Shared by
#GoRightNews https://GoRightNews.com
The US Supreme Court Poised to Agree with Trump that Former Presidents Are Immune from Some Prosecutions
Written by Peter Boykin on April 26, 2024
The US Supreme Court Poised to Agree with Trump that Former Presidents Are Immune from Some Prosecutions
#GoRightNews Shared by Peter Boykin
American Political Commentator / Citizen Journalist / Activist / Constitutionalist for Liberty
Web: https://PeterBoykin.com
Kick: http://Kick.com/PeterBoykin
Rumble: http://Rumble.com/GoRightNews
YouTube: https://youtube.com/@PeterBoykinForAmerica
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/boykin4congress
Twitter: https://twitter.com/GoRightNews
Telegram: http://t.me/realpeterboykin
Like the Content? Please Support!
Stripe: https://gorightnews.com/donations/support-gorightnews/
Cash App: http://Cash.app/$PeterBoykin1
Supreme Court hears arguments Trump has ‘presidential immunity’
The US Supreme Court Poised to Agree with Trump that Former Presidents Are Immune from Some Prosecutions
Supreme Court Contemplates Presidential Immunity: Implications for Post-Term Prosecutions
Supreme Court hears arguments Trump has ‘presidential immunity’
In a legal showdown with far-reaching implications, the Supreme Court is poised to weigh in on the contentious issue of presidential immunity, particularly concerning prosecutions that extend beyond a president’s term in office.
At the heart of the matter lies the question of whether former President Donald Trump retains immunity from certain prosecutions, a contention vigorously argued by his legal counsel before the highest court in the land.
The crux of the debate revolves around whether Trump should be shielded from prosecution related to allegations of attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, as asserted by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Initially ruled against by a federal trial court, Smith’s prosecution of Trump has been in limbo pending the Supreme Court’s deliberations, a delay that carries significant implications for both legal precedent and the political landscape.
While the oral arguments revealed a majority of justices sympathetic to the notion of presidential immunity extending beyond the term of office, the ultimate determination rests on establishing a clear and consistent standard. Should the Court adopt such a standard, it would necessitate a meticulous reevaluation of the case at the trial court level, potentially prolonging the legal proceedings for months to come.
The ramifications of the Court’s decision loom large, particularly in the context of the upcoming 2024 election. A ruling in favor of Trump’s immunity would undoubtedly deliver a blow to both Special Counsel Smith and President Joe Biden, casting a shadow over their ongoing political endeavors.
During the proceedings, justices explored various hypothetical scenarios to gauge the scope of presidential immunity, with Justice Neil Gorsuch raising questions about the potential prosecution of a president involved in civil rights protests. Such inquiries underscored the complex interplay between the duties of the presidency and the specter of legal liability.
Justice Samuel Alito further probed the precarious nature of the presidency, highlighting the daunting responsibility of making decisions amidst uncertain circumstances. However, the assertion of presidential access to legal counsel and the delineation between mistakes and criminal acts remained contentious points of contention.
While the arguments presented before the Court favored Trump’s position on immunity, there is no definitive indication that a majority of justices will uniformly endorse such immunity. Nevertheless, even liberal justices appeared receptive to the concept of presidential immunity to some extent, signaling potential nuances in their eventual decision.
As the case, Trump v. United States, awaits the Supreme Court’s verdict, its outcome holds profound implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and the judicial system within our Constitutional Republic.
The case is Trump v. United States, No. 23-939 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
[Source: Breitbart]
This Article is Brought to you by Go Right News and Edited by Peter Boykin
Visit GoRightNews.com for More Articles and Visit PeterBoykin.com to Learn more about Peter Boykin
Like what you see?
#GoRight with Peter Boykin
Follow Telegram
Follow on Kick
Follow on Rumble
https://Rumble.com/GoRightNews
Follow GoRightNews on Rumble
Tags:
#ncpol #NCpolitics #Boykin4NC #BoykinFor2024 #BoykinForNC
#Android #Apple #Trump #trumptrain #Trump2024 #TRUMP2024ToSaveAmerica #2024Election #election #election2023 #electionchallenge #ElectionIntegrity #ElectionsMatter #ElectionCommission #GoRightNews #GaysForTrump #tuesday #GoRight #ihatemondays #applemusic #applewatch #applepodcasts #ApplePay #appleiphone #bidenisnotmypresident #BIDENSAMERICA #BidenBorderCrisis #Bidenflation #Biden #BidenCrimeFamily #northcarolina #government #Governor #politics #political #politicians #politicalchallenge #politicalmeme
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
Each Month GoRightNews Spends Hundreds of Dollars and Hours To Run This Site and Podcast, with no sponsors or ads this comes out of our pockets, if you like what you see consider donating to the podcast. Thanks!
#GoRight with Peter R Boykin
#GoRightNews
Join Peter Boykin on Kick
Join Peter Boykin on Telegram
Join Peter Boykin on Facebook
Join Peter Boykin on GAB
Support The Podcast and Website
To Donate to the Podcast (NOT THE CAMPAIGN)
