Amy Coney Barrett hailed as a 'liberal' over disagreement with some points on Trump’s immunity ruling
WASHINGTON, DC: Donald Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett agreed on most points with other judges on former president Donald Trump’s immunity ruling but there were a few few points she disagreed on.
The 6-3 decision came on July 1 as Chief Justice John Roberts reportedly said, "This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. We are called upon to consider whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution must succeed."
"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office," Roberts added.
However, there were a few points on which Barrett did not agree and united with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, as reported by MEDIA ITE.
Amy Coney Barrett shares lengthy argument
Barrett noted, “I do not join Part III–C, however, which holds that the Constitution limits the introduction of protected conduct as evidence in a criminal prosecution of a President, beyond the limits afforded by executive privilege. …”
She continued, “The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable. …[E]xcluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution.”
“To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability,” she added.
Amy Coney Barrett mentions the limit of presidential immunity
Besides, Barrett also referred to the 45th president’s election subversion case while clarifying the difference between a private act and an official conduct.
She wrote, “Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult — but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection.”
“President has no legal authority — and thus no official capacity — to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct,” Barrett asserted.
Netizens say Amy Coney Barrett is ‘100% correct on this point’
Meanwhile, people online have praised Justice Amy Coney Barrett for her take as an X user tweeted, “She's becoming liberal before our very eyes.”
The second user commented, “Good to hear. Yes!”
Some measure of honesty and reality seems to have crept into the mind of one new member of the Supreme Court. But it is unlikely it will mitigate the large number of her prior dangerous votes.
— Scott Austin (@scottaustin336) July 1, 2024
The third user posted, “Some measure of honesty and reality seems to have crept into the mind of one new member of the Supreme Court. But it is unlikely it will mitigate the large number of her prior dangerous votes.”
A reader below the MEDIA ITE article said, “She is 100% correct on this point.”
Another reader added, “Firstly -- she should not be in the Supreme Court. She is unqualified, so is the boouffer Kavanaugh. Clarence and Alito must resign immediately or face the music. however, on this she is right. So weird.”
This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online
