Limited immunity

us-supreme-court about presidential-immunity
The decision by the justices jeopardizes the timeline of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s trial happening before the election
* Trump erringt in Immunitätsfrage Teilsieg vor Supreme Court. Das Oberste Gericht gibt Donald Trump teils recht: Präsidenten genießen für Amtshandlungen Immunität. 
Offen ist, ob das für seine Verfahren wegen Wahlmanipulation gilt. Aktualisiert am 1. Juli 2024.
Inwiefern Trumps Handlungen rund um eine mögliche Wahlmanipulation dadurch geschützt sind, ist noch nicht geklärt. Fest steht jedoch: Damit dürfte sich ein möglicher Prozessbeginn gegen Trump wegen versuchten Wahlbetrugs weiter verzögern.
=== Folgen/Consequences===
The crux of the ruling, which was 6 to 3 on partisan lines, is in the difference between a president’s official acts, such as policy changes or military decisions, and private conduct. Broad immunity for official conduct is needed, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, to protect “an energetic, independent executive.”
The liberal justices warned in their dissent that the ruling extended a level of immunity that could undermine democracy, and said that the decision made the president into “a king above the law.”
While the Supreme Court said that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts, the justices didn’t define exactly what actions are official and which are unofficial.
But the high court did address a few of former President Donald Trump’s actions:
* Conversations between Trump and the Department of Justice: Official act. Trump is immune from prosecution.
* Trump allegedly pressuring then-Vice President Mike Pence to not count certified electoral votes on January 6: Trump is presumed immune, but the case is remanded to lower courts for further review.
* Trump allegedly pressuring state officials to change their state’s electoral votes from Biden to Trump: Not answered. Remanded to lower courts for review.
*Trump allegedly inciting violence in the Jan. 6 insurrection: Not answered. Remanded to lower courts for review.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the trial court will have to assess what of Trump’s alleged conduct is immunized under the new test handed down by the high court, and the opinion said that additional briefing will be needed for the trial court to do so.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent claims that the majority’s ruling would allow presidents to be immune from prosecution should they order Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival, organize a military coup to hold onto power or accept a bribe in exchange for a pardon. 
“President is now a king above the law,” Sotomayor declared. Justices Jackson and Kagan also joined this dissent.
==Mitch McConnell on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling==
* pressrelease of Mitch McConnell (R-KY) on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling: The Constitution vests Congress with the sole authority to make law.
== Laurence Tribe beschreibt: am Rande einer Diktatur ==
* Laurence H Tribe: How the US supreme court shredded the Constitution and what can be done to repair it 
::Court’s troubling rulings on presidential immunity and regulatory power make it clear that change is an ethical essential 
* Die USA - Am Rande einer Diktatur. »Niemand kann garantieren, dass Trump der letzte wahnsinnige Soziopath ist, der an die Macht will«
Der renommierte Harvard-Jurist Professor Laurence Tribe ist entsetzt über den Schockspruch des Supreme Court. US-Präsidenten genießen nun Immunität für Amtshandlungen. Weitere Zitate a k. - In: www.theguardian.com/ 2024/jul/08/ 
==www==
* Here's how the Supreme Court immunity ruling impacts  ……
* Supreme Court rules Trump is entitled to some immunity in January 6 case.
* Urteil zur Immunität des US-Präsidenten: Der Supreme Court hilft, die amerikanische Demokratie zu zerstören. Von Alexander Demling, 2. Juli 24, Leitartikel (Bezahlschranke)
Category:Justice
Category:SCOTUS