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 »
Maritocorneo · 56-60, M
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.
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.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
samueltyler2 · 80-89, M
@Maritocorneo how I have read both sides,bit appears as if the president has first say on what they can do. As Nixon once said when the president died anything it is legal unless successfully fought in the court as illegal. We fought a war of independence in part to avoid this. Even a George Washington warned about this. SCOTUS spoke from both sides of its mouth!