How pitiful.
House Democrats, who apparently have not read the Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity, have said they will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Monday that President Trump has absolute immunity from core constitutional powers.
Former presidents are entitled to a presumption of immunity, at least for their official acts.
The Supreme Court has ruled that informal acts are not exempt from liability.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court Agreed A hearing was held in Washington, DC on January 6th to hear President Trump’s request for immunity in the trial of Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion for the Supreme Court.
“We conclude that, under the Constitution’s separation of powers structure, the nature of presidential power requires that former presidents be afforded some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office. At least with respect to the exercise of the President’s core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. For the remainder of his official acts, he is entitled to immunity. But at this stage in the case, it is not necessary, and we do not, to determine whether immunity must be absolute or whether constructive immunity would suffice,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.
Judge Roberts also scolded Judge Tanya Chutkan for failing to analyze the conduct alleged in Jack Smith’s indictment.
“Despite the unprecedented nature of this case and the very serious constitutional questions it raises, the lower courts acted extremely quickly. Because those courts categorically denied presidential immunity, they did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to determine which were official and which were informal. Neither party has briefed us on this issue (although they did discuss it in response to questions at oral argument). And, as with the fundamental immunity issue, this classification raises multiple and unprecedented questions about the power of the President and the limits of that power under the Constitution,” Roberts wrote.
The Supreme Court has nowhere said that the President is not above the law.
The Supreme Court’s decision means Jack Smith’s Washington, D.C. case will be sent back to Judge Tanya Chutkan.
Rep. Joe Morrell (D-N.Y.) embarrassed himself by arguing that he would introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.
“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s harmful decisions and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what the Supreme Court failed to do – put democracy first,” Rep. Joe Morrell, D-N.Y., said on X.
I will introduce a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s harmful decisions and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what the Supreme Court failed to do – put democracy first.
— Joe Morelle (@RepJoeMorelle) July 1, 2024
