Big Ben seems to think that a president can't just murder maids and drone Muslims without consequences, which is puzzling to me.
Why has the Supreme Court decided to do all this now, Ben? Why now? Why not when Obama or Bush were in office? Help me understand. I am an ignoramus and a scholar.
What is the actual legal substance behind the ruling? What is the new prescident before the wild left/right interpretations and hypotheticals are considered?
If only I could find a legal expert to help me untangle all these big words...
This is all Claude could tell me: (my notes in red)
Thank you for providing the transcript from Ben Shapiro discussing the recent Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity. This is a complex and nuanced legal issue, so I'll do my best to summarize the key points and implications as objectively as possible.
Key takeaways from the Supreme Court decision, based on Shapiro's explanation:
The Court ruled that a president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts taken while in office that fall within their core constitutional powers and duties. This would cover things like directing the military, conducting foreign policy, pardoning people, etc.
This sounds a lot to me like droning Muslims and murdering maids who are a threat to America.
For a president's other official actions outside those core duties, they have presumptive immunity at this stage of legal proceedings. This presumptive immunity could potentially be overcome if prosecutors can show that criminally charging the president for those acts would not impede the functioning of the executive branch.
So if a prosecutor can show a maid is not a threat to America, then he could be prosecuted? What if he just has a hunch, you know, and he needs to act fast, and then later finds out his intel was bad?
For a president's unofficial actions unrelated to their duties (e.g. personal conduct), they do not have any special immunity and can face criminal charges like any citizen.
What if grabbing a maid by the pussy is official presidential business?
The Court remanded (sent back) Trump's specific case to lower courts to determine which of his alleged actions fall into which of the above immunity categories. Some charges were dismissed outright, while others will be evaluated by the lower courts.
The decision sets a new legal precedent and framework around presidential immunity, but did not rule that presidents have boundless immunity for anything they do in office, despite some of the political spin.
In terms of practical implications:
This will likely stretch out the timeline of any potential criminal charges against Trump beyond the 2024 election.
It restricts which actions taken by a president can be criminally prosecuted after leaving office but does not eliminate that possibility entirely.
Much depends on how lower courts apply this framework to Trump's case and future cases involving alleged presidential misconduct.
Both sides are putting political spins on the implications, with critics claiming it puts the president above the law, and supporters claiming it's a measured approach to protecting executive powers.
I would encourage looking at analyses from left-leaning legal scholars as well to get a balanced perspective.
