Former CIA Director John Brennan has criticized the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to grant total immunity to Donald Trump for his 'official' acts conducted while president. Brennan expressed concern about the ignorance and indifference of the conservative justices who made the ruling. He warned that the decision could have disturbing consequences if an unprincipled and politically corrupt individual is elected president in the future. Brennan further explained in an interview that the ruling would allow a future president, such as Trump, to act without legal consequence [e80d8739].
The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has given Donald Trump broad protection against criminal prosecution for his 'official acts.' This ruling, with a 6-3 majority, means that future presidents will also receive these protections. The lower courts will now determine what constitutes a personal versus official act, which will delay a verdict in Trump's federal election interference case. The ruling has sparked controversy and anger among Democrats, with President Biden criticizing the decision and stating that it sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the rule of law. The Court's decision has further eroded trust in the institution, as it has faced criticism for controversial decisions and ethics issues in recent years [dcf49df8].
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissents in Trump v. United States, expressing fear for democracy. The court's opinion effectively grants immunity to former President Donald Trump for official acts, while unofficial acts are not immune. The distinction between official and unofficial acts is problematic because the motive of the president in acting illegally cannot be considered. Trump's lawyers argue that paying off a porn star to keep silent about her affair with him was an official act because he signed the reimbursement check while in the White House. The court's decision could postpone Trump's sentencing for the 34 felony counts he's already been convicted of. The court's approach is seen as partisan and not principled, with Chief Justice John Roberts ignoring examples and originalism [7c15feb3].
The US Supreme Court's decision to grant absolute immunity to a President's official acts is criticized by Mel Gurtov, a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University. Gurtov argues that without any guardrails, presidents can incite insurrections, order the justice department to detain critics, declare elections invalid, and ignore Congress. He believes the Court's ruling feeds the impulsiveness, delusions, and vengefulness of Donald Trump, and makes the president a king. Gurtov highlights Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, which states that the decision reshapes the institution of the presidency and discards the principle that no one is above the law. Gurtov warns that the ruling poses great risks to democratic institutions and criticizes the conservative justices for granting Trump a wide path to criminality. He concludes by stating that the decision tarnishes American exceptionalism and urges the US to stop preaching about respect for the rule of law and free and fair elections [dd045d2a].
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, Orange is the New Black actress Lea DeLaria uploaded an intense Instagram speech calling on President Joe Biden to take advantage of the newly defined executive immunity rules and assassinate Trump. DeLaria likened the assassination to preemptively killing Adolf Hitler before World War II. She called on Biden to take Trump out, stating that if he was Hitler and this was 1940, he would be taken out. DeLaria's comments have sparked controversy and backlash, with many condemning her call for violence. This is not the first time DeLaria has made provocative statements regarding Trump. After the 2016 election, she posted on Instagram that she wanted to 'pick up a baseball bat and take out every fucking Republican and Independent I see' [e59d8d00].
The author of an analysis piece published by Creators Syndicate, Susan Estrich, criticizes the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States. She expresses concern for democracy and argues that the court's opinion effectively grants immunity to Trump for official acts, while unofficial acts are not immune. Estrich highlights the problematic distinction between official and unofficial acts, as it does not consider the president's motive for acting illegally. She also mentions that the court's decision could delay Trump's sentencing for the 34 felony counts he has already been convicted of. Estrich characterizes the court's approach as partisan and not principled, with Chief Justice John Roberts ignoring examples and originalism. The author supports measures to shake up the court's composition and lifetime terms to prevent ideological manipulation [7c15feb3].
According to a report by National Newswatch, the Supreme Court's opinion on presidential immunity could embolden Donald Trump as he seeks to return to power. The opinion affords former President Trump broad immunity, ensuring that presidents have a wide berth to carry out official acts without fear of being criminally charged. The opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, significantly narrows the case against Trump but leaves intact the principle that there's no immunity for purely personal acts. This ruling could give Trump cover for acts that may veer into criminality and may be used as a basis for a complete destruction of DOJ independence. The opinion has the potential to benefit any president determined to abuse their powers [6e34919c].
The US Supreme Court's decision to grant absolute immunity to a President's official acts is criticized by Mel Gurtov, a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University. Gurtov argues that without any guardrails, presidents can incite insurrections, order the justice department to detain critics, declare elections invalid, and ignore Congress. He believes the Court's ruling feeds the impulsiveness, delusions, and vengefulness of Donald Trump, and makes the president a king. Gurtov highlights Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent, which states that the decision reshapes the institution of the presidency and discards the principle that no one is above the law. Gurtov warns that the ruling poses great risks to democratic institutions and criticizes the conservative justices for granting Trump a wide path to criminality. He concludes by stating that the decision tarnishes American exceptionalism and urges the US to stop preaching about respect for the rule of law and free and fair elections [dd045d2a].
The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity has given Donald Trump broad protection against criminal prosecution for his 'official acts.' This ruling, with a 6-3 majority, means that future presidents will also receive these protections. The lower courts will now determine what constitutes a personal versus official act, which will delay a verdict in Trump's federal election interference case. The ruling has sparked controversy and anger among Democrats, with President Biden criticizing the decision and stating that it sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the rule of law. The Court's decision has further eroded trust in the institution, as it has faced criticism for controversial decisions and ethics issues in recent years [dcf49df8].
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissents in Trump v. United States, expressing fear for democracy. The court's opinion effectively grants immunity to former President Donald Trump for official acts, while unofficial acts are not immune. The distinction between official and unofficial acts is problematic because the motive of the president in acting illegally cannot be considered. Trump's lawyers argue that paying off a porn star to keep silent about her affair with him was an official act because he signed the reimbursement check while in the White House. The court's decision could postpone Trump's sentencing for the 34 felony counts he's already been convicted of. The court's approach is seen as partisan and not principled, with Chief Justice John Roberts ignoring examples and originalism [7c15feb3].
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, Orange is the New Black actress Lea DeLaria uploaded an intense Instagram speech calling on President Joe Biden to take advantage of the newly defined executive immunity rules and assassinate Trump. DeLaria likened the assassination to preemptively killing Adolf Hitler before World War II. She called on Biden to take Trump out, stating that if he was Hitler and this was 1940, he would be taken out. DeLaria's comments have sparked controversy and backlash, with many condemning her call for violence. This is not the first time DeLaria has made provocative statements regarding Trump. After the 2016 election, she posted on Instagram that she wanted to 'pick up a baseball bat and take out every fucking Republican and Independent I see' [e59d8d00].
The author of an analysis piece published by Creators Syndicate, Susan Estrich, criticizes the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. United States. She expresses concern for democracy and argues that the court's opinion effectively grants immunity to Trump for official acts, while unofficial acts are not immune. Estrich highlights the problematic distinction between official and unofficial acts, as it does not consider the president's motive for acting illegally. She also mentions that the court's decision could delay Trump's sentencing for the 34 felony counts he has already been convicted of. Estrich characterizes the court's approach as partisan and not principled, with Chief Justice John Roberts ignoring examples and originalism. The author supports measures to shake up the court's composition and lifetime terms to prevent ideological manipulation [7c15feb3].
According to a report by National Newswatch, the Supreme Court's opinion on presidential immunity could embolden Donald Trump as he seeks to return to power. The opinion affords former President Trump broad immunity, ensuring that presidents have a wide berth to carry out official acts without fear of being criminally charged. The opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, significantly narrows the case against Trump but leaves intact the principle that there's no immunity for purely personal acts. This ruling could give Trump cover for acts that may veer into criminality and may be used as a basis for a complete destruction of DOJ independence. The opinion has the potential to benefit any president determined to abuse their powers [6e34919c].