Supreme Court rules 6-3 that presidents have "absolute immunity" for official acts within constitutional authority
What we've got here is a 6-3 Trump victory in his immunity case, dealing a death blow to Jack Smith's New York case against the former president.
John Roberts wrote the opinion.
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. At least with respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceedings in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute, or instead whether a presumptive immunity is sufficient ...
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 Congress may not criminalize the President's conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive. 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. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy, or party.
This doesn't mean the Left can't go after Trump in those gray areas between official and unofficial actions. But it certainly does help Trump's legal woes.
It's not quite what Trump wanted, but if it complicates Jack Smith's day, well, good. I expect Styx to analyze this decision so I won't have to. Because I'm lazy like that.
Democrats, meanwhile, are having a conniption.
No comments:
Post a Comment