ECP NetHappenings Trump’s Immunity Sotomayer “I desent”
Sotomayer – Never in the history of our Republic has a President had
reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal
prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate
the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former
Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant
of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not pro-
vide a backstop.
With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
Today’s SCOTUS ruling tears down one of the first principles of American democracy: that no man is above the law. To say the president has immunity from prosecution for any acts committed in their official capacity while in office is a wide open invitation to dictatorship.
President has immunity for official acts.
No immunity for unofficial acts.
This is a ludicrous decision that no other President in history has ever needed, being placed above the law by unelected officials. The coup continues.
SCOTUS says Donald Trump does NOT have total immunity for unofficial acts. Yeah, but he’ll just say EVERYTHING was official. What a total disgrace. They have ‘re-written’ the Constitution. Note this morning trump switched his call from “absolute immunity to “strong immunity”. He obviously knew the outcome. Time for @POTUS to officially disband SCOTUS. Postpone the election until after trump trial. And appointment 3 more justices. I think it’s clear that inciting an insurrection to overturn an election is NOT an official act of POTUS.
How Joe Biden needs to be now that the Supreme Court has ruled the president has immunity for “official acts.”
Chief Justice Roberts decrees the end of DOJ independence in an offhanded sentence on page 20.
20
TRUMP v. UNITED STATES
Opinion Of the Court
(1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting)). And the Executive Branch
has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide
which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with
respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S. , at
693; see United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670, 678-679
(2023) (“Under Article II, the Executive Branch possesses authority to decide ‘how to prioritize and how aggressively to pursue legal actions against defendants who violate thelaw.”‘ (quotatian TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 429 (2021))). The President may discuss potential investigations and prosecutions with his Attorney General ang other Justice Department officials to carry out his constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, #3 And the Attorney General, as head of the Justice Department, acts as the President’s “chief law enforcement officer” who “provides vital assistance to [him] in the performance of [his] constitutional duty to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”‘ Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 520 (1985) (quoting Art. II, 51, cl. 8).
Sotomayor: With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
The majority’s single-minded fixation on the President’s
need for boldness and dispatch ignores the countervailing
need for accountability and restraint. The Framers were
not so single-minded. In the Federalist Papers, after “endeavor[ing]
to show” that the Executive designed by the
Constitution “combines all the requisites to energy,”
Alexander Hamilton asked a separate, equally important
question: “Does it also combine the requisites to safety, in a
republican sense, a due dependence on the a due responsibility?”
The Federalist No. 77, p. 507 (J. Harvard Library ed. 2009).
The answer then was yes, based in part
upon the President’s vulnerability to “prosecution in the
common course of law.” Ibid. The answer after today is no.
Never in the history of our Republic has a President had
reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal
prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate
the criminal law. Moving forward, however, all former
Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occu-
pant of that office misuses official power for personal gain,
the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not pro-
vide a backstop.
Four Seasons Total Landscaping @durbinwatson09
Time for Biden and Democrats to respond asap
“l Joseph R. Biden Jr, having read the Supreme Court decision granting
US presidents immunity from criminal prosecution, for acts the
president themselves determines are •official acts,’ hereby order the
Supreme Court of the United States dissolved, and decree justices
Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, plus Trump and his
children plus campaign team, as enemies of the state. Assassination
squads were dispatched overnight, in a long night operation, and
these traitors have been served justice and eliminated.
I also hereby decree my vice president and I will be the sole
determinant of who wins the next election. God bless America.”
The Supreme Court just ruled that if the President ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate his political opponent, he would be immune from criminal prosecution. This isn’t a joke.
The Supreme Court chooses the cases it hears:
They chose a case to make it harder to prosecute Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
They chose a case to delay Trump’s trial.
They chose a case to undermine expertise in government.
They didn’t choose any cases to protect democracy.
I’d like to thank the Supreme Court for granting Joe Biden godlike official powers. I think his first step should be to declare all Trump golf courses as protected Federal wildlife preserves and seize them by eminent domain…it’s an official act, so it’s cool, right?
It’s OFFICIAL: The Supreme Court has just disgraced itself by ruling that Presidents do have SOME immunity from prosecution for committing what they deem official acts. President Biden’s FIRST act under this new reality should be to postpone the election indefinitely until we can figure WTF is going on.