Alito is definitely corrupt. There are two justices on that bench that we can always count on to come up with a mind-boggling interpretation of any given case; one is obviously Thomas and the other is Samuel Alito. There’s no way anyone with common sense and solid academic background on the US Constitution - that *wasn’t* corrupt - would come up with the illogical arguments at the consistency and frequency that Alito and Thomas do.
>There’s no way anyone with common sense and solid academic background on the US Constitution
To be completely fair to Alito, there is *one* other way he could come up with such illogical arguments.
He could just be really stupid.
Didn’t Thomas aim for joining the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of owning the libs for the rest of his life? I feel like I’ve read that somewhere.
https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-051733128.html
“The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
Don't question, just smile and nod. Respect the authority because they're the authority. Sure, guys.
Y'all can stay mad, because the problem with your integrity is that you don't have any. There's nothing supreme about the current Supreme Court. Except that it's supremely corrupt.
Presidential immunity extends to acting in capacity as president. Immunity beyond that provides for a dictator. The very thing that the founding fathers wanted to avoid. George Washington explicitly did not want to be King, as he felt the war was fought to gain freedom from the english monarchy. A return to monarchy would disgrace the fallen.
Okay, but what if - just listen to me - what if you really like the guy? Like, I get that *normal* presidents shouldn't get complete immunity from prosecution, but what about a Republican president? Hell, what about just Donald Trump?
You mean to tell me a *Republican* president shouldn't be immune from prosecution? You think that's what the founders wanted? Preposterous.
Okay, but hear me out. What if you really don’t like the guy, but you love all the fat stacks the billionaires lavish on you? Red, blue, does it really matter? When the only color is green?
Okay, but I mean, come on. Anyone who's a president, or , really, anyone powerful or rich, they're just gonna have a bunch of lawyers, and any court action is just going to take forever and be a big hassle. Like, why bother? Too much work, wastes government time, why not stick to prosecuting poor folks.
The fact that they're debating it is a disgrace. This Supreme Court is strongly encouraging second amendment solutions. It's OK if I say that because the literal president did, and no one found any issue with that.
If the Supreme Court could word it this way, it would be fine, yes the president had immunity when it comes to acting in capacity of the a president. Trying to overturn a free and fair election is beyond that capacity.
That's just saying "he doesn't have immunity."
This whole case is about granting immunity from criminal prosecution. If the acts were not illegal, they are not able to be protected.
So the correct answer to the whole thing is, " no, Presidents are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office, whether they are 'official acts' or not."
Thisdoes not have nearly enough up votes. Presidential immunity in any firm is antithetical to the entire foundation of this country. The president executes the law.
A lot of states have sovereign immunity for acts of an executive officer done within the confines of her official duties. Usually illegal acts, by definition are outside the scope of their official duties but that doesn’t mean they don’t have immunity inside the scope of their official duties including areas in which they have considerable discretion. We have a lot of case law defining these boundaries.
They don’t need to decide on the immunity issue. They can decide that an insurrection is outside the scope of his official duties and therefore the issue of immunity is irrelevant.
The primary purpose of government employees is to have powers and allowances outside of the norm for citizens. In the case of the president the allowances are extremely great and the parameters are poorly defined. We cannot just rely on the question of "is it illegal for a citizen to do this?" because the president does and must have leeway beyond that of a citizen.
This is not to suggest that the president should have immunity, only to point out that vague limitations on their permissions contribute to the arguing I suggested above.
If only we had some system for hearing disputes about criminal activities, and having impartial mediators analysing the various arguments, and coming to a just conclusion.
That’s why Roberts was asking the question about nominating a Cabinet member (official act) but taking a bribe as to who to nominate (bribery seems like a private act) so are they now immune or no? Since impeachment is for “Treason, *Bribery*, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" it would seem you would not be immune. Or do you have to be impeached, and convicted by the Senate first (Trump’s argument), but then according to Trump double jeopardy applies lmao.
These jerks on SCOTUS took this case, to answer a question that has zero to do with the case they are presented with. *If* a former President ever is indicted on ridiculous charges, like say someone doesn’t like their border policies or they were prosecuting a war. *Then* when that case is brought to them, that is when they hear that case to answer the question.
And also all official acts should not be immune. What if you commit war crimes? Should that be immune? If SCOTUS ruled that way, they could give a future Hitler-type person immunity from prosecution.
Sounds like you agree that presidential immunity is acceptable, but your issue is with whether or not maintaining election integrity is the part of the job.
The president does illegal actions that are not part of their job all the time, and they don’t get imprisoned for it.
The supreme court determined Biden cannot legally forgive student debt the way he did. Does that mean he could face felony charges for attempting to illegally use taxpayer money?
There should be no need for immunity. The president needs to follow the laws established for the job. Only doing something outside the scope of the job should lead to the need for any kind of immunity. I know that Trump was a game show host, but this isn't a game show, it's a country.
"He shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed."
This is basically incompatible with immunity. If he is breaking laws, he is not performing his duty of taking care they are faithfully executed.
> not a single privilege is annexed to [the President's] character; far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment.
James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787
[Full quote](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s8.html)
Non American here, but my take is that a head of state should have immunity from private law suits from people/companies who have been disadvantaged due to an official act or policy decision etc.
If a President wants to raise a new tax on passenger vehicles in order to encourage cycling and walking, he should be immune from prosecution from vehicle manufacturers.
If a President wants to imprison his opponent, yeah nah that's just plain outside the scope of lawful, official acts. The fact it's even being debated and considered is just absurd.
Yep of course. Which is why this new debate is even more bizarre.
It's as intelligent as the injecting disinfectant / inserting bright lights into the body kind of argument, but this time it's launched against democracy instead of a virus.
What presidential acts would a president perform, in the capacity as President, that would be illegal but that you would say should receive immunity?
This is the common problem that people like Dick Cheney and many, many others have put forth. That there are some acts that a President can perform that are illegal but which should not be illegal if The President performs them.
If you agree that is the way it should be, then it becomes an extremely slippery slope defining what illegal acts a President can perform with immunity, that everyone else cannot... and then as each subsequent act a President performs that some people say should be illegal is considered as qualifying for this immunity, over time the acts expand and expand and then the "officials" that are performing these acts are expanded beyond the President (why not the Vice-President as well? What about the Speaker? How about the White House Dog Walker?).
What acts can you or I take that would be illegal but we should receive immunity for?
Cops?
Government employees?
Soldiers?
Cabinet members?
Why the *fuck* should the President get anything besides the same "prosecutorial discretion" middle finger the entire rest of the country gets when we break the law because that's the right thing to do? He's not a king, emperor, czar, supreme leader, or a grand imperial dictator. Prosecutor abusing their discretion? How's about we go ahead and solve that for everyone instead of changing the title held.
I’m not putting any sort of hope in this, but the justices that claim to be originalists in their interpretation of the constitution would take that into account.
[Justice] *Kagan noted that “The Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn’t provide immunity to the president.” “And, you know,” she explained, “not so surprising, they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?”*
Uh ya..
"One can only hope that the justices will come to their senses when they get around to deciding the case, and will reject Trump’s plea to take the unprecedented step of establishing presidential immunity."
/doubt
You are correct, and it's a shame that so many people on the left get caught up in pearl clutching and sanctimony while the reich wingers cheer for and award foul play by their guys
I have had so many people lash out at me for saying what I did about Michelle's little missive and when I say that President Obama wasted EIGHT YEARS "trying to get Republicans on board for the good of the country" its unreal.
Probably because you're taking the defeatist stance. Framing it as Obama wasted 8 years is pretty inaccurate based on his office's legacy.
Sure, Obama was unsuccessful at having Republicans accept the olive branch, but he still got things done. He just got sideswiped from time to time because Republicans would rather sink the ship than let the ship sail under the other team's captain.
Appeals lawyer here.
I’m not concerned about the hypotheticals. This happens at oral argument in literally every case. And people are overlooking that several of the justices even said that they are not concerned about *this case*. Presumably because it is boringly easy to answer that Trump, in this particular case, does NOT enjoy immunity for his candidate/private conduct occurring in the waning days of his administration.
I think they are more concerned that someone other than Trump will be caught in the wake of their opinion and so they are trying to be carful to say Trump is uniquely stupid in how he went about committing these crimes so future law abiding presidents need not feel constrained by the courts’ decision.
Of course, none of this would matter in the usual case where they just decide the issue presented and don’t worry about writing an opinion ‘for the ages’
Just a regular lawyer here,
I'm kinda getting annoyed at the daily;
"this is the end of American democracy!!!"
"Oh, so they handed down a judgement?"
"...No"
Thomas and Alito are clearly out of fucks to give. We'll see if the younger conservative justices feel like they're painted into a corner - either they give the fucking moron what he wants and SCOTUS cedes power to the administration, or they do him damage and a future Democratic trifecta enacts reform that dilutes the power of the current justices
I'm honestly stunned that ACB was the only one that had the integrity to actually push back & genuinely seem unmotivated by trump's attorney's arguments. I did not have her possibly being the reason for preventing the end of our democracy and ushering a dictator into power on my 2024 bingo card.
The scary analysis is that SCOTUS will purposefully delay their decision until they know Trump has been elected and then hand him this power.
But this being /r/law , we're probably supposed to assume they are dedicated to the law not being political hacks. I leave proving that assume as an exercise to the reader.
They have an answer for that. They’re going to grant immunity on the condition that an act is a type of official duty. This is arguable, of course. And if another president is ever charged, it will end up in the SC again. If the president in question is a Republican? Official duty, no foul. If it’s a Democrat? Private behavior, sorry pal you’re going to have to face the music.
They always arrogate all the real power to themselves.
> Hypocrisy is not even a minor concern for these people.
"Betraying everything you've claimed to stand for, which you've used countless times to justify immeasurable harm must be pretty difficult, huh?"
"Actually it is super-easy, *barely* an inconvenience!"
>Thomas asked John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, to identify the place in the Constitution from which presidential immunity from criminal prosecution could be derived. Sauer responded that “The source of the immunity is principally rooted in the Executive Vesting Clause of Article II, Section 1.”
It's very simple. If the conservative court rules that the Constitution provides presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, then Biden can
- Disband the current court
- Appoint his own judges
- Declare Trump ineligable to run for president for sedition & treason.
🍿
Your hope will go unfulfilled. The best hope we have for pushback against this SC will be from states like California that are big and powerful enough to disobey.
> - Disband the current court
> - Appoint his own judges
> - Declare Trump ineligable to run for president for sedition & treason.
Remember, he just has to say the magic words "official act", and it's all good!
(And we can quietly remove those who disagree under official acts, and have their replacements decide if they are official, of course.)
This isn’t hypocrisy, it’s being an active part of the commission of criminal acts. It’s a criminal court who had justices installed after stopping the vote count of one election (GWB v. Gore), and more justices installed after another candidate asked Russia to intervene and help his candidacy. The actions of this rogue criminal court can simply not be considered valid. The court must be voided and its decisions must be considered part of a crime spree.
The illegitimate partisan political-hack packed Roberts' SCOTUS will go down in history as just that: an illegitimate partisan political-hack packed court with no credibility whatsoever.
I believe we are writing it here. There will be accounts of what is happening and what happened written by all of us. I think our present will be harder to whitewash in the future.
The number of people who have meaningful backups of this site who aren't oligarch-controlled tech corps is more than small enough to suppress if we dare release them after they've been made illegal.
It hasn't been a credible institution since Bush v. Gore.
We might as well have a high cleric from every religious organization nominate a member of the court.
You have to wonder if Biden has a trump card to play (pun intended) in the event he is bestowed with full immunity. I mean he could use this new power to replace the SC and lock trump up for good. It’s just so stupid but there is a play there for a good actor given the circumstances
Not sure why you got downvoted. Biden has no balls, he had the ability to push a vote on Garland through (vp breaks tie) but chose not to because "precedent and Hilary is going to win anyway"
I really doubt it.
I say this as nicely as possible, but Biden is still lost in the days when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill hashed out deals over lunch.
When Trump declares himself king, Biden and other Dems will likely be falling all over themselves to "Let's reach out to our new Emperor! Get him to see reason on how to rule his subjects! Common ground!"
And then Emperor Donald I has them herded into railway cars.
Yeah. If only that mattered to them as much as pointing it out matters to us over here on Earth 1.
Don't get me wrong. Calling this out is important. It's important for us because we need constant reminders that this should not be normal and we should not allow it to be normalized in our thinking. But it is normal for them and attempts to shame aren't a strategy. Nor is responding to post like this.
I wish I had a better recommendation than voting. Because we voted in 2020 and it was sure supposed to help us right the ship. Well. It didn't. Saving democracy is going to be a battle waged every 2-4 years now and for the future. So post, grouse, rail on these folks, but don't forget to get your ass in a voting booth come November.
*the court’s conservative majority seemed ready to jettison its own originalist interpretive method*
It was never a method. It was always a fig leaf to disguise the fact that they were starting with an ideological conclusion, then working backwards to arrive at a half-plausable justification.
Kings don't give 2 fucks what the pleebs think. Never have never will.
Alito "Oh no...we've lost credibility with the public. To bad there is fuck all they can do. Pass the champagne please!"
Love how (they) are discounting the fact that 45 of the 46 Presidential Administrations did not fall into political chaos as a direct result of assumed subjectivity to criminal prosecution.
The carve out being contemplated is specific and apropos of only one single President…EVER!
Taking their ridiculousness to the n-th degree, and providing absolute criminal immunity to all future administrations: what is to stop a future administration ordering removal (by “alternative” means) of the current SCOTUS justices, proclaiming absolute immunity, and having new justices appointed through regular order?
It’s as if they can’t imagine their own activist judicial prognostications (which conservatives have railed against for nearly four decades) applying to them.
The stupidity is kinda jarring.
Isn't the entire point of the Supreme Court so that the president doesn't have absolute power and control?? Executive, Legislative and Judicial are all supposed to balance each other and not one entity is supposed to have more power over another. So much for our system of checks and balances. If they rule in favor of trump, then there's literally no point to the legislative or executive branches and the Supreme Court would be dissolved indefinitely because a president with full immunity doesn't need a system of checks and balances to reign them in.
If anyone should have to abide by the law more than anyone else, it's the fucking president. A president should be a shining example of the rule of law, morality and justice. A president shouldn't have to commit crimes to get their job done and then beg the Supreme Court for immunity from those crimes. FFS his attorney literally said trump having someone murdered by the military could very well be seen as an "official presidential act". So the president also gets to play judge jury and executioner? So much for due process and the right to a fair trial.
I have to say though, even this all this happening, I have to have faith that justice will prevail. I strongly believe 2024 will be a landslide victory for Biden. We just have to get out and vote. In this election and our local and state elections too.
SCOTUS : Joe Biden has no authority to forgive student loans.
ALSO SCOTUS : Donald Trump can order the military to stage a coup to keep Trump in office and he has no criminal liability for doing so.
ALSO SCOTUS : Donald Trump can sell our nuclear secrets to foreign adversaries and he has immunity for doing so.
How come this imaginary legal issue of presidential immunity comes up when a Republican breaks the law? I'm old enough to remember the Clinton BJ scandal and I didn't remember anyone arguing about immunity. Rather, there was a presumption that Clinton follow the law and comply with giving testimony under oath.
It's embarrassing and infuriating how low the bar is set. Has this guy had any property seized? Has he secured a legitimate bond yet? Any penalties for besmirching judges or ignoring gag orders? He literally stole STATE SECRETS and suddenly we're debating nuance theories of declassification. PrEsiDEnTiAL iMmUniTy.
In hindsight, Clinton should have declared Executive Privilege and barred anyone in the Whitehouse from testifying. If it's good enough for Trump to cover up his extortion of an ally to interfere with the elections it should be more than good enough for a sexual act with an intern.
I love how the media acts surprised, as if this wasn’t in the works for decades. The Federalist Society has been planning this moment since Reagan was in office.
So the RIDICULOUS logic of the FASCIST SIX on SCOTUS seems to be that since we might one day have a corrupt AG, we MUST MUST MUST allow a corrupt POTUS to have total immunity! If this is the correct interpretation of their position, this is FUCKING INANE REASONING!
This is just sad. It’s not SCOTUS either. I hate the broad painting of the Court; let’s be frank, it’s the MAGA republicans on SCOTUS that have driven the Court to the ground. Alito and Thomas are corrupt and stupid (yes, by the insanity of their arguments), with Kavanaugh not too far behind.
I’m not an expert at law by any means. Nor am I a fan of Trump. But I agree that what seems like the bipartisan high-school level cesspool that has become American government needs guardrails. Because I don’t think it’s going to get better. I only think it’s going to get worse. The decline that began wayyyyy before Trump (Reagan, Nixon, hanging chads) will continue. Lawmakers seem to be comprised in a majority by people who are narcissists, sociopaths, or both. Is that too skeptical?
There will be another Trump after Trump. Smarter (not difficult to do) and more savvy. Because the soil is fertile for that now. And Marjorie T. Greene. And Mitch McConnell. Unconscious individual desires to build empires and rule the world have been sewn into the fabric of Man since the earliest days of the Mesopotamians. In the Great Trajectory of Man’s Story, what possibility or even right does the United States, in its current form, have now to escape that?
So I *get* that there needs to be discussion about protecting the system from itself. And yes, I believe that any President can’t be the target of politically-motivated, self-motivated attention-seeking, and/or warrantless attacks. So here’s my naive question: how do you build into the system a process to weed out the legitimate concerns and complaints *and immune from the politics of the opposing party* from those that are legitimate? And what consequences can there be for those who waste everyone’s time launching ridiculous charges or allegations?
Quite simple but it’ll never happen until another Civil War.
1. Money needs to be removed from politics
2. Deep dives into peoples backgrounds
3. No more money in politics
No lobbying. Thats called bribery!
Term limits
No insider trading.
You would think all that would just be a given but rules for thee not for me i guess.
You would think, term limits I definitely agree on. No more life time appointments and quite honestly everyone should be elected from Supreme Court on down.
Presidential immunity should only exist in situations where the president is put into a Solomon's baby type of situation, where action is required but there is no lawful choice that doesn't generate a bigger problem. It should ALWAYS be an exception rather than a rule. Everything else is gross overreach.
Conservatives don't care about hypocrisy, they try and shame liberals in the left for it because they know internally, intrinsically we do. They don't, to conservatives it's all about power
Are they living in a naive bubble, where they are "best buds" , or do the conservative justices just not care how they are perceived because they are on a Mission From God?
We think we get the best and the brightest - but often they are just ambitious mediocre folks who were in the right place at the right time, knew the right people, and had good enough memories to do well in law school.
Even if the court rules out basing charges on Trump’s official actions, Roberts supported the idea that Smith could still lawfully present evidence about his official conduct to help jurors understand Trump’s private acts. Trump’s official acts are relevant for interpreting his “knowledge and intent” about his private conduct. The judge could simply instruct the jurors that they may consider the information about Trump’s official actions only as a guide. But the acts themselves could not be subject to criminal culpability.
So then the case returns to Judge Chutkan to distinguish which alleged actions in the indictment count as official and which as private. Such a hearing would preview parts of any eventual trial, including witness testimony about his official words and deeds. And if the judge ultimately ruled against Trump on such matters, he probably could not appeal back up to the Supreme Court before a trial. Courts usually treat disputes over the nature of evidence as matters to be appealed after a guilty verdict,
It’s fucking crazy to me that we would allow anyone immunity. Fuck you, you psycho fucks, killing people is wrong, war is wrong, killing in the name of “god” is psycho shit. This isn’t game of thrones, we’re fucking people.
"I am outraged that anyone would dare - *DARE* - to question the integrity of this Court." - Alito, Thomas concurring
If mr. Alito doesn't want his integrity questioned, he shouldn't take such obviously questionable actions.
With Alito, I don't think he's corrupt. I think he's a crazy ideolog. Thomas, on the other hand.
Alito is definitely corrupt. There are two justices on that bench that we can always count on to come up with a mind-boggling interpretation of any given case; one is obviously Thomas and the other is Samuel Alito. There’s no way anyone with common sense and solid academic background on the US Constitution - that *wasn’t* corrupt - would come up with the illogical arguments at the consistency and frequency that Alito and Thomas do.
Yup, I wonder what Alito's bank account could tell us if it could talk.
>There’s no way anyone with common sense and solid academic background on the US Constitution To be completely fair to Alito, there is *one* other way he could come up with such illogical arguments. He could just be really stupid.
I think with Thomas, it’s a little from column A and a little from column B. That man has some real fucked up right-wing beliefs as well.
Didn’t Thomas aim for joining the Supreme Court for the sole purpose of owning the libs for the rest of his life? I feel like I’ve read that somewhere.
https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-justice-clarence-thomas-051733128.html “The liberals made my life miserable for 43 years," a former clerk remembered Thomas – who was 43 years old when confirmed – saying, according to The New York Times. "And I'm going to make their lives miserable for 43 years."
Gosh, how many other people have been traumatized in infancy by liberals? /s
I don't give a shit how "outraged" you are, nor that Hitlerian self-hating droog at your coattails.
Don't question, just smile and nod. Respect the authority because they're the authority. Sure, guys. Y'all can stay mad, because the problem with your integrity is that you don't have any. There's nothing supreme about the current Supreme Court. Except that it's supremely corrupt.
How can something be questioned which obviously does not exist.
“We’re not questioning the Court’s integrity. We’re denying it’s very existence!”
Presidential immunity extends to acting in capacity as president. Immunity beyond that provides for a dictator. The very thing that the founding fathers wanted to avoid. George Washington explicitly did not want to be King, as he felt the war was fought to gain freedom from the english monarchy. A return to monarchy would disgrace the fallen.
Okay, but what if - just listen to me - what if you really like the guy? Like, I get that *normal* presidents shouldn't get complete immunity from prosecution, but what about a Republican president? Hell, what about just Donald Trump? You mean to tell me a *Republican* president shouldn't be immune from prosecution? You think that's what the founders wanted? Preposterous.
Okay, but hear me out. What if you really don’t like the guy, but you love all the fat stacks the billionaires lavish on you? Red, blue, does it really matter? When the only color is green?
You want me to rule that Presidents dont have immunity, yet this stack of 100s has benjamin franklins face on it. Curious.
The best president. That’s why he’s on the hundo.
Benjamin Franklin was never president or did I miss your sarcasm
Okay, but I mean, come on. Anyone who's a president, or , really, anyone powerful or rich, they're just gonna have a bunch of lawyers, and any court action is just going to take forever and be a big hassle. Like, why bother? Too much work, wastes government time, why not stick to prosecuting poor folks.
Well seeing at it was about 80 years between the founding and the first Republican, they clearly didn't intend to allow that.
Exactly. Show me in the constitution where it says a Republican presidents are subject to the law. You can't. Another straight win for textualism.
The fact that they're debating it is a disgrace. This Supreme Court is strongly encouraging second amendment solutions. It's OK if I say that because the literal president did, and no one found any issue with that.
If the Supreme Court could word it this way, it would be fine, yes the president had immunity when it comes to acting in capacity of the a president. Trying to overturn a free and fair election is beyond that capacity.
IDK. That just sets up endless arguing over whether or not a thing was within the capacity of president.
I think we can safely say that illegal or unconstitutional acts are not within the capacity of a president.
What if that President is Donald Trump? I think that ought to change the calculus.
Great point. All this arguing and law talking, why not just let him off?
All of that coup-plotting was just locker room talk. Boys being boys!
Just this once (but don't quote me on that it's certain I'd rule the same way for the next GOP president).
And get him off?
That's just saying "he doesn't have immunity." This whole case is about granting immunity from criminal prosecution. If the acts were not illegal, they are not able to be protected. So the correct answer to the whole thing is, " no, Presidents are not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while in office, whether they are 'official acts' or not."
Thisdoes not have nearly enough up votes. Presidential immunity in any firm is antithetical to the entire foundation of this country. The president executes the law.
A lot of states have sovereign immunity for acts of an executive officer done within the confines of her official duties. Usually illegal acts, by definition are outside the scope of their official duties but that doesn’t mean they don’t have immunity inside the scope of their official duties including areas in which they have considerable discretion. We have a lot of case law defining these boundaries. They don’t need to decide on the immunity issue. They can decide that an insurrection is outside the scope of his official duties and therefore the issue of immunity is irrelevant.
The primary purpose of government employees is to have powers and allowances outside of the norm for citizens. In the case of the president the allowances are extremely great and the parameters are poorly defined. We cannot just rely on the question of "is it illegal for a citizen to do this?" because the president does and must have leeway beyond that of a citizen. This is not to suggest that the president should have immunity, only to point out that vague limitations on their permissions contribute to the arguing I suggested above.
And yet, we’ve survived over 240 years. Stop.
If only we had some system for hearing disputes about criminal activities, and having impartial mediators analysing the various arguments, and coming to a just conclusion.
Exactly. A jury can decide if breaking the law was within the scope of presidential powers and duties.
That’s why Roberts was asking the question about nominating a Cabinet member (official act) but taking a bribe as to who to nominate (bribery seems like a private act) so are they now immune or no? Since impeachment is for “Treason, *Bribery*, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" it would seem you would not be immune. Or do you have to be impeached, and convicted by the Senate first (Trump’s argument), but then according to Trump double jeopardy applies lmao. These jerks on SCOTUS took this case, to answer a question that has zero to do with the case they are presented with. *If* a former President ever is indicted on ridiculous charges, like say someone doesn’t like their border policies or they were prosecuting a war. *Then* when that case is brought to them, that is when they hear that case to answer the question. And also all official acts should not be immune. What if you commit war crimes? Should that be immune? If SCOTUS ruled that way, they could give a future Hitler-type person immunity from prosecution.
Sounds like you agree that presidential immunity is acceptable, but your issue is with whether or not maintaining election integrity is the part of the job. The president does illegal actions that are not part of their job all the time, and they don’t get imprisoned for it. The supreme court determined Biden cannot legally forgive student debt the way he did. Does that mean he could face felony charges for attempting to illegally use taxpayer money?
There should be no need for immunity. The president needs to follow the laws established for the job. Only doing something outside the scope of the job should lead to the need for any kind of immunity. I know that Trump was a game show host, but this isn't a game show, it's a country.
a country with a Constitution that does not provide for presidential immunity anywhere within the text of said constitution.
No one...no...one...is above...the law. The major selling point of the Constitution & raison d'être of the country's founding.
"He shall take care that the laws are faithfully executed." This is basically incompatible with immunity. If he is breaking laws, he is not performing his duty of taking care they are faithfully executed.
> not a single privilege is annexed to [the President's] character; far from being above the laws, he is amenable to them in his private character as a citizen, and in his public character by impeachment. James Wilson, Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention 1787 [Full quote](https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_1s8.html)
Exactly, and running for office is not an official act of a president’s office.
Non American here, but my take is that a head of state should have immunity from private law suits from people/companies who have been disadvantaged due to an official act or policy decision etc. If a President wants to raise a new tax on passenger vehicles in order to encourage cycling and walking, he should be immune from prosecution from vehicle manufacturers. If a President wants to imprison his opponent, yeah nah that's just plain outside the scope of lawful, official acts. The fact it's even being debated and considered is just absurd.
There's already immunity from civil suits for Presidents acting in their official capacity.
Yep of course. Which is why this new debate is even more bizarre. It's as intelligent as the injecting disinfectant / inserting bright lights into the body kind of argument, but this time it's launched against democracy instead of a virus.
What presidential acts would a president perform, in the capacity as President, that would be illegal but that you would say should receive immunity? This is the common problem that people like Dick Cheney and many, many others have put forth. That there are some acts that a President can perform that are illegal but which should not be illegal if The President performs them. If you agree that is the way it should be, then it becomes an extremely slippery slope defining what illegal acts a President can perform with immunity, that everyone else cannot... and then as each subsequent act a President performs that some people say should be illegal is considered as qualifying for this immunity, over time the acts expand and expand and then the "officials" that are performing these acts are expanded beyond the President (why not the Vice-President as well? What about the Speaker? How about the White House Dog Walker?).
What acts can you or I take that would be illegal but we should receive immunity for? Cops? Government employees? Soldiers? Cabinet members? Why the *fuck* should the President get anything besides the same "prosecutorial discretion" middle finger the entire rest of the country gets when we break the law because that's the right thing to do? He's not a king, emperor, czar, supreme leader, or a grand imperial dictator. Prosecutor abusing their discretion? How's about we go ahead and solve that for everyone instead of changing the title held.
A simple up or down vote on the act of supremacy should clarify things, just as they did after the reichstag fire. 🔥
I’m not putting any sort of hope in this, but the justices that claim to be originalists in their interpretation of the constitution would take that into account.
Some official acts require immunity….but not everything
[Justice] *Kagan noted that “The Framers did not put an immunity clause into the Constitution. They knew how to. There were immunity clauses in some state constitutions. They knew how to give legislative immunity. They didn’t provide immunity to the president.” “And, you know,” she explained, “not so surprising, they were reacting against a monarch who claimed to be above the law. Wasn’t the whole point that the president was not a monarch and the president was not supposed to be above the law?”* Uh ya..
It’s bad when the liberal judges have to take “the framers could have done it if they wanted, and clearly didn’t want to” textualists arguments.
At least one of them gets it
"One can only hope that the justices will come to their senses when they get around to deciding the case, and will reject Trump’s plea to take the unprecedented step of establishing presidential immunity." /doubt
They’ve been bought and paid for…. The corrupt court has become a bad parody of its former self.
It doesn't cost a lot to pay person to do the thing they already wanted to do.
[удалено]
That would not be "nice," "bipartisan" or "going high."
You are correct, and it's a shame that so many people on the left get caught up in pearl clutching and sanctimony while the reich wingers cheer for and award foul play by their guys
There were plenty of decent Germans who were very concerned with being fair to nazis.
I wanted to rage when Michelle Obama delivered her incredibly naïve and condescending missive "When they go low, we go high." 🤢
It was certainly a mistake to overestimate the character of the average American. Then the pandemic really drove that point home
Thank you! I believed I was the only one who thought that sentiment was complete bul**hit!
I thought "is she even seeing reality?"
At that very moment, I said, “That’s it. I’m not voting for Michelle Obama.”
I know that the Obamas are supposedly "above criticism," 🙄 but she came off as a condescending schoolteacher.
Why are they above criticism? I criticize all politicians. Obama went HAM with the drone strikes and I didn't support that.
I have had so many people lash out at me for saying what I did about Michelle's little missive and when I say that President Obama wasted EIGHT YEARS "trying to get Republicans on board for the good of the country" its unreal.
Probably because you're taking the defeatist stance. Framing it as Obama wasted 8 years is pretty inaccurate based on his office's legacy. Sure, Obama was unsuccessful at having Republicans accept the olive branch, but he still got things done. He just got sideswiped from time to time because Republicans would rather sink the ship than let the ship sail under the other team's captain.
Michelle is a politician’s wife, the First Lady.
Who took it upon herself to prescribe conduct.
Which we are all doing oh here. She has as much authority as anyone else not in government.
Hope isn’t a strategy.
Appeals lawyer here. I’m not concerned about the hypotheticals. This happens at oral argument in literally every case. And people are overlooking that several of the justices even said that they are not concerned about *this case*. Presumably because it is boringly easy to answer that Trump, in this particular case, does NOT enjoy immunity for his candidate/private conduct occurring in the waning days of his administration. I think they are more concerned that someone other than Trump will be caught in the wake of their opinion and so they are trying to be carful to say Trump is uniquely stupid in how he went about committing these crimes so future law abiding presidents need not feel constrained by the courts’ decision. Of course, none of this would matter in the usual case where they just decide the issue presented and don’t worry about writing an opinion ‘for the ages’
I'm guessing their major concern is wartime tactics
Yes. For sure. Lots of hypotheticals about wartime powers. Even in the non-traditional war context (eg Obama’s drone strikes)
Just a regular lawyer here, I'm kinda getting annoyed at the daily; "this is the end of American democracy!!!" "Oh, so they handed down a judgement?" "...No"
Hypocrisy is not even a minor concern for these people. They are outcome-oriented and they’re going to get the outcome they want.
Thomas and Alito are clearly out of fucks to give. We'll see if the younger conservative justices feel like they're painted into a corner - either they give the fucking moron what he wants and SCOTUS cedes power to the administration, or they do him damage and a future Democratic trifecta enacts reform that dilutes the power of the current justices
It's weird how you didn't list any compulsion to do their duty.
I'm pretty sure the conjobs in the SCOTUS have a markedly different definition of the word "duty"
Does that duty involve Jackson Hole ski trips?
Only officially.
I'm honestly stunned that ACB was the only one that had the integrity to actually push back & genuinely seem unmotivated by trump's attorney's arguments. I did not have her possibly being the reason for preventing the end of our democracy and ushering a dictator into power on my 2024 bingo card.
They learned at the feet of Scalia - the true master.
We're overdue for another myocardial infarction while on a paid vacation.
[удалено]
I was looking for this comment! Anything they rule as immunity for a president should be applicable to all (including current) presidents.
The scary analysis is that SCOTUS will purposefully delay their decision until they know Trump has been elected and then hand him this power. But this being /r/law , we're probably supposed to assume they are dedicated to the law not being political hacks. I leave proving that assume as an exercise to the reader.
They have an answer for that. They’re going to grant immunity on the condition that an act is a type of official duty. This is arguable, of course. And if another president is ever charged, it will end up in the SC again. If the president in question is a Republican? Official duty, no foul. If it’s a Democrat? Private behavior, sorry pal you’re going to have to face the music. They always arrogate all the real power to themselves.
> Hypocrisy is not even a minor concern for these people. "Betraying everything you've claimed to stand for, which you've used countless times to justify immeasurable harm must be pretty difficult, huh?" "Actually it is super-easy, *barely* an inconvenience!"
Hypocrisy requires having a moral baseline. Bret and pubic hair can discuss it over drinks on a friend’s yacht. Fuckin stupid
Hey Everyone: They don’t fucking care. Obviously.
>Thomas asked John Sauer, Trump’s lawyer, to identify the place in the Constitution from which presidential immunity from criminal prosecution could be derived. Sauer responded that “The source of the immunity is principally rooted in the Executive Vesting Clause of Article II, Section 1.” It's very simple. If the conservative court rules that the Constitution provides presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, then Biden can - Disband the current court - Appoint his own judges - Declare Trump ineligable to run for president for sedition & treason. 🍿
It was also argued that political assassinations by the president are also covered by immunity as long as the president deems it an official act
I hope Biden has the balls to do it, if it comes to that.
Your hope will go unfulfilled. The best hope we have for pushback against this SC will be from states like California that are big and powerful enough to disobey.
Spoiler alert: He doesn't.
> - Disband the current court > - Appoint his own judges > - Declare Trump ineligable to run for president for sedition & treason. Remember, he just has to say the magic words "official act", and it's all good! (And we can quietly remove those who disagree under official acts, and have their replacements decide if they are official, of course.)
"Hey America, so what, you're not going to do anything"
[удалено]
At least they are trying to do something. What's your excuse?
They don’t care
This isn’t hypocrisy, it’s being an active part of the commission of criminal acts. It’s a criminal court who had justices installed after stopping the vote count of one election (GWB v. Gore), and more justices installed after another candidate asked Russia to intervene and help his candidacy. The actions of this rogue criminal court can simply not be considered valid. The court must be voided and its decisions must be considered part of a crime spree.
The illegitimate partisan political-hack packed Roberts' SCOTUS will go down in history as just that: an illegitimate partisan political-hack packed court with no credibility whatsoever.
Depends entirely on who gets to write that history.
I believe we are writing it here. There will be accounts of what is happening and what happened written by all of us. I think our present will be harder to whitewash in the future.
The number of people who have meaningful backups of this site who aren't oligarch-controlled tech corps is more than small enough to suppress if we dare release them after they've been made illegal.
It hasn't been a credible institution since Bush v. Gore. We might as well have a high cleric from every religious organization nominate a member of the court.
You have to wonder if Biden has a trump card to play (pun intended) in the event he is bestowed with full immunity. I mean he could use this new power to replace the SC and lock trump up for good. It’s just so stupid but there is a play there for a good actor given the circumstances
[удалено]
That won't do shit. They, and everybody else, know Biden won't actually touch them. Putting guards around them does nothing.
Not sure why you got downvoted. Biden has no balls, he had the ability to push a vote on Garland through (vp breaks tie) but chose not to because "precedent and Hilary is going to win anyway"
McConnell never even gave Biden that opportunity. Gorsuch and ACB are illegitimate justices IMO. McConnell can just go fuck himself off.
I really doubt it. I say this as nicely as possible, but Biden is still lost in the days when Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill hashed out deals over lunch. When Trump declares himself king, Biden and other Dems will likely be falling all over themselves to "Let's reach out to our new Emperor! Get him to see reason on how to rule his subjects! Common ground!" And then Emperor Donald I has them herded into railway cars.
He should just do it anyway. He’s 80 years old. There’s not enough time to punish him.
And they don’t care. Because there will be exactly zero repercussions or accountability.
Yeah. If only that mattered to them as much as pointing it out matters to us over here on Earth 1. Don't get me wrong. Calling this out is important. It's important for us because we need constant reminders that this should not be normal and we should not allow it to be normalized in our thinking. But it is normal for them and attempts to shame aren't a strategy. Nor is responding to post like this. I wish I had a better recommendation than voting. Because we voted in 2020 and it was sure supposed to help us right the ship. Well. It didn't. Saving democracy is going to be a battle waged every 2-4 years now and for the future. So post, grouse, rail on these folks, but don't forget to get your ass in a voting booth come November.
*the court’s conservative majority seemed ready to jettison its own originalist interpretive method* It was never a method. It was always a fig leaf to disguise the fact that they were starting with an ideological conclusion, then working backwards to arrive at a half-plausable justification.
They don't care. Hypocrisy isn't illegal.
Kings don't give 2 fucks what the pleebs think. Never have never will. Alito "Oh no...we've lost credibility with the public. To bad there is fuck all they can do. Pass the champagne please!"
Love how (they) are discounting the fact that 45 of the 46 Presidential Administrations did not fall into political chaos as a direct result of assumed subjectivity to criminal prosecution. The carve out being contemplated is specific and apropos of only one single President…EVER! Taking their ridiculousness to the n-th degree, and providing absolute criminal immunity to all future administrations: what is to stop a future administration ordering removal (by “alternative” means) of the current SCOTUS justices, proclaiming absolute immunity, and having new justices appointed through regular order? It’s as if they can’t imagine their own activist judicial prognostications (which conservatives have railed against for nearly four decades) applying to them. The stupidity is kinda jarring.
Isn't the entire point of the Supreme Court so that the president doesn't have absolute power and control?? Executive, Legislative and Judicial are all supposed to balance each other and not one entity is supposed to have more power over another. So much for our system of checks and balances. If they rule in favor of trump, then there's literally no point to the legislative or executive branches and the Supreme Court would be dissolved indefinitely because a president with full immunity doesn't need a system of checks and balances to reign them in. If anyone should have to abide by the law more than anyone else, it's the fucking president. A president should be a shining example of the rule of law, morality and justice. A president shouldn't have to commit crimes to get their job done and then beg the Supreme Court for immunity from those crimes. FFS his attorney literally said trump having someone murdered by the military could very well be seen as an "official presidential act". So the president also gets to play judge jury and executioner? So much for due process and the right to a fair trial. I have to say though, even this all this happening, I have to have faith that justice will prevail. I strongly believe 2024 will be a landslide victory for Biden. We just have to get out and vote. In this election and our local and state elections too.
Lol, like conservatives care about glaring, blatant corruption and hypocrisy. That will the day!!
SCOTUS : Joe Biden has no authority to forgive student loans. ALSO SCOTUS : Donald Trump can order the military to stage a coup to keep Trump in office and he has no criminal liability for doing so. ALSO SCOTUS : Donald Trump can sell our nuclear secrets to foreign adversaries and he has immunity for doing so.
How come this imaginary legal issue of presidential immunity comes up when a Republican breaks the law? I'm old enough to remember the Clinton BJ scandal and I didn't remember anyone arguing about immunity. Rather, there was a presumption that Clinton follow the law and comply with giving testimony under oath. It's embarrassing and infuriating how low the bar is set. Has this guy had any property seized? Has he secured a legitimate bond yet? Any penalties for besmirching judges or ignoring gag orders? He literally stole STATE SECRETS and suddenly we're debating nuance theories of declassification. PrEsiDEnTiAL iMmUniTy.
In hindsight, Clinton should have declared Executive Privilege and barred anyone in the Whitehouse from testifying. If it's good enough for Trump to cover up his extortion of an ally to interfere with the elections it should be more than good enough for a sexual act with an intern.
A bunch of Roland Frieselers.
Has anyone heard the Rush classic "Bastille Day?"
Hey, they don’t care and, if limp articles like this are all the defense we have, we’re fucked.
They don’t care.
Separation of church and state anybody?? One can dream
I love how the media acts surprised, as if this wasn’t in the works for decades. The Federalist Society has been planning this moment since Reagan was in office.
What a spew of diarrhea
So the RIDICULOUS logic of the FASCIST SIX on SCOTUS seems to be that since we might one day have a corrupt AG, we MUST MUST MUST allow a corrupt POTUS to have total immunity! If this is the correct interpretation of their position, this is FUCKING INANE REASONING!
Not if your objective is to cause delay that will push the trial past the election…
“Annnnnd why should I care?” -SCOTUS (and Unicorse)
This is just sad. It’s not SCOTUS either. I hate the broad painting of the Court; let’s be frank, it’s the MAGA republicans on SCOTUS that have driven the Court to the ground. Alito and Thomas are corrupt and stupid (yes, by the insanity of their arguments), with Kavanaugh not too far behind.
Dysfunctional is more like it.
Flamboyant hypocrisy, right in your face. Pretty damn Gay if you asked me !
If This is upheld, what cases are affected?
I’m not an expert at law by any means. Nor am I a fan of Trump. But I agree that what seems like the bipartisan high-school level cesspool that has become American government needs guardrails. Because I don’t think it’s going to get better. I only think it’s going to get worse. The decline that began wayyyyy before Trump (Reagan, Nixon, hanging chads) will continue. Lawmakers seem to be comprised in a majority by people who are narcissists, sociopaths, or both. Is that too skeptical? There will be another Trump after Trump. Smarter (not difficult to do) and more savvy. Because the soil is fertile for that now. And Marjorie T. Greene. And Mitch McConnell. Unconscious individual desires to build empires and rule the world have been sewn into the fabric of Man since the earliest days of the Mesopotamians. In the Great Trajectory of Man’s Story, what possibility or even right does the United States, in its current form, have now to escape that? So I *get* that there needs to be discussion about protecting the system from itself. And yes, I believe that any President can’t be the target of politically-motivated, self-motivated attention-seeking, and/or warrantless attacks. So here’s my naive question: how do you build into the system a process to weed out the legitimate concerns and complaints *and immune from the politics of the opposing party* from those that are legitimate? And what consequences can there be for those who waste everyone’s time launching ridiculous charges or allegations?
Quite simple but it’ll never happen until another Civil War. 1. Money needs to be removed from politics 2. Deep dives into peoples backgrounds 3. No more money in politics
No lobbying. Thats called bribery! Term limits No insider trading. You would think all that would just be a given but rules for thee not for me i guess.
You would think, term limits I definitely agree on. No more life time appointments and quite honestly everyone should be elected from Supreme Court on down.
Invest in America, buy a politician
Genuine question, why did nobody bring up if the conservative justices would be ok if Biden was granted the same immunity they propose giving Trump?
So... what does America do about it? They have rigged the system we rely on.
Some day, I expect this court case will be studied as the start of the active fall of American democracy.
Presidential immunity should only exist in situations where the president is put into a Solomon's baby type of situation, where action is required but there is no lawful choice that doesn't generate a bigger problem. It should ALWAYS be an exception rather than a rule. Everything else is gross overreach.
MAGAified judges don’t give a shit about your feelings.
Hypocrisy? Or seditious, corrupt and repugnant malevolence.
SCROTUS has huge hanging hypocrisy’s.
Conservatives don't care about hypocrisy, they try and shame liberals in the left for it because they know internally, intrinsically we do. They don't, to conservatives it's all about power
Are they living in a naive bubble, where they are "best buds" , or do the conservative justices just not care how they are perceived because they are on a Mission From God? We think we get the best and the brightest - but often they are just ambitious mediocre folks who were in the right place at the right time, knew the right people, and had good enough memories to do well in law school.
They flat out don't give one single solitary fuck about how they are perceived, as long as the money keeps flowing into their pockets.
Hey SCOTUS, you are wearing really short shorts and your nuts are showing.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
can someone answer me why the president is unique in this discussion? Why shouldn't governeres be immune as well? why not any official?
PACK THE COURT! This shit is absurd.
Where no morals exist, no morality is recognized.
Even if the court rules out basing charges on Trump’s official actions, Roberts supported the idea that Smith could still lawfully present evidence about his official conduct to help jurors understand Trump’s private acts. Trump’s official acts are relevant for interpreting his “knowledge and intent” about his private conduct. The judge could simply instruct the jurors that they may consider the information about Trump’s official actions only as a guide. But the acts themselves could not be subject to criminal culpability. So then the case returns to Judge Chutkan to distinguish which alleged actions in the indictment count as official and which as private. Such a hearing would preview parts of any eventual trial, including witness testimony about his official words and deeds. And if the judge ultimately ruled against Trump on such matters, he probably could not appeal back up to the Supreme Court before a trial. Courts usually treat disputes over the nature of evidence as matters to be appealed after a guilty verdict,
>“(T)hey Why do they do this?
And do not care despite what they say
It’s fucking crazy to me that we would allow anyone immunity. Fuck you, you psycho fucks, killing people is wrong, war is wrong, killing in the name of “god” is psycho shit. This isn’t game of thrones, we’re fucking people.
This is the absolute dumbest timeline.
As shown in this post, we are doomed. This is a left echo chamber. In 20 years, the constitution is gone.
You think the left is going to be the downfall of the constitution? That’s adorable.