Connect with us

International

The Supreme Court is skeptical of Trump’s immunity but could lengthen the litigation

The United States Supreme Court was skeptical this Thursday about Donald Trump’s request to enjoy absolute judicial immunity for having been president of the country, but there were judges who were inclined not to fully resolve the matter and return it to lower courts.

In a historic hearing of more than two hours, the nine magistrates (six conservatives and three progressives) questioned Trump’s lawyer, John Sauer, and prosecutor Michael Dreeben about the Republican’s potential immunity.

The high court must decide if Trump has absolute immunity for having been president of the country and, therefore, the trial against him pending in a federal court in Washington for electoral interference and the assault on the Capitol must be annulled.

Most judges were skeptical of Trump’s request when considering that only the actions of the functions of a president are shielded by immunity and not those that are personal.

But there were also conservative magistrates critical of the handling of the case by the Prosecutor’s Office and suggested that they could return the case to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to determine whether Trump’s actions can be considered public or private.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow

Trump, a Republican pre-candidate in the elections on November 5, should extend the litigation since, if he returns to the White House, he could order the Department of Justice to close the federal accusations against him.

On the other hand, the Special Prosecutor’s Office led by Jack Smith pressures the high court to make a quick decision and the preparations for the trial of the assault on the Capitol, which should have begun on March 4 but was suspended due to Trump’s request for immunity, can be resumed.

It is unknown when the Supreme Court will issue its ruling, but it usually publishes its decisions in June, before the summer recess.

Although it is not included in the Constitution or in the laws, the active presidents of the United States have historically enjoyed immunity from judicial processes related to their functions, in order to avoid a violation of the separation between the executive and judicial branches.

Questioned by conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump himself, the Republican’s lawyer admitted that some of the actions that the former president carried out after the 2020 elections were “private” and probably not protected by immunity.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow

Later, the also conservative Samuel Alito pressured the prosecutor with the idea that leaving the former presidents unprotected would “destabilize” democracy because it would open the door for the new leaders to imprison their predecessors for revenge.

Progressive judges were very opposed to Trump’s absolute immunity.

Elena Kagan recalled that the drafters of the Constitution were opposed to the existence of a “monarch” who was “above the law” and Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the pardon that Richard Nixon received after the Watergate scandal shows that the former presidents can be prosecuted.

Unlike Trump, however, Nixon was not formally charged with any crime. His successor, Gerald Ford (1974-1977), granted him a preventive pardon for any crime he could have committed during his Presidency to prevent him from being prosecuted in the future, in a controversial decision that divided the country.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow
Continue Reading
Advertisement
20250701_dengue_300x250_01
20250701_dengue_300x250_02
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_300x250
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-300x250
20250701_vacunacion_vph-300x250
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_300x250
20231124_etesal_300x250_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_300X250
MARN1

International

Uruguay’s Lower House votes to legalize euthanasia amid broad public support

The Uruguayan Lower House voted Wednesday to legalize euthanasia, following the examples of Cuba, Colombia, and Ecuador, marking a significant social shift in a predominantly Catholic region.

The bill to decriminalize assisted death was approved 64-35 in the 99-seat Chamber of Representatives after an emotional night-long debate. The legislation will now move to the Senate, which is expected to pass it into law before the end of the year.

Under the new law, mentally competent adults suffering from terminal or incurable illnesses will be able to request euthanasia.

A key amendment appeared to help convince lawmakers who opposed the original 2022 proposal, requiring that a medical board review a case if the two attending doctors disagree.

Representative Luis Gallo, who opened the debate, recalled patients whose struggles inspired the bill.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow

“Let us not forget that the request is strictly personal: it respects the patient’s free and individual will, without interference, because it concerns their life, their suffering, and their decision not to continue living,” said Gallo of the center-left governing coalition, Frente Amplio.

Public opinion polls indicate broad support for euthanasia, from President Yamandú Orsi downward. Uruguay has also been a pioneer in legalizing same-sex marriage, abortion, and cannabis use.

Continue Reading

International

Trump deploys National Guard as Pentagon plans quick-reaction force for civil disturbances

The Pentagon is considering creating a task force of hundreds of soldiers to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the country in the event of domestic civil unrest, according to The Washington Post, which reviewed Defense Department documents on Tuesday.

The proposed unit, tentatively named the “Rapid Civil Disturbance Response Force,” would consist of 600 soldiers on “constant alert”, capable of responding to incidents within just one hour.

According to the report, the force would be split into two equally sized units: one stationed at a military base in Alabama in the eastern U.S., and the other in Arizona in the west.

Internal documents indicate that if approved, the initiative could cost hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly if troops are kept on 24-hour readiness and transported via military aircraft.

While the National Guard already maintains a rapid response unit, this new military formation would go further, potentially moving soldiers between states whenever necessary.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow

The plans remain preliminary, with funding potentially starting in fiscal year 2027 at the earliest.

This report emerges just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the deployment of the National Guard for the second time since returning to the White House in January. On Monday, Trump instructed this volunteer force, which supports the Army and Air Force in emergencies, to move to Washington D.C. to combat crime and remove homeless individuals from the streets—a third deployment to the capital.

Continue Reading

International

Colombian president Gustavo Petro warns against U.S. military intervention in Venezuela

Colombian President Gustavo Petro defended his Venezuelan counterpart Nicolás Maduro after the U.S. administration labeled him as the leader of the “Cartel of the Suns” and authorized the Pentagon to use military force against drug cartels, which could lead to an intervention on Venezuelan soil to combat these criminal groups. Petro stated that any military operation without the approval of Colombia or Venezuela would represent an “aggression.”

Petro responded over the weekend following reports on Friday from U.S. media about President Donald Trump’s order to confront designated global terrorist organizations such as the Cartel of the Suns, the Sinaloa Cartel, and the Tren de Aragua, including operations on foreign soil. Furthermore, the U.S. State Department increased the reward for information leading to Maduro’s capture from $25 million to $50 million.

“I publicly convey my order given as commander of the Colombian armed forces. Colombia and Venezuela are one people, one flag, one history. Any military operation without the approval of the brother countries is an aggression against Latin America and the Caribbean. It is fundamentally contradictory to our principle of freedom. ‘Freedom or death,’ Bolívar shouted, and the people revolted,” Petro posted on his social media, clearly expressing his disagreement with potential U.S. military intervention in Venezuela.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in an interview on The World Over program on Friday that controlling these terrorist groups is decisive. He added that, for the U.S., these gangs are no longer just local street gangs but well-organized criminal enterprises spreading from Mexico, Guatemala, and Ecuador.

“We cannot continue treating these guys as local street gangs. They have weapons like terrorists, in some cases they have armies. They control territories in many cases. These cartels extend from Maduro’s regime in Venezuela, which is not a legitimate government,” Rubio told the audience.

Advertisement
20250701_dengue_728x90
20250715_donacion_sangre_central_728x90
20250701_vacunacion-influenza-728x90
20250701_vacunacion_vph-728x90
20250501_mh_noexigencia_dui_728x90
20231124_etesal_728x90_1
20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90
domfuturo_netview-728x90
20240604_dom_728x90
CEL
previous arrow
next arrow
Continue Reading

Trending

Central News