Public opinion is highly polarized concerning the Supreme Court's ruling on domestic violence cases. Many commenters convey frustration about perceived gender bias and the inadequacy of existing laws to protect victims on both sides, while others express a need for more balanced legal reforms. There is a significant demand for accountability regarding false allegations, and concerns about the misuse of domestic violence laws are prevalent, leading to anger towards the legal system and its perceived shortcomings.

Supreme Court

Legal Reform Advocates

Victims don't press charges, it's always the government, on behalf of all the residents of the state. At this point you both need (obviously separate) attorneys. And to not give statements to the police.

MacaroonFormal6817

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Blondi: "Obama, being black, was never actuallly President. So he is not immune."

Then_Journalist_317

They couldn't. That is, in part, why all of this is so unbelievably stupid.

Hurley002

I brought this up in r/law earlier and was politely informed many times that this court while granting broad immunity and being on speed dial for trump much like trump was for epstein, the court did rule only they could decide what is or isn't an official act.  And since they choose to speed run or slowwalk their judicial rulings depending on if it's the rapist in chief or someone who's constitutional rights are being violated im betting we could have a live presidential execution on network TV to secure a merger and try and distract from the fact that the current pedoinchief ordered thousands of agents to destroy any mention of him in a huge pdffile ring while SCROTUS says they're unavailable in their motorcoaches for comment.

gerblnutz

Is there a statute of limitations for imaginary crimes?

jojammin

They can't.  This whole thing is just to get low IQ maga folks to spread it and make Facebook posts etc.  they have no intention of charging Obama with anything

pacman404

They'll find a way - completely inconsistent with their ruling to protect Trump, where somehow Obama isn't afforded the same protections.

RiffRaffCatillacCat

They will claim what he did was not official duties. They left it for themselves to determine which is which so as to be able to try Democrats.

SergiusBulgakov

ApricotNervous5408

Through an unsigned ruling from the shadow document declaring that immunity obviously doesn't apply in this case for unspecified reasons, I'd imagine.

BitterFuture

This assumes a functioning legal system where justice is blindly applied without political interference, which is just adorable.

Naive_Mix_8402

It's bold of you to assume that Roberts was talking about ALL presidents. While I believe this is BS theater, there is no doubt in my mind that SCOTUS would make a distinction here and claim that Obama's actions weren't "official"

Flokitoo

The judicial system in Nazi Germany didn’t dismantle and/or replace all of the previously existing laws. Yes, new laws were passed like Nuremberg Laws, the Enabling Act, etc. But primarily, the Volksgerichtshof and other courts in Nazi Germany applied the law one way to Nazis and those favored by the Nazi party; and another way (generally a kangaroo court) to those seen as enemies of the Nazi party.

SCOTUS isn’t facilitating the kind of kangaroo court that led to the execution of critics of the regime, but it did slow-walk its ruling on the presidential immunity case (helping run out the clock for prosecuting what was left) while being very quick to rule on the Colorado case that would have left Trump off the ballot for being an insurrectionist. The Court has ruled that Biden didn’t have the power to cancel student loans without clearer Congressionally-granted authority (despite the plain text of the HEROES Act allowing it), but is allowing Trump to fire 50% of the Congressionally-created Department of Education without further authority. The Court has granted more emergency/shadow docket requests from the Trump administration than from the GWB, Obama, and Biden administrations combined.

It’s not looking great for the rule of law. And that’s not even getting into the state of stare decisis under this Court.

jisa

No, the ruling only applies to republican presidents

yourcousinfromboston

The rules only work to the GOP's favor. They don't count if someone else might benefit.

drgnrbrn316

See that’s the fun part. They didn’t say what is and isn’t official presidential duty. So for reasons.. of course. Biden won’t be protected.

Because official duties are when republicans do them. Unofficial ones are duties done by democrats.

Awkward_University91

They cant and they won't, theyll just say hes too connected to go after eventually once this episode of government smoke and mirrors loses its luster.

Then MAGA will say its crazy how untouchable Obamna is and that the DNC protected him or some shit.

Mattrad7

The Supreme Court recently has invented the "major questions" rule.  It goes like this: anything a Democratic president does is a major question that Congress has to phrase just right before it is legal, and anything a Republican president does is just another day. 

The presidential immunity ruling is the same thing. It only applies to "official" acts, which are acts done by a Republican president. I guarantee you no allegations thrown at Democrats will ever be "official."

heelspider

SCOTUS left it up to themselves to decide what is an isn't actually immune. So how can they?

Simple, just decide Obama isn't covered. It's a fascist court that has suffered no consequences for its illegitimacy.

[deleted]

By playing Calvinball. For the conservative/authoritarian SCOTUS majority, the rules don't actually matter. They do whatever is best for their political side. There are no principled stands, there is no consideration of precedent. It's just "we have power and we will use that power however we want."

Law_Student

It's another distraction.  RELEASE THE EPSTEIN FILES

odin1013

It’s for the white presidents only sorry

subvanaTIME

SCOTUS: “Presidential immunity yes, but not like that!” (Gestures broadly at Obama)

Old_Needleworker_865

This whole Obama story is nonsense. No one claimed the Russians hacked and changed vote totals. 

Astrocoder

They can't, but they can have him arrested so Fox News gets some video of him being perp-walked into a federal courthouse for a probable cause hearing. (Fox will ignore that the judge finds no probable cause.)

lethargicbureaucrat

Seriously if he had Obama arrested, who would stop him?


What are we gonna do, protest again?

Big_Crab_1510

That would be an interesting test. This court's majority is craven enough to twist their prior flawed rulings in favor of the current occupant.  The Court's remedy rested on impeachment,for which Obama is ineligible.  Realistically, the court would have to deny cert. Practically, opening up executive decisions of prior presidents to judicial review would be a nightmare.

ekkidee

SCOTUS would say their immunity ruling is not back dated.

  
Calvinball

homerjs225

AccountHuman7391

This is fodder for the base. Nothing more. They may even put Obama in jail but they know this is just for show.

These are truly disgusting people. Ruining lives for political theater is what they love to do most.

cheweychewchew

We’re in the era of an arbitrary, post-precedent judicial system.

laggedreaction

Same way they knocked on the Capital door and asked for a redo.

49thDipper

Ahh…. The MAGA Republican. Rules for thee do not apply for me.

TapProfessional5146

They're fascists.


Either the law is in their favor or they ignore it

FreeBricks4Nazis

Ambaryerno

Not to mention: 

1. She is the DNI and doesn't make criminal referrals to the DOJ

2. The statute of limitations is 5 years.

3. While SAYING the propaganda lines Trump demanded, when pushed WHAT was different from the official panel analysis headed by Rubio that made opposite findings from her bannana-go-nuts bullshot, she asked for "real journalists to do their work"

footinmymouth

Yeah I bet Trump is like “damnit. I got a taste of my own medicine. But whatever we need to squeeze the drama out of this”

LuluMcGu

The lack of any evidence that he committed treason is probably pretty high up there too.

s_ox

“See, he’s totally guilty and I’m 100% correct he is, but unfortunately we’re unable to prosecute due to SCOTUS so we won’t even investigate.”

Mysterious-Tie7039

dedjedi

Literally just creating cover because Trump's doing treasonous crap and he knows it. This is a "see... I didn't go after Obama when he did treason while in office!"

T1Pimp

I guess the talks with ghislaine maxwell went well.

TheHahndude

So I guess what he's saying is that when he commits treason he will also be immune. He's certainly anticipating a treason case. I mean, I think we all are at this point. But immune? Uh, not likely.

Lord_Mormont

Trump is a child Rapist, nothing can distract from that

crockett05

What a great excuse to continue to trash Obama as treasonous without ever having to actually present any evidence before a court.

Scrutinizer

He’s projecting about himself. 

Obama doesn’t need immunity.

He could ask the court to reverse the decision.

Lawmonger

If so, that makes that ruling a god damned travesty, doesn’t it? Why isn’t he working heaven and earth to pass an amendment undoing such a thing?

A president being able to get away with treason? Seems like something we’d, you know, patch up in the law. 

Due_Satisfaction2167

He needs the country to absolutely accept this ruling because he has every intention to abuse it

Neat-Beautiful-5505

Obama defamation suit against Trump should be easy to win. There is zero evidence of Obama's alleged treason. Because the harm is so great, ask for $100 billion.

Step 1) claim Obama committed treason without evidence 

Step 2) point to Supreme Court ruling as reason he’s not being convicted 

Step 3) commit treason

Step 4) use “precedent” from step 2 to claim immunity

soggit

Who TACO?

No shit?! That guy doesn’t want to establish the precedent of punishments for treason.

fox-mcleod

Then why is his administration wasting so much time on it?

EnfantTerrible68

Herban_Myth

Wow super convenient for Trump that he doesn’t have to follow through on trying to prove anything.

Haunting-Ad788

brickyardjimmy

ChuckVader

So, he changed his mind, realizing he didn't have a case (especially after Obama pointed out the immunity thingy to him), but wants us to know O still committed treason?


Is he going to fire Intelligence Barbie now?

Electrical_Welder205

He knows he’s got nothing. Hypothetically, couldn’t Bill Clinton claim any ties to Epstein are also covered? (At least during his time in office) That SCOTUS ruling is going to hurt Trump’s revenge tour.

Sudden_Acanthaceae34

I guess Trump ha come to a deal with Maxwell so now he doesn’t need the made up treason claims to distract from the fact that Trump is absolutely a rapist.

Rawkapotamus

This guy sets up his own dominoes and then knocks them down while MAGA cheer on every move. Clowns

cats_catz_kats_katz

Mars8

I just can’t believe people like him exist in the world. It blows my mind, someone as stupid and evil as him walks the same planet as regular people just trying to exist and survive.

TymStark

So he did just explicitly state that Democratic presidents can commit an act tantamount to treason without punishment. Like, that almost sounds like an invitation to stoop as low as Republicans

blightsteel101

But then again, the *Daily Mail* has never made credibility a high priority. So much so, in fact, that Wikipedia no longer allows sourcing therefrom except *in extremis*.

Too, how exactly do President Obama's supposed actions of "treason" in President Trump's mind meet the Constitutional threshhold of "levying war against the United States or, in adherence to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort"?

AsparagusCommon4164

I mean the lack of any evidence that he committed treason will do the trick too.

rahvan

This means they got exactly what they wanted from Maxwell.

Wrong-Neighborhood-2

It kept his base distracted for a couple weeks, and now they stopped caring about Epstein.

davewashere

AlexFromOgish

"I get to accuse him, but we cannot charge him, because as you all know Presidents are kings. It's good to be the president."

Busy-Dig8619

What a vile vile man that misleads the public so much… such a being makes me clinch my fists in rage

already-redacted

Hey, if he's up for it I'm sure Democrats would go along with Republicans in crafting a bill that says Presidents aren't above the law and can be prosecuted for crimes committed in office.  Wanna see where that leads, Don?

3vi1

Not this guy trying to make "liberals" want to thank him for the invention of presidential immunity...

weezyverse

This is the "Well I didn't want to go out with you anyways, you're ugly" of political moves

Validated_Owl

MercuryRusing

Desperate Donald pulling another one from his gaslighting magic asshat. I see this as his try to conflate his outrageous and false attacks on Obama into a tool to cover his own actual treasonous activities and now his pedophilic exposure in the Epstein case. He's hoping that in the mind of his MAGA cult it will come down to "but Obama did worse and he wasn't even a real American because he was from Kenya".

lookskAIwatcher

I'm pretty sure presidential immunity (regardless of the absurdity of that idea) does not apply to raping children, as that's not generally considered official business of the office.

lyingliar

Lol Trump is seeing the parallels of what he actually did and what his Tulsi is falsely accusing President Obama of doing.

hamsterfolly

It’s not “despite the Supreme Court”. SCOTUS specifically left open the possibility of a class action and this judge granted a class action. 

I’m convinced SCOTUS will later deny it, but still

Zwirbs

It’s literally the correct ruling. If they want to change the Constitution, they should try that.

HillbillyLibertine

Hi r/law, A federal judge again barred President Donald Trump's administration from enforcing his executive order limiting birthright citizenship nationwide after the Supreme Court restricted the ability of judges to block his policies using nationwide injunctions.

U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante in Concord, New Hampshire, made the ruling July 10 after immigrant rights advocates implored him to grant class action status to a lawsuit they filed seeking to represent any babies whose citizenship status would be threatened by the implementation of Trump's directive.

Laplante agreed the plaintiffs could proceed as a class, allowing him to issue a fresh judicial order blocking implementation of the Republican president's policy nationally.

usatoday

Crazy that it’s basically America vs trump. Like, not a republican philosophy or plan or anyone else, just some guy that wants to have his will exercised at the cost of thousands.

eyeballburger

Now the battle is going to be on certification of the class. There are certainly major hurdles, but eventually it would have be decided on the merits and nationwide and this is where the Trump policy crumbles. There is no merit to the Executive Order and the administration has been avoiding that.  Stomping their feet on universal injunctions instead and other procedures.

PsychLegalMind

JugDogDaddy

This is not “despite Supreme Court’s ruling,” at all. 

This is granting a class action, which is precisely the remedy the Supreme Court pointed to. 

Comfortable_Fill9081

Bad title.  The judge didn't do what he did "despite" the SC ruling, he did based on the SC's direction.

Character-Taro-5016

White Americans forget that 99% of them are only American citizens because of birthright citizenship. Our elder they'd just be European immigrants

Successful_panhandlr

Hatdrop

Brace yourselves for the Supreme Court to do to class actions here what they did to pleading standards in Ashcroft v. Iqbal.  Ultimately, a set of classes that SCOTUS allows to stand will eventually be certified, but not before they use this case as a vehicle to shield the government and corporate interests from accountability for decades to come.

UntimelyXenomorph

I'm glad there's some good judges out there

Wrong_Revolution_679

Yeah they can still issue federal injunctions there's just a lot more legwork that has to be done ahead of time first.

NameLips

If you read the opinion, the court said, and I quote.

"The applications do not raise—and thus the 
Court does not address—the question whether the Executive Order vi-
olates the Citizenship Clause or Nationality Act. Instead, the issue 
the Court decides is whether, under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal
courts have equitable authority to issue universal injunctions."

Birthright citizenship is still a right under the constitution, and that has not changed. No matter how many times the Trump administration lies that they can deport US citizens.

Artistic_Skill1117

tom_sa_savage

We are soon approaching the part where "words don't mean words"

ozzalot

It is TIME judges gave the Supreme Court the notification, that their rulings are becoming irrelevant, as they cannot be enforced. And we as a nation cannot let a bunch of glorified criminal lawyers, set the rules in this country according to their own political and personal preferences, like the Supreme Court is doing now.

GrannyFlash7373

Good. If he's gonna defile the constitution, then judges can just ignore him.

DifficultDiet4900

Blue states can declare US Supreme court unconstitutional and establish alternative US Supreme court, paving the way for Civil War

defendTaiwan

The case involving the suicide of Athulya Shekhar, a woman from Kerala, has led to detentions related to domestic violence and the challenges of prosecuting such cases.

Supreme Court Ruling on Domestic Violence Cases

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want