Unable to load image
/h/pol
LiterallyShaking brit/bong TER, drop the F  3mo ago (scored.co) Edited 3mo ago 2,442 thread views #280375

BREAKING: In Trump v. United States, US Supreme Court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for some things but not for others :marseyshrug:

https://scored.co/p/17tLKTfSCP/breaking-in-trump-v-united-state/c

Link to ruling (PDF with ridiculous margins)

Better threads than the shit one I linked:

https://scored.co/c/TheDonald/p/17tLKTfimR/breaking-scotus-sides-with-donal/c

https://old.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dsue93/supreme_court_holds_63_in_trump_v_us_that_there/

https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1dsudmm/supreme_court_presidential_immunity_ruling/

https://old.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1dsueha/supreme_court_holds_63_in_trump_v_us_that_there/

News articles:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-due-rule-trumps-immunity-bid-blockbuster-case-2024-07-01/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-trump-may-immunity-federal-election-inter-rcna149135

Various seethe etc:

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198465292248852.webp

https://x.com/Angry_Staffer/status/1807784154118992243

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198465296108704.webp

https://x.com/DashDobrofsky/status/1807792596561141919

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198465298459048.webp

https://x.com/theirishokie/status/1807785910936691184

https://i.rdrama.net/images/17198465315859425.webp

https://x.com/BradMossEsq/status/1807785995644903923

109
New Old Top Bottom Controversial Random
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

View entire discussion

Holy frick scotus keeps shooting themselves in the fricking foot with all this shortsighted bullshit

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The previous court rulings said the President doesn't have immunity at all. SCOTUS said the he does for official acts and kicked it back down to the lower courts. It's spelled out in the first paragraph. Basically a lower court made a pretty obviously r-slurred ruling.

Trump moved to dismiss the indictment based on Presidential immunity, arguing that a President has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions performed within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities, and that the indictment's allegations fell within the core of his official duties. The District Court denied Trump's motion to dismiss, holding that former Presidents do not possess federal criminal immunity for any acts. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. Both the District Court and the D. C. Circuit declined to decide whether the indicted conduct involved official acts.

Below it talks about what can/can't be used as evidence which murkies the waters quite a bit. But after the NY judge saying "if there's smoke then there's probably fire" it's not too surprising.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

>if there's smoke then there's probably fire

:marseysquint:

i want to read more about this r-slurred ruling

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It was for the NY case, here's the quote from his jury instructions:

For example, suppose you go to bed one night when it is not raining and when you wake up in the morning, you look out your window; you do not see rain, but you see that the street and sidewalk are wet, and that people are wearing raincoats and carrying umbrellas. Under those circumstances, it may be reasonable to infer, that is conclude, that it rained during the night. In other words, the fact of it having rained while you were asleep is an inference that might be drawn from the proven facts of the presence of the water on the street and sidewalk, and people in raincoats and carrying umbrellas.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

but how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

okay that seems pretty reasonable though. compelling circumstantial evidence isn't a new legal concept.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Don't disagree, but it seems like the judge is leading the jury to a certain verdict unless he says that to every jury.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

He might? That seems like a pretty normal jury instruction tbh.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This is pretty much the standard instruction for explaining what circumstantial evidence is, yes.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Foid hands typed this ruling

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Scotus has been fricking amazing lately.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do you remember whenever the leftoids did something wrong, you cute twinks were giggling and saying it sets a precedent so you can do it too now? Did you know that actually works both ways?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#soysnootypefast:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Did you actually read any of the ruling or are you just having a senior moment today?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Of course not. I just remember that whichever one of these cases it was, immunity shouldn't apply.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

They can always change their minds later.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Biden v United States:

"[53] As the former President was in a so-called "lame duck period", there is an implicit consitutional restraint on his executive power. The legitimate official acts of such a President are limited in scope and, even under a maximalist interpretation, do not extend to jailing the President-Elect.

[54] As the actions taken on January 6, 2025 were outside of the scope of executive power, they are not official acts, and immunity does not extend to their implementation.

[55] We also reject the writ of habeas corpus and remand to the District Court for sentencing."

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Implying joe makes it to january

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Telling someone to investigate or to find more voters is much different than jailing your political opponent or manufacturing ballots out of thin air. The Supreme Court handed down a very reasonable ruling

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You are too dumb to understand my comment and should keep yourself safe

Stupid wingcuck

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

t or manufacturing ballots out of thin air.

But that's what he was telling him to do

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Chevron made that clear

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Presidents need absolute immunity in the course of their role. It would be absolutely rslurred if Obama went to jail for dronestriking a US citizen.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.