I’d like to know what has changed. My assumption is that it has always been legal given it was done for reasonable reasons (national security, etc). Are they claiming that now the president can kill anyone they wish with no reason whatsoever? Has this wholly removed the fourth section of Article II?

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I fully agree with you. This is now our reality. That doesn’t mean these hot takes barely based off of the first paragraph of the syllabus or one sentence of a dissenting opinion are more true.

acts taken in office can’t even be used as evidence against him

They didn’t say that. They said core acts are immune. These are defined in Article II. Perimeter acts, which will need judicial review to be determined, can be used as evidence.

It doesn’t make it inadmissible. They have filed a claim that it’s inadmissible. Now it needs to be reviewed.

These are clearly not official presidential actions. It won’t hold up but it’s going to be delayed forever.

Is it typical for a lawyer to, partly, build a case using things that happened after the person did what they were accused of doing?

Assuming this is fine and normal, this would mean they would need to first get judicial review to determine if the incidents they’re citing are ‘core’ (Article II) official acts or not. Peripheral official acts, assuming a judge demes them to be, would certainly be admissible.

That is NOT what they have ruled. They have ruled that there is a presumptive immunity. That means it can be challenged upon judicial review.

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 under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

Roberts then goes on to explain how all but one of the charges need to go back to the courts to determine if he was acting in an official capacity.

SCOTUS majority has proven that they don’t care what’s written in the constitution

That’s an odd take being that they’re heavily relying on Article II to define which of a president’s actions are immune and everything outside of that is either open to interpretation or absolutely NOT immune.

Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I really don’t know what she’s going on about and I’m a little concerned.

If “maintaining the dignity of the office of President” is a core obligation of president, Trump could be impeached and convicted of that charge.

This is a lie.

I really don’t understand how people are twisting this so dramatically. The president is still bound by the law of the constitution. No president can just go on a killing spree. They still need to operate in an official capacity as POTUS. I mean, I understand we don’t want to give Trump a win under any circumstances but he most certainly can still be held accountable for his actions.

presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts,

This is simply not true. There are three levels of actions: core actions defined by the constitution, other official actions as president, and acts outside of being president. It’s the first “core” actions that are immune simply because they are defined in the constitution - pardons, appointments, etc. It’s like saying putting on your turn signal to make a turn is immune from prosecution. Other actions as president are presumed to be immune but that does not mean they are “absolutely” immune from prosecution.

Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

This is 100% NOT TRUE.

I’m really not seeing how this changes much. If anything, it’s plausible this confirms at least one set of guidelines and, I think, makes the case against Trump easier.

https://theconversation.com/above-the-law-in-some-cases-supreme-court-gives-trump-and-future-presidents-a-special-exception-that-will-delay-his-prosecution-232907

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Trump’s claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while he was president, as well as the government’s claim that a former president is not “above the law” and can be criminally prosecuted for all actions done while in office.

Instead, the court ruled that some of the crimes that Trump is alleged to have committed are protected by immunity, but others may not be.

the court first determined that a president is absolutely immune for actions taken that are part of his “core” executive functions. These include the powers explicitly given to him in the Constitution, such as the pardon power and the power to remove executive branch officials, which are part of his “exclusive authority” into which neither Congress nor the judicial system may intrude.

For his noncore powers, which include all those not specifically listed in the text of the Constitution, such as the formulation of domestic policy, the court took a more nuanced approach.

The court also ruled in the immunity case that the president enjoys no immunity from criminal prosecution for nonofficial, private conduct.

Thank you for the level-headed response. This is pretty much inline with what I’ve been reading.

Seems to me that this was not that consequential of a case. It was mostly just a confirmation of what we’ve already presumed. The larger issue that’s been pending since the 2020 election is if what he did was an official act.

I look forward to a decision about whether asking someone to find some extra votes is considered an official act.

And official acts have guidelines. It is very clear that not everything a president does is an official act.

I hope this was a joke. If not, you grossly misunderstand the situation.

Then they should be charged with whatever crimes they committed and face a jury of their peers to determine their guilt. That is not what this case is about.

I didn’t know “gay” was a people. I don’t go around calling straight people “my people”. How weird. Maybe you’ve got some prejudice against certain groups that don’t look like you.

I like seeing our right to not be spied on being defended, yes.

I don’t know how your “people” are but you should know it’s not about defending a person but the rights of all Americans.

I get a kick out of lawyers doing the right thing despite their convictions or moral objections.

Actually, I was just watching Philadelphia last night. That’s the one where Tom Hanks is gay and has AIDS and Denzel has to defend him for getting fired even though he is morally opposed to “homosexuals” (the ‘in’ term back in the day). Obviously defending a gay and sick man for discrimination is entirely different from defending Nazis, but still, it’s a tangible illustration of Blind Justice.

Best of luck, Nazi shitbag!

I totally understand what she’s saying. What I don’t understand is how three people can possibly disagree with this. This doesn’t seem to be a subjective matter at all.

Barrett wrote. “This Court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of Government.”

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissented.

How is it possible that “the court’s standing doctrine prevents” them from doing something yet three justices dissent? Is the “standing doctrine” not the “law”?