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:
Various seethe etc:
https://x.com/Angry_Staffer/status/1807784154118992243
https://x.com/DashDobrofsky/status/1807792596561141919
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Holy frick scotus keeps shooting themselves in the fricking foot with all this shortsighted bullshit
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
They can always change their minds later.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Chevron made that clear
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
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.
More options
Context
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.
More options
Context
But that's what he was telling him to do
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
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.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
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.
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.
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:
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.
More options
Context
This is pretty much the standard instruction for explaining what circumstantial evidence is, yes.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Foid hands typed this ruling
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
but how would you feel if you didn't have breakfast
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
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.
More options
Context
More options
Context