theHotHead wrote:The "Syllabus" calls that out quite clearly Jay, it categorically states as early as page 8 that:
(e) 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
So no, the president does not have carte blanche to do whatever he wants. Precedence is set in law from decades ago, the Supreme court argued:
If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises mere “individual will” and “authority without law,”
the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655 (Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held
that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id.,
at 582–589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined
that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive
authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot
be subject to further judicial examination.
So the Democrats and Trump's enemies are crying over a legislation that frankly states common sense. I like the ay the document shows the overall opinion of the court and then the views of the judges that concurred and those that dissented.
Of 9 Supreme court judges, 6 ruled in favour of the court ruling, thats a significant majority.
Its all fairly simple.
A President decades ago was ruled to be immune from even civil cases for official acts - i.e. you can't have people suing the President for what he does.
Up until now no party has ever been so flagrant in their misuse of the judicial system as the Democrats have been, so the latest ruling just adds criminal indictment immunity to the official record - as is plain common sense.
For ANY act whilst in office it hs to be presumed to be official and the prosecutor has to prove it was not - again sensible. It means that political parties can no longer just indict flagrantly for political purposes.
The key thing is that the President has no immunity at all for unofficial acts if they are deemed to be so.
All of this makes so much sense it's crazy that the Democrats have been so corrupt that it even needed the SC to step in.
If Presidents were NOT immune for official acts then every one of them would end up in jail as soon as they left office.
One other important part of the document is the opinion from Justice Thomas, where he comments on the legality of Jack Smith's role - the special counsel going after Trump
“If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution,” Thomas wrote. “A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.”
Smith was not appointed legally - the appointment clause in the Constitution makes it clear that any appointments need the approval of Congress - and it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court already to classify that as 'principal officers' in the Executive Branch. A Special Counsel is a principal officer. Jack Smith has no standing. Now this was just an opinion by one SC Justice and not a ruling (the ruling has already been made previously - but it opens the door for the judge in Florida to throw out the documents case as Smith did not have the authority to bring it.
