Law professor discusses Trump Supreme Court decision

Emily Berman, Professor of Law at the University of Houston, joins FOX 26 Anchor Anthony Antoine to discuss the Supreme Court's decision regarding former President Donald Trump.

Houston area news, weather, traffic, sports and breaking news from FOX 26 Houston. Watch news and local programming daily from KRIV.

Watch more FOX 26 Houston on YouTube:

[stevequist]

This isn't a discussion of the ruling, it's an infomercial for the dissent. Horrible, biased "journalism".

[lindastone]

You people all seem to think this is ONLY for Trump. But every president INCLUDING Biden will benefit from this.

[chodkowski]

It’s amazing that American citizens didn’t know that presidents have immunity just like Congress, Senators and many other officials.

[briancorwin]

Immunity wasn't granted it was reaffirmed know the difference

[briancorwin]

Get a real law professor next time ppease

[smhollanshead]

I’m willing to concede Sotomayor has a double digit IQ, but not much more than that. I do not give much weight to her dissent.

[DarlingBenjamin-tb]

Nobody rules my house never you are lying about everything

[stevenkaskus]

No, can't mandate that you don't have to give up the office of President wh when voted out because that isn't part of a Presidential official act because it has to be within the framework of the U.S. CONSTITUTION

[stevenr]

This “law professor “ is a fool. What a joke

[benmiles]

So Joe why aren't you sending seal team 6 ???

[JeanLouisSlezak]

Can Biden fire those six judges, it could be a official act as president.

[jimmytate]

this should not be a surprise to anyone. how can the president perform his job without immunity

[mountbara]

I love unbiased, nonslanted news. This was not it.

[m.rodrigolemus]

VOTE 🗳 BLUE ACCROSS THE BOARD ALWAYS... And Save our Democracy... The Supreme Court is now compromised.

[abeerali]

Press the button for nuclear bombs to go off? Official or unofficial?
I think immunity should be determined based on mental state, meds and hormones exams.
Example: Man without his prostates suffers hormone imbalance, which will definitely effect his decision making skills.

[stevenbass]

gotta love the lefties screaming. Really warms my heart. 😂

[jamesquinn]

Thought for the day…

Just exactly what are Official Duties of a US President?

From various interpretations coming from legal scholars it would seem that it’s all encompassing…. Meaning as long as they are in office everything they do be it plan in insurrection or defame citizens etc. For as long as they hold that office up until the next day after they leave everything even up to any cruel psychotic unimaginable thing can be considered an official act of a President.

I on the other hand would narrow that definition to you know define just what is and perhaps more importantly isn’t a Presidents Official Acts. Maybe that’s just me

The court seemed to be concerned with using actually “provable” criminal acts (Meaning in a fair court of law guilty verdict is inevitable no matter what side of the political isle you find yourself) as weaponizing justice. I did mention provable right? If it’s provable it can’t be said to have been weaponized.

To put it another way don’t do the crime then you don’t have to worry about the time. It just seems more logical. You or I don’t have to worry about planning/organizing an insurrection if we did no such thing right? Where exactly would the conversations that were recorded be found at our trial? My emails one might fine funny or infuriating, at times ridiculous but not a peep regarding anything close to phony electors or pressuring State officials to find votes etc.

In fact I would argue by removing justices teeth it’s been the court that has neutered Justice where the President is concerned. Thus weaponizing a unique lack of Justice where any future President is concerned regardless of Party affiliation.

Jimmy Ninetoes

[rogerperrigo]

Thats what happens when you stack the deck, with republican judges were install in the scotus.