.

Bidens hours of presidency are only between 10am and 4pm eastern time.

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: WeMustCare

Will Joe even be Able to Talk Coherently after that Desaster of a Debate Performance ? He is Literally Dying before Our Eyes .

Hes been recuperating for 4 days.

originally posted by: network dude
it's like folks aren't smart enough to grasp the rules already in place. President does something bad, impeach him. If it's really a bad thing, there won't be a problem removing him. But if it's partisan douchebaggery, then things will likely remain as they were.

OR the SCOTUS just made Trump and only Trump a dictator. All depends on your level of DERP.

No. The SCOTUS just made any sitting POTUS a potential dictator. Biden is now the sitting POTUS. They've just incentivized him to declare Trump a national security risk, send in SEAL Team 6 to knock him off or disappear him, and declare it an official act. Trump has already announced publicly on many occasions that he plans a massive revenge and retribution program against his political adversaries if re-elected. I believe he even mentioned Biden by name. Trump was the one who pushed for the "send in SEAL Team 6" scenario in the first place during oral arguments before the SC. And I notice that the SC did not explicitly reject that argument in their decision, even though they could have. So Trump has basically said, "It's Biden or me."

From a strictly game-theory point of view, Biden should definitely act preemptively while he still has the power. He could knock Trump out of the picture one way or another along with any follow-on Republican nominee who looked like he/she might be electable. Biden could more or less guarantee he gets re-elected, then resign just before his term ends and have Kamala Harris pardon him just before retaking office.

Of course, this totally incentivizes the Republicans to reciprocate if and when they manage to regain the Presidency, and that incentivizes the Democrats to make sure that never happens. So it becomes a vicious cycle, with the emphasis on vicious. And impeachment wouldn't really stop the cycle; it would simply change which party becomes the dictatorial one.

But with a second Biden Presidential term, it would be in his interest to continue to use his immunity to make sure that no Republican rival could rise up to challenge his hand-picked Democrat successor. And so on, and so on, til hell freezes over or civil war, whichever comes first. I think that's approximately how it's done in Russia.

I can guarantee that there are political operatives out there right now on both sides working through all the possible ways to game this development.

a reply to: Boomer1947

So you are actively advocating that your ideology stay in power by taking out a political opponent.


I'd say that would put you on a list, but with Biden, it'd be on a list for his administration.