The first step of the analysis: Is shooting some rando on 5th Ave. an official act of the President? Is executing American citizens without benefit of trial by jury an official act of the President? The courts, not the President, make that determination.
The Justices asked that question of Trump's lawyers and were answered yes, that Trump was so empowered. They then granted him carte blanch. We are talking about Trump, not some idealized situation envisioned with rose-colored glasses. Tyrannical power granted in perpetuity.
The answer Trump’s lawyers gave to a question in oral argument has nothing to do with what the Court actually held. The actual opinion does not give the President carte blanch. The Court held that the President has no immunity for acts that the Court decides are not official acts and only a rebuttable presumption of immunity for official acts outside of the core functions given exclusively to the executive branch. That’s what opinion says.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
That depends on where the line separating "core" official acts and "peripheral" official acts is ultimately drawn and how the courts apply the rebuttable presumption for peripheral official acts. That's for the trial level District Courts to determine and the appellate courts to review.
And if the lower courts draw the distinction in a way the Supreme Court doesn't like, they can reject those courts' rulings, which is made especially easy because the SC defined the terms vaguely.
I'm not convinced this decision was motivated by any legal principle. The conservative justices on the court are treating Trump similarly to Republican politicians. They may not like him personally or endorse everything he does, but they will shield him from consequences that endanger his chances of election, because he's their best shot at being replaced by justices of a similar ideology.
Why is he even allowed to run for president? It is most peculiar.
Because Supreme Court wants to have a monarchy, it seems.
"I have learned with what evils tyranny infects a state. For it frustrates all the virtues, robs freedom of its lofty mood, and opens a school of fawning and terror, inasmuch as it leaves matters not to the wisdom of the laws, but to the angry whim of those who are in authority.”
That depends on where the line separating "core" official acts and "peripheral" official acts is ultimately drawn and how the courts apply the rebuttable presumption for peripheral official acts. That's for the trial level District Courts to determine and the appellate courts to review.
And if the lower courts draw the distinction in a way the Supreme Court doesn't like, they can reject those courts' rulings, which is made especially easy because the SC defined the terms vaguely.
I'm not convinced this decision was motivated by any legal principle. The conservative justices on the court are treating Trump similarly to Republican politicians. They may not like him personally or endorse everything he does, but they will shield him from consequences that endanger his chances of election, because he's their best shot at being replaced by justices of a similar ideology.
Your first paragraph describes bog-standard Supreme Court practice. Especially in cases of first impression, it is very common for the Supreme Court to articulate the general rule that is to apply to all cases. That general rule is necessarily going to be more vague than the application of the rule to the facts of a specific case. It is the District Court's job to apply the general rule to the facts of the specific case. Take a look at what the Court did in the less discussed social media case -- exactly the same thing. It told the lower courts what the rule is and sent the case back down to have the rule applied.
I do my best to avoid portraying people who do things I object to as two-dimensional cartoon villains.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Why is he even allowed to run for president? It is most peculiar.
Because our Constitution states the requirements for office. Trump meets them all. The requirements do not include "not be convicted of a felony."
The Constitution does have a mechanism that would have disqualified him for running for re-election: impeachment, conviction by the senate, and a vote to disqualify him from holding office in the future. The Senate Republicans were unwilling to use that procedure.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Why is he even allowed to run for president? It is most peculiar.
Because our Constitution states the requirements for office. Trump meets them all. The requirements do not include "not be convicted of a felony."
The Constitution does have a mechanism that would have disqualified him for running for re-election: impeachment, conviction by the senate, and a vote to disqualify him from holding office in the future. The Senate Republicans were unwilling to use that procedure.
Because our Constitution states the requirements for office. Trump meets them all. The requirements do not include "not be convicted of a felony."
The Constitution does have a mechanism that would have disqualified him for running for re-election: impeachment, conviction by the senate, and a vote to disqualify him from holding office in the future. The Senate Republicans were unwilling to use that procedure.
Pretty sure people would be denied a job at McDonald's for less.
Yep, but I don't want to live in a country run by McDonald's.
Lol... But what I'm saying is anyone can work for McDonald's. Not anyone can be president. One would think the rules for successful application would be stricter.
Yep, but I don't want to live in a country run by McDonald's.
Lol... But what I'm saying is anyone can work for McDonald's. Not anyone can be president. One would think the rules for successful application would be stricter.
Our democracy leaves the questions of fitness for office up to the voters.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
