SCOTUS Rules on Presidential Immunity - POTUS Immune on Official Acts While in Office

[Webster]

(The Guardian) Court issues decision in Trump immunity case
The supreme court has issued its decision on whether Donald Trump is immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken while he was in the White House.

---

Court finds presidents entitled to 'absolute immunity' from prosecution for official acts
The supreme court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. The decision fell along party lines, with six conservative justices ruling against three liberal ones.

But the court finds that former presidents are not entitled to immunity from prosecution for actions taken in a private capacity.

Writing the court’s opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts says: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.

---

Court finds presidents not entitled to immunity for unofficial acts
Chief Justice John Roberts, writing the court’s opinion, says: This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.

 

[Webster]

(The Guardian) House speaker welcomes immunity decision
Mike Johnson, the Republican House speaker, has also issued a statement in response to the supreme court’s immunity decision. -- Today’s ruling by the Court is a victory for former President Trump and all future presidents, and another defeat for President Biden’s weaponized Department of Justice and Jack Smith. The Court clearly stated that presidents are entitled to immunity for their official acts. This decision is based on the obviously unique power and position of the presidency, and comports with the Constitution and common sense. As President Trump has repeatedly said, the American people, not President Biden’s bureaucrats, will decide the November 5th election.

---

Democratic House minority leader decries 'dangerous precedent'
Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic House minority leader, has warned that the supreme court’s immunity decision “sets a dangerous precedent for the future of our nation”. -- No one, including the twice-impeached former president, should be above the law. The constitution is sacredly obligatory upon all. That’s what makes America special.

 

[DrLeftover]

The circle is complete.

 

[Webster]

I don't know if I'd go that far, Doc; at its' heart this decision reminds us that there is a proper manner to dealing with abuses of presidential power - the impeachment process.

Presidents must be free to perform their duties without fear of criminal prosecution, whether during or after their presidency, and the Framers knew this which is why they gave the power of impeachment to Congress as a check on this function (Hamilton in Federalist #77 addressed this issue).

There's also the question of whether Jack Smith's position as Special Counsel is even legal....per the Federalist,

Under the Constitution’s appointment clause, which is key to ensuring the separation of powers, Congress creates offices, and either presidents fill them with the advice and consent of the Senate or, if Congress delegates them the authority, the president, “Courts of Law,” or “Heads of Departments” may appoint “inferior officers.”

This represented a break from and corrective to the British monarchy, under which, as Thomas recounts, quoting the Declaration of Independence, the king had “erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

Thomas makes a compelling case that Congress never created Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office. Even if it did, he asserts, Smith may well not be lawfully appointed to it. Historically, the legislative branch has created special and independent counsels by statute. Not so in the case of Special Counsel Smith. Attorney General Merrick Garland failed to identify any statute “that clearly creates” Smith’s office.

He did rely on “several statutes of a general nature” to justify Smith’s appointment, per the concurrence. However, Thomas found Garland’s use of 28 U.S.C. §509, 510, 515, 533 to justify that appointment to be dubious.

..... ..... .....

While presidents have appointed special prosecutors previously, and without pointing to a specific authorizing statute, Thomas concedes the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those appointments. He concludes: Respecting the protections that the Constitution provides for the Office of the Presidency secures liberty. In that same vein, the Constitution also secures liberty by separating the powers to create and fill offices. And, there are serious questions whether the Attorney General has violated that structure by creating an office of the Special Counsel that has not been established by law. Those questions must be answered before this prosecution can proceed. We must respect the Constitution’s separation of powers in all its forms, else we risk rendering its protection of liberty a parchment guarantee.

In other words, this case might be moot in that Jack Smith was never constitutionally appointed to his position as Special Counsel, meaning both his cases could potentially be squashed on constitutional grounds.

 

[Dead2009]

Impeachment can also be abused, case in point the whole "Russia helped Trump get into office" debacle, which if that were even true (which it wasn't), they would have helped him get reelected.

 

[Webster]

"Russia helped Trump get into office" debacle

No argument there, and I say that as someone who's long believed the world needs to put its' collective boot hard on the throat of Russia (a comment which, by the way, got me banned from one forum for quote, "advocating genocide."