July 1st 2024.
On July 1st, a significant ruling was made by the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that former president Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for any actions he took while in office that were within his constitutional powers. This decision, while highly controversial, is the first time any type of presidential immunity from prosecution has been recognized. In a 6-3 ruling, Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the decision, overturned a previous ruling by a lower court that rejected Trump's claim of immunity from federal criminal charges related to his attempts to overturn his loss in the 2020 election to Joe Biden.
The majority opinion was formed by the court's six conservative justices, while the three liberal members dissented. The lengthy 119-page document delved into the serious crimes committed by Trump. As a staunch Republican, Trump had thrown his hat into the ring for the upcoming November 5th election, where he would have been running against the Democratic nominee, Joe Biden.
Due to the Supreme Court's lengthy deliberation and decision to send key questions about the extent of Trump's immunity back to the trial judge, it is unlikely that he will face trial before the election. The charges against Trump were brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was appointed in November 2022. In his writing, Chief Justice Roberts stated, "We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office." He went on to say that this immunity for former presidents is "absolute" when it comes to their "core constitutional powers," and that they have "at least a presumptive immunity" for "acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility." This means that prosecutors face a high legal bar to overcome this presumption.
However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with her fellow liberal justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote a dissenting opinion, stating that this ruling effectively creates a "law-free zone around the president." Sotomayor added, "When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune." She continued, "In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law."
Justice Brown Jackson also expressed her disagreement with the ruling, stating, "Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity - an exemption from criminal law - applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government." This new ruling could have an impact on parts of the special counsel's case, as U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan considers the extent of Trump's immunity.
Many people took to social media to share their thoughts on the ruling. Some expressed their disappointment and frustration, with one user saying, "The conservative Supreme Court just ruled that Donald Trump has absolute immunity from criminal charges for official acts, but no immunity from unofficial acts. The three liberal justices dissent." Another user wrote, "The Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, has become a laughing-stock. Unfortunately, the joke is on us, and it's not at all funny."
Some also shared their concerns about the implications of this ruling, with one user stating, "Every day, this country becomes more and more of a global joke." Another user wrote, "Travesty of Justice. But I'm not surprised. The Supreme Court is corrupted." There were also questions raised about the potential consequences of this ruling, with one user asking, "So Joe Biden could order something crazy on Mar-a-Lago in his capacity as president, amirite?" Another user expressed their disbelief and confusion, saying, "This is unconstitutional. What is a 'criminal act that is official?' Invading another country? This is so weird and creepy. This is a good reason to remove these justices for impeding justice."
[This article has been trending online recently and has been generated with AI. Your feed is customized.]
[Generative AI is experimental.]
