A lot of hysterical hyperbole by media “experts” on the Trump immunity case by people who obviously have not read the 119 page Trump vs United States opinion. According to them the ruling will allow Trump to do anything he wants if elected, including arresting opponents or even murder. Utter nonsense. The Court said a president (not just Trump) has absolute immunity when exercising core duties vested in the Constitution and “presumptive” immunity for actions to the “outer perimeter” of executive authority for all other actions. This second category can be challenged if a president’s action is believed not to be “official” executive business. The court expressly said there is no presidential immunity for unofficial actions of a president, which would include arrest or murder of political opponents. There are many instances in American history when presidential decisions were considered by their successors to have been unlawful but Trump was the only former president to be charged criminally in 248 years. Subsequent administrations may have believed Truman’s dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal. President George Bush invading Iraq “to prevent Sadam Hussein from using non existent weapons of mass destruction.” President Lincoln suspending “habeus corpus” during the Civil War. The Supreme Court said the threshold issue for a court is to determine is if the president’s action was within his official duties or unofficial action. In the Trump case neither the district court or the DC Court of Appeals considered the specific actions to determine if the action was within the protected “outer perimeter” of presidential authority. Jack Smiith and other prosecutors must now produce evidence that Trumps actions were not covered by the presumption of immunity enunciated by the Court. Good luck.
Too bad George W. Bush now cannot be charged with murder and deception for his lies to the American people, and his mass murder of innocent Iraqis. The social media ruling may come back to haunt the democrats. If Trump gets into office, he could say that any negative information about him is "misinformation." Honestly, I would have liked to have heard other views on the vaccines during the pandemic. How can the public make an informed decision if we aren't allowed to hear both sides of the argument?
I've a question for this forum. Is anyone, besides me, tired of reading the leftist phrase "our democracy" used over and over again in the comments when referring to our foundational form of governance? We do NOT live in a "democracy". We live in a democratic constitutional REPUBLIC! We need to quit reinforcing the leftist talking point "our democracy". It just serves to lend credence to their mindless plebiscite, socialist and ultimately oligarch narrative.
Sadly, certain members of a "separate and equal" branch of government, the Supreme Court, are being dragged through the political mud by a by a bunch of people who really do know better yet persist in their venomous attack on our democracy. From a president, who is out of touch with reality, to Associate Justices, who act like political activists in their dissent, to members of a congress incapable of governing, the left is actively destroying the very foundation of our culture and our society. Is there limit to their destructive behavior?
I don't care what anyone thinks of the Republicans: it's insanity to vote Democrat.
Perhaps the bigger, more instructive takeaway is how so much of the Democratic leadership is acting like childish little b-tches (sorry, the term really best evokes the behavior, best describes the gross, possibly treasonous accusations Biden, Schumer and others are making against the Supreme Court, simply because they didn't get their way.
The Grants Pass case was quite significant as well. If anyone can commandeer the public space because they are 'involuntarily homeless' which I'd say is a complete fiction, what can't they do? If misfortune or poor planning elevates you above the law, then all behaviors are excused, and there is no more public space or public order. This seems to be the goal of the progressive liberals. They hate the personal discipline that is takes to live freely, and view everyone as children. The reasoning in the dissent is infantile fantasy.
The Constitution’s impeachment clause gives Congress—not federal or state courts—sole jurisdiction over crimes presidents may commit while in office. It gives Congress authority to indict and try presidents for “high for high crimes and misdemeanors” they may commit while in office. This does not place presidents above the law. Although the impeachment clause limits punishment Congress may impose to removal from office, it provides that presidents tried and convicted by the Senate “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” But it does not say that presidents not impeached by Congress or presidents impeached, tried and acquitted by the Senate are liable to subsequent to indictment, judgment and punishment by federal or state courts.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling actually erodes presidential immunity. The court relied on judicial precedent and the Federalist Papers to suggest that presidential immunity to prosecution by state and federal courts applies only to official acts, not unofficial acts. But the Constitution makes no such distinction. The reference to “high crimes and misdemeanors” applies to all crimes.
Hopefully soon, the Supreme Court will reverse the erroneous ruling that allows executive agencies to supplant Congress's duty and responsibility, as written in the first sentence of Article 1 of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ."
Totally agree with you on the immunity case. It seems the core duties that are covered by absolute immunity are those detailed in Article II of the Constitution. Some may have been added here and there in the Constitution, but beyond that anything else is merely presumptive and needs to be litigated to find out if the presumption is worth holding onto or if the President is being presumptuous.
"Standing" seems to be a cop out. What citizen, in a voting republic, that is barred from seeing information that would change their vote--> by a government that wouldn't want that vote changed... does not have standing?
Yes, *our* standing is obfuscated by the term 'free speech'. Nobody has a right to a (figurative) platform and a microphone, yadda, yadda. But the federal government is interfering in the freedom to *listen* to the thoughts of another, to engage our freedom of *inquiry* to correct our own misconceptions. And that right should be nearly absolute. I have an immediate partial remedy that perhaps can be reached in a different case: all jawboning must occur in public view. Want, e.g., Jay Bhattacharya silenced on X/Twitter? The gov't officials should say so, in a tweet, and a required notification to Bhattacharya himself via registered mail or similar. And then they may reap the Streisand Effect. There might be extremely limited circumstances involving national security where this should not apply, and those cases should reach a judge.
The ever growing list of government experts being catastrophically wrong should be evidence enough that deference should be to science, not the scientist. A basic understanding of the scientific method needs to be basic training for everyone in the justice system.
I don’t understand your court showing the plaintiffs don’t have standing.
These are professionals who were censored for disseminating correct information and were demeaned and belittled in public for it.
How is that not standing, when I could supposedly be charged with genocide for mis-gendering someone.
A lot of hysterical hyperbole by media “experts” on the Trump immunity case by people who obviously have not read the 119 page Trump vs United States opinion. According to them the ruling will allow Trump to do anything he wants if elected, including arresting opponents or even murder. Utter nonsense. The Court said a president (not just Trump) has absolute immunity when exercising core duties vested in the Constitution and “presumptive” immunity for actions to the “outer perimeter” of executive authority for all other actions. This second category can be challenged if a president’s action is believed not to be “official” executive business. The court expressly said there is no presidential immunity for unofficial actions of a president, which would include arrest or murder of political opponents. There are many instances in American history when presidential decisions were considered by their successors to have been unlawful but Trump was the only former president to be charged criminally in 248 years. Subsequent administrations may have believed Truman’s dropping the nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was illegal. President George Bush invading Iraq “to prevent Sadam Hussein from using non existent weapons of mass destruction.” President Lincoln suspending “habeus corpus” during the Civil War. The Supreme Court said the threshold issue for a court is to determine is if the president’s action was within his official duties or unofficial action. In the Trump case neither the district court or the DC Court of Appeals considered the specific actions to determine if the action was within the protected “outer perimeter” of presidential authority. Jack Smiith and other prosecutors must now produce evidence that Trumps actions were not covered by the presumption of immunity enunciated by the Court. Good luck.
Too bad George W. Bush now cannot be charged with murder and deception for his lies to the American people, and his mass murder of innocent Iraqis. The social media ruling may come back to haunt the democrats. If Trump gets into office, he could say that any negative information about him is "misinformation." Honestly, I would have liked to have heard other views on the vaccines during the pandemic. How can the public make an informed decision if we aren't allowed to hear both sides of the argument?
I've a question for this forum. Is anyone, besides me, tired of reading the leftist phrase "our democracy" used over and over again in the comments when referring to our foundational form of governance? We do NOT live in a "democracy". We live in a democratic constitutional REPUBLIC! We need to quit reinforcing the leftist talking point "our democracy". It just serves to lend credence to their mindless plebiscite, socialist and ultimately oligarch narrative.
Keep reminding them.
Sadly, certain members of a "separate and equal" branch of government, the Supreme Court, are being dragged through the political mud by a by a bunch of people who really do know better yet persist in their venomous attack on our democracy. From a president, who is out of touch with reality, to Associate Justices, who act like political activists in their dissent, to members of a congress incapable of governing, the left is actively destroying the very foundation of our culture and our society. Is there limit to their destructive behavior?
I don't care what anyone thinks of the Republicans: it's insanity to vote Democrat.
Thank you, this was a very helpful synopsis
Perhaps the bigger, more instructive takeaway is how so much of the Democratic leadership is acting like childish little b-tches (sorry, the term really best evokes the behavior, best describes the gross, possibly treasonous accusations Biden, Schumer and others are making against the Supreme Court, simply because they didn't get their way.
The Grants Pass case was quite significant as well. If anyone can commandeer the public space because they are 'involuntarily homeless' which I'd say is a complete fiction, what can't they do? If misfortune or poor planning elevates you above the law, then all behaviors are excused, and there is no more public space or public order. This seems to be the goal of the progressive liberals. They hate the personal discipline that is takes to live freely, and view everyone as children. The reasoning in the dissent is infantile fantasy.
The Constitution’s impeachment clause gives Congress—not federal or state courts—sole jurisdiction over crimes presidents may commit while in office. It gives Congress authority to indict and try presidents for “high for high crimes and misdemeanors” they may commit while in office. This does not place presidents above the law. Although the impeachment clause limits punishment Congress may impose to removal from office, it provides that presidents tried and convicted by the Senate “shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” But it does not say that presidents not impeached by Congress or presidents impeached, tried and acquitted by the Senate are liable to subsequent to indictment, judgment and punishment by federal or state courts.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling actually erodes presidential immunity. The court relied on judicial precedent and the Federalist Papers to suggest that presidential immunity to prosecution by state and federal courts applies only to official acts, not unofficial acts. But the Constitution makes no such distinction. The reference to “high crimes and misdemeanors” applies to all crimes.
Where is article audio!?
Hopefully soon, the Supreme Court will reverse the erroneous ruling that allows executive agencies to supplant Congress's duty and responsibility, as written in the first sentence of Article 1 of the Constitution: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States . . ."
Isn't that what the Court did with Loper Bright?
So grateful for the levelheaded analysis in the story itself and the comments. This is why you don't turn off comments, Free Press.🙂
My bad, I thought ACB was a woman. Probably a trans that tricked his body into having half a dozen kids.
Totally agree with you on the immunity case. It seems the core duties that are covered by absolute immunity are those detailed in Article II of the Constitution. Some may have been added here and there in the Constitution, but beyond that anything else is merely presumptive and needs to be litigated to find out if the presumption is worth holding onto or if the President is being presumptuous.
"Standing" seems to be a cop out. What citizen, in a voting republic, that is barred from seeing information that would change their vote--> by a government that wouldn't want that vote changed... does not have standing?
Yes, *our* standing is obfuscated by the term 'free speech'. Nobody has a right to a (figurative) platform and a microphone, yadda, yadda. But the federal government is interfering in the freedom to *listen* to the thoughts of another, to engage our freedom of *inquiry* to correct our own misconceptions. And that right should be nearly absolute. I have an immediate partial remedy that perhaps can be reached in a different case: all jawboning must occur in public view. Want, e.g., Jay Bhattacharya silenced on X/Twitter? The gov't officials should say so, in a tweet, and a required notification to Bhattacharya himself via registered mail or similar. And then they may reap the Streisand Effect. There might be extremely limited circumstances involving national security where this should not apply, and those cases should reach a judge.
The ever growing list of government experts being catastrophically wrong should be evidence enough that deference should be to science, not the scientist. A basic understanding of the scientific method needs to be basic training for everyone in the justice system.