USA court decision on presidential immunity

I can't in good conscience claim that I believe its Constitutionally correct, or even that the decision is intellectually honest.

He's a link to what I think is a pretty good discussion on this point.

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/4751056-trump-immunity-decision-shows-that-conservative-originalism-is-a-farce/?nxs-test=mobile

Here is a pretty good unbiased summary of the opinion. Hope this is helpful.

Supreme court opinion on presidential immunity
The Supreme Court has recently issued a landmark decision on presidential immunity, ruling that former presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts. This decision has significant implications for the separation of powers and the rule of law.

Majority Opinion

The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, holds that a president has substantial immunity for official acts that occurred during their time in office. The court ruled that a former president cannot be prosecuted for official acts, unless it can be proven that the act was not within the scope of their official duties.

The majority opinion emphasizes that the president is not above the law, but rather, the law must be carefully tailored to ensure that the president is not unduly burdened by the demands of criminal prosecution. The court also noted that the decision does not grant absolute immunity, but rather, a presumption of immunity that can be overcome by a showing of clear evidence that the president’s actions were not official acts.

Dissenting Opinions

The dissenting opinions, written by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Elana Kagan, strongly criticize the majority opinion, arguing that it undermines the rule of law and creates a dangerous precedent for executive power.

The dissenting justices argue that the majority opinion grants the president unchecked power to act with impunity, and that it creates a system in which the president is above the law. They also argue that the decision will have far-reaching consequences, including the potential for a president to use their power to commit crimes with impunity.

Implications

The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity has significant implications for the separation of powers and the rule of law. The decision creates a new standard for presidential immunity, which grants the president broad protection from criminal prosecution for official acts.

The decision also raises concerns about the potential for a president to use their power to commit crimes with impunity. The dissenting justices argue that the decision creates a system in which the president is above the law, and that it undermines the rule of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity is a significant development in the ongoing debate about the limits of executive power. The decision creates a new standard for presidential immunity, which grants the president broad protection from criminal prosecution for official acts.

While the majority opinion emphasizes that the president is not above the law, the dissenting opinions argue that the decision undermines the rule of law and creates a dangerous precedent for executive power. The decision has significant implications for the separation of powers and the rule of law, and it will likely be the subject of ongoing debate and controversy in the years to come.

I don't understand enough about the law to really tell you that, but it all hinges on the separation of powers in this country. We have the executive branch, which is the president and vice president. They are like the CEO of the country. They have to handle the budget, expenditures, security, foreign relations, and a lot more.

Then we have the Congressional branch, which makes our laws....and the Judicial Branch which adjudicates problems or issues with the law that need to be decided.

So the problem or issue the Supreme Court had to decide was whether or not all these court cases could be brought against a former president...because past precedent tells us that a President can not be arrested for a crime while he is serving in office.

Past precedent is important in the law, and there was a great deal of that to consider.

One thing that might tell you WHY a President has to be immune while serving in office is that he must be free to make decisions, and make them quickly.

The President can NOT always stop and take the time to wonder if they do thus and so, will they be arrested for it after their term in office is over. And...worst case scenario...if they decide NOT to do something because they are worried they might get prosecuted for it later...but that something REALLY should have been done...well...our nation might end up in a lot of trouble.

The Supreme Court has ruled once and for all that we can't tie the Presidents' hands with worry about what will happen to them later.

The key words are acting “in the official capacity”. It’s similar to agency law. A principal is liable for the acts of his or her agent ONLY when the agent is acting within his or her delegated authority. Whether its agency law or determining whether a president is acting in his or her official capacity is a FACTUAL not a legal determination. Virtually every instance is and will be different. As usual Roberts wrote this opinion in a way that applies to one case and one case only. If there is one thing that Roberts is good at it’s being a weasel. The founders did not envision that a Chief Justice behave I. The Roberts weasel manner. I’m not sure if he has to die or retire for a new Chief Justice to take over. Perhaps there is a mechanism to allow a sitting Justice to become Chief and the prior Chief being dechiefed?

The court ruled that presidents have qualified immunity.this is already recognized for;

Judges
Cops
Legislators, state and federal
Governors
And even EMTs

This means that things the do in the course of doing their jobs properly are protected from legal action. President can still be impeached.

This ruling is simply common sense and is in no way earth-shaking. It simply pisses off the people who hate Trump.

It's reasonable. It's like the police have the right to bypass traffic laws in pursuit of their role to protect our citizens. They have the right to detain people and can't be charged with kidnapping. All in their role as police officers.

No -- the court was purposefully stacked by the GOP to give decisions like this. Following the game plan of previous dictators, step one is to suborn the courts. Just one example -- the German acts against the Jews were legal according to German law and courts of the time.

SCFTUS are mostly loyal to trump, so it’s nog a surprise
But they have opened Pandora’s box!

It isn't constitutionally correct. They are trying to cause a civil war

If it benefits Trump, then it is pushed forward. You can be sure Trump was in contact with every one of those SCOTUS people, working to direct the outcome.
Now if Biden had a brain, he would send the CIA in to take care of business, but he won't. He has lost his spark.

By doing what is Constitutionally required of them.