Trump v US

 

The Supreme Court has, kind of, decided the question of presidential immunity. No, the president (or former president) cannot be held criminally liable for official acts (those prescribed by the Constitution) and yes, he can be held liable for unofficial acts.

What they did not do is dive into the specifics of the Trump charges and delineate which acts were “official” and which acts were “unofficial,” except for any communication Trump had directly with Justice Department officials.

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts says, “The court sends the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as ‘whether a prosecution involving Trump’s attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'”

And he adds, “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized.”

Update: The Court has remanded the case back to the District Court. Now it is up to Judge Tanya Chutkan to hold pretrial hearings with the prosecution and the defense and re-examine each of the charges Jack Smith has brought in order to determine which of these fall under the umbrella of “official acts.” That is going to take time and almost assures that this case will not go to trial before the November general election.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 57 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    I read your title as Trump versus us–the people. And he’s the only one for us.

    • #1
  2. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I read your title as Trump versus us–the people. And he’s the only one for us.

    USA might be an alternative, or U.S.

    • #2
  3. GlennAmurgis Coolidge
    GlennAmurgis
    @GlennAmurgis

    or permanent bureaucracy vs Trump

    • #3
  4. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    I find all of your takes on the court’s ruling fascinating.

    • #4
  5. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Ricochet: kind of

    “Kind of”? From the opinion of the majority:

    “Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts,” the ruling, written by Chief Justice Roberts, explains. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

    Perhaps it is just difficult for some in our severely, maybe even dangerously, divided nation today who simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge any victory for President Trump. I, on the other hand, would, with great pleasure and pride in the gradual restoration of the American Rule of Law,  term this – to use the word used by the Chief Justice- an absolute victory for the former President. 

    “Kind of”, indeed. But then we are all familiar with the ancient  legal doctrine: Reasonable minds may differ. 

    • #5
  6. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Ricochet: That is going to take time and almost assures that this case will not go to trial before the November general election.

    What case? In asking this question in what I hope will be seen as a good faith inquiry into the future of this most despicable miscarriage of justice in the history of our legal system I hasten to acknowledge that I have not read and studied the entire 119 page opinion as I prefer to do before posting or commenting about a decision. I would add to that especially one this momentous. However, that said, is there really anything left for the Chutkan-Jack Smith team of jackboots run amok, despite what I know will be their best efforts considering that they know this is their last shot at President Trump at finally finding something, ANYthing, any shred of possible criminal fiction they can send to an almost certain hanging DC jury? 

    • #6
  7. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Jim George: Perhaps it is just difficult for some in our severely, maybe even dangerously, divided nation today who simply cannot bring themselves to acknowledge any victory for President Trump. I, on the other hand, would, with great pleasure and pride in the gradual restoration of the American Rule of Law, term this – to use the word used by the Chief Justice- an absolute victory for the former President.

    Except the court punted, as usual, with the specifics of the case. They refused to rule on which acts Trump is charged with that fall under each category, which they clearly could have done and therefore given the lower courts firm guidance. Only in the instance of communicating with DOJ officials was the Chief Justice unambiguous.

    Although as I type this I am recording with Ann Coulter and she points that SCOTUS is not in the fact finding business and I find that an acceptable argument.

    • #7
  8. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    I believe the Jan 6 case against Trump has 3 or 4 charges. With his immunity, there will probably be one or two charges left. The Documents case I think is exploded now. I am not a lawyer, but all of those “transgressions” occurred while he was still POTUS. Jack Smith is a wild pig, so one never knows. Of course, he’s got his own hurdles. The Senate never approved his appointment. He is acting without Constitutional authority.

    • #8
  9. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    EJHill (View Comment):
    I am recording with Ann Coulter

    Please tell her this Ricochet member from the Florida Panhandle is one of her most devoted fans! 

    • #9
  10. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    cdor (View Comment):

    I believe the Jan 6 case against Trump has 3 or 4 charges. With his immunity, there will probably be one or two charges left. The Documents case I think is exploded now. I am not a lawyer, but all of those “transgressions” occurred while he was still POTUS. Jack Smith is a wild pig, so one never knows. Of course, he’s got his own hurdles. The Senate never approved his appointment. He is acting without Constitutional authority.

    Point taken. However, if this case goes beyond January 21, 2025 before a trial begins and assuming President Trump wins on November 5 (a huge “if” I know and the way things have gone for the last couple of elections we may not even know who “won” by the time the Inauguration is held!) it will be rendered moot anyway. On the Jack Smith appointment issue, one cannot read the Meese brief and come away with any other opinion but that there is a real argument, in my opinion a very strong argument, to be made that Garland’s appointment was absolutely lawless, a word which could be used to describe most of his term in office. 

    PS: I like your phrase for Jack Smith and would note that “wild pig” would be the most civil and polite way I could describe my sentiments about that thoroughly corrupt and dishonest person who puts John Mitchell in the best light he has enjoyed all these years (with the obvious exception of Obama’s “wing man” Eric Holder) . 

    • #10
  11. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Jim George: On the Jack Smith appointment issue, one cannot read the Meese brief and come away with any other opinion but that there is a real argument, in my opinion a very strong argument, to be made that Garland’s appointment was absolutely lawless, a word which could be used to describe most of his term in office.

    Despite Justice Thomas’ dissent, that wasn’t part of the case. They are still arguing that in Judge Cannon’s courtroom. 

    • #11
  12. cdor Member
    cdor
    @cdor

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Jim George: On the Jack Smith appointment issue, one cannot read the Meese brief and come away with any other opinion but that there is a real argument, in my opinion a very strong argument, to be made that Garland’s appointment was absolutely lawless, a word which could be used to describe most of his term in office.

    Despite Justice Thomas’ dissent, that wasn’t part of the case. They are still arguing that in Judge Cannon’s courtroom.

    Jim was remarking on the aside that I brought up in my comment about Jack Smith.. I believe both of us are fully aware that Smith’s legitimacy was not a part of the immunity case. But thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Hill.

    • #12
  13. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    cdor: Jim was remarking on the aside that I brought up in my comment about Jack Smith.. I believe both of us are fully aware that Smith’s legitimacy was not a part of the immunity case. But thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Hill.

    Yes, but don’t you find it unusual for Justice Thomas, who’s known for sticking to the questions before the court, to veer off topic like that?

    • #13
  14. Charles Mark Member
    Charles Mark
    @CharlesMark

    Harry Reid’s legacy. 

    • #14
  15. W Bob Member
    W Bob
    @WBob

    I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to this immunity thing. I find it difficult to understand. How can a crime be an official act? Other than these specific charges, is there a hypothetical scenario which more clearly illustrates the necessity for immunity? 

    The argument is that Trump should skate on a technicality. Immunity is a technicality.  It draws attention away from the substantive question of whether he did anything which would otherwise be a crime. Regarding Jan. 6, clearly he did not. That speech was not an incitement to riot or anything along those lines. That’s what voters should care about: the substantive issues. On the other hand, even if he is found to be immune in the classified documents case, a voter shouldn’t care. A voter should want to know why he took the documents. If he did it because he was careless, or wanted trophies of his time in office or to help him in future business deals, that’s a reason to vote against him. 

    • #15
  16. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    W Bob (View Comment):

    I haven’t been paying a lot of attention to this immunity thing. I find it difficult to understand. How can a crime be an official act?

    Written that way, it can seem weird.  But reverse it and it makes sense.  How can an official act be a crime?  Essentially it can’t.  But the problem here is that the Dimocrats WANT IT TO BE.

    • #16
  17. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    cdor (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Jim George: On the Jack Smith appointment issue, one cannot read the Meese brief and come away with any other opinion but that there is a real argument, in my opinion a very strong argument, to be made that Garland’s appointment was absolutely lawless, a word which could be used to describe most of his term in office.

    Despite Justice Thomas’ dissent, that wasn’t part of the case. They are still arguing that in Judge Cannon’s courtroom.

    Jim was remarking on the aside that I brought up in my comment about Jack Smith.. I believe both of us are fully aware that Smith’s legitimacy was not a part of the immunity case. But thanks for pointing that out, Mr. Hill.

    It is correct to observe that the Justice Thomas opinion was not part of the majority ruling and as such should be considered dicta. However, it was not a dissent, it was a concurrence and given the enormous influence of Justice Thomas on the Court and the loud and clear message he sent about where the conservative members of the Court are likely to go, one may justifiably expect that Judge Cannon has assigned her law clerks to perform a thorough analysis of his opinion. Like so many of his opinions, if not all of his opinions, it reads like an American history lesson and leaves little or no doubt (the latter for me; I cannot see any other conclusion) that Garland’s lawless and ruthless appointment of this thug was unconstitutional and without any legal authority whatsoever. This may wind up being the most consequential 9 pages ever written by a Supreme Court Justice as it shows the world what a bunch of criminal hoodlums are running our major law enforcement agency and the utter disdain they have for the American people they theoretically serve. We now know they considered themselves to be a law unto themselves and the rule of law is in such better shape after Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion.

    I note, for what it’s worth, that My Lady’s and my admiration and respect for Justice Clarence Thomas knows no limits and we have had the inestimable good fortune of meeting him on two occasions. So, one would be entirely justified in taking my opinions above with a grain of salt as I find it very hard to be objective about a man we consider to be one of the greatest living Americans.

    • #17
  18. Painter Jean Moderator
    Painter Jean
    @PainterJean

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I read your title as Trump versus us–the people. And he’s the only one for us.

    “Only?” Really? I think putting all one’s faith and hopes into any one politician to be contrary to what the Founders envisioned. Americans should not put politicians up on pedestals.

    • #18
  19. EJHill Staff
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    kedavis: Written that way, it can seem weird. But reverse it and it makes sense. How can an official act be a crime? Essentially it can’t. But the problem here is that the Dimocrats WANT IT TO BE.

    Remember that the next time you want to accuse the current President of a crime.

    But in reality, an official act can still be considered a crime if it is outside the scope of the Constitution says the president is permitted to do. No one questions whether or not a president can order a domestic assassination. He cannot. It might be considered an “official” act and still be an unlawful one.

    • #19
  20. Susan Quinn Member
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I read your title as Trump versus us–the people. And he’s the only one for us.

    “Only?” Really? I think putting all one’s faith and hopes into any one politician to be contrary to what the Founders envisioned. Americans should not put politicians up on pedestals.

    I was comparing him to those running for president. I only meant it as a joke. Trust me–I don’t put Trump on a pedestal.

    • #20
  21. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Painter Jean (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    I read your title as Trump versus us–the people. And he’s the only one for us.

    “Only?” Really? I think putting all one’s faith and hopes into any one politician to be contrary to what the Founders envisioned. Americans should not put politicians up on pedestals.

    Please, with respect, inform me as to all the alternative possibilities we have in the upcoming election. I happen to wholeheartedly agree with Susan that he well and truly is the only one for us at this time in history and I fail to see how recognizing that reality is putting a politician up on a pedestal. Perhaps you know of another candidate out there who we should consider; although I try hard to keep up with the daily swirl – cyclone?– of fast moving events, I do not know of one. Please enlighten me as I’m just trying to learn. 

    • #21
  22. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    EJHill (View Comment):

    kedavis: Written that way, it can seem weird. But reverse it and it makes sense. How can an official act be a crime? Essentially it can’t. But the problem here is that the Dimocrats WANT IT TO BE.

    Remember that the next time you want to accuse the current President of a crime.

    But in reality, an official act can still be considered a crime if it is outside the scope of the Constitution says the president is permitted to do. No one questions whether or not a president can order a domestic assassination. He cannot. It might be considered an “official” act and still be an unlawful one.

    But you see, if it’s not authorized, it’s not an official act.  Ipso facto, as they say.

    Also, for example, the situation regarding FJB with classified documents is different from Trump, because Biden was doing that as Senator and VP when he had no such authority.

    • #22
  23. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Justice Sotomayor’s meandering dissent should not pass without comment.  While I can’t claim to have read every word, I’m left with the sense that it mirrors much of the commentary from the left that I’ve seen.  In short, one wonders if the authors really comprehended the majority decision.

    It’s pretty long, but, as a service to my friends at Ricochet, here’s the “best” part, as the Justice divines the future:

    Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark.  The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

    • #23
  24. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Justice Sotomayor’s meandering dissent should not pass without comment. While I can’t claim to have read every word, I’m left with the sense that it mirrors much of the commentary from the left that I’ve seen. In short, one wonders if the authors really comprehended the majority decision.

    It’s pretty long, but, as a service to my friends at Ricochet, here’s the “best” part, as the Justice divines the future:

    Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

    This passage is why someone on X/twitter with the handle of “Sunny” referred to Sotomayor as “a professional hysteric”.

    EDIT:

    • #24
  25. W Bob Member
    W Bob
    @WBob

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Justice Sotomayor’s meandering dissent should not pass without comment. While I can’t claim to have read every word, I’m left with the sense that it mirrors much of the commentary from the left that I’ve seen. In short, one wonders if the authors really comprehended the majority decision.

    It’s pretty long, but, as a service to my friends at Ricochet, here’s the “best” part, as the Justice divines the future:

    Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

    If I recall, at the lower court level when Trump’s lawyer was pressed about the seal team scenario, he said yes the president should be immune for that. 

    I don’t think a president should be immune for assassinating someone just because he uses the military to do it. If you agree, then how does that scenario differ from what is being contemplated in the majority opinion?

    • #25
  26. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    W Bob (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Justice Sotomayor’s meandering dissent should not pass without comment. While I can’t claim to have read every word, I’m left with the sense that it mirrors much of the commentary from the left that I’ve seen. In short, one wonders if the authors really comprehended the majority decision.

    It’s pretty long, but, as a service to my friends at Ricochet, here’s the “best” part, as the Justice divines the future:

    Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

    If I recall, at the lower court level when Trump’s lawyer was pressed about the seal team scenario, he said yes the president should be immune for that.

    I don’t think a president should be immune for assassinating someone just because he uses the military to do it. If you agree, then how does that scenario differ from what is being contemplated in the majority opinion?

    Says Justice Sotomayor:  “. . . he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?”

    I’d say  most of the critics of this decision are missing the distinction between “official” and “unofficial” acts.  If the President deploys “Seal Team Six” to assassinate an ISIS terrorist in the interest of national defense, this is an “official” act.  It seems obvious that the assassination of a political rival is patently not an “official” act.  Critics of the decision are incorrectly contending that the case confers blanket immunity on the President for any action while in office.

    • #26
  27. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    W Bob (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Justice Sotomayor’s meandering dissent should not pass without comment. While I can’t claim to have read every word, I’m left with the sense that it mirrors much of the commentary from the left that I’ve seen. In short, one wonders if the authors really comprehended the majority decision.

    It’s pretty long, but, as a service to my friends at Ricochet, here’s the “best” part, as the Justice divines the future:

    Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

    If I recall, at the lower court level when Trump’s lawyer was pressed about the seal team scenario, he said yes the president should be immune for that.

    I don’t think a president should be immune for assassinating someone just because he uses the military to do it. If you agree, then how does that scenario differ from what is being contemplated in the majority opinion?

    Says Justice Sotomayor: ” . . . he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?

    I’d say most of the critics of this decision are missing the distinction between “official” and “unofficial” acts. If the President deploys “Seal Team Six” to assassinate an ISIS terrorist in the interest of national defense, this is an “official” act. It seems obvious that the assassination of a political rival is patently not an “official” act. Critics of the decision are incorrectly contending that the case confers blanket immunity on the President for any action while in office.

    Testing my memory I checked the UCMJ online:

    So, can a person in the military simply refuse to follow an order if they don’t like it?

    The answer is yes — if they consider the order itself to be illegal or unconstitutional.

    It’s generally called a “duty to disobey,” and is empowered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is more concerned about the need to obey orders, but specifies the conditions when military personnel may feel justified in not following them:

    • If the order is “contrary to the constitution” or “the laws of the United States.”
    • If the order is “patently illegal, … such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”
    • #27
  28. Old Bathos Member
    Old Bathos
    @OldBathos

    Moderator Note:

    Even disguised profanity is profanity. Please don't do this again.

    Jack Smith, Fani Willis, Alvin Bragg, judges Engeron & Merchan, the Mueller team are Exhibit A for why the legal system and much else cannot function unless the professionals value honor, integrity and both the substance and public perception of the law. It is simply weird that SCOTUS is making finely tuned decisions about specific issues as if the larger context of these charges were not complete [redacted] brought by scumbags.

    • #28
  29. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    EJHill (View Comment):

    I find all of your takes on the court’s ruling fascinating.

    You mean you find them repellant and threatening. Don’t go all squishy on us.

    • #29
  30. Jim George Member
    Jim George
    @JimGeorge

    Moderator Note:

    Even disguised profanity is profanity. Please don't do this again.

    Django (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    W Bob (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    Justice Sotomayor’s meandering dissent should not pass without comment. While I can’t claim to have read every word, I’m left with the sense that it mirrors much of the commentary from the left that I’ve seen. In short, one wonders if the authors really comprehended the majority decision.

    It’s pretty long, but, as a service to my friends at Ricochet, here’s the “best” part, as the Justice divines the future:

    Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

    If I recall, at the lower court level when Trump’s lawyer was pressed about the seal team scenario, he said yes the president should be immune for that.

    I don’t think a president should be immune for assassinating someone just because he uses the military to do it. If you agree, then how does that scenario differ from what is being contemplated in the majority opinion?

    Says Justice Sotomayor: ” . . . he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?

    I’d say most of the critics of this decision are missing the distinction between “official” and “unofficial” acts. If the President deploys “Seal Team Six” to assassinate an ISIS terrorist in the interest of national defense, this is an “official” act. It seems obvious that the assassination of a political rival is patently not an “official” act. Critics of the decision are incorrectly contending that the case confers blanket immunity on the President for any action while in office.

    Testing my memory I checked the UCMJ online:

    So, can a person in the military simply refuse to follow an order if they don’t like it?

    The answer is yes — if they consider the order itself to be illegal or unconstitutional.

    It’s generally called a “duty to disobey,” and is empowered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The UCMJ is more concerned about the need to obey orders, but specifies the conditions when military personnel may feel justified in not following them:

    • If the order is “contrary to the constitution” or “the laws of the United States.”
    • If the order is “patently illegal, … such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”

    Here is what Julie Kelley had to say on Twitter about this [            ] of a “Justice” of the Highest Court in the land:

    It is impossible to overstate how [redacted] stupid Sonia Sotomayor is. The real question is, did she cry after she wrote this  Image Image ·343.8KViews

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.