2024-07-01 17:11:16
SCOTUS didn't ruled that President has total immunity on all matters as suggested by writer here. SCOTUS ruled that President has immunity on all official acts not private. Source:- [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(62-3-37) Author
2024-07-01 17:38:28
It's misleading to indirectly imply that the SCOTUS ruling grants total immunity. In fact, the ruling states the opposite: presidents are NOT immune from prosecution for their private acts, but are immune when it comes to official acts. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(86-9-35) Author
2024-07-01 17:56:25
The post refers to presidential inmunity, alas, what is done not as a private one, but as president, so it is accurate to resemble it to an absolutist King ruling. NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(16-5-60) Author
2024-07-01 20:10:33
The Court remands to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan for further (appealable) fact-finding. So there isn't total immunity but presumptive immunity for official acts. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(24-4-22) Author
2024-07-01 20:20:11
The court upheld Absolute Immunity, which describes the complete immunity all Presidents enjoy from civil damages for official actions taken while in office, that was established in the case of Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982). [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(32-2-23) Author
2024-07-01 21:04:50
Insinuating “total Presidential immunity” to mean the President can do anything without regard for penalties under the law is explicitly stated in the court’s 7/1 ruling to not be the case. Only “official duties” (prescribed by The Constitution) are covered under immunity. [Link][Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(50-3-27) Author
2024-07-01 21:19:25
The Supreme Court ruling explicitly does not grant “total presidential immunity” like a “King.” It differentiates between official actions taken as president (immune) vs as a private citizen (not immune.) [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(82-2-31) Author
2024-07-02 17:10:04
Nancy is referring to Trump's claim to total immunity and it being contrary to our constitution. Nancy is saying that Scotus has allowed for far too much leeway by this ruling even with their defference to the lower court for clarification. [Link] NEEDS_MORE_RATINGS(0-0-5) Author