What if the exec legitimately considers that individual to be an enemy of the state, or a traitor, or whatever?'That they decided that its basically ok if Biden decides to order the military to kill them is somewhat of a surprise.'
'Only clear line, any talks with the justice department are official acts'
A criminal act is not an official act. Discussing committing a criminal act with the DOJ is not an official act.
The Exec can drop or discuss dropping a drone on a foreign military officer. The Exec cannot drop or discuss dropping a drone on a US Military officer.
Within the U.S. and concerning U.S. officials, they would need to go through the courts.What if the exec legitimately considers that individual to be an enemy of the state, or a traitor, or whatever?
And what if he considers them to be a clear and immediate danger? If someone pulls a gun on the president, you don't wait for the courts.Within the U.S. and concerning U.S. officials, they would need to go through the courts.
This is…uhmm…not what was just ruled.Within the U.S. and concerning U.S. officials, they would need to go through the courts.
An otherwise illegal act is not an 'official act'. The ruling leaves it up to the courts to decide if it is or isn't.This is…uhmm…not what was just ruled.
The ruling was for any official act the president is absolutely immune and, more importantly, his motives cannot be questioned. If the president thinks someone is a threat to national security they can have them killed legally and you can’t ask why they did it.
Untrue - that's the precise point of this ruling.An otherwise illegal act is not an 'official act'. The ruling leaves it up to the courts to decide if it is or isn't.
You really, really need to go read the actual ruling."The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents have absolute immunity for official acts in Donald Trump's challenge to election subversion charges, setting a test for the lower courts that could further delay the former president’s election subversion trial.
Trump claimed his former position as the country’s chief executive entitled him to immunity from criminal charges. The argument expanded on the high court’s 1982 ruling in Fitzgerald v. Nixon, where the justices absolved presidents from civil liability for official actions.
The former president faces four criminal charges in D.C. for conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy against rights. "
Supreme Court rules for broad presidential immunity in Donald Trump election subversion case
The justices’ ruling all but guarantees that Donald Trump’s culpability in an attempt to overturn the 2020 election will not be determined before the 2024 election.www.courthousenews.com
Nothing there says any of the charges have been dismissed, only that it goes back to the District to determine if any of the actions fall under 'official' or not.
That's just to create more delays. This case with never go to trial.Oh they pushed back. All the claims proposed by the former president are not fully covered. And they left the opening that once lower court decides, it may be brought back to the Supreme Court
Yeah, nothing can go wrong there with leaving it up to a court to interpret. No siree...Protected conduct' is something the Courts will need to decide on an instance by instance basis.
That is a concurring opinion and has no power. The actual, controlling opinion says it is illegal to even inquire into the president's motives."
In a concurring opinion, Barrett, a Trump appointee, said that while she agreed with the court's opinion at large, she disagreed with one part of the ruling that held the Constitution prevents protected conduct from being introduced as evidence in a criminal prosecution against a former president, siding with the bench's three liberals instead.
"I disagree with that holding; on this score, I agree with the dissent," Barrett wrote. "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable."
"To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability," the justice said."
Amy Coney Barrett breaks with Supreme Court over Trump
Barrett, a Trump appointee, said while she agreed with most of the court's ruling, she disagreed with one part of its opinion.www.newsweek.com
'Protected conduct' is something the Courts will need to decide on an instance by instance basis.
Biden should just have the Republicans suing the DOJ killed. Lawsuit dismissed.Biden should classify these recordings any anybody who tires to obtain them be charged with treason. SCOTUS said it's legit.