Supreme Court Gives Us Presidents (Limited) Immunity In Criminal Acts In A 6 – 3 Majority Ruling

[Hymie]

Already, Trumps lawyers have asked for his 34 felony convictions to be set aside based on the fact that elements of his criminal activity (for which he was convicted) were perpetrated while he was president.

 

If a US president was to thwart the transfer of power (following defeat at an election) which would be deemed as an official act, the president could not be prosecuted.

 

In the USA, everyone is equal before the law; just that some are more equal than others.

It looks like the USA really is about to become a Banana Republic.

[New Judge]

"It looks like the USA really is about to become a Banana Republic."

So it seems six members of the US Supreme Court are not too well versed with the US Constitution and its legal system then. Either that or they are corrupt (or perhaps a bit of both). Because that's what you are implying.

[Togo]

The American "legal system" was never meant to be based on emotional reactions and the Presidential position in it was written in at its inseption. We would do well to heed this judgement given that our political system is being hi-jacked by the corrupt lawyers and judiciary. This may be of interest to those of you who do like to read grown up writing.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2024/07/the_supreme_court_s_decision_about_presidential_immunity_is_good_and_good_for_trump.html

[Hymie]

If Biden loses in November, maybe he should refuse to hand over power to Trump – pointing out that Trump’s appointed Supreme Court judges have given him this power as president of the USA (free from prosecution).

[sandyRoe]

How many of the Justices who found in favour of Trump were appointed by him?

Are we seeing payback time?

[Untitled]

as long as it's an "official act", the president can apparently do whatever he or she wants. order the murder of a child? ok! so long as it's done officially. incite a revolt to stop the transfer of power? fine! no prosecution. take the country to war illegally? sure thing, chief! 

there is nothing whatsoever in the US constitution which supplies this and the only reason the supreme court ruled that it did was because the majority of them are right-wing and approve of trump. disgraceful ruling and one that future generations will look back on in horror. the USA will not remain a democracy if trump wins. our best hope is that he dies before november.

[tomus42]

//Either that or they are corrupt (or perhaps a bit of both). Because that's what you are implying.//

Just corrupt. Read up on its members if you're interested.

It's not going to become a banana Republic. It will be a Russian style dictatorship/oligarchy.

[Untitled]

"So it seems six members of the US Supreme Court are not too well versed with the US Constitution and its legal system then. Either that or they are corrupt (or perhaps a bit of both). Because that's what you are implying."

they are political appointees new judge and have quite obviously made this ruling based on political considerations rather than legal ones.

it cannot possibly be correct that US presidents are immune from prosecution for "official acts" that they take while in office. that would mean they are allowed to breach the constitution and break the law and still remain immune. 

yes they are corrupt.

[Untitled]

actually tomus there is no reason Biden could not have trump murdered by the secret service. why not? he couldn't face prosecution, apparently!

[ToraToraTora]

A lot of alans getting in a Brahms here.....

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/

It says: "WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - 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."

Now unless constitutional powers include it the president cannot "order the murder of a child" as in untitled's example. Also this is a ruling about all  presidents not just Trump. Mogadon Joe may find it useful soon.

Presumably the "constitutional powers" are defined somewhere??

[tomus42]

//actually tomus there is no reason Biden could not have trump murdered//

True, which is why it's a ridiculous decision. Of course he won't though, because despite his many faults he is not an unhinged amoral narcissist.

I wouldn't put anything past Trump though.

[pastafreak]

Should a Republican president enter the White House in 2025, there is supposedly a far right agenda to put plans in place to change many existing policies and programs. This ruling is just the start of things to come.

[ToraToraTora]

09:44 do constitutional powers include arbitrary murder?

[tomus42]

It's called project 2025 pasta.

BBC News - Project 2025: The Trump presidency wish list, explained
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do

[tomus42]

//Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control – a controversial idea known as “unitary executive theory”.//

"Direct presidential control". 

[pastafreak]

Yes, I know tomus...I first read about it a month or two ago. Rather scary stuff.

The last line in the BBC article gives hope...

"Many of the proposals would face immediate legal challenges if implemented."

[Peter Pedant]

Now unless constitutional powers include it the president cannot "order the murder of a child" as in untitled's example

er yes he can as he is exercising a presidential order

the jjudgement is here

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

Trump appointed three of the six. 

The dissenting judgement by sotomayoor is the one for "there are not kings in the country" - a king  can do no wrong - see murder above and she covers presidential ordered  assassaination ( yes he  can).

personal stuff is things like shop-lifting or parking fines

[Untitled]

the US president is granted control of the executive branch (including armed forces, police, secret service, government departments etc.), a veto over congressional legislation, and certain powers of appointment. if the supreme court has ruled that the president cannot actually be prosecuted for "official actions" then nothing that a president instructs the executive branch to do can possibly be illegal which would include murder.

[ToraToraTora]

10:21 show me where it says artibrary murder is in the constitutional powers of the USA. More lefty hysterics.

[ToraToraTora]

"then nothing that a president instructs the executive branch to do can possibly be illegal which would include murder." - rubbish, there are checks and balances the constitution also protects the rights of citizens. Sure the president can order action for reasons of national security within the constitution and legal framework, it doesn't say he can arbitrarly commit murder or indeed other criminal acts.

[Untitled]

well control of the executive includes all those armed parts of the government. the supreme court has ruled that a US president cannot be prosecuted for any official command that he gives them. he could order the murder of a child and not face any legal consequences.