created a broad, unreviewable, and previously unrecognized presidential immunity for so-called official acts, basically blessing the old Nixon line: “When the president does it, that means it’s not illegal.” One could just add “if the president does it, it’s not reviewable,” and you’ve got a shorter version of the Court’s ruling.
Yet here they found a way to ignore the reality that was staring them in the face and find some humility, to appear as if they were deferring to a lower court to make further rulings. Of course, any such findings by the district court will come back to the Supreme Court on appeal, and, no doubt, it will find its voice again, and assume its newfound role of Factfinder-in-Chief.
Despite such an exhortation to the mob, the majority opinion wrings its proverbial hands, noting that the president possesses a “‘bully pulpit,’” and may speak “in ways that the President believes would advance the public interest.” Accordingly, the majority wrote, “most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably with the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.
This would also be true of any order to an employee of the Executive Branch, any member of the military, any statement on social media…the list goes on and on. Not only is the conduct immune from prosecution as an official act, but it cannot even come in as evidence in a case involving clearlyIn the last two years, the Court has issued some of its most consequential rulings in its history.
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: nypost - 🏆 91. / 67 Read more »
Source: WashTimes - 🏆 235. / 63 Read more »
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »
Source: NPR - 🏆 96. / 63 Read more »
Source: KPBSnews - 🏆 240. / 63 Read more »
Source: abc13houston - 🏆 255. / 63 Read more »