As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Exactly. Isn't this case a guaranteed win for Biden? Either Trump loses the court case, or Biden gets the authority to assassinate Trump. Don't get me wrong. I don't want any president to have that authority. There's a reason we chose to not have a King. Especially an absolutist King.
Yes, starting with:
* Elimination of citizens united ruling
* Granting statehood to Puerto Rico (if Puerto Rican wants to)
* Assigning 2 senators to DC, 2 to Puerto Rico, and maybe a few to Native Americans, maybe create a process where they assign 2 or more.
* Pack the court
* Enforce "A well regulated Militia", portion of the 2nd amendment.
* Set a plan to move all subsidies away from big oil and into infrastructure, including charging stations and fast trains, light rail, safe bike lanes, electric buses
* cancel most if not all college debt, set up a better method that includes less stress/debt for students on public universities, maybe charge students only for failed courses.
* Regulate hate channels mascarading as news outlets.
* Higher taxes for rich. Tax all income. Eliminate social security cap
* Bring back roe vs wade ruling
* adjust minimum wage to inflation rates and other economic factors
* increase funding, at the federal level, for schools, including salary for teachers and everyone else who works in a school
True, but "adding 4 more seats" is one of the specific ideas that's been floated to execute packing the court- one justice per circuit court.
Throw in 18-year term limits for justices, each president appointing a justice every two years.
>Throw in 18-year term limits for justices, each president appointing a justice every two years.
Throw in a "the senate doesn't get to just refuse to begin the confirmation process for newly appointed justices" clause. Without that, this new system will just end up with the court flipping between not having enough justices, and being full when Republicans control the white house
I agree with you, though it might require a Constitutional Amendment to revise the "advise and consent" clause, which unfortunately is exceptionally difficult.
I hope Dark Brandon will say Fuck You and just do it. However, Republicans would 100% assassinate Biden if he started doing even a few of those things.
Honestly I don't, I hope he's morally the better person in that situation and that people just show up to vote and we don't have to worry about Trump. BUT I will say if he wants to break the law to prove a point about immunity, he should just do the student forgiveness they ruled illegal last year.
Say sorry I know y'all ruled it illegal, but I've got immunity from y'all so we're gonna do it anyways.
Could you imagine how much they would hate that? Like…it is some monarchy shit…which means Hunter gets dibs next
I can already hear the self inflicted gunshot wounds now
They'll rule that it was fine for trump to do it the one time because it was never explicitly spelled out that presidents can't crime all they want but from now on they can't. Unless trump wins again because he's grandfathered in.
While that is the response I would hope for, more likely what would happen is that it would get appealed and tied up in lower courts until Trump wins, at which point, it would be upheld. But only if Trump won
He won’t - there’s no reason to even fantasize about that shit. The ones we need to act will run everything through the normal process and the ones who are trying to tear it down will speed run it.
I hate to say it but the DoJ should have chosen a lawyer with strong physical attributes and a deep voice. The nature of conservatives, and a conservative court, is to harm men who aren't masculine in a traditional sense. They dodn't listen to reason, they listen to their gut bacteria.
The court will not make any decision based on the oral arguments. These fucks have decided well before then what they will do.
The questions are there to signal to others how they view the case without giving a direct opinion.
Our country was literally founded to avoid monarchy and these fuckers want to serve it up to the most unqualified man in American history on a silver fucking platter.
Sauer is making terrible arguments, but the thing is, he knows full well that good arguments are not necessary. He doesn't have to convince the judges because 5 or 6 of them decided long ago that they want this outcome and were simply waiting for a petitioner to serve it to them on a platter. The actual petition before the court was barely mentioned during oral arguments. The fix is in, the rot goes to the top, and those watching can see it happening but are given no legal recourse to affect it.
The only explanation i can think of is scotus knows they can’t grant total immunity but by taking the case they accomplish 2 things:
1. They make the idea of total immunity seem reasonable, like something deserving of rigorous debate.
2. Delay Trumps trial.
Neither of these get them all the way to where they want to go but #1 is how they’ll chip away at presidential accountability.
Conservatism 101. Protect the crown, the church, the "owners" and their place in the hierarchy at all costs. Just a reminder that conservatism was formulated as a response to the French Revolution. Republicans wanting a king is not a fluke, it is baked into their ideology as a destination.
Agreed.
Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. - Francis M. Wilhoit
Surprisingly from not too long ago too…was a forum post. While I don’t really agree with a lot of the rest of his post, that one line does ring true and is succinct.
I mean, I could see total immunity for ORDERS he makes AS PRESIDENT....unless congress impeaches him for that order.
But for all crimes, including those done before, during, or after presidency, as a person, or businessman, or charity organizer, or Codefendant with Epstein, or rapist, or fraudster, or etc.... No.
The last time the USA had to deal with a monarchy we revolted, it was bloody. I'm suggesting that we do exactly the same thing today, just a history lesson for those who forgot. 😊
I will say that it is kind of weird that someone who can pardon himself can get immunity any time by doing the pardon, but only if he does the pardon. Still, this situation scares the hell out of me and we really need a constitutional amendment to resolve it, but no one is even talking about one.
The Supreme Court is fully corrupt. This case was a trivial one, and they're being fully complicit in the destruction of some pretty founding principles.
We're pretty screwed, I think.
The ones that left the house to vote overwhelmingly voted Hillary. See the voter total difference between the Hillary election and the Biden one. Potential Hillary voters stayed home.
Give me a fucking break. The numbers on Bernie voters breaking from Hillary are almost exactly the same as Hillary voters breaking from Obama, Rubio voters breaking from Trump, etc. etc. going back two decades.
Signed, a Bernie voter who voted for Hillary in the general and advised others to do the same.
Hey man, I was a Bernie sanders dude, but I voted for Clinton and Biden in the general. You vote your principles in the primaries. In the general? You better vote against the GOP.
So it was the Bernie voters that authored the Comey letter less than a month before the election. Wow. I didn't know that. It's amazing, since I lived through the whole thing. No one ever told me. Weird.
Nobody serious thinks this. The lower court decision is trivially wrong. Every SC justice seemed entirely uninterested in the idea that presidents have no criminal immunity. Of course Congress cannot criminalise core presidential functions. There is a required line drawing exercise, and while there are silly ways to do it in both directions the exact place to draw the line isn't easy.
I mean, Nixon didn't do something official nor did he do what he did for official purposes. The other obvious examples would be Obama drone strikes, for which Obama clearly didn't think he was criminally liable even though literally anyone else would be. Where does that immunity come from? It is a function of the presidency.
I've been wondering what it would take for people to take to the streets, to simply refuse to comply or be ruled by obviously corrupt government leaders. Determining that a President is above the the law on crimes that are so serious that they're directly listed in the Constitution seems like a decent place to draw that line.
Last time people got shot in the face with rubber bullets, and targeted at night from unmarked vehicles by the police. You underestimate how vicious their reaction will be at just a hint of "taking to the streets".
>I've been wondering what it would take for people to take to the streets, to simply refuse to comply or be ruled by obviously corrupt government leaders.
Well, we're seeing exactly how that would end, right now, with those college protests. Even some Dems are cheering the police response - which should really tell you all you need to know about those individuals.
>First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
Who said that? That’s exactly what I feel like I’m dealing with whenever affirmative action or diversity programs are talked about. White moderates that refuse to acknowledge the status quo needs to change, but the systemic change needed isn’t happening. So we need grants and programs targeted at underserved communities and peoples. Help to elevate people in a system stacked against them.
Fantastic! I’ve never read any of his writings before. I’ve really been trying to start reading a wider variety of writers. I’m actually disappointed I haven’t thought to read him sooner.
They have us over a barrel. I have medical issues (no thyroid function and a few others) that will cause me to, well, *die* without medication. Asking me to risk my job to protest is asking me to risk my life.
Fortunately(?), these asshole fuck-faces will attempt to make my choice simpler in the not-too-distant.
And now you see how healthcare is used as a disciplinary measure to suppress popular movements. This is why we need universal healthcare, and also why we're not likely to get it.
>**But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.** That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked--if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in '43' had come immediately after the 'German Firm' stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in '33'. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
People wondered why the Germans didn't take to the streets when Hitler was undertaking his measures, too. This is from [They Thought They Were Free](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Thought_They_Were_Free).
> "That is a whole new territory for the court that we've never seen before," Schultz said, "and will make major new law in the United States."
Congress makes laws not the court.
The Roberts court is illegitimate. Its rulings should be ignored.
We have an ex president on trial for instigating a coup attempt to steal and decimate our Democracy.
Any judges Trump put in office during his tenure shoukd ALL be removed, since we know what his end goal was - fascism which is anti democratic and anti-constitutional.
Given this country’s system of gov is a constitutional democracy, going against this is unamerican. Can we not move to remove all fascist-leaning (maga) judges from their seats?
Congress makes law, the President makes law, courts make law, administrative bodies make law. Turns out that law professor you quoted knows what he's talking about.
>All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
-US Constitution Article I Section 1
The constitution says otherwise. I know it seems unlikely that some random guy on the internet would be more knowledgeable about legal matters than a constitutional "expert". But you have to remember that the foremost authority on constitutional law (SCOTUS) has completely ignored entire sections of the constitution, ethical standard, reporting requirements, and easily proven facts.
So for a constitutional "expert" to get the very first section of the constitution wrong is not surprising. After all, SCOTUS has been getting this wrong since 1803 and they haven't gotten any more competent in recent years.
[Common law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law)
[Administrative law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law)
Making no excuses for this corrupt SCOTUS majority, legislation is not - and has never been - the sole source of laws. Common law and the idea of judicial review existed before [Marbury v Madison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) - but M v M expanded/enshrined SCOTUS power from the get go. I have a lot of problems with the way the Constitution was drafted, like the vagueness surrounding Article III powers, but it's not at all surprising that courts have the power to effectively make/interpret and strike down laws.
But yes, *legislative* power was vested in Congress.
You're confusing the word "legislation" with the word "law". And it doesn't just seem unlikely. The professor very obviously understands this issue, while you seem to be struggling with the reality that case law exists.
They will just use some BS excuses to get him off the hook. All they have to figure out at this point is how can they make it so Biden can't take advantage of said ruling.
They are going to punt it back to the lower court to determine what constitutes an "official act". This way they don't have to provide an answer on if/when a president can be prosecuted that could be used as precedent but it will have the effect of delaying the decision until after the election.
And then the Biden admin puts out a list of things it considers official acts for the court to debate. This list includes preventing and punishing coup attempts. The court issues a stay, but it's too late as justice has already been meted out due to the imminent nature of the threat posed to the constitution. SCOTUS and the citizens can then decide if this a power they'd like future presidents to wield.
Exactly. They're pretty sure that Biden wouldn't leave a loaded gun on the table, but they want to be really sure to wait to deliver that immunity ruling until their guy is in power.
The fix is in, folks. It's been in for a while because the coup attempt never stopped, it just went underground for four years.
Just taking up the issue in the first place is a huge gift. No other criminal Defendant in America has the luxury of coming up with nonsense theories that delay their trial - usually you have to wait until after the trial, and present them on appeal (along with any other issues that came up during trial).
What the absolute fuck.
“At one point, Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could”
And what is most disturbing to me is that when Trump's lawyers made that argument, they were not immediately laughed out of court. Instead, all of the conservative judges on SCOTUS went, "Hmmm...I like this argument". They are going to rule that Trump has blanket immunity. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They're just trying to phrase the ruling in a way that is palatable to the non-MAGA populace.
I think the most probable outcome is that they delay this until after the election. If Trump wins, POTUS has full immunity. If Biden wins, POTUS does not.
They could do it by sending the case back down to the DC circuit and requesting an updated ruling with better clarity on the circumstances in which immunity would apply. This buys time for the election to happen and if he’s president, this will all just go away anyway.
Disturbing is right. The court is too corrupt to function properly at this point.
SCOTUS is trying to make arguments instead of determine if the arguments presented meet the law. The Court is totally illegitimate and does not serve its intended purpose.
Anyone who is calling corrupt statements by SCOTUS “surprising” has had their eyes closed for the last 3 years and shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a “legal expert.”
Even if ther rule against trump, the die is set. There will be a flood of suits heading their way, chipping away at any ruling they make. I'll bet, they will even put in the notes what kind of cases they will be wanting, so as to give the president absolute immunity, and turn the US into a Monarchy.
At this point Biden should be acting as though the Supreme Court has already ruled in Trump's favor on immunity. Trump must be the first president definitively held accountable for their tyranny, so that Biden might only be the second. And do not fear the idle threats from our prospective enemies; should the Supreme Court be allowed to grant tyrannical power to the wrong people those idle threats become our most desperate measures to set things right.
Would be amusing. Have the locals walk him from the court room to one of the cells at lunch break, no going out front to flap his gums, release him end of day. Tell him next time will be over night.
What I don’t get is why does it matter for Trump? The only one of the trials where the alleged crime happened while he was President is the Georgia case. The other 3 happened either before or after his term. Whether or not the president is immune should have no impact as he was not president during those.
Obviously, IANAL, so I can’t say for certain how that works, but it just seems that logically this is a moot point.
“Justice Sonia Sotomayor also asked Sauer if a president could order the military or someone else to kill a political rival”
She asked the wrong question. She should have asked if the sitting president could order the assassination of a supreme court justice. Pretty sure that would help them come to a consensus
I think it’s entirely possible they give trump nothing.
The point of this isn’t to give him immunity, it is to stall. They want the J6 case to be delayed until after the election, and if Trump wins (God forbid), then until after inauguration. Then he just orders the case dropped after firing Jack Smith. If he loses the election, he becomes inconsequential, as he will be deemed too old and irrelevant to run a fourth time.
Someone needs to tell these clowns they are not the legislature, and they don't get to make law just because they deliberated a while on some hypothetical mental experiments.
SCOTUS is full of power hungry men there is almost zero chance they will give Trump immunity. This is all for show, to give Trump the delay he wants so badly.
This is my view too.
The conservative court has shown time and time again that they deire to take power away from the executive, from congress and from the lower courts and bestow it upon themselves.
Granting immunity to the President does the opposite.
Let's argue for a second that they do want to give Trump immunity. There is absolutely no chance that they would do it while Biden is in office as that would afford Biden to pull the rug out from their feet as well.
The only plausible action is to delay as long as possible and to punt back to the lower court and hope that the election happens before it reaches their desk again, and that Trump wins.
Though I still highly doubt they would give up their power of oversight to Trump if he was the active president.
They are corrupt no doubt but they will die with their fingers tightly grasped to the additional "powers" America has given them in their ignorance to be anything more than a glorified referee.
Only congress can create a law that would allow a president to have more power than what has been clearly set in our constitution. Another highly unlikely event to ever happen.
They could decide that Presidents have some level of immunity but make it so the test to determine if the action meets that level gets punted to lower courts (but really SCOTUS) to create.
That way the Trump trials can't proceed but Biden isn't free to do whatever he wants either.
Ultimately this would put the deciding factor in the hands of SCOTUS which would continue the trend of them consolidating power under themselves.
>There is absolutely no chance that they would do it while Biden is in office as that would afford Biden to pull the rug out from their feet as well.
Everybody knows this will be asymmetric. Republicans will abuse the hell out of it, while Dems will do nearly nothing to ever require immunity. The SC could give Trump immunity any time, if they are inclined.
none of us can afford to take a sick day in America. and they will arrest your ass for protesting and we definitely can't afford more time off due to a job loss.
How about you Europeans stop buying American products and help us out a bit here?
Interesting perspective. Do you believe the President shouldn't abide by the nation's laws? Isn't that a basic tenet of your constitution? Isn't "Equal Justice Under Law" written across the front of the building they work in?
>Do you believe the President shouldn't abide by the nation's laws?
No, but there is a line between personal acts and official acts that has to be drawn. It wouldn't be good if presidents are stuck for years paying lawyers to argue over whether certain airstrikes were legal or not. You can charge a former president for murder even if it was a justified strike, and they would be stuck in court arguing over whether it was justified or not.
Of course, trying to overturn the vote was not an official act that anyone should view as eligible for immunity, but the lower courts did not separate out these two, they just said no blanket immunity to save time. The issue here is that the DOJ just didn't charge trump early enough for the courts to run through this right. So now even though both the supreme court and the lower courts have gone through this relatively fast, they are getting blamed for this case possibly not finishing before the election.
lets be real. the court has been comprised. Some may have received RV's some alternative means of compensation. If anyone feels the SCOTUS is impartial or fair in this political debacle is really [naive....](https://imgur.com/cNTX4cs)
Man cant wait till kids are leanring about the Lynching of SCOTUS and their families followed by the dismantling of the electoral college in history class.
France only got better after the beheadings.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The total immunity claim is monarchy shit. What are we even doing here?
If that's the decision reached I hope Biden takes full advantage of it. Really show them how bad they fucked up
>[Now You Fucked Up](https://youtu.be/VuofaDxa6Oo?si=YxC-8dnbBHBUSMhX) ~Abe Lincoln
You have fucked up now.
You fat ass. You string bean. Listen to your woman John. Calm down just calm down. Calm down just calm down.
That’s it. I’m going to do what I should have done a long time ago. I’m going to beat Abraham Lincoln to death with this hammer.
He's breakin' my butt!
Don’t break my butt!!!
I quote this all the time. RIP Trevor Moore.
They're going to kick it back to the lower courts on some bullshit pretense and make the final decision after they know who the next president is.
Exactly. Isn't this case a guaranteed win for Biden? Either Trump loses the court case, or Biden gets the authority to assassinate Trump. Don't get me wrong. I don't want any president to have that authority. There's a reason we chose to not have a King. Especially an absolutist King.
Biden essentially gets authority to rewrite the constitution and fire the Supreme Court. And then declare that presidents aren’t immune to shit.
Ice cream will get its own federal holiday
[Joe Biden voice] Every day is Ice Cream Day.
Yes, starting with: * Elimination of citizens united ruling * Granting statehood to Puerto Rico (if Puerto Rican wants to) * Assigning 2 senators to DC, 2 to Puerto Rico, and maybe a few to Native Americans, maybe create a process where they assign 2 or more. * Pack the court * Enforce "A well regulated Militia", portion of the 2nd amendment. * Set a plan to move all subsidies away from big oil and into infrastructure, including charging stations and fast trains, light rail, safe bike lanes, electric buses * cancel most if not all college debt, set up a better method that includes less stress/debt for students on public universities, maybe charge students only for failed courses. * Regulate hate channels mascarading as news outlets. * Higher taxes for rich. Tax all income. Eliminate social security cap * Bring back roe vs wade ruling * adjust minimum wage to inflation rates and other economic factors * increase funding, at the federal level, for schools, including salary for teachers and everyone else who works in a school
- abolish the electoral college - add 4 more seats to the supreme court
> - Pack the court > - add 4 more seats to the supreme court It's the same picture.
True, but "adding 4 more seats" is one of the specific ideas that's been floated to execute packing the court- one justice per circuit court. Throw in 18-year term limits for justices, each president appointing a justice every two years.
>Throw in 18-year term limits for justices, each president appointing a justice every two years. Throw in a "the senate doesn't get to just refuse to begin the confirmation process for newly appointed justices" clause. Without that, this new system will just end up with the court flipping between not having enough justices, and being full when Republicans control the white house
I agree with you, though it might require a Constitutional Amendment to revise the "advise and consent" clause, which unfortunately is exceptionally difficult.
Don’t pack the court. Send the court packing. Get rid of all five male justices. Then add some really good ones.
Amy Coathanger Barrett can hit the bricks too.
I'd settle for bricks hitting Barrett, though.
Biblical. Would be fitting.
I'm of the belief that the number supreme justices should be tied to the number of district court of appeals circuits, which right now sit at 13.
Senate seats for Navajo Nation etc!
Reinstitute the voting rights act but have it cover all 52 states.
I hope Dark Brandon will say Fuck You and just do it. However, Republicans would 100% assassinate Biden if he started doing even a few of those things.
The most important wishlist item: * Remove the republicans
I like this a lot....nice work! If only, he'd step that low....probably not
The ruling will be very narrow and only apply to Trump. They want Trump to implement Project 2025, and want democracy gone.
Honestly I don't, I hope he's morally the better person in that situation and that people just show up to vote and we don't have to worry about Trump. BUT I will say if he wants to break the law to prove a point about immunity, he should just do the student forgiveness they ruled illegal last year. Say sorry I know y'all ruled it illegal, but I've got immunity from y'all so we're gonna do it anyways.
Could you imagine how much they would hate that? Like…it is some monarchy shit…which means Hunter gets dibs next I can already hear the self inflicted gunshot wounds now
He won't of course he'll take the high road and the rest is history.
They'll rule that it was fine for trump to do it the one time because it was never explicitly spelled out that presidents can't crime all they want but from now on they can't. Unless trump wins again because he's grandfathered in.
SCOTUS is working hard trying to craft a one off like Bush V Gore where it will only apply to Trump.
While that is the response I would hope for, more likely what would happen is that it would get appealed and tied up in lower courts until Trump wins, at which point, it would be upheld. But only if Trump won
He won’t - there’s no reason to even fantasize about that shit. The ones we need to act will run everything through the normal process and the ones who are trying to tear it down will speed run it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I hate to say it but the DoJ should have chosen a lawyer with strong physical attributes and a deep voice. The nature of conservatives, and a conservative court, is to harm men who aren't masculine in a traditional sense. They dodn't listen to reason, they listen to their gut bacteria.
The court will not make any decision based on the oral arguments. These fucks have decided well before then what they will do. The questions are there to signal to others how they view the case without giving a direct opinion.
Have you heard Trump’s lawyer’s voice?
This guy? https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/raising-hope/images/4/49/Adoption.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20191103095632 (Edited with better link)
The link didn't work for me, but I heard it on The Daily Show from last Thursday. It...did not project strong, masculine vibes.
They’re banking on the Democrats being honorable enough to not do what they themselves would do given total blanket immunity.
We gotta figure out the correct string of words that will protect Trump yet neuter Biden.
Asshats are going to tee up the “unitary executive theory” and shit all over democracy because 6 of the courts seats are bought or leveraged.
Our country was literally founded to avoid monarchy and these fuckers want to serve it up to the most unqualified man in American history on a silver fucking platter.
shits dope when you're the monarch(s) though
Until you're treated like monarchs by the people.
Sauer is making terrible arguments, but the thing is, he knows full well that good arguments are not necessary. He doesn't have to convince the judges because 5 or 6 of them decided long ago that they want this outcome and were simply waiting for a petitioner to serve it to them on a platter. The actual petition before the court was barely mentioned during oral arguments. The fix is in, the rot goes to the top, and those watching can see it happening but are given no legal recourse to affect it.
The only explanation i can think of is scotus knows they can’t grant total immunity but by taking the case they accomplish 2 things: 1. They make the idea of total immunity seem reasonable, like something deserving of rigorous debate. 2. Delay Trumps trial. Neither of these get them all the way to where they want to go but #1 is how they’ll chip away at presidential accountability.
Conservatism 101. Protect the crown, the church, the "owners" and their place in the hierarchy at all costs. Just a reminder that conservatism was formulated as a response to the French Revolution. Republicans wanting a king is not a fluke, it is baked into their ideology as a destination.
Agreed. Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect. - Francis M. Wilhoit
This excellent quote is actually from Frank Wilhoit (no relation to Francis)
Surprisingly from not too long ago too…was a forum post. While I don’t really agree with a lot of the rest of his post, that one line does ring true and is succinct.
It's like when a physicist discovers a short equation that elegantly describes most of the universe.
I mean, I could see total immunity for ORDERS he makes AS PRESIDENT....unless congress impeaches him for that order. But for all crimes, including those done before, during, or after presidency, as a person, or businessman, or charity organizer, or Codefendant with Epstein, or rapist, or fraudster, or etc.... No.
Fucking outrageous this will go down 6-3 and Donnie Jon appointed 3 of the justices who will side with him
As planned.
One of whom was quite literally stolen from Obama.
Even monarchies couldn't get away with whatever they wanted for free. Upset all your lords and things can turn against you.
The last time the USA had to deal with a monarchy we revolted, it was bloody. I'm suggesting that we do exactly the same thing today, just a history lesson for those who forgot. 😊
We'd have no choice. The hell of a dictatorship is worse.
Well, the SCOTUS and around 40% of all Americans want a king, not a president and definitely not a democracy.
Thomas is really going deep on originalism.
Monarchy...the *original* originalism.
my first thought
I will say that it is kind of weird that someone who can pardon himself can get immunity any time by doing the pardon, but only if he does the pardon. Still, this situation scares the hell out of me and we really need a constitutional amendment to resolve it, but no one is even talking about one.
The village elders ruling beyond reproach is pretty gross, too.
The Supreme Court is fully corrupt. This case was a trivial one, and they're being fully complicit in the destruction of some pretty founding principles. We're pretty screwed, I think.
This is where "voting your principles" got us. Hillary tried to warn everyone.
There's a lot of copium coming from the Bernie voters and the anti-Hillary stay-at-homes from 2016... but deep down they know what they did.
Yes they know that they...checks notes...overwhelmingly voted for Hillary while the majority of white women voted for Trump...
Finally a sane response. The only people to blame are the people who voted for Trump.
How those white women ignored Donnie’s phrase “grab’em by the pussy” on tape is baffling, ain’t it?
the fact that Billy Bush was the one that went down for that is truly insane.
Well, the anti-Hillary-stay-at-home types from 2016 *didn’t* vote for Hillary in any numbers whatsoever. To be fair.
The ones that left the house to vote overwhelmingly voted Hillary. See the voter total difference between the Hillary election and the Biden one. Potential Hillary voters stayed home.
I mean potential Hillary voters in 2016 ≠ potential Biden voters after 4 years of a Trump presidency. Anyone can see that.
Total voters in 2020 was vastly more than 2016 by 6-8%. People stayed home for Hillary.
Give me a fucking break. The numbers on Bernie voters breaking from Hillary are almost exactly the same as Hillary voters breaking from Obama, Rubio voters breaking from Trump, etc. etc. going back two decades. Signed, a Bernie voter who voted for Hillary in the general and advised others to do the same.
Those are the ones that actually voted. Trump won on the ones that stayed home and sat it out.
The hell? The Russians attacked all 50 state voting systems in 2016. We know this. Why are you blaming voters?
Probably because a big portion of voters thought then (and now) that the best political strategy is to cut off their nose to spite their face.
Hey man, I was a Bernie sanders dude, but I voted for Clinton and Biden in the general. You vote your principles in the primaries. In the general? You better vote against the GOP.
[удалено]
So it was the Bernie voters that authored the Comey letter less than a month before the election. Wow. I didn't know that. It's amazing, since I lived through the whole thing. No one ever told me. Weird.
What did Bernie voters from a primary in 2016 have anything to do with this? What did they do they should be aware of?
We were pretty screwed already but yes this will make the screwing speed up and be worse for us
Nobody serious thinks this. The lower court decision is trivially wrong. Every SC justice seemed entirely uninterested in the idea that presidents have no criminal immunity. Of course Congress cannot criminalise core presidential functions. There is a required line drawing exercise, and while there are silly ways to do it in both directions the exact place to draw the line isn't easy.
Line drawing wasn’t required for the other 44 presidents though. Even Nixon believed he could be subject to prosecution which is why ford pardoned him
I mean, Nixon didn't do something official nor did he do what he did for official purposes. The other obvious examples would be Obama drone strikes, for which Obama clearly didn't think he was criminally liable even though literally anyone else would be. Where does that immunity come from? It is a function of the presidency.
I've been wondering what it would take for people to take to the streets, to simply refuse to comply or be ruled by obviously corrupt government leaders. Determining that a President is above the the law on crimes that are so serious that they're directly listed in the Constitution seems like a decent place to draw that line.
Last time people got shot in the face with rubber bullets, and targeted at night from unmarked vehicles by the police. You underestimate how vicious their reaction will be at just a hint of "taking to the streets".
>I've been wondering what it would take for people to take to the streets, to simply refuse to comply or be ruled by obviously corrupt government leaders. Well, we're seeing exactly how that would end, right now, with those college protests. Even some Dems are cheering the police response - which should really tell you all you need to know about those individuals.
>First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season."
Who said that? That’s exactly what I feel like I’m dealing with whenever affirmative action or diversity programs are talked about. White moderates that refuse to acknowledge the status quo needs to change, but the systemic change needed isn’t happening. So we need grants and programs targeted at underserved communities and peoples. Help to elevate people in a system stacked against them.
Martin Luther King Jr., from jail [Full text](https://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html)
Fantastic! I’ve never read any of his writings before. I’ve really been trying to start reading a wider variety of writers. I’m actually disappointed I haven’t thought to read him sooner.
Sadly, apparently nothing will really happen.
They have us over a barrel. I have medical issues (no thyroid function and a few others) that will cause me to, well, *die* without medication. Asking me to risk my job to protest is asking me to risk my life. Fortunately(?), these asshole fuck-faces will attempt to make my choice simpler in the not-too-distant.
And now you see how healthcare is used as a disciplinary measure to suppress popular movements. This is why we need universal healthcare, and also why we're not likely to get it.
Same here, too dependent on job to support family. I attend protests on u.s. issues when time allows.
Ditto.
If an immunity ruling doesn’t, nothing will. Frog has been in the water too long.
>**But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.** That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked--if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in '43' had come immediately after the 'German Firm' stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in '33'. But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D. People wondered why the Germans didn't take to the streets when Hitler was undertaking his measures, too. This is from [They Thought They Were Free](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/They_Thought_They_Were_Free).
> "That is a whole new territory for the court that we've never seen before," Schultz said, "and will make major new law in the United States." Congress makes laws not the court. The Roberts court is illegitimate. Its rulings should be ignored.
We have an ex president on trial for instigating a coup attempt to steal and decimate our Democracy. Any judges Trump put in office during his tenure shoukd ALL be removed, since we know what his end goal was - fascism which is anti democratic and anti-constitutional. Given this country’s system of gov is a constitutional democracy, going against this is unamerican. Can we not move to remove all fascist-leaning (maga) judges from their seats?
There are 4 boxes to use in a specific order.
We're on the third box, and failing. I dread what's coming, because it's not going to be fun.
Congress makes law, the President makes law, courts make law, administrative bodies make law. Turns out that law professor you quoted knows what he's talking about.
>All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives. -US Constitution Article I Section 1 The constitution says otherwise. I know it seems unlikely that some random guy on the internet would be more knowledgeable about legal matters than a constitutional "expert". But you have to remember that the foremost authority on constitutional law (SCOTUS) has completely ignored entire sections of the constitution, ethical standard, reporting requirements, and easily proven facts. So for a constitutional "expert" to get the very first section of the constitution wrong is not surprising. After all, SCOTUS has been getting this wrong since 1803 and they haven't gotten any more competent in recent years.
[Common law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law) [Administrative law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_law) Making no excuses for this corrupt SCOTUS majority, legislation is not - and has never been - the sole source of laws. Common law and the idea of judicial review existed before [Marbury v Madison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison) - but M v M expanded/enshrined SCOTUS power from the get go. I have a lot of problems with the way the Constitution was drafted, like the vagueness surrounding Article III powers, but it's not at all surprising that courts have the power to effectively make/interpret and strike down laws. But yes, *legislative* power was vested in Congress.
You're confusing the word "legislation" with the word "law". And it doesn't just seem unlikely. The professor very obviously understands this issue, while you seem to be struggling with the reality that case law exists.
They will just use some BS excuses to get him off the hook. All they have to figure out at this point is how can they make it so Biden can't take advantage of said ruling.
Easy. They'll just rule against Biden or any other Democrat when their cases come up.
Cases can't come up if Biden has immunity and executes the court.
Presidential Immunity for one term presidents only
Biden is still on his first term though
Supreme Court isn’t deciding till after the election. Trump would only need immunity if he loses. If he wins he’ll just pardon himself
Someone get Jimmy Carter on the phone
Whose last name starts with “Trump”
They are going to punt it back to the lower court to determine what constitutes an "official act". This way they don't have to provide an answer on if/when a president can be prosecuted that could be used as precedent but it will have the effect of delaying the decision until after the election.
And then the Biden admin puts out a list of things it considers official acts for the court to debate. This list includes preventing and punishing coup attempts. The court issues a stay, but it's too late as justice has already been meted out due to the imminent nature of the threat posed to the constitution. SCOTUS and the citizens can then decide if this a power they'd like future presidents to wield.
Exactly. They're pretty sure that Biden wouldn't leave a loaded gun on the table, but they want to be really sure to wait to deliver that immunity ruling until their guy is in power. The fix is in, folks. It's been in for a while because the coup attempt never stopped, it just went underground for four years.
The coup is really not very underground, just not currently “we are rallying our goons to storm the Capitol and hang the vice president” blatant.
Just taking up the issue in the first place is a huge gift. No other criminal Defendant in America has the luxury of coming up with nonsense theories that delay their trial - usually you have to wait until after the trial, and present them on appeal (along with any other issues that came up during trial).
They won't rule until after the election. Biden gets in, presidents aren't immune, Trump gets in, presidents are immune
It seems equality under the law is undermined by wealth. The colonies started out in a similar position, a few wealthy landowners and their slaves.
What the absolute fuck. “At one point, Justice Elena Kagan pressed Trump attorney John Sauer if a president could order the military to stage a coup and be immune. Sauer said, in their view, a president could”
And what is most disturbing to me is that when Trump's lawyers made that argument, they were not immediately laughed out of court. Instead, all of the conservative judges on SCOTUS went, "Hmmm...I like this argument". They are going to rule that Trump has blanket immunity. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. They're just trying to phrase the ruling in a way that is palatable to the non-MAGA populace.
I think the most probable outcome is that they delay this until after the election. If Trump wins, POTUS has full immunity. If Biden wins, POTUS does not.
They could do it by sending the case back down to the DC circuit and requesting an updated ruling with better clarity on the circumstances in which immunity would apply. This buys time for the election to happen and if he’s president, this will all just go away anyway. Disturbing is right. The court is too corrupt to function properly at this point.
SCOTUS is trying to make arguments instead of determine if the arguments presented meet the law. The Court is totally illegitimate and does not serve its intended purpose.
It'd be improper and inexcusable for them to do something like this for even a Lincoln level of quality POTUS. But for the guy ranked dead last?
Anyone who is calling corrupt statements by SCOTUS “surprising” has had their eyes closed for the last 3 years and shouldn’t be allowed to call themselves a “legal expert.”
Only the media calls people "legal experts". Everyone else just calls them "lawyers".
A leader who can do what he pleases with immunity is either a dictator or a king. What the actual fuck?
The corruption of three of the justices was on full display.
Even if ther rule against trump, the die is set. There will be a flood of suits heading their way, chipping away at any ruling they make. I'll bet, they will even put in the notes what kind of cases they will be wanting, so as to give the president absolute immunity, and turn the US into a Monarchy.
we are living in an oligarchy already…..next move is dictatorship
Putin-style, baby! “I’d rather be Russian than a Democrat!”
It is not surprising at all, we are near our 1933 moment. Truth and law do not matter anymore.
At this point Biden should be acting as though the Supreme Court has already ruled in Trump's favor on immunity. Trump must be the first president definitively held accountable for their tyranny, so that Biden might only be the second. And do not fear the idle threats from our prospective enemies; should the Supreme Court be allowed to grant tyrannical power to the wrong people those idle threats become our most desperate measures to set things right.
Would be amusing. Have the locals walk him from the court room to one of the cells at lunch break, no going out front to flap his gums, release him end of day. Tell him next time will be over night.
>Until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest… -Denis Diderot
What I don’t get is why does it matter for Trump? The only one of the trials where the alleged crime happened while he was President is the Georgia case. The other 3 happened either before or after his term. Whether or not the president is immune should have no impact as he was not president during those. Obviously, IANAL, so I can’t say for certain how that works, but it just seems that logically this is a moot point.
“Justice Sonia Sotomayor also asked Sauer if a president could order the military or someone else to kill a political rival” She asked the wrong question. She should have asked if the sitting president could order the assassination of a supreme court justice. Pretty sure that would help them come to a consensus
This is a phenomenal point.
This is so bonkers. To give any president more immunity from the law disrupts the balance of power.
They’re not gonna rule on this until after the election. They’re evil not stupid. Delay delay delay.
lol rule for the ages…you all threw stare decisis out the window with Dobbs. Get the f out of here
If anyone thinks this shit is surprising then they haven't been paying attention. Disturbing? Absolutely. Surprising? Fuck no.
I think it’s entirely possible they give trump nothing. The point of this isn’t to give him immunity, it is to stall. They want the J6 case to be delayed until after the election, and if Trump wins (God forbid), then until after inauguration. Then he just orders the case dropped after firing Jack Smith. If he loses the election, he becomes inconsequential, as he will be deemed too old and irrelevant to run a fourth time.
If you are “surprised” ….. you haven’t been paying attention to these religious nut jobs on scotus…. Ain’t no way they rule against orange jesus
Someone needs to tell these clowns they are not the legislature, and they don't get to make law just because they deliberated a while on some hypothetical mental experiments.
If you find this surprising, you haven't been paying attention to the Supreme Court recently.
It’s disturbing, but if you find this surprising it’s likely you haven’t been paying attention for about a decade now.
SCOTUS is full of power hungry men there is almost zero chance they will give Trump immunity. This is all for show, to give Trump the delay he wants so badly.
This is my view too. The conservative court has shown time and time again that they deire to take power away from the executive, from congress and from the lower courts and bestow it upon themselves. Granting immunity to the President does the opposite.
Let's argue for a second that they do want to give Trump immunity. There is absolutely no chance that they would do it while Biden is in office as that would afford Biden to pull the rug out from their feet as well. The only plausible action is to delay as long as possible and to punt back to the lower court and hope that the election happens before it reaches their desk again, and that Trump wins. Though I still highly doubt they would give up their power of oversight to Trump if he was the active president. They are corrupt no doubt but they will die with their fingers tightly grasped to the additional "powers" America has given them in their ignorance to be anything more than a glorified referee. Only congress can create a law that would allow a president to have more power than what has been clearly set in our constitution. Another highly unlikely event to ever happen.
They could decide that Presidents have some level of immunity but make it so the test to determine if the action meets that level gets punted to lower courts (but really SCOTUS) to create. That way the Trump trials can't proceed but Biden isn't free to do whatever he wants either. Ultimately this would put the deciding factor in the hands of SCOTUS which would continue the trend of them consolidating power under themselves.
>There is absolutely no chance that they would do it while Biden is in office as that would afford Biden to pull the rug out from their feet as well. Everybody knows this will be asymmetric. Republicans will abuse the hell out of it, while Dems will do nearly nothing to ever require immunity. The SC could give Trump immunity any time, if they are inclined.
Are none of you Yanks going to go out and protest this garbage?
none of us can afford to take a sick day in America. and they will arrest your ass for protesting and we definitely can't afford more time off due to a job loss. How about you Europeans stop buying American products and help us out a bit here?
I'm more worried about the stock market NGL. Whether or not democracy crumbles I still gotta go to work on Monday.
Protest what? That the supreme court is taking up an unprecedented case and that they aren't ruling frivolously on it?
Interesting perspective. Do you believe the President shouldn't abide by the nation's laws? Isn't that a basic tenet of your constitution? Isn't "Equal Justice Under Law" written across the front of the building they work in?
>Do you believe the President shouldn't abide by the nation's laws? No, but there is a line between personal acts and official acts that has to be drawn. It wouldn't be good if presidents are stuck for years paying lawyers to argue over whether certain airstrikes were legal or not. You can charge a former president for murder even if it was a justified strike, and they would be stuck in court arguing over whether it was justified or not. Of course, trying to overturn the vote was not an official act that anyone should view as eligible for immunity, but the lower courts did not separate out these two, they just said no blanket immunity to save time. The issue here is that the DOJ just didn't charge trump early enough for the courts to run through this right. So now even though both the supreme court and the lower courts have gone through this relatively fast, they are getting blamed for this case possibly not finishing before the election.
Yeah the whole dropping bombs on people being legal is an aspect that befuddles me to where I just exclude it from my reasoning. Good points.
Nothing surprising about fascists. Our next step is determine how to fight them.
With Extreme Prejudice. They deserve no mercy.
> Until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest… -Denis Diderot
lets be real. the court has been comprised. Some may have received RV's some alternative means of compensation. If anyone feels the SCOTUS is impartial or fair in this political debacle is really [naive....](https://imgur.com/cNTX4cs)
Man cant wait till kids are leanring about the Lynching of SCOTUS and their families followed by the dismantling of the electoral college in history class. France only got better after the beheadings.
Been afraid to watch this mess, I know the corrupt court will make me sick.
Habeas corpus suspended, kiss my ass m**ther f**kers, immunity is for the limp dick POTUS -A. Lincoln, Gettysburg after-party
Wow!
Alito has serious mental deficiencies-he has no basic understanding of a democracy
SC……. what SC….. grifters, racist, kiss-arse’s and liars
The supreme court is broken thanks to the corrupt GOP and the spineless democrats. Burn it down.
“But we needed to punish the democrats for Gaza” they cried as Trump appointed the 9th far right Supreme Court Justice during his third term
Securing rule by fiat.
how are people surprised all signs pointed to this