You may have noticed that I changed the title of my post from “Daily” Broadside to “The Broadside.” It’s apparent to me that as much as I want this to be a daily, it’s been a challenge over the last couple of years to figure out the right mix of priorities in life to make it happen, not to mention the unexpected circumstances that sometimes frustrate my intentions.
So I’m conceding to the reality that I can’t easily make it a daily post and relieving myself (and you) of the expectations the title promised. The change gives me the cover to write as often as I can and when I miss—well, it’s not promising to be daily now, is it?
The best news yesterday was that SCOTUS ruled that U.S. presidents have blanket immunity that covers their “core” acts; their “official” acts may or may not be covered; and “unofficial” acts, have no immunity.
From Ace who knows a whole lot more about this than I do:
The Supreme Court did what many expected it would do: It recognized that presidential immunity exists, but only for certain official actions taken by the president.
First of all, the Court notes that previous decisions have held there is no presidential immunity when it comes to subpoenas for evidence. But the Court rules that these precedents are limited to the case of subpeonaeing records, and do not rule out immunity to criminal prosecution.
It broke the scheme of presidential acts into three categories:
“Core” official acts, which I assume are presidential actions taken in furtherance of the president’s specified duties in the Constitution. So a President could never be prosecuted for conducting foreign policy or directing the military.
“Official” acts, which may or may not qualify for immunity. Which acts are “official” and which of those “official” acts will qualify for immunity has to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, “unofficial” acts are those that the president undertakes not in furtherance of a presidential power, but only in his capacity as an individual. These never qualify for immunity.
So what this does is puts it back to the lower court to determine what sort of “acts” Trump is being prosecuted for. Were they “Core” acts? “Official” acts? “Unofficial” or personal acts? And how will such acts be defined?
In any case, this will likely push the window for prosecuting Trump past the November election; it certainly stops Jack Smith’s case dead in its tracks.
The usual suspects were pulling out all stops, including Schmuck Chumer.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) criticized the “MAGA SCOTUS” on Monday after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of former President Donald Trump in his case against January 6th prosecutors.
Former President Donald Trump is facing charges in Washington, D.C., filed by Special Counsel Jack Smith concerning his actions on January 6, 2021, when rioters stormed the Capitol. Trump contends that he is immune from prosecution for his official duties.
As previously reported, the Court ruled that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts but not for unofficial acts. The case has been sent back to the trial court to determine the distinction between the two.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer led Democrats in expressing outrage over the 6-3 decision, in which the conservative majority was led by Chief Justice John Roberts. In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Schumer blamed the three justices appointed by Trump.
Cry moar, Schmuck.