How far does the Supreme Court's immunity decision really go?
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution for acts they committed while in office, granting Donald Trump a partial victory in his effort to derail various criminal trials.
Until recently, no ex-president had ever faced criminal charges. The state and federal cases against Trump sparked debates about the depth and breadth of the presidency’s legal protections.
In a 6-3 ruling split along partisan lines, the court established a new standard that grants presidents broad, but not total, immunity for their actions while in office. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, hinges on the distinction between official and unofficial acts of the presidency. Official acts have immunity. Unofficial acts do not.
So what qualifies as an official act? Those fall into two categories. The first is any powers that are explicitly given to the president by the Constitution. Anything else that falls within the typical scope of the presidency carries a “presumption of immunity” that would need to be challenged before a former president could face prosecution.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/how-far-does-the-supreme-courts-immunity-decision-really-go-090011395.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Think of trying to push a peg through a square hole.
