Reality check: this was the only ruling the Court could have come up with

[brooklynite]

They weren't going to say a President has absolute immunity.

They ALSO weren't going to say a President has no immunity.

They couldn't rule on which aspects of the Jack Smith prosecution fell into "official" vs "unofficial" acts because those matters haven't been litigated yet (the SC is not a finder of facts). Hence the remand.

[intrepidity]

1. So, you disagree with the 3 "liberal" justices?

Noted.

[BannonsLiver]

8. He's just here to lay some truth on us plebs

If that truth always aligns with anything establishment and whatever the national political media narrative is at the moment, then that’s just a coincidence.

I also learned from the OP our corporate media like the NYT and Politico are completely infallible. Who knew?

[PatSeg]

11. Op made a reasonable point

Though the Supreme Court should have never taken the case in the first place. It is so obvious that it was always a delay tactic.

[BannonsLiver]

12. Start a fan club then.

[PatSeg]

15. No thanks

I can agree with something a person says without agreeing with everything they say.

Once again, it was a reasonable point and it is also reasonable to conclude that the Supreme Court should have sent the case back to the lower courts. It was painfully obvious that they were only trying to delay the Florida trial. Hopefully, you realize that I was NOT defending the Supreme Court.

[Polybius]

20. I'm in n/t

[intrepidity]

14. Except the dissenting opinion criticizes the actual decision

and not the fact that SCOTUS agreed to hear it.

I'll trust 3 SC justices discretion more than that of OP.

[PatSeg]

16. Understandable

But I am not going to go after a DUer for expressing a reasonable opinion, even if I am inclined to agree with the more liberal voices on the court. I am sure those justices would have preferred that the case had never been taken up in the first place.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. In broad terms, I agree, however

They didn’t have to write the ruling to exclude presidential conversations with advisors or presidential motives from evidence.

[dalton99a]

9. +1

[Think. Again.]

3. Bullshit.

They could have found that the laws of the land apply to all and that presidential pardon power remains in place.

[rampartc]

4. there is another possibility

article 2 requires the president to "faithfully execute the law. " if he breaks the law he is already outside that parameter and can not be performing an official duty.

[brooklynite]

6. Yes, but Trump hasn't "broken the law".....

...in the eyes of the Court. He awaits prosecution and judgement.

[Goodheart]

5. Nonsense

Read the dissents.

[SARose]

7. Question

Trump campaign spent more than $2 million on election lawyers, including Jenna Ellis
By Aram Roston and Brad Heath
December 4, 2020

The FEC filing, which covers the period from Oct. 15 through Nov. 23, classified about $8.8 million in expenses as "recount" related.

Legal consulting was the campaign’s second-biggest recount expense, according to the disclosure report. The first was $3 million to pay the cost of a partial recount in Wisconsin that ended up increasing Biden’s lead by 87 votes. The third largest recount expense was nearly $2.2 million for text message advertising as the campaign bombarded his supporters with requests for money.

Snip
The legal effort has been a powerful fundraising tool. Trump’s campaign reported that it had raised more than $207 million since the election.
Trump’s attorneys have mounted a series of lawsuits in battleground states, hoping to persuade state and federal judges to overturn President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the November election. Despite the president’s repeated, and unsubstantiated, claims that the election was “rigged,” the court cases have focused on more narrow claims of mail-in voting irregularities.

Snip

More

Is this the out Robert’s left for Jack Smith?

If Cheeto man paid attorneys from campaign donor funds to overturn the 2020 election, does their work qualify as campaign related?

If so, does Jack Smith have a stronger case now?

Hmmm

[Silent Type]

10. Basically agree. We tend to -- and I guess have to -- look at things in the context of does it help/hurt trump.

The courts were never going to help us beat trump in an election. The ruling makes sense once trump is dead.

[kentuck]

13. So, it is remanded back to Judge Chutkan and the Appeals Court?

Can she not immediately call for a trial, with directions to the jury that a president cannot be charged for official duties of his office, and that it is up to the discretion of the jury about what is "official" and what is "private"?

Knowing beforehand that the former criminal-in-chief will appeal it to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court will have to clarify once and for all what is criminal and what is not?

Judge Chutkan's hands should not be tied with an ambiguous ruling such as this from the Imperial Supreme Court.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. "This is a devastating blow to our system of government."

I strongly disagree with OP and I agree with Prof. Tribe

Link to tweet

[ScratchCat]

18. More from the dissent

In sum, the majority today endorses an expansive vision of Presidential immunity that was never recognized by the Founders, any sitting President, the Executive Branch, or even President Trump’s lawyers, until now. Settled understandings of the Constitution are of little use to the majority in this case, and so it ignores them.

I've seen others who read the decision mention this too - they didn't even argue this in the appeal.

[maxrandb]

19. Different "reality" check

This country survived 240 years of Presidents from numerous parties, with diverse ideologies, without having to adjudicate that no one is above the law, and that the president was subject to the same laws that my plumber is.

This standard was so implicit in the documents, debates, doctrines and laws that formed our country, that it was like the act of breathing. You didn't need to plan to breath, you just did it. No man was above the law, because, of course, no man is above the law.

Despite all the "nuanced" arguments and legalistic language being thrown around, the vast majority of Americans just witnessed another 6-3 court decision, split along partisan lines where the OBVIOUS benefit of said decision serves ONE PARTISAN INTEREST.

Excuse me, but the "reality" of this travesty needs no checking.

The presidency is significantly "different" today than it was yesterday. That's reality.

The relationship between the presidency and the people, is significantly "different" today than it was yesterday. That's reality.

The standards under which a president has been expected to conduct themselves is significantly different today than it was yesterday. That's reality.

And that "new" reality is for all future presidents. Hard to imagine, but there may even be someone more morally bankrupt than Donnie Dipshit that could ascend to our highest office. That's reality.

In the Navy we used to say; "don't blow smoke up my ass and tell me it's a sea breeze"

[harumph]

22. Thank you for cutting through the focus-group-speak bullshit.

[bluestarone]

21. So, OPEN and SHUT ruling?

WHY so God DAM long in making it? THAT is what they had 100% planned!!