The Atlantic’s Post

SCOTUS Update: In Trump v. U.S., the court voted 6-3 that "the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." Trump v. U.S. syllabus. A link to the decision is in Comment 1.  

What happens when a public official SWEARS to uphold the constitution, then takes an act that offends the constitution to the point where the United States Supreme Court rules 9-0 against them on the constitutional issues? Do we need more training? What should be the recourse? If you took an oath to uphold the constitution, then lose 9-0 what does that say?

Victory for Constitutional Rights: Nevada Court Ruling Explained The Nevada Supreme Court has ruled in favor of constitutional accountability, stating the government must adhere to the Constitution and damages are valid for rights violations. Discover how this victory influences ongoing legal actions in Stephen's case against unlawful federal fund transfers. #ConstitutionalRights #NevadaSupremeCourt #LegalVictory #CivilLiberties #StephenCase #GovernmentAccountability #LegalAction #CourtRuling #RightsViolations #JusticeForAll

CJI instead of just preaching and sensationalism, What about the issue of hiring so called senior advocates to get relief from certain courts, From staff to judges, already knows whom to give preferences and dual nature of courts is main issue which is never addressed, for us even to get a RFA or RSA listed in high court it takes few weeks to months but so called seniors whose vakalanama is not even filed, matter is listed next day. Supreme Court stays Allahabad High Court judgment declaring Madarsa Act unconstitutional | https://lnkd.in/gEduTVN6 Acid Attack: Delhi High Court upholds acquittal of accused but orders ₹5 lakh compensation each to the victims | https://lnkd.in/gBf5YHji

The six derelection of duty, anti-Constitution, anti Rule of law scotus granting of "Broad immunity" to a president raises profound concerns that strike at the heart of democratic principles and the rule of law. Such a decision could be interpreted as: • An invitation to tyranny: Absolute immunity effectively places the president above the law, unaccountable for any actions, no matter how egregious. This unchecked power could easily be abused, leading to authoritarianism and the erosion of civil liberties. • A betrayal of the constitution: Most democratic constitutions enshrine a system of checks and balances designed to prevent the concentration of power. Granting absolute immunity to the president subverts this system, potentially leading to a constitutional crisis. • A threat to judicial independence: If a high court is willing to grant absolute immunity to the president, it raises questions about its own independence and impartiality. This could erode public trust in the judiciary, a cornerstone of any democracy. • An affront to justice and equality: The principle of equality before the law is a fundamental tenet of justice. Granting absolute immunity to the president violates this principle, creating a two-tiered system where the most powerful are exempt from the rules that govern everyone else. It is imperative that such a decision be carefully scrutinized and challenged. The consequences of allowing a president to operate with absolute impunity are too dire to ignore. https://lnkd.in/g4aQNF_G

The Supreme Court recently held that delay in filing a case cannot be the sole ground to deny relief. What is the principle of law on this issue? Does the reason for the delay matter? What is the consequence of delay in filing normally? Find out in our Weekly, as we explore when does delay become a reasonable ground for dismissing a case. Read more by clicking https://ow.ly/qaix50TrUJK #supremecourt #indianlaws

Important Law on termination of contract if stigmatic then principle of natural justice be followed ?

In City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court held that anti-camping ordinances do not violate the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, reversing Ninth Circuit case law reaching the opposite conclusion. The Court also cast doubt on the 1962 case of Robinson v. California, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits laws criminalizing a person’s status. To learn more about this SCOTUS ruling, read our latest #LegalAlert authored by Kelvin S. Jensen. https://bit.ly/3L6Vgpr #LegalAlert #SCOTUS

Unveiling the Legal Odyssey: Trump's 2024 Fate in the Hands of the Supreme Court. Dive into the intricate dance of constitutional considerations, political consequences, and the heartbeat of American democracy.