Amy Coney Barrett Breaks With Supreme Court Over Trump

[riversedge]

Source: newsweek

Story by Katherine Fung 1h



Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke with the Supreme Court on its ruling in the case of former President Donald Trump's immunity claims.

The court finally ruled on presidential immunity Monday, issuing a 6-3 decision that agreed former presidents have immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts but not for unofficial acts. The decision came more than nine weeks after the case was argued before the justices and was the final ruling this term.

The Supreme Court's decision overturns the February appeals court ruling that rejected Trump's immunity claims. The three-judge panel for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for D.C. found that immunity does not apply to Trump because he is no longer president. Judge Tanya Chutkan, the district judge overseeing the case, had also denied Trump's request earlier this year.




..........The fight over Trump's "absolute immunity" claim has stalled the trial in the federal election interference case, which was scheduled to begin March 4. Monday's ruling is anticipated to impact Trump's other federal case and the case in Fulton County. It does not change the verdict in Manhattan.................



Read more: https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-breaks-supreme-court-over-trump-1915444

[MLAA]

1. I thought the vote was along typical lines. If was 6-3 with the three against being

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. I think Coney Barrett voted for the ruling just had some issues on how the determination of person vs presidential actions should be addressed.

[ZonkerHarris]

2. where's the link? The forum has rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. Meh - she sided with the other 5 conservatives, just gave her own opinion

In a concurring opinion, Barrett, a Trump appointee, said that while she agreed with the court's opinion at large, she disagreed with one part of the ruling that held the Constitution prevents protected conduct from being introduced as evidence in a criminal prosecution against a former president, siding with the bench's three liberals instead.

"I disagree with that holding; on this score, I agree with the dissent," Barrett wrote. "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable."

"To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability," the justice said.

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-breaks-supreme-court-over-trump-1915444

[highplainsdem]

4. Misleading headline. She concurred with the ruling in general, disagreed with only one part.

MSN copy of the Newsweek.article:

https://www.msn.com/en-nz/news/politics/amy-coney-barrett-breaks-with-supreme-court-over-trump/ar-BB1pdDfm

In a concurring opinion, Barrett, a Trump appointee, said that while she agreed with the court's opinion at large, she disagreed with one part of the ruling that held the Constitution prevents protected conduct from being introduced as evidence in a criminal prosecution against a former president, siding with the bench's three liberals instead.

"I disagree with that holding; on this score, I agree with the dissent," Barrett wrote. "The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable."

"To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President's criminal liability," the justice said.

[intrepidity]

7. That's an important part to disagree with, though

Too bad she didn't disagree enough to not sign on. Although outcome would remain the same.

[colorado_ufo]

5. A dissent and $3 will get you a "Tall" at Starbucks.

Whoop-dee-frickin-doo.

[Captain Zero]

11. Roberts probably wanted to go with the 3, but he knew Coney would go with him?

Just a feeling I have. I don't think Roberts can possibly be happy with the legacy his court is headed toward.

[GB_RN]

6. So, This Goes BACK To Chutkan...

To hold a hearing on whether inciting the riot was an official act. When she rules against him, Cantaloupe Caligula the Corpulent will appeal, lose at the DC Court of Appeals and then appeal again to SCOTUS. Any bets on them ruling for/against? I’m willing to bet that, assuming he loses the election, they’ll save his ass again. If he wins, then it’s all over anyway. And then we lose our democratic republic as he becomes the dick-tater he wants to be. 🤬🤬🤬👎👎👎🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

And gods help Ukraine, because he/we won’t.🤬🤬🤬

[riversedge]

8. Link inserted now {edited to insert link]

mods informed me I forgot link.

https://www.newsweek.com/amy-coney-barrett-breaks-supreme-court-over-trump-1915444

[Miguelito Loveless]

9. Corporate Media again providing cover for fascists

with misleading headline. Her dissent was a distinction without a difference.

[FBaggins]

12. It wasn't even a dissent

It was a concurring opinion.

Hardly the stuff of "breaks"

[prodigitalson]

10. total bullshit headline

technically true but substantively erroneous