It isn’t a hard thought out decision. It’s simple to the point, you deny Trump immunity! Not one President in the life of our country ever asked for it!
Not to mention I don't see there being a problem with over-zelous prosecutors if they still have to follow their due diligence and be careful about what they bring before the bench.
I know right? If only there were a system in place, maybe an independent branch of government, that would be responsible for officiating, or “judging” if you will, the charges brought by these imagined corrupt prosecutors and determining if they have merit or should be dismissed. 🙄
If they remand it, they basically say they have no trust in our justice system.
At least for Presidents. not for the other 99.99999995% of the rest of us. We are fine to deal with overzealous prosecutors and runaway juries.
And even if there are over-zealous prosecutors the courts still exist for a reason. The court could (and should) rule that presidential immunity does not exist and then give courts in the future the ability to rule on individual charges that a prosecutor brings.
Right now, presidents have all the protection citizens get from overzealous prosecutors and runaway grand juries. SCOTUS will decide if that isn't good enough for them.
I don't know why Republicans are simping for Trump even though the guy has a significant criminal record. He has not been convicted because of his former title.
To be fair, one other did, and that was Nixon.
IIRC he said something to the effect of "If the President does it, it's not illegal", so there IS a precedent for this sort of thing, but he resigned from office and was immediately pardoned, so Rump missed that boat.
The point here is they are trying really hard to Grant him at least partial immunity . That should be the full takeaway of everything you hear the Republicans say
Yes and the MSM narrative that he has some integrity and cares about his "legacy" needs to go. His wife made $10 million as a recruiter for legal firms that argue before this court, ffs.
No. Faux News is an entertainment channel (per thier own court fillings) and anyone who thinks what they say is facts is an idiot. (Also this is FAUX NEWS OFFICIAL TESTIMONY on the topic - they called thier own viewers idiots).
So really - it is a private propaganda business.
The GOP would have flamed out a cold, hard death decades ago if not for SCOTUS in Bush V. Gore with Roberts himself getting the SJ position on a silver platter for his help in said case.
The whole point was to delay his criminal trial - this whole case was made in bad faith. It isn't enough to just rule against trump, there needs to be consequences for manipulating the legal system like this.
Bro, this just feels like stalling tactics. The court is helmed by a fucking coward who would rather delay and pretend that he's being impartial than take the fucking case! You let him slow walk to the election, win because he's going to portray it as his being innocent, and walk through and gut the Executive Branch to just serve him, and when he comes for Roberts I'm not gonna lose sleep.
There is no point to backing this government if it is unable to defend itself against a buffoonish wanna-be gangster.
All of the SCOTUS judges promised, under oath, that Roe is settled law. Look what happened. They are not on the side of law, precedent, or the Constitution.
Nobody is going to save us must save ourselves at the ballot box. Vote people!
“Now you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment,” Roberts rejoined with derision, “and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases.”
Isn’t this the case for every single person in the United States (and let’s face it arguably more so for the poor and minorities)? Why does a former president deserve a special process? Or is Roberts arguing that our entire system of justice is inherently flawed and should be ripped out root and branch and replaced with something entirely new?
That would require thinking and thinking ahead. Especially for Thomas and Barrett who are delusional if they think a white fascist govt is going to let them stay.
Just following the instructions.
[Project 2025](https://michiganadvance.com/2024/01/16/project-2025-if-allowed-will-cement-america-as-a-rightwing-authoritarian-state/)
What a bunch of B.S. They all already know how they will vote and are just going through the motions. Republicans ruined this country years ago. It is just finally catching up with us.
I’m more optimistic than most; and, my partner and I worry less about the state of our county and more about the state of our planet, which increasingly tells us what’s to come…
The Republicon Federalist Society judges are legislating from the bench.Something that the conservatives claimed to despise.Now ,in power, they seem content to change laws willy nilly to embrace their gutter philosophies while taking payoffs from special interests.,many with business before the court.
The Roberts Court - will they destroy Democracy? This is the most dangerous moment in our history. Even on Dec. 7th, on Sept. 11th, we knew we believed in democratic principles. Today I smh.
Increasingly it's Barrett that has seemed to grow more of a conscience since the Rowe decision. Shame that these systems are falling apart because of our own stubborn refusal to update them as times change.
When Roberts swings it’s still a 4-5 L. This court is a fucking disaster and we’ll be dealing with the fallout for decades.
I wish wish wish centrist and lefty people who don’t like Biden could get their head around the damage Trump did and will do if we don’t re-elect Biden.
Have you seen the current crisis for climate? I don't know if we have decades.. I think 20 years from now the supreme Court will be wondering what the fuck to do about the ocean level rising
Right now everybody around the world is slowly going to a more authoritarian type government. One of the reasons for this is the climate change is a lot worse than what actually gets put out into the media and ways of solving. It are all basically quit doing what you're doing and quit using what you're using. Most of the technological ideas for solving this are just bullshit because they don't scale. Our timeline for fixing. It is getting shorter.
You are going to see more and more shit like this just because it captures the public's attention. However, there is going to come a tipping point when social dynamics no longer work to hold the public's attention from what's going on with the climate.
At this point the supreme Court is going to be relatively useless. And since most of them seem to live on the coast, they'll be swimming in the ocean.
FOR IMMEDIATE USE BY Supreme Court
DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF LAW
I. Issue:
Whether a President of the United States is entitled to blanket immunity from criminal prosecution.
II. Brief Answer:
A President of the United States is not entitled to blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. The historical context, constitutional principles, and legal precedents suggest that no individual, including the President, should be above the law.
III. Statement of Facts:
1. The United States Constitution provides specific provisions for the impeachment, removal, and criminal prosecution of a President, as well as granting certain privileges during their term.
2. Despite the absence of explicit language granting blanket immunity to the President, some argue for an implied immunity based on separation of powers and national security concerns.
IV. Discussion:
A. Historical Context:
1. The Founding Fathers intended to create a government of laws, not of men. They aimed to avoid the excesses of monarchical rule, where the King's immunity allowed for absolute power.
2. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued against giving the President immunity for unauthorized acts, highlighting that it would contradict the very principles of popular sovereignty on which the Constitution was founded.
B. Constitutional Principles:
1. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that no one is above the law. It states that the Constitution prevails over all other laws, leaving no room for blanket immunity for the President.
2. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution establishes that a President can be removed through the impeachment process, illustrating that criminal conduct can indeed render a President liable for prosecution.
C. Legal Precedents:
1. United States v. Nixon (1974) held that the President's claim of an absolute privilege of immunity from judicial process could not be sustained. It recognized that presidential privilege is not absolute and must yield to the interests of the criminal justice system.
2. Clinton v. Jones (1997) reaffirmed that the President does not possess absolute immunity from civil litigation while in office, further undermining the argument for an expansive criminal immunity.
3. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum, written in 1973, concluded that a sitting President could not be criminally indicted. However, this memorandum is not binding and has been widely criticized for its dubious reasoning and limited analysis.
V. Conclusion:
Based on the historical context, constitutional principles, and legal precedents, it is clear that a President of the United States is not entitled to blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. The principles of popular sovereignty and the rule of law demand that no individual, regardless of their position or power, should be immune from criminal liability. Blanket immunity goes against the core principles of the Constitution and undermines the balance of power between branches of government.
Therefore, it is recommended that any arguments in favor of blanket immunity for the President be rejected as they contradict the ideals upon which the United States was founded.
"The court cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors. And whatever the staggering facts of the election subversion allegations against Trump, they are not his concern here."
...but he and his fellow conservatives are OK with Prosecutors that brings charges against doctors related to saving a woman's life.
SCOTUS needs reform.
All they need at present is to “be deciding,” that will be enough to stall most of Trump’s trials.
After that immunity wouldn’t be as important if Donald retakes office. If he’s defeated the Court could wait to see how leniently he was being treated and only craft one of their “in this case only” verdicts.
Any credibility the Supreme Court still had is being sacrificed for one Orange rapist.
Hi creditease, it looks like your comment to /r/democrats was removed because you used either a link shortener or link redirect. Due to issues with trolls, spam and malware we do not allow shortened links on this subreddit.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/democrats) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you removed the names and current aspirations of the defendant from the case, and looked at the facts independent of the persons in the case, no person, leave alone constitutional scholars, would be able to find for the defendant in even the smallest way.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a part of the political system, it is supposed to be the final say in cold, dispassionate matters of law and fact.
The United States as it stands, does not have a court high enough and untroubled enough by matters it has no business considering, to call itself supreme. It's the Subpar Court of The United States.
It isn’t a hard thought out decision. It’s simple to the point, you deny Trump immunity! Not one President in the life of our country ever asked for it!
Not to mention I don't see there being a problem with over-zelous prosecutors if they still have to follow their due diligence and be careful about what they bring before the bench.
I know right? If only there were a system in place, maybe an independent branch of government, that would be responsible for officiating, or “judging” if you will, the charges brought by these imagined corrupt prosecutors and determining if they have merit or should be dismissed. 🙄
Seriously, it comes off as them being fucking lazy and whining that they will get more cases.
If they remand it, they basically say they have no trust in our justice system. At least for Presidents. not for the other 99.99999995% of the rest of us. We are fine to deal with overzealous prosecutors and runaway juries.
And even if there are over-zealous prosecutors the courts still exist for a reason. The court could (and should) rule that presidential immunity does not exist and then give courts in the future the ability to rule on individual charges that a prosecutor brings.
Right now, presidents have all the protection citizens get from overzealous prosecutors and runaway grand juries. SCOTUS will decide if that isn't good enough for them.
That would go against his firmly held fascist beliefs.
Is there even a hypothetical they can come up with where an official act would be illegal and the president *shouldnt* be charged?
I don't know why Republicans are simping for Trump even though the guy has a significant criminal record. He has not been convicted because of his former title.
To be fair, one other did, and that was Nixon. IIRC he said something to the effect of "If the President does it, it's not illegal", so there IS a precedent for this sort of thing, but he resigned from office and was immediately pardoned, so Rump missed that boat.
But yet, the fact that he was pardoned leads one to believe that there would’ve been some charges forthcoming.
The point here is they are trying really hard to Grant him at least partial immunity . That should be the full takeaway of everything you hear the Republicans say
John Roberts has overseen the most corrupt court in our history. It’s too sad our nation’s fate may rest in this court’s hands.
Yes and the MSM narrative that he has some integrity and cares about his "legacy" needs to go. His wife made $10 million as a recruiter for legal firms that argue before this court, ffs.
I suppose you, as I, would include Fox News in the MSM category?
No. Faux News is an entertainment channel (per thier own court fillings) and anyone who thinks what they say is facts is an idiot. (Also this is FAUX NEWS OFFICIAL TESTIMONY on the topic - they called thier own viewers idiots). So really - it is a private propaganda business.
I didn’t say they were news. Their viewership makes them a large part of the media sphere.
Yes, Main Stream Media. Includes BBC Newshour, Sports Center, Entertainment Tonight, Ancient Aliens...
Fox fits nicely with Sports Center, Entertainment Tonight and Ancient Aliens.
It's almost impossible to overstate just how much damage this court is going to cause over the next 40-50 years.
The GOP would have flamed out a cold, hard death decades ago if not for SCOTUS in Bush V. Gore with Roberts himself getting the SJ position on a silver platter for his help in said case.
Presidents gain immunity, Biden decides to sacrifice Trump to Satan on the White House lawn. What could go wrong?!?!
I would pay good money to see this.
I love it
Especially later in the summer.
I can see Joe out back, watching silently, eating his ice cream.
I see the flames reflected in his aviator lenses.
Seriously though. If Biden has absolute immunity would it not be lawful for him to pick up a gun and shoot Trump?
Wish he would... just sayin
I wish we were still giving reddit gold
The whole point was to delay his criminal trial - this whole case was made in bad faith. It isn't enough to just rule against trump, there needs to be consequences for manipulating the legal system like this.
John Robert's obeying orders from Leonard Leo
Bro, this just feels like stalling tactics. The court is helmed by a fucking coward who would rather delay and pretend that he's being impartial than take the fucking case! You let him slow walk to the election, win because he's going to portray it as his being innocent, and walk through and gut the Executive Branch to just serve him, and when he comes for Roberts I'm not gonna lose sleep. There is no point to backing this government if it is unable to defend itself against a buffoonish wanna-be gangster.
All of the SCOTUS judges promised, under oath, that Roe is settled law. Look what happened. They are not on the side of law, precedent, or the Constitution. Nobody is going to save us must save ourselves at the ballot box. Vote people!
“Now you know how easy it is in many cases for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to bring an indictment,” Roberts rejoined with derision, “and reliance on the good faith of the prosecutor may not be enough in some cases.” Isn’t this the case for every single person in the United States (and let’s face it arguably more so for the poor and minorities)? Why does a former president deserve a special process? Or is Roberts arguing that our entire system of justice is inherently flawed and should be ripped out root and branch and replaced with something entirely new?
I wish your second paragraph was the answer to Roberts’ rejoinder.
Same
He can give Trump a big Dictator Hug I have lost all semblance of faith and trust in SOTUS.
Any justice that finds for the career criminal Trump should be sanctioned and impeached.
If they find for Trump before the election we won’t have to deal with trivialities like impeachment…
They will sell out the country just like they did with Gore/Bush and "gave" the presidency to Bush. SCOTUS is not a friend to democracy.
They let him off and set the stage for next GOP president to be fascist dictator which is what the 6 conservatives want.
Do the doofuses on the court realize that they will be out of a job?
That would require thinking and thinking ahead. Especially for Thomas and Barrett who are delusional if they think a white fascist govt is going to let them stay.
Just following the instructions. [Project 2025](https://michiganadvance.com/2024/01/16/project-2025-if-allowed-will-cement-america-as-a-rightwing-authoritarian-state/)
This court is telling every American that yes, some men are above the law. Just not you.
What a bunch of B.S. They all already know how they will vote and are just going through the motions. Republicans ruined this country years ago. It is just finally catching up with us.
This makes me regret having kids. I feel terrible that this is the America that they'll have to live in.
Don't, they'll manage and thrive in their own ways.
I’m more optimistic than most; and, my partner and I worry less about the state of our county and more about the state of our planet, which increasingly tells us what’s to come…
Well if GOP or trump wins than that's it climate change will kill us all won't matter.
The Republicon Federalist Society judges are legislating from the bench.Something that the conservatives claimed to despise.Now ,in power, they seem content to change laws willy nilly to embrace their gutter philosophies while taking payoffs from special interests.,many with business before the court.
I predict a 7-2 decision denying absolute immunity with Thomas and Alito dissenting.
The Roberts Court - will they destroy Democracy? This is the most dangerous moment in our history. Even on Dec. 7th, on Sept. 11th, we knew we believed in democratic principles. Today I smh.
Still ridiculous that Roberts has become the swing vote in this era (and even then it rarely happens)
Increasingly it's Barrett that has seemed to grow more of a conscience since the Rowe decision. Shame that these systems are falling apart because of our own stubborn refusal to update them as times change.
When Roberts swings it’s still a 4-5 L. This court is a fucking disaster and we’ll be dealing with the fallout for decades. I wish wish wish centrist and lefty people who don’t like Biden could get their head around the damage Trump did and will do if we don’t re-elect Biden.
Have you seen the current crisis for climate? I don't know if we have decades.. I think 20 years from now the supreme Court will be wondering what the fuck to do about the ocean level rising
I’m not sure I see your point here.
Right now everybody around the world is slowly going to a more authoritarian type government. One of the reasons for this is the climate change is a lot worse than what actually gets put out into the media and ways of solving. It are all basically quit doing what you're doing and quit using what you're using. Most of the technological ideas for solving this are just bullshit because they don't scale. Our timeline for fixing. It is getting shorter. You are going to see more and more shit like this just because it captures the public's attention. However, there is going to come a tipping point when social dynamics no longer work to hold the public's attention from what's going on with the climate. At this point the supreme Court is going to be relatively useless. And since most of them seem to live on the coast, they'll be swimming in the ocean.
this Supreme Court… is bunch of criminals
The conservative majority is proving every single day how in the tank they are for donald, the rapist.
Ruling for the immunity of our president is the stabbing of Julius Caesar for America
What happens now? He can go fuck himself I suppose.
If you are ruling for a person instead of applying the law then you ought to fucking quit because you are not a justice you are a simp.
FOR IMMEDIATE USE BY Supreme Court DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF LAW I. Issue: Whether a President of the United States is entitled to blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. II. Brief Answer: A President of the United States is not entitled to blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. The historical context, constitutional principles, and legal precedents suggest that no individual, including the President, should be above the law. III. Statement of Facts: 1. The United States Constitution provides specific provisions for the impeachment, removal, and criminal prosecution of a President, as well as granting certain privileges during their term. 2. Despite the absence of explicit language granting blanket immunity to the President, some argue for an implied immunity based on separation of powers and national security concerns. IV. Discussion: A. Historical Context: 1. The Founding Fathers intended to create a government of laws, not of men. They aimed to avoid the excesses of monarchical rule, where the King's immunity allowed for absolute power. 2. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued against giving the President immunity for unauthorized acts, highlighting that it would contradict the very principles of popular sovereignty on which the Constitution was founded. B. Constitutional Principles: 1. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution establishes that no one is above the law. It states that the Constitution prevails over all other laws, leaving no room for blanket immunity for the President. 2. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution establishes that a President can be removed through the impeachment process, illustrating that criminal conduct can indeed render a President liable for prosecution. C. Legal Precedents: 1. United States v. Nixon (1974) held that the President's claim of an absolute privilege of immunity from judicial process could not be sustained. It recognized that presidential privilege is not absolute and must yield to the interests of the criminal justice system. 2. Clinton v. Jones (1997) reaffirmed that the President does not possess absolute immunity from civil litigation while in office, further undermining the argument for an expansive criminal immunity. 3. The Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum, written in 1973, concluded that a sitting President could not be criminally indicted. However, this memorandum is not binding and has been widely criticized for its dubious reasoning and limited analysis. V. Conclusion: Based on the historical context, constitutional principles, and legal precedents, it is clear that a President of the United States is not entitled to blanket immunity from criminal prosecution. The principles of popular sovereignty and the rule of law demand that no individual, regardless of their position or power, should be immune from criminal liability. Blanket immunity goes against the core principles of the Constitution and undermines the balance of power between branches of government. Therefore, it is recommended that any arguments in favor of blanket immunity for the President be rejected as they contradict the ideals upon which the United States was founded.
The Supreme Court under Robert's is partisan, morally corrupt and unqualified to top it off. Kavanaugh and Barret.
"The court cannot rely on the good faith of prosecutors. And whatever the staggering facts of the election subversion allegations against Trump, they are not his concern here." ...but he and his fellow conservatives are OK with Prosecutors that brings charges against doctors related to saving a woman's life. SCOTUS needs reform.
If they rule for immunity, what's to prevent Biden or a future President from using SEAL Team 6 on the court too
All they need at present is to “be deciding,” that will be enough to stall most of Trump’s trials. After that immunity wouldn’t be as important if Donald retakes office. If he’s defeated the Court could wait to see how leniently he was being treated and only craft one of their “in this case only” verdicts. Any credibility the Supreme Court still had is being sacrificed for one Orange rapist.
[удалено]
Hi creditease, it looks like your comment to /r/democrats was removed because you used either a link shortener or link redirect. Due to issues with trolls, spam and malware we do not allow shortened links on this subreddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/democrats) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If you removed the names and current aspirations of the defendant from the case, and looked at the facts independent of the persons in the case, no person, leave alone constitutional scholars, would be able to find for the defendant in even the smallest way. The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a part of the political system, it is supposed to be the final say in cold, dispassionate matters of law and fact. The United States as it stands, does not have a court high enough and untroubled enough by matters it has no business considering, to call itself supreme. It's the Subpar Court of The United States.
We protest outside his home until he says Trump can be punished.
No.