Supreme Court returns Trump Jan. 6 immunity judgment to lower court
Supreme Court returns Trump Jan. 6 immunity judgment to lower court
One month after the Supreme Court's presidential immunity ruling, the judge overseeing former President Trump's Jan. 6 case now has jurisdiction over the case again.
You're viewing a single thread.
Save you a click:
In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that a president has absolute immunity for acts within their core constitutional powers and a presumption of immunity for "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility."
Judge Chutkan will now be responsible for applying the Supreme Court's decision to the allegations in Trump's criminal case, including whether Trump's actions were "official acts" or private conduct that can be prosecuted.
I'm sure they won't intervene again after handing down an extremely confused and indecipherable opinion on what does and doesn't qualify for presidential immunity.
well, the president has no role, official or otherwise, in the election process or certification of election results. his only role was to vacate 1600 penn ave and leave the government and peoples' property behind.
so i fully expect scRotus to intervene again, once the district judge in dc rules along those lines.
Should be scRotuM. Because they are less of the United States than they are of the Millionaires.
My understanding is that if a prosecutor even wants to bring charges against someone who was president when the alleged offense(s) were committed, the prosecutor has to first demonstrate that the offending acts were not "official acts."
Nobody really knows what that looks like, of course, but it definitely opens the door for Judge Chutkan to call for hearings on whether the acts alleged to be criminal were "official" or not. Which would probably look exactly like a trial - presentation of evidence, witnesses, cross examination, defense - just where the only judgment at the end would be "Nope, not official acts."
Then that gets appealed, all the way to SCOTUS, then maybe an actual trial happens. Then they complain that there's no way to get an impartial jury, because everyone already knows all the details of the case, that gets appealed ...
Delay is the point, and SCOTUS is complicit.
Delaying is the point but I think things actually get really interesting as soon as the judge calls for hearings and witnesses show up. If the act is official, and therefore Trump would have immunity, there is no fifth amendment protection for him to avoid answering questions, or to lie about anything. So that means he needs to give a lot of information, some of which might point at people who don't have absolute immunity, and could possibly be locked up for their actions.
So then we have this interesting situation where Trump will be called to testify, and if he does so inaccurately, he could be held in criminal contempt. Remember, he has to stand by the claim that his acts are official, so he can't play fast and loose on the stand and maintain his absolute immunity defense.
Of course we don't know. We have no idea how any of this will play out. But we can imagine how it might play out from absolute immunity defenses with judges and prosecutors. No doubt that's what the judge will rely on as guidelines for this case.
"Outer perimeter of official responsibility"?
WTF is that? How is that enforceable?
You know what is much easier to enforce?
"No. One. Is. Above. The. Law."
As the Founding Fathers obviously intended.
It's like the universe is trying to make it obvious that this is a stupid and nonsensical path but our "supreme" judges keep setting us up for absolute failure as a nation.
We actually had to pass section 1983 of the federal code in 1871 for that exact reason. The founders may have intended it, but they didn't write it down specifically. Then in 1874 an unnamed secretary illegally revised the law while "copying" it from the Congressional Record to the Federal Register. This led to the Qualified Immunity argument that was the crux of Harlow v Fitzgerald.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
"Outer perimeter of official responsibility"? WTF is that? How is that enforceable?
Remember when there was that standoff between Texas and the Feds along the border? There was a lot of bloviating about how it was an invasion force, and that Biden was somehow using it to orchestrate an overthrow of the US Government. Of course, the truth was nothing of the sort. Biden, as President, and the Homeland Security department under him, has a lot of leeway in terms of how they execute laws, but Congress still makes the laws, and Republicans in Congress have deliberately let the situation at the border fester to score political points.
However, if this Supreme Court ruling had gone fully the other way, and the President was ruled to have no particular immunity whatsoever, it would only be a matter of time before some local prosecutor in Texas would decide to prosecute Biden for insurrection, as retribution for Trump's current situation. Even though there are no facts that actually back up a case against Biden, while we all saw what happened on Jan 6th.
So, the idea that Presidents can't be prosecuted for simply doing their jobs has some merit. But the Supreme Court went way too far constructing way too high a burden for prosecutors who need to investigate crimes committed by the President outside that perimeter. Under this guidance, the President could direct the Secretary of State to include a discussion of building a golf course in treaty negotiations, and even if that is found out, prosecutors can't call the Secretary to testify or use that evidence in court in a bribery investigation