Trump Immunity Oral Arguments

[bats]

Today, the right-wing extremists on the Supreme Court seemed more than happy to at least entertain Trump's position that a president must have complete immunity from criminal prosecution when it comes to official acts. Listening to the audio, it was bizarre to hear these supposedly neutral jurists seriously consider Trump's lawyer's argument that a legal "test" was needed to protect current presidents from extortion by political rivals and past presidents from being prosecuted for official acts while in office.

The wingnuts on the Court seemed to like the idea that they should probably send this appeal back to the lower court for "further proceedings."

Additionally, when one of the liberal justices posed a hypothetical to Trump's lawyer, this is what transpired:

JUSTICE SOTOMAYER: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?

TRUMP'S LAWYER: It would depend on the hypothetical. We can see that could well be an official act.

This is where we are in the MAGA/Trump era. WTF.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f204.pdf

[HighStepper]

Remember the Supreme Court noted Abortion was not in the Constitution. link
Neither is "presidential immunity"

JUSTICE KAGAN: The Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity to the president. And, you know, not so surprising, they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law? (page 44 transcipt)

MR. DREEBEN: ...His novel theory would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain.(page 69 transcript)

The Supreme Court had in reality a simple question to discuss and answer. They went off on tangents to discuss hypothetical scenarios that have not happened in the past. No president in the past resisted the peaceful transference of power, which is the hallmark of American democracy.

[zoezane]

Those are some good words #HighStepper xo

[Hobby]

Remember the Supreme Court noted Abortion was not in the Constitution. link
Neither is "presidential immunity"

JUSTICE KAGAN: The Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn't provide immunity to the president. And, you know, not so surprising, they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn't the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law? (page 44 transcipt)

MR. DREEBEN: ...His novel theory would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power. Such presidential immunity has no foundation in the Constitution. The Framers knew too well the dangers of a king who could do no wrong. They therefore devised a system to check abuses of power, especially the use of official power for private gain.(page 69 transcript)

The Supreme Court had in reality a simple question to discuss and answer. They went off on tangents to discuss hypothetical scenarios that have not happened in the past. No president in the past resisted the peaceful transference of power, which is the hallmark of American democracy.

Yes I think the Supreme Court has over thought this presidential immunity.  Now they are deciding Offical Acts vs Personal Acts. There is no way to draw a line between the two. They need to say the laws apply to everyone and if a president is prosecuted its a case by case basis. The constitution does recognize a president could commit a crime a sets the proceedure to remove the president if suspected of crime.