4 ms·
The ruling says that 3 of the 4 indictments against Trump can proceed so long as prosecutors make a case that the President was acting outside of his duties. A
by legitster 2y ago
The ruling says that 3 of the 4 indictments against Trump can proceed so long as prosecutors make a case that the President was acting outside of his duties.
A president being incompetent or immoral in his line of duty is an issue for voters or congress to decide on. But a White House bogged down in lawsuits or petty criminal charges would cease to function.
- nprateem 2y agoWhich they can't because official duties haven't been defined. Trump can now continually appeal his actions were official, delaying charges until after November when, if he wins the election, he can instruct the DoJ to drop the case.
- legitster 2y ago> Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. And the parties’ brief comments at oral argument indicate that they starkly disagree on the characterization of these allegations. The concerns we noted at the outset—the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis by the lower courts, and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties—thus become more prominent. We accordingly remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance—with the benefit of briefing we lack—whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. The majority opinion is pretty clear that of the indictments, 3 have pretty good grounds to proceed.
- nprateem 2y agoAnd after the district court determines, if it's against Trump he'll appeal back to his buddies in the Supreme court again who'll let him off.
- riskable 2y agoIf a president assassinates his political rivals I don't think you can say it's, "an issue for voters or congress to decide on." That would be impossible, since anyone the voters wanted to replace the sitting executive or his allies would just be arrested or murdered outright (as an official act, no less!).
- legitster 2y agoI don't think anyone in the ruling outside of Sotomayor implies that murdering political rivals would fall under an official duty of the president as outlined in the constitution.
- insane_dreamer 2y agoI disagree, since a good many people seem ready to accept that Trump trying to overturn the results of a free and fair election (which in my book is pretty much on par with murdering political rivals since the point of murdering a rival is so that they don't get elected), is an "official duty".
- alluro2 2y agoWould the court also need to carefully consider and rule on whether arresting or murdering a disagreeing judge is an "official act" by the President?
- legitster 2y agoProbably not. Arresting disagreeing judges would be a violation of due process, as is murdering US citizens without a trial. At least that was the tentative conclusion last time this was brought up: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/obama-brennan-paul-assassinations-filibuster https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/22/obama-...
- spacemanspiff01 2y agoIt might be a violation of the law and clearly illegal, but that does not mean it is not an official act for which the president is immune.