A Keynote to the Campaign of Donald J. Biden: The Case for a New Look at the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election
Roberts wrote that Trump is immune from prosecution beyond a limited one, but he also undermined some of the charges against the former president.
Biden said that the decision means there are no limits on what the president can do. The power of the office is not constrained by the law even at the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone.”
“Now, the American people have to do what the court should have done, but won’t make a judgement about Donald Trump’s behavior,” Biden said.
Biden, who is under pressure from fellow Democrats to pull out of the race after his performance in last week’s presidential debate, took no questions. He spoke clearly and calmly during the statement.
He held a number of events in order to make sure his supporters understood that he was up to the job. Last Friday, a day after the debate, Biden held a rally in Raleigh, N.C., where he attempted to persuade supporters that he could still do the job. He spent the weekend telling donors that he understood their concern and he also did damage control.
“I didn’t have a great night,” he told supporters gathered at the home of New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy on Saturday night. You are going to need to be with me to get it done, as I will be fighting harder.
The Nightmares of a White House and the Implications for a Court of First Amendment Constitutional Determination of the United States Constitution
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a blistering dissent along with the other two liberal justices, the ruling creates a series of “nightmare scenarios” for what a president is now allowed to do. The Navy ordered the team to kill the political rival. Immune to things. Can a military coup hold onto power? There is an Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
The principle that nobody is above the law has been set aside. One of the justices who dissented said that the court undermined the American Revolution by giving presidents a “law-free zone” in which to act. Presidents can still be impeached for their crimes in office, but it is hard to see how they can ever be prosecuted. They can take a very small action, like encouraging insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, without any fear of being held legally accountable.
“The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. All of the Oval Office’s inhabitants are entitled to immunity, regardless of their politics, policy or party.
That will entail significant delays, and the prospects for a trial before the election seem vanishingly remote. If Mr. Trump were to win the elections, he could order the Justice Department to drop the charges.
The High Court ruled against Donald J. Trump for tampering in the U.S. Senate and he ruled that he could not go out of jail
Chief Justice Roberts wrote that it was not the Supreme Court’s job to sift through the evidence and to separate protected conduct from the rest. It is best for the lower courts to do that analysis in the first place.
The chief justice said that parts of the indictment need a close analysis.
She said that the navy ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival. Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune to disease. Take a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
In her opinion, a current president does not get a lifetime “get out of jail free” pass because the US has only one chief executive at a time.
The court unanimously rejected the attempt to prevent Mr. Trump from getting on the ballot because of his involvement in insurrection. The court, without discussing whether Mr. Trump was covered by the provision, ruled that states may not use it to exclude candidates for the presidency from the ballot.
On Friday, the court ruled that federal prosecutors had improperly used an obstruction law to prosecute some members of the pro-Trump mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. Two of the four charges against Mr. Trump are based on that law.
After the appeals court ruled against Mr. Trump, he asked the Supreme Court to intervene. Arguments on his appeal were scheduled for almost two months later on the last day of the term. There has been another two months since then.
The immunity case has moved at a considerably slower pace. In December, in asking the justices to leapfrog the appeals court and hear the case immediately, Jack Smith, the special counsel overseeing the prosecution, wrote that “it is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this court.” He stated that only the court could resolve them.
At the argument, several of the conservative justices did not seem inclined to examine the details of the charges against Mr. Trump. They said that the court should issue a ruling that applies to presidential power in general.
The Chief Justice joined with his fellow conservatives in writing the decision. Three justices dissented from the decision, three liberals – Elena Kagan, sonia sista and Ketji Brown Jackson.
“No court has thus far considered how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts,” he wrote, while chiding the lower courts for rendering “their decisions on a highly expedited basis.” He explained that the lower courts did not consider the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and unofficial.
Even after Judge Chutkan separates constitutional wheat from chaff, Trump may seek more delays as immunity questions are likely to be appealed prior to trial.
