Legal analyst: Supreme Court 'concerned about where to draw the line for future presidents'
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade spoke with MSNBC’s Alex Witt on the recent Supreme Court decisions and her prediction on Donald Trump’s immunity ruling.
» Subscribe to MSNBC: / msnbc
Download our new MSNBC app for the latest breaking news and daily headlines at a glance: www.msnbc.com/...
Follow MSNBC Show Blogs
MaddowBlog: www.msnbc.com/...
ReidOut Blog: www.msnbc.com/...
MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House, The ReidOut, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and Alex Wagner who brings her breadth of reporting experience to MSNBC primetime. Watch “Alex Wagner Tonight” Tuesday through Friday at 9pm Eastern.
Connect with MSNBC Online
Visit msnbc.com: www.msnbc.com/
Subscribe to the MSNBC Daily Newsletter: link.msnbc.com...
Find MSNBC on Facebook: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Twitter: / msnbc
Follow MSNBC on Instagram: / msnbc
#SupremeCourt #Trump #Immunity
How hard can this case be. No one deserves absolute immunity. 🤷♂️
Indeed, absolute immunity = a dictator. The right wing extremists ON THIS DISCREDITED bench don't want the current POTUS to have any extra legal muscle. But they would damned well love to grant a big GET OUTTA JAIL FREE card to TFG for all his past & future law breaking! 😂😆😄🤡😡
This question wasn't an issue before Trump came on the scene.
He's that bird in your nest that isn't one of yours. Your chicks were pushed over the side and fell to their deaths decades ago. Cloud Cuckoo land, straight from the mouth of DJT to voters.
SCOTUS will rule how and when Trump tells them to.
actually, it was.
Back during the Nixon era the SCOTUS ruled that the president had full immunity from all civil prosecutions relating to decisions he made while in office.
So that is really where the issue arises. if the POTUS has immunity from all civil prosecution then why not also criminal? the reasoning is exactly the same, that being that ist is up to Congress to judge the President's actions, not the courts.
@@ryant2568do you really not understand why potus has immunity in civil and not criminal?
@@JoeSmith-xu2zs explain it to me?
The reason the SCOTUS gave when they made the ruling on civil immunity was that the Constitution clearly outlines that it is the role of Congress to judge the President, not the courts.
Does this same line of thinking not also apply to criminal prosecutions?
Also, the reason Ford actually pardoned Nixon was to avoid this vary question.
I can’t believe this is even a question!! 🤬
Lots of immunity coming for Trump!
you are so right!
It's USA.
@@Paul-mg8fzNot just for Trump. For Biden, Obama, Bush, & Clinton too! For all future presidents! Be careful what you wish for bc you may get it!
the question exists because the Constitution says that it is up to Congress to judge the President's actions.
also, keep in mind that a president already has immunity from all civil prosecution for this exact reason. So why not also criminal?
The average American only makes $1.7 million in income over their LIFETIME. That's 30% less than the $2.4 million Justice Thomas failed to report to either the IRS or the Chief Justice, who must make the disclosures public! Try not reporting that lifetime of income to the IRS and you’ll end up like Wesley Snipes. The whole lot of "gifts" should have been timely reported to Chief Justice Roberts and the forgiveness of the $250k RV loan certainly qualifies as reportable income for tax purposes.
Well, Marc Elias of Democracy Docket and who has argued several cases before the SC recently asked the question, "Why are they allowed to receive any gifts at all?". That the real issue is not the disclosure of gifts, but that they are accepting them at all.
@@marshcreek4355 Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2C, Ch. 6 § 620.35 Acceptance of Gifts by a Judicial Officer or Employee; Exceptions (a) (b) A judicial officer or employee is not permitted to accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court or other entity served by the judicial officer or employee, or from any other person whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the judicial officer’s or employee’s official duties. Notwithstanding this general rule, a judicial officer or employee may accept a gift from a donor identified above in the following circumstances: (1) the gift is made incident to a public testimonial and is fairly commensurate with the occasion; the gift consists of books, calendars, or other resource materials related to the official duties of the judicial officer or employee that are supplied on a complimentary basis, so long as acceptance of the gift does not create an appearance of impropriety; the gift consists of an invitation and travel expenses, including the cost of transportation, lodging, and meals for the officer or employee and a family member (or other person with whom the officer or employee maintains both a household and an intimate relationship) to attend a bar-related function, an educational activity, or an activity devoted to the improvement of the law, the legal system, or the administration of justice; the gift is from a relative or friend, if the relative’s or friend’s appearance or interest in a matter would in any event require that the officer or employee take no official action with respect to the matter, or if the gift is made in connection with a special occasion, such as a wedding, anniversary, or birthday, and the gift is fairly commensurate with the occasion and the relationship; the gift consists of meals, lodgings, transportation, and other benefits customarily provided by a prospective employer in connection with bona fide employment discussions, so long as conflicts of interest are avoided; in the case of a judicial officer or employee who has obtained employment to commence after judicial employment ends, the gift consists of reimbursement of relocation and bar-related expenses customarily paid by the employer, so long as conflicts of interest are avoided; the gift is incident to the business, profession or other separate activity of the officer or employee or the spouse or other family member of an officer or employee residing in the officer’s or employee’s household, including gifts for the use of both the spouse or other family member and the officer or employee (as spouse or family member), so long as the gift is of the type customarily provided to others in similar circumstances and is not offered or enhanced because of the judicial officer’s or employee’s official position; or the gift (other than cash or investment interests) is to a judicial officer or employee other than a judge or a member of a judge’s personal staff and has an aggregate market value of $50 or less per occasion, provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts accepted from any one person under the authority of this subsection does not exceed $100 in a calendar year.
I think this has to be investigated between Crow and Mr.& Mrs.Thomas. They have to establish that this was a quid pro quo (this for that) agreement and what the precise terms of it are. I would want to know if Harlan Crow had ever lived in that house? I'd like to know a lot of things, but doesn't seem we will.
@@ardentynekent2099 the tax evasion must be prosecuted without question
@@marshcreek4355 indeed. They should be subject to the same limits on gifts as the rest of the federal government. It makes no sense for them to have special rules just for them.
Congress has the power to actually do this but Congress is split and dysfunctional at the moment.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Definitely! The Court has already dug the ditch far deeper than those of us who saw the Capitol attack for what it was believed possible. It can only stop digging by deciding the case, and only the case, before it, denying Trump's immunity claim. It's a Court, not a legislature.
Draw the line at the constitution. No one is above the law.
Joe Biden has been above the law…and we all know that to be true.
I miss the constitution.
We should bring it back.
if there is no line then obama could be arrested for murder
A president is LITTERALLY above the law
😂 the constitution says " shall not be infringed" .or no not that part of the Constitution??
Here's where to draw the line. NO
ONE is above the law! Period.
The Dems need to change their catch phrase to. "no one is beyond the reach of our lawfare"
@@BillBarr4President "the dems". who taught you how to speak ? are you one of "the fascists" ?
@@xdecroix How cute, calling me a fascist while cheering on the imprisonment of your political opponents.
@@BillBarr4President oh so now you know me, my affiliation and what I cheer for. Thanks for the proof of intelligence. I wasn't sure by just reading your "name". I'm not even american, you dummy.
@@BillBarr4PresidentCorrection: jailing of CRIMINALS. The fact that said criminals are pursuing political office to keep themselves out of jail doesn't make them less criminal.
What happened to the Constitution? A group of unelected judges determining the future of America, its people, and democracy. Sick
😂😂😂The Supreme Court is the Constitution
Thank you. Most are blatant liars. Sick
@@Paul-mg8fz Or at least their individual interpretations of it. No chance of that going awry, RIGHT?!
@@janetkriegl6720 they are the experts, not a bunch of whiny, bitter Libs.
It is sick and they are showing us who they are…ready to throw the United Statues into a dictatorship, and we should believe them.
The Supreme Court has no business deciding the immunity case with respect to the interests of "future presidents". The job of the Supreme Court -- or any court -- is to decide the case in front of it. Therefore the only relevant question is whether the president has immunity for illegal acts taken in an attempt to overthrow the result of a free and fair election.
Thank you. It needed to be said.
The Chief Justice has a lot to answer for...He has no control over his other 5 cohorts
@@Frenzy2409 You bring up an interesting point. The Chief Justice has never had a great deal of formal power. But it used to be that the Chief Justice was recognized as the person was charged with protecting the institutional integrity of the Court. and whose views had to therefore be given a great deal of respect. (The most famous example is perhaps Chief Justice Earl Warren, who successfully convinced a potential dissenter from Brown v. Board of Education that the Court's opinion had to be unanimous.) But ever since the Chief Justiceship of Warren Burger, whom none of the other Justices respected, the power of the Chief Justice has evaporated.
I’m wondering if the future leader of the extreme court has announced herself
They just had to deny certiorari to this case. The Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit came up with a solid foundation in law to deny immunity. But either Thomas or Samuel convinced them to take the case. PROSECUTE CLARENCE AND SAMUEL FOR FAILURE TO PAY TAXES!
The lack of urgency shows us SCOTUS is "dragging their feet".
The last time there was a question on the limitations of the power of the POTUS before the SCOTUS they took almost a year to rule.
You have to remember this decision is not just about Trump, it will affect every POTUS into the future.
Beyond that they're corrupt they know people know it🎉
Good faith and this Supreme Court don't go in the same sentence.
The Supreme Court is all full of crap now.
If there is immunity, President Biden should hold the Presidency and change the Supreme Court.
What's to stop him just holding office until the Immunity argument is settled? After all, it its a not settled matter.
@santyclause8034 I predict Congress can override Biden in that decision. That is way law is written
The question of immunity is not whether or not the POTUS is a king who can do whatever he wants.
The question is around who has the power to judge his decisions and the Constitution is actually pretty clear on this, that role sits with the Congress, not the courts.
This was further ratified by the SCOTUS in the Nixon trials where they judged that the POTUS has full immunity from all civil liability for decisions made while in office.
@ryant2568 you a constitutional or military attorney? Or just an armchair wannabee that thinks they know it all and don't know squat?
@@richbauer7712 It's not hard to research this stuff.
In Nixon vs Fitzgerald the SCOTUS ruled that the POTUS has full immunity from all civil prosecutions for decisions made while in office.
The main reason given for the ruling was that the Constitution outlines that it is the responsibility of Congress to judge the POTUS.
So if this is the case for civil prosecutions then why not also criminal?
In fact, the reason Ford later pardoned Nixon was to avoid this exact question.
It's not complex! Just state what Judge Chutken said: No one is above the law. End of. No absolute immunity for ANYONE!
The Appellate Court did a fantastic job. All they had to do was allow the opinion to stand. How can they possibly dispute what the Appellate Court decided?
Trump: "I am your criminally convicted law and order president." 😂🤣😅
He is your future President.
Put that way…..it sounds awful
@@mamia9659 🤣
Get a good giggle for sure
Contempt. And a dash of ridicule!
Them sitting there taking pictures always rubbed me the wrong way.
They seem to be concerned more about allowing the current president to have too much immunity.
This shouldn't even be a question, BUT FOR convicted criminal Trump. Why go through all this just for ONE PERSON? They never needed it before....
Why is it “a complicated issue”? It seems straightforward in a country that claims no one is above the law, immunity should not be appropriate in any case.
It complicated for the Supereme Court to find a wording that will give Trump near absolute power when returning to office without allowing Biden to do the same while still in office. After all, can't let Biden get tempted with the new executive power to assassinate political opponents when that describes Trump.
The Supreme Court better be Very concerned, about where to draw the line. They have us on the thinnest ice. 🇺🇸💙
Contempt. Its what they show to us. A big fat middle finger.
The present partisan SCOTUS was always going to make it an issue to argue to what extent immunity applies. This means delays.
Separation of powers. 3 branch government. Why did we stop teaching civics?
It's not complicated it's not complicated at all
It is not a complicated issue.
This is not concern, this is delay. Again. Some supreme court.
This is the type of question that stumps the SCOTUS, seriously??? Um, how about no one is above any law?!? Sickening to watch this happening in real time and feeling utterly impotent to stop the BS. Cue the Twilight Zone theme.
So a bunch of rich guys get to decide what the law is and who it applies to? Nobody else gets a say?
Contempt.
That would be Eric holder - did he go to jail? Ope no he is on the left
@@WeAreGoingBackTo1776 trump caused a insurrection. He tried to overthrow our democracy. This is a fact. donald trump deserves no less than life in prison. And he will answer for the rest of his crimes.
Ms. McQuade’s take on the justices’ comments during arguments is reassuring. I hope she’s right.
I believe the Supreme Court Justices know the urgency. It is by "choice" they delay.
Love Barbara McQuade.
Scotus certainly has my contempt. Scotus is giving the middle finger to the citizens of the United States!
They need to move forward for the people...
The Justices wait for the end of the session so they can skip the country with their owners afterward.
Anyone who violates law should be held accountable it shouldn’t be any different for someone who was the president period no one is above law
Are these guys reading your laws … or cooking em up?
Canon is incompetent disgrace
I hope McQuade is right that the defense will appeal if Cannon rules against them. As soon as the 11th circuit gets their hands on this I think they are going move the case to Miami.
They know the urgency...they're choosing to ignore it. They are like Cannon in Florida...delay, delay, delay.
Im tired of people being "polite" during treachery
A scotus apologist? I, for one, am shocked, truly.
No one is above the law, period!
Good to see ACB has at least half a backbone
Where to draw the line? Really? I think the line is drawn between RIGHT and WRONG.
I saw Barrett as a good person regardless of her religious views. I read Alito, and Thomas as angry, and resentful.
How can the Supreme Court Justices not know how urgent deciding Trumps sham immunity claim is?
No one should be above the law.
Immunity.......🤔, Seal team 6 removes a SC judge ... or 2. And nominates replacements..... or rather ignores the court completely.
EXACTLY!...........Those smug Trumper club clowns really need to be rather careful how they rule! 😂🤡😡☠☠☠☠
Contemptuous SCOTUS deserves to be dismantled and recreated.
Supreme Court concerned about the gift channel going off the air.
American people should file to remove scotus as the purpose is NO
LONGER applied! For your country sake!
Top-tier video, for sure.
After looking at decisions on the Supreme Court over the last year ? It is now obvious that this needs sorting out urgently. Because of the laws at the moment, it is hard to change. S The conclusion is that we have to get Democrats into Senate and the government House with plenty of people. Then, some of these bad laws can be removed and get some laws into place so the Supreme Court can and must be held accountable
Samuel and Clarence failed to pay taxes on income. Are they immune from prosecution?
As long as the Constitution is being adhered to I don't care about the rest.
They've all got a great big smile on their faces? strange.
This lady is nuts. These pundits are cowards for not calling out the corrupt courts in this country. You're not doing us any favors.
Contempt this is bs.
They didn't take long, making their gratuities/bribes legal.
No they are not, they have crossed way too many red lines already
it is taking a long time since clarence needs extra time to draft his opinion
Can they say sucks?
This court has lost so much respect, i fully ex0ect them to say Trumo is immune to anything, but only Trump and conservatives, never Liberals who must be held as a different standard.
Legal analyst: "Supreme Court 'concerned about where to draw the line for future presidents"
You misspelled "SC Deliberately Delaying Case on Trump's Behalf".
How about immunity from prosecution only for activities certified by 7/8 of Congress to qualify for presidential immunity!
Last I checked the law is not supposed to be exclusively partisan. I thought it was supposed to be based on idk, the freedoms we were founded on. No dictators kings with presidential immunity. My jaw hit the floor and they didn't throw it out immediately. There are more deserving people that the court should spend their time on than Donald Trump.
There should be no need for SCOTUS to be concerned about where to draw the line for future presidents! Presidents (past, present, future) are not above the law! Not surprising that logic is to simple for SCOTUS.
I am so bitterly disgusted with the depravity of Thomas and Alito, and disillusioned with the disingenuousness of Barrett, Cavanaugh and Gorsuch who were nominated and approved under false pretenses that NOTHING will keep me from voting blue Nov. 5, all the way down the ballot, to do my little bit to help empower the restoration of integrity and credibility to the court. 😡 We are a nation of laws, not petty whims.
Red flag laws 😮 if you didn't know you should have known
I don't think Thomas doesn't do his thinking, he is told how to decide with sign language 🤫😉
They're concerned how they can help Trump without making it look bad.
It’s futile. OBVIOUSLY they’re installing a president.
Is Babara McQuade actually Peppermint Patty all grown up?
This scotus is a total failure.
Maybe the Justices are worried that "accidents" might befall them, or their families, if they hear this case and rule against Trump.
if they are in any way 'concerned' then they should not have a line, presidents should not have total immunity
Let the people vote on it
November 5th.
All is lost. What is LaW. What did we stand for.v
Supreme court needs to be sanctioned. Huge penalties.
How about the Supreme Court get off their collective butts and start concerning themselves with drawing the line on the out of control EX- President? Restore a little of the lost faith Americans have in them to do anything actually Constitutional.
REPUBLICANS TO THEIR CHILDREN: When your team loses, it’s important that you take it as an opportunity to grow and make yourself even better.
REPUBLICANS IN PUBLIC: If my team loses, it’s rigged! My ideas should influence the entire nation, regardless of popular opinion! I will do anything I can to help overturn the score and install my OWN referees to ensure I win, regardless of actual performance!
Do a little research into Representative Bob Good (R. Va.) who appears to have lost a Republican primary election held last Tuesday. Although the race has yet to be called, he is already claiming fraud!
Spoiler alert; they are literally holding up the case deliberately to help trump.
Concerned about how to weasel out of ever holding Trump accountable for his actions.
They know its urgent. They choose to delay to help trunp. It should be illegal
The supreme court doesn't need to be concerned where to draw the line for future presidents.
The Only have to anser the immuniity request for 1 person, Donald Trump.
As was said in amcient times, "Sufficient are the problems of the day..."
Its a complicated issue, what,,,,,if we had a dictator yeah
Contempt, no one is above the law, especially corrupt president or especially former corrupt presidents👎☹️
All of America should want both the document and insurrection trials to be completed before Trump can run again. There’s way more to both these cases than we know.
They better make the right decision for Bidens sake!!😂
Yeah, just back up Charles Manson all the money favors a part of the family. Helter skelter.
The Supreme Court issues late decisions to let them get out of the country on their three-month billionaire-funded break.
The SCOTUS deserves contempt for not giving Trump's immunity case priority for the people of the United States!
❤
Criminal Clarance Thomas would be a nobody if not for Criminal Christians using him.
And yet the system is rigged against him
This is unbelievable. I just don't understand why Trump should be above the LAW. 😒
Originalism and traditionalism, two theories that trap the constitution from ever adapting to and evolve alongside social and cultural moeurs.
The constitution should reflect current societal and cultural norms and should be a living document.
Immunity from prosecution should never be extended to acts set in motion with premeditated criminal intent.
Whether the acts themselves are deemed to be part of someone's official duties, should not matter.
However, an official act undertaken in good faith that has unintended unlawful consequences, should be immune from prosecution.