Walden Macht Haran & Williams LLP’s Post

What is the underlying reason for the Supreme Court recent ruling? Privilege or trying to avoid the inevitable? Read it and do not miss the dissents. It is happening in real time regardless. and this is when Critical Thinking is paramount for every voter. Is this equal justice or elitist justice? You be the judge. Does it preserve the intent of the Constitution or weaken it? What impact could it have short-term and long-term? Does it protect Democracy or weaken it? https://lnkd.in/eH89Mp55

Have you heard about the SCOTUS ruling on Presidential immunity? Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that a President “may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.” I finding this issue very interesting from a Public Administrative point of view. What are your thoughts on this matter? How will it impact other levels of government, for example Gubernatorial immunity? https://lnkd.in/gt4g_iWi.

The Supreme Court of the United States has just confirmed and reminded what the US 🇺🇸 Constitution states: only the US Congress can prosecute a US President for his official acts. There is no prescription for such prosecution… This means that there is no constitutional impunity for the US President because the US 🇺🇸 Congress can at anytime open an investigation for prosecution, even for a former US 🇺🇸 President… Only the US 🇺🇸 Congress can overcome the US 🇺🇸 presidential immunity for official acts related to the president constitutional powers; not federal courts. It is false to pretend that the US 🇺🇸 Supreme Court decision provides absolute powers to the US 🇺🇸 President. Because anytime that the US 🇺🇸 President acts against the US Constitution and laws in relation with their constitutional powers; the US Congres has all powers to make him/her accountable and prosecute him/her. The US 🇺🇸 Supreme Court doesn’t change the US 🇺🇸 Congress constitutional powers of investigation and prosecution on official acts of the US 🇺🇸President. The real issue: what will happen if a sitting president is held criminally responsible for non official actions by a federal court while he is still in office? Indeed the Supreme Court has clearly recognized that a president has no immunity for non official actions. 😉😉😉

⚡⚡ Protect the German Federal Constitutional Court! ⚡⚡   Developments such as those in Poland after 2015 should be prevented from the outset. Trust in institutions, in their independence and integrity, is destroyed much faster than it can be rebuilt.   On Verfassungblog, I present some insights from comparative law on a discussion currently taking place in Germany about whether and how to protect the Constitutional Court from party-political instrumentalization.   The article is also available in German: https://lnkd.in/eTWx8RdR See also https://lnkd.in/ev7rNzSg

In "Broad Reflections on Trump v. United States," Jack Goldsmith notes that in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed presidential immunity in the prosecution of former President Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. This landmark case posed novel questions about presidential power and accountability. The Court ruled that a president has no immunity for unofficial acts and absolute immunity for official acts involving exclusive presidential powers, like pardoning or firing subordinates. It also established "presumptive immunity" for other official acts unless prosecutors can show no threat to executive functions. The decision strengthens presidential power but raises concerns about potential abuse. Dissenting opinions warned of increased opportunities for corrupt behavior by future presidents, while the majority highlighted the risks of prosecuting a president for official acts. This ruling could significantly impact future presidential conduct and prosecutions. He concludes that the “idea that the first prosecution of a former president could be done quickly without serious collateral litigation about the impact on the presidency was always a fantasy, even taking into account the ugly abuses of power alleged in the indictment. And more broadly, it has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist…” https://lnkd.in/gisFhrcf #PresidentialImmunity #SupremeCourtDecision #ConstitutionalLaw

In "Broad Reflections on Trump v. United States," Jack Goldsmith notes that in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed presidential immunity in the prosecution of former President Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. This landmark case posed novel questions about presidential power and accountability. The Court ruled that a president has no immunity for unofficial acts and absolute immunity for official acts involving exclusive presidential powers, like pardoning or firing subordinates. It also established "presumptive immunity" for other official acts unless prosecutors can show no threat to executive functions. The decision strengthens presidential power but raises concerns about potential abuse. Dissenting opinions warned of increased opportunities for corrupt behavior by future presidents, while the majority highlighted the risks of prosecuting a president for official acts. This ruling could significantly impact future presidential conduct and prosecutions. He concludes that the “idea that the first prosecution of a former president could be done quickly without serious collateral litigation about the impact on the presidency was always a fantasy, even taking into account the ugly abuses of power alleged in the indictment. And more broadly, it has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist…” https://lnkd.in/gisFhrcf #PresidentialImmunity #SupremeCourtDecision #ConstitutionalLaw

In "Broad Reflections on Trump v. United States," Jack Goldsmith notes that in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed presidential immunity in the prosecution of former President Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. This landmark case posed novel questions about presidential power and accountability. The Court ruled that a president has no immunity for unofficial acts and absolute immunity for official acts involving exclusive presidential powers, like pardoning or firing subordinates. It also established "presumptive immunity" for other official acts unless prosecutors can show no threat to executive functions. The decision strengthens presidential power but raises concerns about potential abuse. Dissenting opinions warned of increased opportunities for corrupt behavior by future presidents, while the majority highlighted the risks of prosecuting a president for official acts. This ruling could significantly impact future presidential conduct and prosecutions. He concludes that the “idea that the first prosecution of a former president could be done quickly without serious collateral litigation about the impact on the presidency was always a fantasy, even taking into account the ugly abuses of power alleged in the indictment. And more broadly, it has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist…” https://lnkd.in/gARbrQXC #PresidentialImmunity #SupremeCourtDecision #ConstitutionalLaw

America will now have a king, above the law that applies to the rest of us, until at some point if American can return to a place of judicial and political respect for the Constitution and what so many have died to protect. The majority of this Court is driven not buy reason, law, history or Constitutional protection: it is driven by pre-determined results designed to protect a particular political party and view, using whatever manufactured theory and fear it needs to get there. https://lnkd.in/epB2fAPq

I've gifted this article which analyzes Trump's appeal of the Colorado Supreme Court election case to the US Supreme Court discussing the major legal points. "When you ask “Should Trump be stricken from the ballot?,” the typical reaction you get is: Are you serious? How could it be possible to take a party’s leading candidate off the ballot? I know because that was essentially my initial reaction—until I really started digging into the case and saw how Trump shouldn’t prevail on any of the subsidiary issues that ought to actually decide the case. Indeed, when you pick apart the many subsidiary legal issues swirling in Trump’s certiorari blender, they dissolve one by one. Take the contention that it is too difficult for courts to figure out standards by which to determine what it means to “engage” in an “insurrection.” The simple response to that is: You’re kidding, right? You mean the courts can divine the meaning of “equal protection of the laws” under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment but not “insurrection” under Section 3?" #supremecourt #donaldtrump #trumptrain #trump #republicans #republicanparty #gop #usa #maga #election2024 #colorado #insurrection #presidentialelection https://lnkd.in/euxHkzUy

In "Broad Reflections on Trump v. United States," Jack Goldsmith notes that in Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed presidential immunity in the prosecution of former President Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election results. This landmark case posed novel questions about presidential power and accountability. The Court ruled that a president has no immunity for unofficial acts and absolute immunity for official acts involving exclusive presidential powers, like pardoning or firing subordinates. It also established "presumptive immunity" for other official acts unless prosecutors can show no threat to executive functions. The decision strengthens presidential power but raises concerns about potential abuse. Dissenting opinions warned of increased opportunities for corrupt behavior by future presidents, while the majority highlighted the risks of prosecuting a president for official acts. This ruling could significantly impact future presidential conduct and prosecutions. He concludes that the “idea that the first prosecution of a former president could be done quickly without serious collateral litigation about the impact on the presidency was always a fantasy, even taking into account the ugly abuses of power alleged in the indictment. And more broadly, it has been a fantasy for many years now to think that courts and prosecutors can purge the nation of a law-defiant populist…” https://lnkd.in/gARbrQXC #PresidentialImmunity #SupremeCourtDecision #ConstitutionalLaw