The U.S. Supreme Court has set April 25 as the date it will hear Donald Trump’s claim of presidential immunity from prosecution on charges related to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss - the last day of oral arguments of its current term.
The court released its updated argument calendar a week after it agreed to take up the case and gave the former president a boost by putting on hold the criminal prosecution being pursued by Special Counsel Jack Smith. It previously had disclosed which week it would hear the matter but had not given the precise date.
The justices will review a lower court’s rejection of Trump’s claim of immunity from prosecution because he was president when he took actions aimed at reversing President Joe Biden’s election victory over him.
The Supreme Court is sabotaging the Trump indictments by delaying a decision. The goal is to delay trial so he can’t be convicted so close to the election. This court is just an extension of the party.
Removed by mod
Why do they need to put this off? Is there really a need to ponder over the question of ‘is a president allowed to break laws with impunity?’ Because it seems to me like there’s only one answer there and it’s “FUCK NO.”
It is fairly complicated. Should Obama be imprisoned for murder of US citizens in drone strikes? Should Bush be held liable for the incompetence in allowing 9/11? Should Clinton be held responsible for deaths in Kosovo for violation of the war powers act?
Presidents do seem to have immunity with regard to actions as a President. Creating a ruling that protects presidential action and allows criminal prosecution for other actions is going to be difficult. There’s also the matter of if actions done with immunity can be used as evidence against a president.
There is some existing precedent for distinguishing the President from the Candidate during elections. This could be used as a basis for a ruling Trump isn’t immune, but it’s hardly definitive.
It’s going to take more than an “I know it when I see it” ruling.
Except the question is not ‘is the president ever allowed to break the law,’ the question is ‘can the president break the law whenever he feels like it?’ The answer is obviously no.
All of these are asking if someone is guilty when the actual question is are we allowed to bring you to court to determine if you are guilty. A president should not have immunity and if a president feels they need to take extreme actions they should justify them before a court and accept the consequences of their actions. If someone does not want to be in that position to make such a call and pay such a price they have no business taking that role.
In most cases the guilt is largely proven, criminal liability would require a court to agree, but the findings from official reports are sufficient evidence. I’m not sure no immunity is a realistic outcome, a test for what actions are protected is most likely.
To me it seems that if something was agreed upon to be a law it should be enforced and if there are exceptions to the rule they should be written into the law itself. If something isn’t written into the law itself it should go to court where a determination can be made and if a jury finds there was good cause to commit such an action they can find them not guilty and a future exception can be added. By adding a blanket immunity it’s like adding cheat mode into the game and it’s going to be exploited in ways that we haven’t imagined yet.
Obama and Bush should face justice.
Both Shrubs should’ve faced a court.
Roe v. Wade. Your argument is invalid.
Hi, I’m a mathematician. My career is built on creating, evaluating, and identifying the problems with logical arguments.
Even if the person you’re replying to is wrong, their argument is at least cogent; it’s entirely possible that the Supreme Court rules against Trump, and there’s good reason to believe that they will.
Your comment (the one I am replying to) is a non-sequiter, and is therefore invalid.
Furthermore, even when applying the principal of charitable interpretation, the best argument you could plausibly make relies on a false inference. Specifically: you fail to take into account the fact that the justices were selected for their opinions on abortion, and so their ruling cannot be used to infir that they will always act in the best interests of the GOP.
Please don’t be such a doomer asshole; it’s unbecoming.
Removed by mod