General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsunweird
(2,939 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(17,982 posts)That is not the ruling of the court.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)(3) As for a Presidents unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Alt-
hough Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure
that the Presidents decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of
future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not
support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694,
and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predi-
cated on the Presidents unofficial acts. P. 15.
(b) The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled
to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official
from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that
distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in partic-
ular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is
a court of final review and not first view. Zivotofsky v. Clinton, 566
U. S. 189, 201. Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differ-
entiate between a Presidents official and unofficial actions, and how
to do so with respect to the indictments extensive and detailed allega-
tions covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on
those issues. Pp. 1632.
bearsfootball516
(6,457 posts)Think. Again.
(17,115 posts)That's good, isn't it?
Irish_Dem
(55,825 posts)Think. Again.
(17,115 posts)...some kind of trial to determine if any particular act is "official" or "unofficial".
Irish_Dem
(55,825 posts)They just did it this way to sound like they are fair.
Buns_of_Fire
(17,783 posts)will have to dance around whether such-and-such is an "official" act or not -- a decision which will probably wind up being bounced right back to the Supremes. (IANAL)