In a 6-3 decision, the SC that held the President has immunity for official acts. It was not a complete victory for Trump. In fact, the Court rejected Trump’s base case.
Supreme Court Rules Presidents Have Broad Immunity for Official Acts
Let’s go over the ruling point by point. Tell me what I have wrong. Here is the official Supreme Court Ruling. The snips below are my highlights.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity
must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity.
Official Acts
Immunity from prosecution for official acts applies to all government agencies. The Supreme Court logically applied that to the President.
Contrary to hyperventilation by the Left, it does not protect the President from unofficial acts or unconstitutional acts.
Presumptive immunity means there must be a fact finding mission to decide what is or is not an official act and what is or is not a constitutional act.
Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, precedent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal cases where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents.
When prosecutors have sought evidence from the President, the Court has consistently rejected Presidential claims of absolute immunity.
That alone tells you that a president cannot do anything and get away with it. Here is another statement that is even more clear.
Distinguishing Official Acts From Unofficial Ones
The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. …
Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct.
Distinguishing official acts from unofficial ones requires a prosecutorial hearing or fact finding mission to establish what is or is not an official act and what is or is not a constitutional act.
Such hearings are standard procedure for official acts. The Court merely extended the standard procedure to the office of president.
Court Blasts Trump’s Base Case to Outer Space
Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government.
Trump claimed to have absolute immunity. The Court blasted that claim to outer space.
Truman Example
If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,” the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills.
The Court wisely referred to the Truman case.
On grounds of national defense, Truman tried to seize steel mills. The Court quickly told Truman no, that’s unconstitutional.
Mish Synopsis
The court rejected Trump’s base case, properly cited Truman as an unconstitutional example, and specifically applied its ruling to official acts.
Importantly, official acts must be constitutional!
Truman was acting “officially”, but not “constitutionally”.
Hyperventilation by the Left
Hyperventilation by the left was intense in all corners including Senator Richard Blumenthal, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and many others.
Pelosi: “The ruling dangerously holds that official acts are inadmissible in trials for unofficial acts, giving the defendant a political gift.“
Can someone explain the logic of that sentence in understandable English?
Sen. Richard Blumenthal criticized the Supreme Court’s decision, saying it “puts lawbreaking presidents like Donald Trump above the law” and delays his criminal trial. Blumenthal called the ruling a “cravenly political decision to shield President Trump” and a “license for authoritarianism.”
Excuse me for asking, but how does outright rejection of Trump’s claim of absolute immunity, including examples, put Trump above the law?
Straight From the Loony Bin
Not Understanding the Meaning of Constitutional
The loony bin includes people you would think should know something about the constitution.
King Biden
People like David Leavitt, Nancy Pelosi, SarahCA , Adam Kinzinger and the DNC in general are the real threat.
They demand Trump be convicted for political purposes, constitutional or not.
Desperate Political Acts
The Left is so willing to do anything to preclude Trump from running that several states resorted to unconstitutional efforts to keep Trump off the ballot.
Then to top it off, the NY Attorney General prosecuted and won (temporarily) a hyped up case in New York that should never have been prosecuted at all.
That case will be overturn by a higher court or the Supreme Court, possibly this year if the New York judge stupidly sentences Trump to prison.
Instead of focusing on a legitimate case in Georgia involving election interference, the Left wasted its time on stupid cases.
Then prosecutor Fanni Willis turned the Georgia election case into a political shitshow.
Seriously, who is the greater threat to Democracy?
Trump Found Guilty – a Travesty of Justice for America
On May 30, I commented Trump Found Guilty – a Travesty of Justice for America
Trump was found guilty of a crime, but can anyone say what it is?
A misdemeanor, on which the Statute of Limitations had run out, was used to produced 34 felony counts on committing a Federal offense for which he was not charged.
If they can do this to Trump, they can do whatever they want to anyone. And they will, for political purposes.
Ultimate Irony
Democrats purposely timed all these cases to coincide with the election.
Except it totally backfired. Trump’s campaign coffers surged in response.