SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

josevolution

Biden will remark from WH tonight in this ruling! 

mickeyrat

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.

theres a presumption of innocence when going to trial for the accused. its up to a prosecution to prove otherwise. I think the same applies from this ruling. it starts with a presumption if immunity. its up to a prosecution to prove otherwise....

mace1229

I can’t help but think Sotomayor must be an idiot if she thinks ordering assignations of your political opponents and taking bribes are promote official business of the president. Stating those scenarios as if they are now protected is just plain stupid and trying to scare everyone into election season.

HughFreakingDillon

Amy Coney Barrett wrote: "Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection."

gimmesometruth27

HughFreakingDillon said:

Amy Coney Barrett wrote: "Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection."

i am stunned that she wrote that.

curmudgeoness

gimmesometruth27 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Amy Coney Barrett wrote: "Take the President’s alleged attempt to organize alternative slates of electors. In my view, that conduct is private and therefore not entitled to protection."

i am stunned that she wrote that.

It sounded like (again, my understanding is limited, and I'm mightily distracted by more pressing personal matters, *and* I only have had time for the MSNBC take thus far) the take was that that would be unprotected, but communications at a federal level -- with DOJ, etc. -- *would* be protected.

I'm hoping to look at more centrist takes in the next day or so. My son, also not a lawyer, also a centrist and not prone to drama, actually read and downloaded/ shared the opinion today, so... I don't know. Today was a sh!tty day all around, I'll leave it at that.

bootleg

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

ikiT

anything that has to do with that fat fuck getting RE-elected is NOT official, it's what he WANTS.

There is a path for Jack.  tanya gonna sort all this shit out.

cincybearcat

Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing.  This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse.  And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...

The Juggler

bootleg said:

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

Correct. People can try and rationalize this by the "official" and "unofficial" verbiage but I think this sets in motion a slippery slope to a president, indeed, being way above the law because you can argue that anything was in his official duty as president.

mickeyrat

Do you all think Smith presented or charged all that was available in either case?

I dont.

So this is where we are. What are you all going to do?

I have my plan.

curmudgeoness

cincybearcat said:

Watching Dems melt down at this and call for articles of impeachment is embarrassing.  This type of behavior has to stop...but it's only getting worse.  And I can see how it is difficult when the other side (MAGA) is constantly behaving this way, but come on...

Rick Wilson likes to say "Democrats like to bring a soup ladle to a gun fight." I really don't know what the best approach is. I would very much like both sides/ all sides to have high standards and expectations for their leaders and to put country before party, and to remember that the oaths they take are to the Constitution, not to a person or a party. And yet, here we are: One side says, "oh, we really should play by the rules!" -- while the other says "Rules?!? What rules?"

Sticking to the rules and standards is a losing proposition, but in the long run so is abandoning standards and playing dirty. I honestly don't know what the most pragmatic course of action is.

curmudgeoness

The Juggler said:

bootleg said:

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

Correct. People can try and rationalize this by the "official" and "unofficial" verbiage but I think this sets in motion a slippery slope to a president, indeed, being way above the law because you can argue that anything was in his official duty as president.

He hasn't read the Constitution, but if you'll recall he knows that "I have this thing called Article Two," which, he thinks, lets him do whatever he wants. If he says "As President, I am cancelling midterm elections, because our system is rigged and corrupt," he has declared that to be an official act. Now you or I or whoever can bring suit arguing that that was not really an official act, and five years or so after elections were cancelled a judge/ court can decide if that really was an official act. Yay?

@bootleg -- that bolded part is the key. Back in the before times -- during the Obama administration -- Conor Friedersdorf wrote an article in The Atlantic warning about the dangers of executive overreach. He admonished people not to shrug and ignore him just because they thought Obama was a good guy who never would abuse the powers of the presidency. What would happen, he asked, when an unscrupulous and immoral person took office? As luck would have it, we got to find out during the very next administration.

And we're back to the disparity in standards and expectations between the parties. Biden vows not to abuse his powers; the other guy promises that he will do whatever he damn well pleases (and he already was doing that in his first term, note all of the "acting" officials he appointed without Senate confirmation). That's -- good? -- as long as Biden/ a Democrat is re/elected. And yet it sure doesn't feel very good or seem right. 

The Juggler

curmudgeoness said:

The Juggler said:

bootleg said:

If one of the Presidents main official acts is to defend the constitution, can you not then basically do whatever you want if it’s behind the guise of defending the constitution?  If you considered the Supreme Court a threat to the constitution could you not then fire or arrest them?  Determine Trump is a threat to the constitution, have him arrested?  Biden won’t do any of these things because he believes in the institutions but Trump?  He’ll have no hesitation to abuse this.  It’s just another reckless ruling from this corrupted court.

Correct. People can try and rationalize this by the "official" and "unofficial" verbiage but I think this sets in motion a slippery slope to a president, indeed, being way above the law because you can argue that anything was in his official duty as president.

He hasn't read the Constitution, but if you'll recall he knows that "I have this thing called Article Two," which, he thinks, lets him do whatever he wants. If he says "As President, I am cancelling midterm elections, because our system is rigged and corrupt," he has declared that to be an official act. Now you or I or whoever can bring suit arguing that that was not really an official act, and five years or so after elections were cancelled a judge/ court can decide if that really was an official act. Yay?

@bootleg -- that bolded part is the key. Back in the before times -- during the Obama administration -- Conor Friedersdorf wrote an article in The Atlantic warning about the dangers of executive overreach. He admonished people not to shrug and ignore him just because they thought Obama was a good guy who never would abuse the powers of the presidency. What would happen, he asked, when an unscrupulous and immoral person took office? As luck would have it, we got to find out during the very next administration.

And we're back to the disparity in standards and expectations between the parties. Biden vows not to abuse his powers; the other guy promises that he will do whatever he damn well pleases (and he already was doing that in his first term, note all of the "acting" officials he appointed without Senate confirmation). That's -- good? -- as long as Biden/ a Democrat is re/elected. And yet it sure doesn't feel very good or seem right. 

Agreed. I think we are so fucked right now. 

To me, this all goes back to people staying home in 2016. 50,000 across three states gave Trump the presidency and the right to swing the Supreme Court further to the right than anyone imagined. 

Gern Blansten

tbergs said:

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.

exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.

They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.

He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.

He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.

curmudgeoness

Gern Blansten said:

tbergs said:

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.

exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.

They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.

He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.

He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.

CNN yesterday: "[DJT]'s lgal team has filed a letter seeking to challenge his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity."

In other words, he thinks, and his team is arguing, that the immunity extends to things he did before becoming president.

I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am running for President; please vote for me, and, also, I'll need immunity if I lose my sh!t and pummel the next person who annoys me.

Gern Blansten

curmudgeoness said:

Gern Blansten said:

tbergs said:

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.

exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.

They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.

He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.

He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.

CNN yesterday: "[DJT]'s lgal team has filed a letter seeking to challenge his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity."

In other words, he thinks, and his team is arguing, that the immunity extends to things he did before becoming president.

I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am running for President; please vote for me, and, also, I'll need immunity if I lose my sh!t and pummel the next person who annoys me.

They are only challenging some of the evidence that was presented that was from when he was president. Tweets or something....I don't think it will fly.

tbergs

Gern Blansten said:

curmudgeoness said:

Gern Blansten said:

tbergs said:

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.

exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.

They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.

He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.

He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.

CNN yesterday: "[DJT]'s lgal team has filed a letter seeking to challenge his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity."

In other words, he thinks, and his team is arguing, that the immunity extends to things he did before becoming president.

I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am running for President; please vote for me, and, also, I'll need immunity if I lose my sh!t and pummel the next person who annoys me.

They are only challenging some of the evidence that was presented that was from when he was president. Tweets or something....I don't think it will fly.

Grifters gotta grift. Such a sleazy con man and slime ball attorneys. The epitome of a complete huckster and fraud and 70+ million still want to vote for him. Fuck you America.

The Juggler

Gern Blansten said:

curmudgeoness said:

Gern Blansten said:

tbergs said:

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.

exactly...tRump wasn't president when he ordered his people to move and hide the documents that he didn't want to give up.

They aren't prosecuting him for having them. If he would have returned them (like everyone else) then no problem.

He also wasn't president when the hush money was paid.

He's still fucked. It's just going to take more time.

CNN yesterday: "[DJT]'s lgal team has filed a letter seeking to challenge his hush money conviction based on the Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity."

In other words, he thinks, and his team is arguing, that the immunity extends to things he did before becoming president.

I'd like to take this opportunity to announce that I am running for President; please vote for me, and, also, I'll need immunity if I lose my sh!t and pummel the next person who annoys me.

They are only challenging some of the evidence that was presented that was from when he was president. Tweets or something....I don't think it will fly.

Yeah this particular example may not fly. But this decision muddies the waters and opens the door to, seemingly, an endless stream of challenges and hearings to determine what is and what is not an official act...kind of think that was ultimately what Trump's lawyers were looking for. 

ikiT

Running for president is not the same as being president.

Statements aren't acts.  Acts are acts.

After digesting all of that and a good night sleep (I’m definitely not a lawyer) I discerned that ALL the election crimes are still on the table. Those soon to be scheduled (mandated by the actual immunity ruling) Tanya Chutkin hearings will be everything the select committee’s hearings were, but with real consequence. I’m sure that Jack Smith’s team was still working on what was going to happen worst case scenario during this delay. All of that info and TESTIMONY is going be reported on. combine that with the 23% of the population support that Trizzy has? I’m SURE everything is going be fine...

He gonna get stomped and then he going to federal prison.