This is how I think the SC will rule on presidential immunity.

[wnylib]

A lot of time was spent in the court arguments regarding immunity for official acts versus non-official, or personal acts.

I believe that the court will rule that there is immunity for official acts and none for personal acts, but will include a requirement to first determine in hearings that an act is either official or personal.

This will lead to endless discussions of how to define official acts. The court will require that it be defined and that each count against Trump be subjected to hearings to determine whether each and every count fits the definition.

Nothing will be resolved on those counts, until long after Trump is dead and gone from natural causes. Therefore, he will never face trials on the federal cases, just an endless series of hearings and appeals.

[50 Shades Of Blue]

1. Sounds about right.

[VMA131Marine]

2. While you may be correct

This would lead to enormous leeway for a President to commit crimes while performing official acts.

Was Trump’s call with Raffensberger an official act?
How about the one with Zelenskyy?

What about Nixon’s conduct in Watergate?

I really hope you are wrong.

[wnylib]

3. I agree with you on what it will lead to.

I also agree in hoping that I am wrong, but after listening to the arguments, that's what it seems to boil down to.

[EndlessWire]

11. They just seem awfully stupid.

Some of the stuff he did while he wasn't even in office.

[Freethinker65]

4. Nixonian. If a President does it, it is an official act, thus not illegal.

So no reason to pardon him?

[wnylib]

10. That's not the direction that the arguments took.

What you described would be blanket immunity and most of the Justices did not seem to lean that way, although Alito did, IMO.

The discussion around official acts was in regard to responsibilities specifically given to the president in the Constitution. The attorney for DOJ, who opposes Trump attorneys, said that those are core responsibilities that would constitute official acts not done for self or personal gain.

Under that definition, Trump's behavior in regard to J6 and the documents would not be official acts and could be charged as crimes for personal gain.

But, some behaviors in regard to official acts are in a gray area. What if the president commits a crime in the role of Commander in Chief, which is an official role designated in the Constitution. What guidelines do you use to decide if it is a crime or just an error in judgment? One guide is if the action violates established law and cannot be justified.

So, a lot hinges on how the SC rules regarding official acts versus personal gain acts that are criminal in nature.

[walkingman]

5. That has been the goal all along. These people have always been above the law. Always.

[C Moon]

6. It's obvious that the well-to-do are above the law...we've seen it over and over.

[Hamlette]

7. This has always been a requirement when we've considering charging a president.

They talked about charging Obama after he used drones to kill a couple of terrorists. And yes, as mentioned, it was much discussed with Nixon. There were very few who thought Nixon was right when he said "if the President does it, it's legal." In fact, I'd be surprised if this very issues was discussed, and decided against Trump, in the last two decisions in this case on this issue.

The world has gone mad. If they do remand it, the issue is, who decides? The jury or the judge and if the court says the judge decides, will the Court allow another interlocutory appeal on the same damned issue? (The case argued today was an interlocutory appeal which is so rarely granted it's shocking.). Someone on the court (or 2 or 3 or more) think this case should not go to trial.

My question is, can Roberts keep them in check?

[Bucky]

8. I read this thinking you would say 6-3 or 5-4

[ancianita]

9. And an utter refusal to read the criminal statutes will lead to this Rube Goldberg busyness.

Then when Trump's gone the nation will never again see his like.

Guess it will lay down the law to stupid oily-garchs just who/what they can/can't get away with for all time. Maybe. (I'm recalling how they conveniently said 'abortion' isn't in the Constitution, then completey ignored that 'absolute immunity' isn't in it, either -- the attitude that "anything not expressly forbidden is permitted" in line with Wilhoit's Law. )