Embed Notice

HTML Code

<blockquote style="position: relative; padding-left: 55px;"><section><a href="https://journa.host/users/chrisgeidner/statuses/112711830085405517">Chris Geidner (chrisgeidner@journa.host)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jul-2024 00:02:15 JST</a><a href="https://journa.host/@chrisgeidner" title="chrisgeidner@journa.host"><img src="https://gnusocial.jp/avatar/75697-48-20240516135537.webp" width="48" height="48" alt="Chris Geidner" style="position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0;">Chris Geidner</a><div><a href="https://journa.host/@chrisgeidner/112711810209337551" rel="in-reply-to">in reply to</a></div></section><article><p>From Sotomayor's dissent:</p></article><footer><a rel="bookmark" href="https://gnusocial.jp/conversation/3316623#notice-6534473">In conversation</a><time datetime="2024-07-02T00:02:15+09:00" title="Tuesday, 02-Jul-2024 00:02:15 JST">about 5 months ago</time> <span>from <span><a href="https://journa.host/@chrisgeidner/112711830085405517" rel="external" title="Sent from journa.host via ActivityPub">journa.host</a></span></span><a href="https://journa.host/@chrisgeidner/112711830085405517">permalink</a><h4>Attachments</h4><ol><li><label><a rel="external" href="https://gnusocial.jp/attachment/2853985">The Court now confronts a question it has never had to
answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President
enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The
majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual,
ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the Pres-
ident above the law.
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, com-
pletely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First,
the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s
exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. ... it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which
is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].”
Ante, at 14. ... Finally, the majority declares that evidence con-
cerning acts for which the President is immune can play no
role in any criminal prosecution against him. That holding, which will prevent the Government
from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or
intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical.</a></label><br><a href="https://assets.journa.host/media_attachments/files/112/711/829/850/670/448/original/270a0bc4c37cfe34.png" rel="external">https://assets.journa.host/media_attachments/files/112/711/829/850/670/448/original/270a0bc4c37cfe34.png</a></li></ol></footer></blockquote>

Corresponding Notice

Embed this notice
Chris Geidner (chrisgeidner@journa.host)'s status on Tuesday, 02-Jul-2024 00:02:15 JST Chris Geidner
in reply to
From Sotomayor's dissent:
In conversationabout 5 months ago from journa.hostpermalink
Attachments
1. The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the Pres- ident above the law. The majority makes three moves that, in effect, com- pletely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. ... it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. ... Finally, the majority declares that evidence con- cerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical.
  https://assets.journa.host/media_attachments/files/112/711/829/850/670/448/original/270a0bc4c37cfe34.png

Public

Embed Notice

HTML Code

Corresponding Notice