versus United States was a grim affair. As a first-time audience member for the announcements of high court opinions, I was surprised by the repeated “shushing” fromsecurity before the court session even started to an already quiet courtroom. Only very soft subdued conversations were happening mostly between lawyers who were sitting in the section reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar and there was almost no conversation in the public section.
In his opinion, Roberts made clear that U.S. Presidents must be granted complete immunity for acts that fall within the powers assigned exclusively to Presidents, allowed for the possibility that Presidents might undertake non-official acts for which they might be prosecuted but concluded that the high court doesn’t know enough about the Jan 6 events to determine which of former President Trump’s actions might subject him to prosecution.
Of course, as Roberts notes at the very start of his analysis, no criminal prosecution of a President for what he did in office has ever happened before which means we have gone two centuries with Presidents unprotected from a danger that has never happened. That’s the needless “shushing” analogy. Pointing out the majority claims of starting with an assessment of how the Constitution treats Presidential power sound fake given that the Constitution says nothing about immunity for Presidents, Sotomayor punctuated her reading by at times turning directly towards her conservative colleagues on her left, seeming to focus particularly on Chief Justice Roberts.
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: CBS21NEWS - 🏆 304. / 63 Read more »
Source: KPRC2 - 🏆 80. / 68 Read more »
Source: ksatnews - 🏆 442. / 53 Read more »