Supreme Court's immunity ruling is a victory for Donald Trump

On Monday morning, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 63, handed a victory to Donald Trump, who is facing indictments in multiple jurisdictions, by ruling that former presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution for their actions while in office. At least with respect to the president’s exercise of core constitutional powers, that immunity must be absolute, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for a majority of six conservatives, three of whom were appointed by Trump. Roberts added that even for official actions outside that constitutional core, a former president is entitled, at a minimum, to presumptive immunity. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the decision is disastrous and reshapes the institution of the presidency. Trump is running for president again. What is surprising is not only the protection the Court gave him, but the freedom it gave him and his successors as to what each of them might do next.

Trump didn’t get everything he asked for from the Supreme Court, but only because he asked for a lot, a lot, including that a criminal trial might not be possible without an impeachment conviction. Trump got more than enough to turn the January 6 indictment brought against him by Jack Smith in Washington, D.C., into, at best, a fragment of his former self. The same can probably be said of the indictment against him in Fulton County, Georgia, for some of the same acts; Trump has already tried to have that case dismissed on grounds of immunity. And the decision could also undermine the Espionage Act prosecution against him in Florida. PROUD TO BE AN AMERICAN! Trump wrote on Truth Social after the decision, in a series of posts about hoaxes and witch hunts. He added that Biden should now call off his dogs.

The Court held that Trump was absolutely immune, for example, with respect to his dealings with Justice Department officials, whom he allegedly enlisted in a scheme to stir up allegations of fraud in states won by Joe Biden in 2020 and to replace fake electoral certificates with legitimate ones. The Court also held that he was presumptively immune with respect to his alleged attempts to coerce Vice President Mike Pence into overturning electoral votes. (This was presumptive rather than absolute immunity, because on January 6, Pence was acting as president of the Senate, not strictly as vice president; on most other days, Trump could have extorted him freely.) The Court held that the government would have the burden of proving that prosecuting Trump for pressuring Pence would not pose a danger of intrusion into the authority and functions of the executive branch.

No danger, absolutely none, Sotomayor wrote, with evident dismay. Conservatives do not seem interested in the idea that the president’s authority and functions, which have swelled over time, should sometimes be invaded. It is hard to imagine how the prosecution could overcome such an obstacle. The immediate effect of the decision will be to send Smith’s case back to Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to determine what, if anything, remains of the indictment. (Chutkan will also have to contend with the decision in Fischer v. United States, handed down last Friday, which narrowed the scope of an obstruction statute that Smith had invoked.) That process will take a long time. It does not seem possible that the case will be decided before the election.

Sotomayor is right that it is difficult to determine from the majority opinion which acts are at the core of a president’s duties, and thus eligible for absolute immunity, and which are at the outer perimeter, and thus subject to presumptive immunity. The distinction, she says, is irrelevant. Feel free to skip these pages of the majority opinion, since the end result is always immunity. But they are worth reading to get a sense of how broad the core might be. It includes what the Court calls the exclusive powers of a president, such as pardons, appointments, and recognition of foreign nations; it is less clear how acts associated with these powers factor into the immunity equation. The Court notes, after all, that the president’s duties include overseeing international diplomacy and intelligence gathering, and handling issues related to terrorism, trade, and immigration. Each of these terms can be expanded as well. What would Trump, or any other president, not define as a terrorism-related issue?

While the Court left open the possibility of prosecutions for Trump’s off-the-record actions, including his intrigues with members of his campaign team, it also made it harder to argue that everything a president does can truly be called off-the-record. As Sotomayor put it, the decision narrows down what conduct counts as off-the-record. For example, it said courts cannot assess a president’s motives. It also ruled that most, if not all, of a president’s communications with the public probably fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his off-the-record actions. And, in a final legally baffling move, the majority ruled that Trump’s off-the-record actions cannot even be introduced as evidence in a trial against him.

That final turn was too much even for Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who declined to join the evidentiary portion of the decision. She gave the example of how difficult it is to prosecute a president who accepts a bribe for an official act. The Constitution does not require jurors to be blind to the circumstances surrounding the conduct for which presidents can be held responsible, she wrote. But her five conservative colleagues would require such blindness.

Sotomayor, considering the evidentiary restriction, wrote: “Imagine that a president states in a formal speech that he intends to prevent a political rival from passing a law he opposes, no matter what the cost to do so (formal act). He then hires a private hitman to assassinate that political rival (unformal act). Would prosecutors really be precluded from telling jurors about the speech to prove premeditation? Apparently so.” She also recalled a hypothetical presented in the case before a lower court: Ordering Navy Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immunized. Organizing a military coup to maintain power? Immunized. Accepting a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immunized. Immunized, immune, immune.

In a somewhat more moderate tone, Jackson admitted that even a murderous president or the unquestioned instigator of a failed coup would have a fair chance of getting immunity under the Roberts model. Sotomayor expressed fears for our democracy; Jackson wondered how, in light of the decision, the courts could prevent presidents from becoming kings.

The conservative majority responded to their alarm with sarcasm, disdain, and, perhaps most disturbingly, glorification of the president’s personality, which swoons before a vigorous and energetic executive while warning of the dangers of a weak man. (These words, in light of Biden’s difficulties in the debate, could provoke a series of painful reflections.) Roberts wrote of the dissents that they have a tone of frightening doom that is completely out of proportion to what the Court is actually doing today. He is wrong about that. The Court has gone further than it should have, even if the goal was simply to protect Trump from Jack Smith.

What’s striking is that the dissenters aren’t trying to devalue the presidency as it exists: Sotomayor and Jackson both describe the many ways in which presidents are already protected from criminal conviction for their official actions, including by being able to invoke what’s called a public authority defense (which could, for example, prevent a president who ordered a drone strike abroad from being charged with murder, if the killing was legally authorized). Moreover, sitting presidents are protected from prosecution while in office, and former presidents are absolutely immune from private civil suits for official actions. But, as Jackson wrote, the possibility of criminal liability for post offices has long been considered part of our national accountability paradigm. It is no longer.

Sotomayor added: “Even if these nightmare scenarios never come to pass, and I pray they never do, the damage is done. The question now is: What can be done to mitigate the situation?” One protection that still exists is impeachment. Indeed, a key takeaway from the court’s decision is that divided government, or at least a Congress willing to use its impeachment powers, has never been more important. (Trump, after all, was impeached by the House of Representatives twice but acquitted both times by the Senate.) The other line of defense is the voters themselves, and how they evaluate who to elect as president. They can’t rely on the courts.

Sources 1/ https://Google.com/ 2/ https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-scotus-immunity-ruling-is-a-victory-for-donald-trump The mention sources can contact us to remove/changing this article

What Are The Main Benefits Of Comparing Car Insurance Quotes Online

LOS ANGELES, CA / ACCESSWIRE / June 24, 2020, / Compare-autoinsurance.Org has launched a new blog post that presents the main benefits of comparing multiple car insurance quotes. For more info and free online quotes, please visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/the-advantages-of-comparing-prices-with-car-insurance-quotes-online/ The modern society has numerous technological advantages. One important advantage is the speed at which information is sent and received. With the help of the internet, the shopping habits of many persons have drastically changed. The car insurance industry hasn't remained untouched by these changes. On the internet, drivers can compare insurance prices and find out which sellers have the best offers. View photos The advantages of comparing online car insurance quotes are the following: Online quotes can be obtained from anywhere and at any time. Unlike physical insurance agencies, websites don't have a specific schedule and they are available at any time. Drivers that have busy working schedules, can compare quotes from anywhere and at any time, even at midnight. Multiple choices. Almost all insurance providers, no matter if they are well-known brands or just local insurers, have an online presence. Online quotes will allow policyholders the chance to discover multiple insurance companies and check their prices. Drivers are no longer required to get quotes from just a few known insurance companies. Also, local and regional insurers can provide lower insurance rates for the same services. Accurate insurance estimates. Online quotes can only be accurate if the customers provide accurate and real info about their car models and driving history. Lying about past driving incidents can make the price estimates to be lower, but when dealing with an insurance company lying to them is useless. Usually, insurance companies will do research about a potential customer before granting him coverage. Online quotes can be sorted easily. Although drivers are recommended to not choose a policy just based on its price, drivers can easily sort quotes by insurance price. Using brokerage websites will allow drivers to get quotes from multiple insurers, thus making the comparison faster and easier. For additional info, money-saving tips, and free car insurance quotes, visit https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ Compare-autoinsurance.Org is an online provider of life, home, health, and auto insurance quotes. This website is unique because it does not simply stick to one kind of insurance provider, but brings the clients the best deals from many different online insurance carriers. In this way, clients have access to offers from multiple carriers all in one place: this website. On this site, customers have access to quotes for insurance plans from various agencies, such as local or nationwide agencies, brand names insurance companies, etc. "Online quotes can easily help drivers obtain better car insurance deals. All they have to do is to complete an online form with accurate and real info, then compare prices", said Russell Rabichev, Marketing Director of Internet Marketing Company. CONTACT: Company Name: Internet Marketing CompanyPerson for contact Name: Gurgu CPhone Number: (818) 359-3898Email: [email protected]: https://compare-autoinsurance.Org/ SOURCE: Compare-autoinsurance.Org View source version on accesswire.Com:https://www.Accesswire.Com/595055/What-Are-The-Main-Benefits-Of-Comparing-Car-Insurance-Quotes-Online View photos