USA court decision on presidential immunity
I do not understand how it could turn out like this. Can anyone explain in an unbiased way how it is constitutionally correct?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
Stuffy · 61-69, F
@Strictmichael75 can you explain the legality of it?
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
@Stuffy Do you find it normal to put a man above the law for crimes he committed as POTUS?
And on what legal grounds?
And on what legal grounds?
Stuffy · 61-69, F
@Strictmichael75 No I’m asking someone to explain what legal excuse there is for this ruling
Strictmichael75 · 61-69, M
@Stuffy That’s the million dollar question!
LeopoldBloom · M
@Stuffy There is no legal excuse. The lower court decided unanimously. SCOTUS should never have granted cert and just let the lower court ruling stand. Instead, they sat on it for months, virtually ensuring that Trump's DC and FL trials would be delayed until after the election. I predicted that they would decide that the president is immune for "official" acts, but liable for "unofficial" ones. So now Judge Chutkan has to decide what those are. Anything she rules will be appealed back to SCOTUS, and before you know it, the election will be over.