Here is a link to the opinion so you can read the rationale behind the decision. I have not made it through the whole document yet, but here're some of the points I noted.
From the opinion: The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” ... His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” ... When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions.
A little later, they go on to say: "As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct"
They have sent the case back down to lower courts to determine whether the acts were official (in which case he has immunity) or not (in which case, the prosecution must prove that the acts were not official).
US is in freefall. Impeachment has no change of passing.
Both the immunity decision and regulations case are just the majority rewriting the law of the land. Walking over legal precedent, established legal principles, .. just raw power without restraint. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_hardball
>JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and
JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
>Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes
a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
I mean, all the SCOTUS did was confirm everything we've know and practiced since the US was founded? I don't get why anyone is freaking out over this. If the President could be sued for the decisions he makes doing his job, gold help us.... this is just.... obvious? But since it seemingly "helps" Trump the MSM and Democrats are going crazy. However, if this wasn't the case, do they realize the huge can of worms that would be opened up forever?
>could be sued for the decisions he makes doing his job
Presidential immunity while in office as already established is not the problem. They would not have even taken the case if the established law on presidential immunity was the case. Lower courts already had that part covered.
Please study the issue even little and find out what the problem is. The new interpretation text gives "absolute immunity" for official acts.
I have read it, and I have studied the issue. Sotomayor's dissent 100% completely misses the mark and reads as a political hit piece rather than a true dissent.
This is all meant to be a distraction from Biden. Get people worked up about January 6th with far-fetched ideas about Trump killing people who talk badly about him so they can get people in a froth about "protecting democracy" when they are trying to do the opposite. Shitting on every supreme court decision they don't like doesn't sound like democracy to me either.
Funny how they want democracy when it works for them, but hate democracy and want to change it and pack the courts when it works against them.
From the opinion: The President has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” ... His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” ... When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions.
A little later, they go on to say: "As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct"
They have sent the case back down to lower courts to determine whether the acts were official (in which case he has immunity) or not (in which case, the prosecution must prove that the acts were not official).
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf