Majority opinion (6-3): written by Roberts
1. The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers.
2. Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts.
3. There is no immunity, the court holds, for unofficial acts.
4. The court in Part III of its opinion indicates that in this case "no court has thus far considered how" to distinguish between official and unofficial acts.
5. Case remanded back to Chutkan to decide if what trump did was official or unofficial.
6. The court sends the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as "whether a prosecution involving Trump's attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
7. A couple of additional points from the Roberts opinion: The court indicates that the president's immunity for official acts "extends to the outer perimeter of the President's official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority."
8. And in determining what is or is not official conduct, "courts may not inquire into the President's motives."
9. The court also notes in a footnote that the district court "if necessary" should consider whether two of the charges brought by Jack Smith against Trump in Washington, involving the obstruction of an official proceeding, can go forward in light of the court's ruling last week in Fischer v. United States, narrowing the scope of that law.
10. Final substantive paragraph: "The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution."
From: https://go.arena.im/embed/chat/scotusblog/5sKV914?popup=true
Dissenting opinion next…
Dissenting opinion from 3 written by Sotomayor:
1. From the Sotomayor dissent, which is joined by both Kagan and Jackson: Today's ruling "reshapes the institution of the Presidency" and "makes a mockery of the principle . . . that no man is above the law." The decision "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."
2. Sotomayor does not use "respectfully" with "dissent" here or at the end of her dissent, which concludes: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."
Opinion that this is slippery slope:
“The Supreme Court just ruled that if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent, he would be immune from criminal prosecution This isn't a joke.”
From this link:
https://x.com/SpeakerPelosi/status/1807806067503448142?
“Today, the Supreme Court has gone rogue with its decision, violating the foundational American principle that no one is above the law. The former president’s claim of total presidential immunity is an insult to the vision of our founders, who declared independence from a King.”
THIS IS A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE, IN EVERY ASPECT... IMO, OF COURSE.
SO... DOES THAT LET BIDEN OFF THE HOOK FOR INVITING ALL THE ILLEGALS IN... ETC.? BECAUSE IT IS AN OFFICIAL ACT!
Thanks!
People are spinning this with insane interpretations!
The last one from Jean(summarizing the meaning-not her interpretation) makes THE MEANING pretty clear, as do some of the others:
10. Final substantive paragraph: "The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution."
++++++++++++
Added: Thank you very much, Jean for copying those 10 points relevant to this decision that were NOT your opinion.
Much of what Trump did after the proven by every standard loss to Biden in 2020 was anything but official acts.
His diabolical schemes and complete lies about proven facts over and over and over for 2 months, along with using dozens of powerful accomplices attempting to overturn the results of the most important democratic event that exists...........the presidential election was the 100% diametrically opposed actions of somebody performing his duties as president. The only widespread fraud exposed was the fraud that Trump used to try to overturn the election, completely abusing the powers of the president for self serving interests which completely contradicted every official duty by a president related to this.
Because of all the recounts and investigations that completely failed, 2020 ended up being the most secure election in history. Trump does have a right to use legal means to have the results proven. But he went way beyond that and there's a mountain of evidence to prove it conclusively.
Even today, Trump continues to violate his duty to follow the Constitution based on excepting the results of proven election results.
HE WAS VIOLATING HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND ABUSING HIS POWER AS PRESIDENT FOR PERSONAL GAIN AND PERSONAL OBJECTIVE IN AN UNOFFICIAL CAPACITY.
This ruling doesn't change that. It may delay the accountability but it's still coming.
The amount of evidence showing Trump acting AGAINST his official duties and the Constitution and the American people is overwhelming.
Unlike all the absurd, fake cases manufactured in NY to get him.
He really did the crime in this one. And it makes the other ones look like stealing a pack of gum. If there was justice, he would be in prison for this and for single handedly wrecking the confidence in our democratic election system for millions, based on complete bs.
Certain powers — including the Insurrection Act and the emergency sanctions authority — could indeed be used in ways that could undermine democracy and inhibit a fair and free election. But once an election has taken place and the votes have been tallied, there is no emergency power that enables a losing incumbent to stay in the White House. Allowing a contrary narrative to take hold would be just as dangerous to our democracy as the powers themselves.
+++++++++++++
This ruling by the Supreme Court DOES NOT CHANGE THAT 1 IOTA!
The president is above the law. The MAGA Supreme Court says so:
I guess that means Biden could have Trump shot by Navy Seals in order to defend our democracy. (an official act)
Trump will never serve a day in jail for all his crimes. This may be the last election. I would vote for Biden if he were in a coma. THAT is how much I fear a Trump presidency.
Thanks, joj!
Good to read you!
At the present rate of deterioration, in 4 years, Biden’s cognitive health may be closer to a coma than a person qualified to be president.
That was intended to be literal and a reasonable statement reflecting reality Based on objective observations.
and not meant to make a case to you for having a different mind set.
There are 10s of millions just like you and not only do I sympathize with you, I had the same opinion until NY did what they did to aTrump.
we will disagree on that but I sincerely understand why people hate Trump.
He deserves it!
This post belongs in this thead!
By metmike - July 3, 2024, 6:40 a.m.
The other thing is that the insurrection and Trumps diabolical schemes trying to overturn the results of the most secure election in history ACTING WELL OUTSIDE HIS OFFICIAL DUTIES AND ENTIRELY BASED ON SELF SERVING INTERESTS THAT CONTRADICTED HIS VOWS TO SERVE AMERICANS AS PRESIDENT CAN TAKE FRONT STAGE AND SINK HIS SHIP.
The immunity the Supreme Court ruled on DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS.
REPEAT, THE IMMUNITY THE SUPREME COURT REFERRED TO IN THEIR RULING DOES NOT PROTECT TRUMP FROM MOST OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM.
By definition, the charges are BASED ON HIM BEING BLATANTLY NEGLIGENT OF THE ROLE EXPECTED BY A PRESIDENT ACTING IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
Trump and MAGA defendi what Trump did and the innocence of him and the people involved in the January 6th attempt to stop Joe Biden from being sworn in as the president that Americans voted in based on 100% of the results that were scrutinized in unprecedented fashion but confirmed 100%.
Make no mistake,their objective was to stop Joe Biden from taking office…..NOT to just protest, using their right as Americans.
This is the Trump and MAGA kryptonite and is defending the indefensible.
joj,
I have been completely baffled as to why these nonsense cases have been pushed ahead of the REAL DEAL case against Trump and his diabolical anti official capacity attempts to overturn the extremely vetted results of our democratic election process and sabotage/prevent the Constitutionally mandated process from proceeding to its endpoint that every president vows to uphold.
There is a mountain of evidence to convict him. These are extreme violations by any objective standard(though MAGA continues with galactically absurd positions to blame Nancy Pelosi, Ray Epps and others).
There must be a reason for them to save this one.
The other ones never made a difference in whether Trump can be elected or not. Since they are complete nonsense and everybody with an open mind knows it they have been mostly COUNTER productive.
Many people that weren't convinced the justice department is weaponizing the justice system to target Trump...........are convinced now!
Personally, I think that this was a catastrophic blunder that has completely backfired and HELPED TRUMP more than hurt him.
They proceeded with the weakest, complete nonsense cases first and moved up to the still weak but stronger nonsense cases.
People are creatures of cognitive bias. Once they believe something or have a mentality, it takes 10 times more information to change that view...........and even then its often not enough.
Their tactic/order guaranteed a mindset by NEW millions that Trump is the victim of the justice system that manufactures crimes and charges against him.
They also remember the corrupt Mueller investigation for 2.5 years targeting a completely innocent man.
What is the matter with these people for not actually being able to discern between FAKE cases/justice and REAL justice based on REAL crimes?
It stinks and is a sad commentary on our justice system!!
I honestly think that for many of them, they don't care. If they did, the ONLY REAL CASE of all of them would have been the ONLY ONE and Trump would have been convicted already.
Anybody else have thoughts on this?
I am baffled on how they could be this incompetent/corrupt and use such bad judgement in applying the criminal justice system in a fair way and EFFECTIVE WAY to target the person they are trying to take out.
They HAVE TO KNOW this case NOT tried yet is by far the one loaded with a mountain of legit evidence is the best one.
One strong theory is that they are so caught up on the manufactured cases controlled by corrupt local entities that can use that corruption with impunity, like the prosecutors and judge in NY in order to get the conviction they want with extremely high confidence.
Federal cases have to follow guidelines which protect the accused. Gives them rights.
They can't manufacture crimes or change the statute of limitations or use biased interpretations to enforce rules/laws and instructions to juries.......like NY did.
It's the only thing that makes sense to me and it was really dumb and really, REALLY corrupt to proceed this way!
MIKE SAID: "People are spinning this with insane interpretations!
The last one from Jean makes it pretty clear, as do some of the others:"
ARE YOU CALLING MY QUESTION... INSANE?
With his new immunity related powers thanks to the SC, Biden as an “official” act ought to consider locking this jerk up with his threats for political violence:
Heritage Foundation president celebrates Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling: "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be"
https://x.com/mmfa/status/1808306913291260118?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet
MIKE SAID: "People are spinning this with insane interpretations!
The last one from Jean makes it pretty clear, as do some of the others:"
ARE YOU CALLING MY QUESTION... INSANE?
++++++++++
Thanks, Jean. You are only providing PART OF THE Quote and 100% misinterpreting what I stated. Here's the full quote.
I will add something to it so that it's NOT misinterpreted.
Full quote:
People are spinning this with insane interpretations!
The last one from Jean makes it pretty clear, as do some of the others:
10. Final substantive paragraph: "The president enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution."
+++++++++++
Added:
The last one from Jean(summarizing the meaning-not her interpretation) makes THE MEANING pretty clear, as do some of the others:
Thank you very much, Jean for copying those 10 points relevant to this decision that were NOT your opinion.
+++++++++++
Are you good with that, Jean?
Mike,
The NY case was the weakest. Would you defend Al Capone's rights for doing 11 years in jail for tax evasion? I would not. Has anyone ever done 11 years for tax evasion? It would have been more but he died in prison. Nor do I defend Trump for his smaller crimes committed as you have. You ask why hasn't progress been made on the treasonous act of overthrowing a democratically elected president of the United States on Jan 6. Where have you been? What news sources are you reading? The answer is simple. The MAGA Supreme Court. When Colorado ruled that Trump couldn't be on the ballot due to the crime of insurrection, the SC court expedited the case in days (not months) and overturned the Colorado courts. But when the case of Jan 6th is proceeding toward prosecution, Trump's lawyers put up the absurd defense of immunity to slow the trial down. Does the MAGA SC expedite the motion? No, they do not. They wait until the very last day to make a ruling. Do they rule narrowly on Trump's crime on Jan 6th? No, they do not. They investigate all sorts of hypothetical acts a president may or may not do and send it back to the lower courts further slowing things down and insuring that Trump will not stand trial for his crime before November. And when Trump becomes president he will throw out all the Federal cases against him. The King is above the law. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves.
Don't get me started on the MAGA judge Cannon in the documents case. She is a member of the Trump cult as far as I'm concerned. Do a little research on how she is handling the case.
So go ahead and defend Trump for his "rights being violated" in the NY case. I will not.
Hey joj,
I don’t disagree with you about the other cases and the MAGA judicial delay tactics. And I don’t want Trump anywhere near the WH again as I fear his plan of dismantling protections against too strong a POTUS among other things. I have never even considered voting for him in any election and feel he’s dangerous.
But I still want to run this by you about the hush money case, especially because you acknowledge this is the weakest case. This is a quote from an anonymous poster elsewhere:
“Because most people know the NY case was a sham and will be eventually overturned on appeal. A DA that campaigned on getting Trump used a supposed federal crime which wasn’t prosecuted to elevate a misdemeanor which was past the statue of limitations to a felony. It was clearly politically motivated and everyone that isn’t brainwashed knows it. The FEC looked at it and said there was no crime.“
Do you feel the above quoted paragraph is accurate? Keep in mind that I don’t feel bad for Trump overall by any means, especially due to Jan 6th and his continued rhetoric about the 2020 election being rigged.
no Capone did not die in prison. He was released in 1939 and died on his estate on Palm Island, Florida in 1947. A death much easier than most and far easier than he deserved.
Thanks much, Joj!
I appreciate your insightful comments that explain the delay.
I made most of my comments regarding these cases below, which will have to suffice for me right now based on time constraints and focusing on so many new issues.
For sure we both agree on Trump's guilt in the biggest case against him related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 election.
Our disagreements on the NY cases are as wide as the Grand Canyon and will never be resolved but I encourage your comments, like the last one that intelligently state your side.
Get Trump-Hush Money Hullabaloo
Started by metmike - April 17, 2024, 4:57 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/103255/
Previous related thread on this:
Trump civil fraud trial-nonsense
Started by metmike - Nov. 12, 2023, 2:43 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/100509/
Trump rape case
Started by metmike - May 3, 2023, 9:33 p.m.
MIKE SAID: "People are spinning this with insane interpretations!
The last one from Jean(summarizing the meaning-not her interpretation) makes THE MEANING pretty clear, as do some of the others:"
Trump Lawyer EXPOSES Judges Juan Merchan & Arthur Engoron in NYC cases
IT STARTS AT THE PERTINENT PART & ENDS @ 20:00 ( I ENJOYED LISTENING TO THE ENTIRE VIDEO)
The Supreme Court sent it back to the lower courts for them to determine whether the facts of each case point to an official or unofficial act. That will probably entail a trail by jury as jury's determine facts and judges determine law.
So the SC is not determining what is an official or unofficial act the jury after seeing the facts will render a verdict.
I'm thinking that is the way it works.
CUTWORM... IF NOTHIN' ELSE, WE'RE GETTIN' SCHOOLED THE CONSTITUTION. LOL
Again,
Most of the crimes that Trump committed trying to overturn the 2020 election using diabolical schemes were UNOFFICIAL ACTS.
He will still be prosecuted for them and with the Mt. Everest amount of LEGIT. evidence, very likely convicted. However, what this ruling means is that this mountain of evidence will need to be paired back by removing things that could be interpreted as "official" duties by a reasonable person.
Trumps team is obviously trying to claim that ALL OF IT was official business and covered.
Now that would REALLY, REALLY be bad if a president, using diabolical schemes to overturn an election that they lost is considered part of their official duties.
Questioning the results of an election using legal means = good thing = official part of being president
Rejecting the results of the legal means and pursuing illegal means = BAD THING = NOT OFFICIAL PART OF THE JOB = NOT PROTECTED
https://www.newsweek.com/judge-chutkan-hands-donald-trump-new-legal-setback-1934149
+++++++++++++
People spinning the Supreme Court's decision with regards to presidential immunity for OFFICIAL ACTS as meaning that presidents can break laws with impunity are dead wrong.