A Court Supreme

[KnightHawk 2.0]

"In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts, but no immunity for unofficial acts.But instead of deciding for themselves, the justices ordered lower courts to work out precisely how to apply their decision to Trump's case.
The lower court must now decide whether he was acting officially or privately."
US Supreme Court sends Trump immunity claim back to lower court (msn.com)

So much for the 'Supreme' Court on so important a constitutional, and legal issue.

That said, is it the 'official business' of the President to effectively order his Vice-President to violate the Constitution with regard to the Certification of Elections in a joint session of Congress?

And does any State in the Union having verified and counted the votes in an election, become dependent on the President for his (or her) approval before announcing the result, and can a President change the vote to benefit himself (or herself) --?

Is playing Golf an 'official act' of the Presidency?

Are lower courts competent to make these decisions?

Not surprised at all by the Right Wing Supreme Court's decision today,and gave Donald Trump exactly what he wanted all along,which is absolute immunity from prosecution. The SCOTUS says that Donald Trump is above the law,and do whatever he wants. This decision also has a major impact on the State Case in Fulton County Georgia,and the Federal Cases in Washington DC and Florida.

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Not surprised at all by the Right Wing Supreme Court's decision today,and gave Donald Trump exactly what he wanted all along,which is absolute immunity from prosecution. The SCOTUS says that Donald Trump is above the law,and do whatever he wants. This decision also has a major impact on the State Case in Fulton County Georgia,and the Federal Cases in Washington DC and Florida.

And this decision also shows how divided the US Supreme Court is,with the majority accusing the dissenters of hyperbolic theories and fearmongering.

[Stavros]

We made it just shy of 248 years without a king.

It comes with a uniform too, plus a sword and a crown, just like George III....who knows maybe we will get Virginia back too.

[Stavros]

I wonder what Biden can do now that he has what Justice Sotomayor says is 'immunity'. This strikes me, though of course I see no lateral application that I would welcome or endorse...

"In her dissent, the justice Sonia Sotomayor listed some of the things that the president can now do without consequence, according to the majority. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” she writes."
Was Donald Trump a king during his presidency? The US supreme court thinks so | Moira Donegan | The Guardian

[KnightHawk 2.0]

Here's President Joe Biden's Remarks:

[filghy2]

So much for the 'Supreme' Court on so important a constitutional, and legal issue.

So much for originalism as well. If the founding fathers had intended the President to have absolute immunity for 'official' acts wouldn't they have put it in the Constitution?

[filghy2]

I nominate this to be the worst Supreme Court decision in the past 50 years, or more.

I think this has now been surpassed.

[Stavros]

So we have heard from the Supreme Court, from President Biden, and of course the other guy, but what do the American people think about this judgment? It is already clear they do not approve of the repeal of Roe v Wade, so I wonder if this latest Court decision will backfire.

Even if the only remedy is to not elect Trump or even Republicans, we don't yet know if this minority party will accept the results of the November poll. The coldest chill, as with January 6, is that a hard core of Republicans and their hangers-on welcome this decision. The Court presided over a divided country, and took the decision to widen the wounds. It's like they don't care.

[Stavros]

But will a lower, circuit court agree with Justice Barrett?

"The justices sent the case back to a lower court to determine which aspects of the indictment fall into either category."The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States," Barrett wrote.
"And while Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art. II, §1, cls. 3–4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority — and thus no official capacity — to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct."".
'Not entitled to protection': Amy Coney Barrett says no reason Trump should avoid trial (msn.com)

[Fitzcarraldo]

Thoughts from one of the leaders of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project:
https://therickwilson.substack.com/p...coming-horrors