andyburke

If you empanel a grand jury and present them with compelling evidence that the president accepted a bribe for a pardon, you could presumably indict them.

From there, you would present this evidence that there was a quid-pro-quo bribe and presumably the defense would move to dismiss under "it was an official act, can't prosecute". The judge would then need to decide if there is sufficient evidence to call into question if the act was official, given that the president cannot give an illegal order as an official act. If there's enough evidence, presumably the judge wouldn't dismiss and the trial would continue. (If they did dismiss, presumably the prosecution could appeal to a higher level court,)

I am just not clear on why everyone both thinks, and seem to want to think that this has given up the ball game and now the president is a king.

I am trying to argue in good faith. I just don't agree with you that the president can now do whatever they want. If they could, Biden could order the assassinations of all Republicans sitting in congress, for instance - presuming your reading of this is correct, what's to stop him? If you think it's just that he's not bold enough, perhaps you should call the whitehouse and give your opinion on what he should do with his newfound powers.

Legal orders. The president is bound by Article II, Section 3.

Please clap.

I'm not reading this. Your first sentence is incorrect.

The trial court is supposed to determine if there is sufficient evidence such that is not a mere allegation?

Personally I am ok with courts not being able to deem something unofficial based on allegations rather than on a decision.

Yes, and I sadly had to agree with John Roberts, not a good place to be.

The doomerism is just ridiculous to me.

If you follow an illegal order, guess what you just did: broke the law.

Please, fhis strident unreality being pushed is JUST LIKE the fear mongering on the right.

This decision is by no means great, it may totally delay trials for Trump until after the election, that's horeshit in my opinion. But I also don't beleive this bullshit about this ruling making the president a king. Stop FUDing for them. Trump STILL HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW IF HE IS ELECTED. Please STOP REINFORCING THE IDEA THAT HE DOES NOT.

Please back this up with some quotes from the ruling or something because this is not how I read it.

The reason the president is immune for official acts is to protect people like Obama who ordered extrajudicial killings of American citizens. That is a very grey offical act - these were US citizens in a war zone fighting for the other side. I may not fully agree that that should be protected, but I understand the reasoning around a president feeling free to act (legally) in the best interests of the nation without fear that their actions would lead to legal jeopardy after they leave office.

(To be clear: I would be ok with a trial to decide if Obama's actions were official, for instance. And if they were deemed not, then he could be tried for those assassinations. Also, to be clear: I am a progressive who would vote for Obama over Trump in a heartbeat.)

I mean, it's definitely not great. This court is a sham that never should have had this makeup.

And this absolutely makes it harder to bring Trump to trial before the election.

This is not great.

But it is not "the president can assasinate people!!!"

At least, not to this layman. I would hope supreme court justices know better, but even the dissent seems a little unhinged to me, a progressive who thinks the rule of law should AND STILL DOES apply to everyone. (I am also not willing to just give up and say "yeah, guess assassination is legal now" - I think that junk is counterproductive and maybe being propagandized against us by unfriendly foreign governments.)

You go stay in the arson/bullet target area before throwing this shit around, armchair politician.

Article II, Section 3 - the president must take care to execute the laws faithfully. No president meeting the requirements of the office could issue an illegal official order. If the president orders something illegal, it's necessarily against the oath of office and should not be considered official.

My feeling is that this ruling means any cases brought against the president would need to establish that an act was unofficial before criminal proceedings could proceed. Thay seems fine to me to adjudicate in each case.