The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for actions that were within his constitutional powers as president in a landmark decision recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision that had rejected Trump's claim of immunity from federal criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority, while its three liberal members dissented.
Trump is the Republican candidate challenging Biden, a Democrat, in the Nov. 5 U.S. election in a 2020 rematch. The Supreme Court's slow handling of the case and its decision to return key questions about the scope of Trump's immunity to the trial judge to resolve make it improbable he will be tried before the election on these charges brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts wrote.
Immunity for former presidents is "absolute" with respect to their "core constitutional powers," Roberts wrote, and a former president has "at least a presumptive immunity" for "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility," meaning prosecutors face a high legal bar to overcome that presumption.
In remarks at the White House, Biden called the ruling "a dangerous precedent" because the power of the presidency will no longer be constrained by the law.
"This nation was founded on the principle that there are no kings in America ... no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States," added Biden, speaking hours after one of his campaign officials said the ruling makes it easier for Trump "to pursue a path to dictatorship."
The ruling could scuttle parts of the special counsel's case as U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan mulls the breadth of Trump's immunity.
In recognizing broad immunity for Trump, Roberts cited the need for a president to "execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly" without the threat of prosecution.
"As for a president's unofficial acts," Roberts added, "there is no immunity."
Trump hailed the ruling in a social media post, writing: "BIG WIN FOR OUR CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN!"
Trump, 78, is the first former U.S. president to be criminally prosecuted and the first former president convicted of a crime. Smith's election subversion charges embody one of the four criminal cases Trump has faced.
The court analyzed four categories of conduct contained in the indictment. They are: his discussions with U.S. Justice Department officials following the election; his alleged pressure on then-Vice President Mike Pence to block congressional certification of Biden's win; his alleged role in assembling fake pro-Trump electors to be used in the certification process; and his conduct related to the Jan 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol by his supporters.
The outcome gave Trump much of what he sought but stopped short of allowing absolute immunity for all official acts, as his lawyers had advocated. Instead the court specified that actions within the president's "exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" enjoy such a shield, while those taken outside his exclusive powers are only "presumptively immune."
The court found Trump was absolutely immune for conversations with Justice Department officials. Trump is also "presumptively immune" regarding his interactions with Pence, it decided, but returned that and the two other categories to lower courts to determine whether Trump has immunity.
The ruling marked the first time since the nation's 18th century founding that the Supreme Court has declared that former presidents may be shielded from criminal charges in any instance. The court's conservative majority includes three justices Trump appointed.
The court decided the case on the last day of its term.
'PRESIDENT IS NOW A KING'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by fellow liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, delivered a sharply worded dissent, saying the ruling effectively creates a "law-free zone around the president."
"When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune," Sotomayor wrote.
"In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," Sotomayor added.
Trump's trial had been scheduled to start on March 4 before the delays over the immunity issue. Now, no trial date is set. Trump made his immunity claim to the trial judge in October, meaning the issue has been litigated for about nine months.
UCLA School of Law professor Rick Hasen, a critic of Trump's efforts to overturn his election defeat, said: "The Supreme Court has put out a fact-intensive test on the boundaries of the president's immunity - with a huge thumb on the scale favoring the president's immunity - in a way that will surely push this case past the election."
"Sorting out the court's opinion and how it applies is going to take a while," Georgetown University law professor Erica Hashimoto added. "No chance of a pre-election trial."
The Supreme Court made two other rulings this year beneficial to Trump. In March, it reinstated Trump to the presidential primary ballot in Colorado. And last week, it raised the legal bar for prosecutors pursuing obstruction charges in Smith's election subversion case against Trump and defendants involved in the Capitol attack.
In the special counsel's August 2023 indictment, Trump was charged with conspiring to defraud the United States, corruptly obstructing an official proceeding and conspiring to do so, and conspiring against the right of Americans to vote. He has pleaded not guilty.
Sotomayor wrote on Monday: "Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for bold and unhesitating action by the president, the court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."
In a separate case brought in New York state court, Trump was found guilty by a jury in Manhattan on May 30 on 34 counts of falsifying documents to cover up hush money paid to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal before the 2016 election. Trump also faces criminal charges in two other cases. He has pleaded not guilty in those and called all the cases against him politically motivated.
Not since its landmark Bush v. Gore decision, which handed the disputed 2000 U.S. election to Republican George W. Bush over Democrat Al Gore, has the Supreme Court played such an integral role in a presidential race.
If Trump regains the presidency, he could try to force an end to the prosecution or potentially pardon himself for any federal crimes.
© Thomson Reuters 2024.
91 Comments
2020hindsights
Well, it's official: the US has turned into a Banana Republic. Look for the destruction of democracy in the future. The corrupt Supreme Court justices who are bought and paid for by business interests have been shielding Trump from his attempt to steal the election.
2020hindsights
The actions he took were illegal and not part of his official duties, so he still will be convicted. This just delays that justice.
nishikat
Now Biden can do the same thing Trump people. And what if Biden is reelected?
2020hindsights
nishikat
I would suggest Biden lock up Trump as part of an "official duty".
dagon
The US has had Presidents that strayed into Imperial presidency territory.
Some should have been prosecuted for war crimes and their lieutenants for profiteering. See Bush, Cheney and Halliburton.
But now there is the imprimatur of a SC decision and the possibility of an incoming President who will use the powers of the presidency, as he has shown before, for his own self-aggrandizement and expansion of petty authoritarian powers.
Hawk
When you can look at the case before a court and say with surety what the decision will be, and what the split will be, then there's a problem with that court. In this era, every decision handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court should have an asterisk beside it.
Peter Neil
so, the supreme court agrees that sending seal team 6 out for a political opponent is immune for a sitting president. that was trump's lawyers argument. it's legal. so go ahead.
it's time to sandblast the words "equal justice under law" off of the entrance to the supreme court.
this is how you create a dictatorship. you're witness to it.
bass4funk
Hardly. The Dems need to read the Justices opinions. Not surprised at all about the ruling. Makes logical sense, first of all, Jack Smith wasn’t even constitutionally appointed, let’s get that out of the way and second, if the Dems got their way, then the next Republican President can go after his Democrat predecessor. Constitutional crisis obverted.
Immunity from Prosecution for Official Acts:
Chief Justice Roberts: "Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course."
Lack of Immunity for Unofficial Acts:
Chief Justice Roberts: "The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official."
So it’s back to the drawing board for the Dems. Smith has to start all over again, they need to sort out and present to the lower courts what is official and what is unofficial, none of the Dems attacks on the former President will see the light of day this year. Great day for democracy.
PTownsend
But because the previous president and his advisors backed by elite establishment groups like the Federalist Society have packed the courts, particularly the Supreme Court with judges and justices that prefer to see a single figure lead the country (especially a venal single leader who has a history of being corrupt therefore can be more easily bought off by the globe;s weaalthiest) the US if X-45 is elected dogs forbid will be just another nation dragged down by a criminal personality leading a cult.
itsonlyrocknroll
Never going to be change, or some game changing revelation.
The road to Damascus moment that would somehow prevent Donald Trump. or any future President from carrying out his duty whilst in Office.
A President in office must be free to take decisions that could, in effect change the course of history to protect the US people.
Must be without any outside interference.
Roberts cited the need for presidents to "execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly" without the threat of prosecution.
"As for a president's unofficial acts," Roberts added, "there is no immunity."
The President will always be subject to impeachment, the sometime harsh scrutiny of Congress
This administration, I would not even suggest is “Joe Biden administration” has and will continue to, weaponize the US Judiciary to prevent Donald Trump from running for the Office of US Presidency.
Joe Biden is President of the United States. Commander in Chief in name only.
The "Presidency", I contend is an oval office "committee" of competing political agendas.
I suspect the US people are cottoning on.
A unelected cabal,
bass4funk
Thank Harry Reid. He was the one that thought was smarter than Republicans. His actions of silencing and getting rid of the filibuster in the Senate helped Mitch and Trump get those justices to the bench, so if you want to vent, curse his departed soul.
Ahhh, I think you’re just angry because they followed the constitution and not rule based on emotion and that’s a good thing and that’s what you want, a non-political SC. By the way, this helps Biden as well, so if the Republicans want to go after him in the future or any other Democrat President, they really can’t. So it’s a win, win for both men.
falseflagsteve
The Dems thought it was all over, well it is now
WoodyLee
""The U.S. Supreme Court found on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions that were within his constitutional powers as president, but can for private acts, in a landmark ruling recognizing for the first time any form of presidential immunity from prosecution.""
Here He Comes Again.
WoodyLee
Never underestimate Mr. Teflon and the power of his $$$.
bass4funk
No, dictatorship was systematically and constitutionally averted today, thank God.
Moonraker
And so we witness the end of democracy and the rule of law. It was nice while it lasted. Now the MAGA crowd can be proud they are helping turn the USA and even the world into Russia. The Russians can be proud their hirelings are doing their job. Pathetic.
WoodyLee
Vote Dem. boys and girls before you lose this right too.
buchailldana
Shocking. But sadly unsurprising.
Does this mean Nixon was technically ok about Watergate.
Can a US president just do whatever he wants.
Down the rabbit hole.
bass4funk
Roberts continues…
Energetic Executive:
Chief Justice Roberts: "The Framers deemed an energetic executive essential to the security of liberty, and our system of separated powers accordingly insulates the President from prosecution for his official acts."
Framework for Accountability:
Chief Justice Roberts: "It is a core tenet of our democracy that the People are the sovereign, and the Rule of Law is our first and final security. No man in this country is so high that he is above the law."
Significance of Presidential Immunity:
Chief Justice Roberts: "The Court has long recognized certain Presidential privileges and immunities, even though the Constitution contains no explicit provision for immunity."
Ok, I know it hurts and the Dems plans were could yet again, but you’ll get over it.
ian
Curious now what trump would do if elected again
JJE
A decent ruling by fine people for all presidents and official acts.
This has really thrown a monkey wrench into the weaponized persecutions of DJT.
Jake Smith must be in cope mode.
bass4funk
Well, like I said, Trump won’t be seeing Leavenworth or Rykers, that will never happen now more than ever.
plasticmonkey
There's nothing in the Constitution about presidential immunity.
PTownsend
Hard for the anti-democracy/anti-republic herds to accept, but the founders wanted to create a nation for all citizens, not just privileged individual men, they had tried to establish a nation unlike those they and their ancestors came from, i.e nations that were run by individual 'royal leaders. However, it could be the home and religious schooled sorts were not taught that. But the convicted felon and his cabal know they can get even richer if they get a corrupt person like Trump back, especially with a corrupt Supreme Court. Trump will try to compete with his pal Putin to see which despot can end up with the greatest wealth embezzled while in office, and as long as Trump shares what's been embezzled with the the most powerful of the elite establishment and some selected few cult members backing him he should prevail, unless another criminal gang overpowers him while he's on the throne, back to the vicious past, most reasonable people wanted to keep locked away, yet still seen today in places like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and others run by the nastiest and their goons.
Bob Fosse
Isn’t this tinpot kangaroo banana court third world type stuff?
bass4funk
Immunity from Prosecution for Official Acts:
Chief Justice Roberts: "Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course."
Let it go, you guys lost
2020hindsights
JJE
Oh, it was obvious when the Supreme Court decided to hear this case, that they were working to protect Trump. Jake Smith has known this for a long time.
2020hindsights
bass4funk
There's nothing in the Constitution about presidential immunity.
Yup. Roberts got that wrong. But's not a mistake, it's willful corruption.
bass4funk
Well, Dems don’t seem to think so these days
I agree, so why do Dems think they can subvert the Constitution? Or even override State and Federal laws?
Wait! In the public schools today you’re learning how to be an activist, a binary person and to think the climate is more important than your own actual existence to live. Those are employable skills, really?? How about public schools going back to teaching kids how to read.
Oh, so now the Constitutionalists are criminals? Lol
Ok, not sure what all that was, don’t care, but to bring this home, it’s a great day for democracy and it’s a great day for both men, because neither will be prosecuted. I’m happy.
TokyoCarnivore
Great day for the rule of law! The banana republic that the Biden administration has turned America into is on full display!
The left is at it again with the what if scenarios! I do love watching the far-left media meltdown! Trump just keeps on winning!
Blacklabel
With the last 12 hours, It’s very clear to me that the left overall has zero understanding of separation of powers between 3 branches.
and more specifically what powers the Constitution actually gives (and doesn’t give) to a President.
People (including triggered liberal justices) are embarrassing themselves online and on TV with all these speculations about obvious crimes they now think Biden and Trump can just casually do.
Chico3
For those in the US, if Trump wins, get your passports updated. It also means a beginning of a possible dictatorship and a monarchy.
bass4funk
Lol, whatever, but honestly, I really couldn’t care less what Europeans think of our justice system. If they don’t like it, oh, well…
Japantime
That’s fantastic news. All the American voters will be able to support him. Their dream will come true again.
dagon
The SC with the corrupt dealings of its 'justices' with conservative billionaire patrons and moving forward to support Trump and the Heritage Foundations Project 2025 have shown they are a corrupt institution overreaching their power and shifting the US into authoritarianism.
https://theintercept.com/2024/06/28/supreme-court-jarkesy-loper-bright-regulatory-oversight/
bass4funk
Yeah, right! ROFL! If libs want to leave that might be an excellent and deeply encouraging idea
bass4funk
So the Supreme Court is corrupt when it doesn’t go the libs way? I would say, corruption of our institutions has been averted, the ruling today restores the belief in our institutions and stops the lefts weaponization of our justice system.
wallace
Trump is a felon and will be sentenced next week, He is also facing further court cases in Florida and Georgia.
Chico3
The other thing to remember is since this ruling, President Biden can go after Trump since Biden is still in Office and doesn't have to leave Office. So, the ruling can go both ways.
bass4funk
Yeah, that’s going away now
Slayer
Doesn't work anymore. The people understand what's going on now. The legacy media and the Whitehouse have lied so much Bidens' wish will never come true.
2020hindsights
bass4funk
Yup. Roberts got that wrong. But's not a mistake, it's willful corruption.
Well, Sotomayor agrees with me:
"Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for bold and unhesitating action by the president, the court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."
BTW, I'm not European.
owzer
The Biden campaign loves to continue with this deception, and the media continues to be complicit in the lie.
Trump’s use of the term "bloodbath" is used metaphorically to describe a potential economic crisis, suggesting that the country could experience significant financial turmoil, job losses, and other severe economic issues if their policies are not implemented.
Read the entire quote and understand. Or, be willingly wrong.
wallace
bass4funk
Trump is a felon and will be sentenced next week, He is also facing further court cases in Florida and Georgia.
Nothing is going away.
DaDude
I approve, it's democracy. I disapprove, it's a banana republic. I swear people nowadays lol
GuruMick
Banana republic....at least the US is in close proximity to all those banana republics CIA actions created in Central America.
What happened to "everyone is EQUAL before the Law "?
Depends who you stack on the law benches it seems.
And the US wants to be seen as a leader among nations ?
bass4funk
That’s ok, it was 6-3 decision she’s the dissenting voice, so yeah.
So which is it? You said one time you were European? Anyhoo, it doesn’t matter, and I don’t care, it’s over, it’s done. The Dems lost.
stormcrow
The King! The King! We must protect the King! The King can do no wrong!
Cards fan
really? Is it a democracy to hold the president above the law? Is it democracy for the president to violate the constitution in pursuit of his own self-interest?
bass4funk
Yeah, that’s going away now
You're right, it’s just nothing is going to happen now, maybe after the election
Blacklabel
Biden just shuffled out, read whiny loser words off a teleprompter for 4 minutes and left, taking no questions.
Trump +4 Pennsylvania, +4 Michigan +2 New Hampshire, + 1 New Jersey and only -2 in New Mexico now.
its over. Just like all those indictments just went poof!
owzer
Nothing. The charges in question were “trumped up,” shall we say, and will, as they should, be overturned at a later date,
Kaowaiinekochanknaw
A very sensible and common sense ruling for any decent democracy.
Well done to the Supreme Court on this one.
Blacklabel
nowhere is the word “democracy” mentioned in the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.
Cards fan
Yeah, there's a lot that's not explicitly written in the constitution. What part of the constitution makes you think the founding fathers intended presidents to be above the law?
wallace
Who decides if a criminal action is "official" or private? Nixon and the Watergate. Was that official or private?
Blacklabel
Did you see Biden?
he is almost as orange as Trump now. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Oh just the fact that the Supreme Court read the Constitution.
and then voted 6-3 that any President has absolute presumptive immunity for official acts while executing the powers of his office that the Constitution grants him, and only him.
DaDude
I approve, oh well the constitution is outdated anyways. I disapprove, how dare they break the constitution lol
Cards fan
Nice sidestep. There's nothing in the constitution that states the president is above the law. Yet now the Supreme court has declared that a president is. What stops Biden from having Trump or any other political opponent arrested? This was a very stupid move.
Moonraker
Some are actually happy with this? The consequences are not obvious? SCOTUS is like when Hindenburg gave Hitler the Chancellorship and then emergency powers. Next, Hitler made himself president as well. Trump will exploit this SCOTUS verdict for all he is worth - he is used to fighting legal cases, such as what is "official" duty with fancy shysters - and has shown he is prepared to bend and stretch any law anyway, should the people be nutty enough to vote him in. Wow! The supporters and SCOTUS have given up any pretence at democracy and even on real patriotism, to the extent that the USA believes itself to be a beacon of a liberal rule of law.
Blacklabel
“BIDEN: "I know I will respect the limits of the presidential power as I have for 3.5 years."
FACT: Biden routinely brags about DEFYING the Supreme Court with his student loan debt bailout, among other unilateral actions.”
Bob Fosse
45 gets sentencing next week. Will the SC decision incline the judge to show leniency or throw the book at him?
Blacklabel
I don’t see “the power to order the arrest of political rivals” listed under the constitutional powers of the Executive branch in the Constitution.
Do you?
Cards fan
No because that's not what's happening. If Trump gets back in, that's exactly what he'll do. Don't believe me, here you go from the horse's mouth:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/liz-cheney-fires-back-trump-232212930.html
collegepark30349
There are two parts to this ruling that scare me.
*The chief justice also made clear that the lower courts cannot take into account Trump’s motives when determining the difference between official versus unofficial acts while in office.*How in the world can motive not be taken into account? The President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. He is up for re-election. His rival has huge lead in the polls. He knows he is going to lose, but wants to stay in power. He declares his opponent a threat to the nation. Orders the army to assassinate him.
Yes, that is an official act as commander in chief. But does the motive make him immune? Assassinating someone like Bin-Laden is fine. But,....
*coupled with its decision to* return key questions about the scope of Trump's immunity to lower courts to resolveSo they just created a yo-yo. Lower court says a president can be prosecuted. President appeals .... and on and on.
*Roberts cited the need for presidents to "execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly" without the threat of prosecution.*
How about faithfully?
Blacklabel
Democrats are so dumb:
Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren: "Theoretically, President Biden, acting within the scope of his official duties, could dispatch the military to take out the conservative justices on the Court!"
Cards fan
Projection.
Where is she wrong?
WoodyLee
Mr. Trump has just gotten one step closer to Dictatorship.
Freedom is at risk for real.
Ah_so
As ruler who cannot be challenged for near official acts, Biden needs to appoint ten new supreme court judges and reverse this decision.
But if Trump is elected President, that is the end of the USA as a democracy given what he will do. Those who celebrate the decision today will rue it in the future.
JJE
Some of the dems responses is veering into the dumb and dumber territory.
rainyday
It should also be obvious that allowing a President to commit any crime he wants, so long as it is framed as falling within his "official" duties also poses a threat to the constitutional order.
Sotomayer's dissent is also worth a read:
"...under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. "
Bear in mind this will apply to Democratic presidents who you hate as well as Trump. This is just a bad rule the Court has foisted on the country, purely for the purpose of protecting one man's personal interests.
ken
This judgement really shows how corrupt our Supreme Court has become.
Unless president Biden steps aside and allows someone else to try and Beat Trump, this country is in for a real bad future.
The End of the USA as we all know it!
1glenn
And who is to say whether or not Trump's actions were part of his official duties; the Supreme Court?
And if Trump has the Supreme Court arrested and thrown into prison, who is to stop him, the Senate?
And if Trump has the both the Supreme Court and the Senate rounded up and thrown into prison, who is then to stop him?
If we are lucky, this will decision will be taught in schools as one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States.
And if we are unlucky, the schools will not teach about this moment at all.
Wandora
From the outside, seems to me the left hate a leader who isn't just a mouthpiece/puppet; which seems to equate to a dictator in their eyes. When Trump wins again, are you going to let him get on with the job or, like before, take every opportunity to sabotage him by smearing his name and trying to get him arrested? Maybe some peaceful™ riots?
Cards fan
If you're going to quote outside material, why not provide a link? I've no idea what this is referencing, and I don't any other reader will as well.
Alfie Noakes
Comedy gold.
Leaders of the Uniparty Empire declared themselves above international law years ago, and now they're above the laws of their own country. The flimsy facade of Yanqui democracy is dead and buried forever.
Whoever is in charge of this horrorshow should be held accountable....
Kabukilover
Quote: "The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision that had rejected Trump's claim of immunity from federal criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The six conservative justices were in the majority, while its three liberal members dissented."
Consider this. What Trump caused was an insurrection. This will likely lead to further post-Trumpian baby rattles which cause more death and destruction.
Chabbawanga
This is a dangerous precedent to set, and it has nothing to do with Trump.
bass4funk
No, the judgement shows that the Dems cannot weaponize the justice system to go after political opponents. Democrats should be happy about this ruling, that means Republicans can’t go after Biden now, so he’s safe from all his crimes, so it’s a win-win for both men.
That won’t happen, ever. The Dems are stuck with Biden.
Unless we end a one-sided Democrat rule. We don’t want the nation to look like California or NYC
Had Democrats gotten their way, it would have been for sure. Crisis averted.
u_s__reamer
What self-respecting person who has sworn to uphold the law could ever accept an appointment to the SC made by a life-long scofflaw with the morals of an alley cat acting as president? This is the result of the failure to rein in the vicious right-wing cabal in the SC after it arbitrarily threw the election to Bush over Gore in the Florida vote-count debacle. This decision delayed until the last day of the court's session can be construed as a deliberate act to obstruct justice, an impudent intervention to sabotage the government's attempt to bring accountability to a rogue ex-Potus for the myriad crimes he has committed. The 6-3 decision made by the most morally compromised SC in recent times has just driven another nail in the coffin of the republic, as old Ben Franklin had once feared, by creating a third tier of justice for an imperial presidency: Dictatorship 1 - Democracy 0.
spinningplates
“There are no kings in America. Each, each of us is equal before the law. No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States,” Biden said in a speech from the White House.
….apparantly not.
rainyday
Ignoring the immediate political consequences, can you not see the problem with having a rule that says a President can commit any crime he wants, so long as it is done in his official capacity, and he will never be prosecuted for it?
I mean, i get that politcally motivated prosecutions are one potential problem that requires some rules to protect against, but just saying "Presidents can do whatever they want" seems massive overkill to deal with that issue. Surely there must be some middle ground between the two that would make more sense as a rule.
This decision is going to be the law for decades to come, long after Trump and Biden are dead and gone and the potential for bad actors of whatever political stripe to abuse this should be blatantly obvious.
JboneInTheZone
I don’t understand this logic. The president has always had certain immunities that don’t apply to your average citizen. Do people just forget that Obama (rightfully so) approved of a drone strike that killed a U.S. citizen? Under a lot of the logic here he should be arrested for murder
Pieter Reyneke
America ceased to exist as a republic with the ruling. The country has constitutionally decayed into a system that can best be described as an imperial order.
The president in America has always been equal before the law as part of the unwritten rules, but only Congress could prosecute him or her for violations of his or her official power, which is contained in the Constitution. This is why presidents are impeached. That authority thus belongs to Congress, which is accountable to the voters. Thus, the voters can decide what a republican democracy means. Now the ruling places the authority with the courts, which are not accountable to the voters, and politicises the legal system.
Monarchs follow a constitutional mandate to act which is extremely restrictive and built on centuries-old precedents and rules. The emperor rules with unlimited authority. Usually, the emperor’s government ended with his death, naturally or by murder, which plunged the state into chaos.
This decision rings the death knells for powerful America. MAGA does not mean progress, but regression. America under the GOP and Trump is decaying into the type of constitutional betel that the Constitution writers wanted to prevent. Presidents can therefore also suspend the Constitution and do much more than I can think of here.
Under the decision, any action by the president is now immune from prosecution until the courts decide otherwise. No president will be prosecuted by his own party, as well as a legal system under his control. It will now be left to the succeeding president and Congress. If they are the other party, you will now see lawsuits like in the Korean model, president after president who completes his or her term will be prosecuted and end their retirement in the courts.
MAGA and Trump have made America a mockery and the country is now no longer a republican democracy, but an imperial dictatorship.
Quo Primum
Good decision. His "efforts to undo" the 2020 election result were (and this is undeniable, folks) not fundamentally different from Al Gore's challenge in 2000, John Kerry's in 2004, and (albeit somewhat milder) Hillary Clinton's in 2016.
Trump went through nothing but legal channels to challenge the election results, and once his legal options were exhausted, he accepted the outcome.
True, he didn't go through the formality of publicly conceding -- but that's all it is, a formality. It's not a legal requirement. It's a customary tradition, but hardly a crime if one skips it.
Once his legal options were exhausted, he physically vacated the White House and yielded the presidency.
And contrary to Biden's blatant lie in the debate the other night, Trump was not guilty of "not doing a damn thing" about January 6. He repeatedly told his supporters to comport themselves peacefully and legally.
And he offered federal troops -- which the Constitution prevented him as president from unilaterally deploying on U.S. soil during peacetime -- to secure the Capitol Hill area.
But Democrats Nancy Pelosi (who as House Speaker was literally in charge of Capitol Hill) and D.C. Mayor Bowser both refused.
Trump is no saint, but this was a most just Supreme Court decision.
Quo Primum
And I might add, the overwhelming majority of his supporters DID comport themselves peacefully and legally.
Thousands of hours of video footage prove it.
Footage that the Democrats hid and censored from the public until they lost the House in 2022, upon which time the new majority Republicans made sure to show the truth.
Cards fan
The truth? Riiiggghhtt, you mean just the stuff Speaker Johnson chose to release so it wouldn't incriminate Trump supporters. Ooops
2020hindsights
bass4funk
This judgement really shows how corrupt our Supreme Court has become.
They don't anyway.
Joe Biden hasn't committed any crimes. It's Trump who is the felon.
The richest states in the US.
2020hindsights
Quo Primum
The justices, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, threw out a lower court's decision that had rejected Trump's claim of immunity from federal criminal charges involving his efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden.
Al Gore, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all conceded. Trump still hasn't.
Also, none of those people organised fake electors to unlawfully steal the election. That was just Trump.
bass4funk
No, the judgement shows that the Dems cannot weaponize the justice system to go after political opponents.
Evidently, the Supreme Court thought differently again, 6-3
50 years and a history of video and statements from various people of various nations say otherwise, but that doesn’t matter anyway anymore, Biden can be happy, because the Republicans can’t go after him and he can’t go after Trump and neither Democrats, so it was a win-win for both sides, and yes, still proudly voting for the felon.
Good, you can move there then. I prefer safety.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/05/us/washington-dc-crime-carjackings/index.html
2020hindsights
bass4funk
They don't anyway.
What?
What crimes? He hasn't been charged and the house has been looking for over a year.
Sure, they can. This ruling is for official acts.
They haven't been. The decision to indict Trump was performed by a grand jury.
The richest states in the US.
How does this relate to NY or California?