SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.

Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.

I agree, this is all pretty much what was expected and common sense.  While Trump will try to take a victory lap, let's remember that he said he had "absolute immunity".  He doesn't.  

it also could have been taken up and ruled on from the Dec.  Smith request.....

even still, it did not need to take 2 1/2 to 3 months to come to what seems already understood.

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.

Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.

I agree, this is all pretty much what was expected and common sense.  While Trump will try to take a victory lap, let's remember that he said he had "absolute immunity".  He doesn't.  

it also could have been taken up and ruled on from the Dec.  Smith request.....

even still, it did not need to take 2 1/2 to 3 months to come to what seems already understood.

I think that's just the nature of the SCOTUS process.  This was a full panel so they do all oral arguments and then release the opinions together,  for all cases in session.  

I don't think the arguments before the court ever really addressed the merits is the case,  and whether the specific acts were official or not.  I read the summary that day and don't recall and deep dive into the case itself.  So I'm not they have even made a ruling on that. 

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

tbergs said:

Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.

Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.

I agree, this is all pretty much what was expected and common sense.  While Trump will try to take a victory lap, let's remember that he said he had "absolute immunity".  He doesn't.  

it also could have been taken up and ruled on from the Dec.  Smith request.....

even still, it did not need to take 2 1/2 to 3 months to come to what seems already understood.

I think that's just the nature of the SCOTUS process.  This was a full panel so they do all oral arguments and then release the opinions together,  for all cases in session.  

I don't think the arguments before the court ever really addressed the merits is the case,  and whether the specific acts were official or not.  I read the summary that day and don't recall and deep dive into the case itself.  So I'm not they have even made a ruling on that. 

it didnt. the apoeal asked for it. they chose to take up a question that wasnt asked. Smith's motion did ask that very question as I recall.

tbergs

Reading through the majority opinion, the path to prosecution seems to be very much open as long as they narrow the scope. The key to me lies in Trump's requests to Pence to interfere in certification of the elections. In that scenario, Pence is acting as President of the Senate and therefore not involved in any official act for the office of the President and this Trump is interfering with Congress. Of course, they threw a caveat in even that assessment and left it open enough for Trump to slip by.

I'm not optimistic anything happens and if Trump is re-elected, none of it matters based on that little tidbit Robert's dropped at the end about not prosecuting a sitting president.

josevolution

So is there anything Biden can get out of this ruling? Or was this just to help Trump evade further prosecution? 

tbergs

The Thomas concur is an interesting segueway in to whether special counsel is even a legally appointed office. I see his argument, but I think it's a distraction with little relevance here.

As for Barrett, I think she is the one who gets it right in her partial dissent from the majority. The President has some protections for sure, but there should be an ability to analyze conduct to determine if it was a private act and that official conduct does not necessarily mean unequivocal immunity. 

mrussel1

josevolution said:

So is there anything Biden can get out of this ruling? Or was this just to help Trump evade further prosecution? 

I don't think it's a bad ruling.  The argument now becomes,  was an act official or on the behalf themselves as a citizen or candidate. 

What is lost in this commentary is that Trump's team was arguing for any act,  the president must be first impeached and convicted.  That is not the case.  

tbergs

From Barrett's concurring in part:

2. This analysis is unnecessary for allegations involving the President’s private conduct because the Constitution offers no protection from prosecution of acts taken in a private capacity. Ante, at 15. Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. See, e.g., App. 208. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. See post, at 27–28 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. Art. II, §1, cl. 2; see also Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 588–589 (2020). And while Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art. II, §1, cls. 3–4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.


edit: correct to concurring in part 

mrussel1

tbergs said:

From Barrett's concurring in part:

2. This analysis is unnecessary for allegations involving the President’s private conduct because the Constitution offers no protection from prosecution of acts taken in a private capacity. Ante, at 15. Sorting private from official conduct sometimes will be difficult—but not always. Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. See, e.g., App. 208. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection. See post, at 27–28 (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting). The Constitution vests power to appoint Presidential electors in the States. Art. II, §1, cl. 2; see also Chiafalo v. Washington, 591 U. S. 578, 588–589 (2020). And while Congress has a limited role in that process, see Art. II, §1, cls. 3–4, the President has none. In short, a President has no legal authority—and thus no official capacity—to influence how the States appoint their electors. I see no plausible argument for barring prosecution of that alleged conduct.


edit: correct to concurring in part 

A perfectly acceptable concurrence and certainly not some exoneration..

And notice,  nothing about the impeachment process which is political,  not criminal. 

Kat

Ok, King Biden it is...and I'm not even kidding. The Corrupt Roberts Court should be agreeable.

Deb C 

@debc17593354

·

2h

King Biden should start by these ‘official acts’

1. Expanding SCOTUS to 13
2. Fire Roberts, Alito, and Thomas for corruption
3. Arrest all insurrectionists in Congress
4. Arrest Trump for insurrection
#SCOTUS

tbergs

Sotomayor wrote a great dissent. It speaks volumes about the amount of additional power and immunity this court just gave current and future presidents.

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.  

curmudgeoness

He also could officially have any troublesome Supreme Court justices eliminated; I am surprised that that thought didn't occur to them.

dignin

Jesus, WTF is going on down there?

Halifax2TheMax

dignin said:

Jesus, WTF is going on down there?

A fascist takeover. Piecemeal and in slow motion. Might want to encourage your border employees to strike.

HughFreakingDillon

we already knew the prez was immune from official acts. if not, nearly every wartime president should be locked up. GWB, Obama, Trump, etc. They've all committed war crimes, not even domestic. Otherwise every presidency would be bungled up in litigation with the other side trying to put them in jail. 

to me this ruling makes sense. as shitty as it is, as I do believe any president who murders civilians of a foreign nation should be prosecuted, but you have to draw the line somewhere. "Official acts" is that line. 

pjhawks

All of this is because morons voted for Ralph Nader instead of Gore and people who thought Hillary was worse than Trump.  There’s your 5 corrupt judges right there.  

curmudgeoness

HughFreakingDillon said:

we already knew the prez was immune from official acts. if not, nearly every wartime president should be locked up. GWB, Obama, Trump, etc. They've all committed war crimes, not even domestic. Otherwise every presidency would be bungled up in litigation with the other side trying to put them in jail. 

to me this ruling makes sense. as shitty as it is, as I do believe any president who murders civilians of a foreign nation should be prosecuted, but you have to draw the line somewhere. "Official acts" is that line. 

My (limited) understanding is that "presumption" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the opinion. So if a POTUS were do take an action, say, order the military to imprison all members of Congress, and say that this was an official order from him as POTUS, the courts, at some indeterminate future point, would have to figure out if the presumption of official-ness was valid. Sort of a "shoot first, ask for forgiveness later" approach.

HughFreakingDillon

curmudgeoness said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

we already knew the prez was immune from official acts. if not, nearly every wartime president should be locked up. GWB, Obama, Trump, etc. They've all committed war crimes, not even domestic. Otherwise every presidency would be bungled up in litigation with the other side trying to put them in jail. 

to me this ruling makes sense. as shitty as it is, as I do believe any president who murders civilians of a foreign nation should be prosecuted, but you have to draw the line somewhere. "Official acts" is that line. 

My (limited) understanding is that "presumption" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in the opinion. So if a POTUS were do take an action, say, order the military to imprison all members of Congress, and say that this was an official order from him as POTUS, the courts, at some indeterminate future point, would have to figure out if the presumption of official-ness was valid. Sort of a "shoot first, ask for forgiveness later" approach.

but all of these types of hypotheticals are illegal, though. Could he try to do that? sure. You think the military is going to listen to that order? no chance. I just feel like liberals are raising the alarm on a fire that is a controlled burn already. 

gimmesometruth27

pjhawks said:

All of this is because morons voted for Ralph Nader instead of Gore and people who thought Hillary was worse than Trump.  There’s your 5 corrupt judges right there.  

i remember when nader was the darling of this forum back in the day.

gimmesometruth27

Kat said:

Ok, King Biden it is...and I'm not even kidding. The Corrupt Roberts Court should be agreeable.

Deb C 

@debc17593354

·

2h

King Biden should start by these ‘official acts’

1. Expanding SCOTUS to 13
2. Fire Roberts, Alito, and Thomas for corruption
3. Arrest all insurrectionists in Congress
4. Arrest Trump for insurrection
#SCOTUS

also suspend the election so he stays in power. let's go for it!!