SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)
Comments
-
Funny, though. That case was brought by five republicans and five independent voters in colorado, but you go on with thatOut of My Mind and Time said:You bet thumb. Keep trying.
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
zzzzzzzzzz
"It's a sad and beautiful world"-Roberto Benigni0 -
Quick, next argument.mickeyrat said:
Funny, though. That case was brought by five republicans and five independent voters in colorado, but you go on with thatOut of My Mind and Time said:You bet thumb. Keep trying.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 10 -
no, quick, next right wing political cartoon.benjs said:
Quick, next argument.mickeyrat said:
Funny, though. That case was brought by five republicans and five independent voters in colorado, but you go on with thatOut of My Mind and Time said:You bet thumb. Keep trying.
or meme.
to own the libz"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
op-ed gift articleOpinion | With Colorado ruling, the court displays an ‘originalism of convenience’
Opinion by Ruth Marcus
Associate editor
March 07, 2024 at 6:30 ET
So much for originalism.
We’ve seen this phenomenon from this conservative, supposedly originalist court before. But Monday’s ruling in Trump v. Anderson underscores the undeniable reality: the court practices an originalism of convenience. When push comes to shove, when a strict originalist approach would yield an undesirable outcome, professed fealty to originalism gives way to practical considerations.
Some might call this results-oriented reasoning hypocritical. In this instance — I agree with the bottom line — I’ll go with a welcome display of intellectual flexibility and common sense. In my view, the court was correct to consider the practical fallout of letting Colorado remove former president Donald Trump from its primary ballot, as all nine justices agreed should not be allowed. Maybe we’re all living constitutionalists now.
Listen to the conservative justices discussing the dangerous consequences of letting individual states decide for themselves whether candidates for president should be allowed on the ballot.continues....
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
Post edited by mickeyrat on_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
The Biggest Election Deniers Want SCOTUS to Ban Voting Machines By Matt Cohen March 15, 2024
“This is big everybody! This is what we’ve been waiting for,” Mike Lindell, the pillow mogul, conspiracy theorist and advisor to former President Donald Trump, teased on Steve Bannon’s podcast on Sunday. “This isn’t just some tinfoil hat case, this is huge… This new evidence is the most explosive evidence ever! This coming Friday on the steps of the Supreme Court, 3:00 PM. We’re gonna hand-deliver this to the world. It’s going to be the biggest thing ever, and we are going to save this country!”
Lindell will not end up on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, as he later told Lou Dobbs that it was not “safe” for him without explaining why. But lawyers that Lindell hired are reviving a lawsuit challenging the use of electronic voting machines in Arizona by asking the nation’s highest court to take the case. The lawsuit — filed originally in 2022 on behalf of Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and state Rep. Mark Finchem, who ran for secretary of state — alleges that the electronic voting systems used to tabulate votes are not trustworthy, thus violating state law and the U.S. Constitution.
The allegations, based on false claims and conspiracy theories about Dominion Voting Systems stemming from the “Big Lie” of the 2020 election, were rejected by an Arizona district court judge — who sanctioned Lake, Finchem, and their lawyers for their baseless claims — and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But that hasn’t stopped Lake and company.
In a cert petition filed in the Supreme Court — by one of Lindell’s lawyers, Lawrence J. Joseph, and first uploaded by Arizona Law — Lake and Finchem again stir up conspiracy theories about Dominion Voting Services, a voting machine manufacturer whose products are used widely in elections across the country. Specifically, they allege that Maricopa County election officials used “uncertified” software to tabulate votes, and that they found a security breach in Dominion’s voting machines that made them vulnerable to hacking.
With this latest effort, it’s time to review the wide-ranging cast of characters involved in this “frivolous” lawsuit that’s dragged on for two years.
Mike Lindell
For many years, Mike Lindell was best known as the MyPillow Guy — the founder and CEO of a pillow manufacturing company who dominated infomercials in the mid-to-late 2000s. Lindell was an early supporter of, and major donor to, Trump in the 2016 presidential race and soon his relationship with the former president eclipsed his reputation as a pillow magnate.
Lindell attended Trump’s inauguration and was a frequent guest at the White House during his presidency. His seemingly close relationship with the former president turned him into a popular figure in Trump’s GOP, giving him a major platform as a frequent Fox News guest (also thanks to his MyPillow advertising on the network) and featured speaker at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).
In 2020, Lindell campaigned for Trump and became a central figure in the efforts to overturn the results of the election. After president Joe Biden was declared the presumptive winner, Lindell sponsored and financed a two-week bus tour across the country where prominent Trump supporters held rallies promoting conspiracy theories about a stolen election. Lindell was one of the most vocal proponents of a debunked conspiracy theory alleging that Dominion Voting Systems — a voting machine manufacturer whose products are used widely in elections across the country — conspired with Biden and Democrats to steal the election from Trump. “You have positioned yourself as a prominent leader of the ongoing misinformation campaign,” Dominion wrote in a warning letter to Lindell. The company subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against Lindell for $1.3 billion.
He continued his crusade against electronic voting machines in the 2022 midterms, bankrolling a legal effort to get them outlawed in Arizona. He contributed at least $500,000 toward the lawsuit filed by Lake and Finchem to ban the use of voting machines in the Arizona midterms, according to The Guardian, and said he wants to underwrite similar lawsuits across the country. “I’d like to file the lawsuits in all 50 states,” he said.
Kari Lake
Lake, a former local TV news anchor, positioned herself as Arizona’s leading MAGA sycophant — and avowed election denier — when she launched her gubernatorial campaign in 2021. Throughout her pivot from media to politics, Lake promoted right-wing conspiracy theories and misinformation relating to COVID-19, former President Barack Obama and immigration.
But she’s been the loudest in her promotion of the “Big Lie.” Her lawsuit with Finchem to ban electronic voting machines was filed before she even officially launched her gubernatorial campaign. She spent a majority of her midterm campaign traveling around the state bragging about her loyalty to Trump and the “Big Lie” movement. “As bad as they want to make the stolen election, known as ‘The Big Lie’ go away — they will never be successful,” she wrote on Twitter. “The World knows that 2020 was a terrible disaster that forced the worst President in History.”
After Lake’s resounding loss to Gov. Katie Hobbs (D) she refused to concede and describes herself as the “lawful governor of Arizona.” In December of 2022, she sued Hobbs, who at the time was secretary of state, along with the Maricopa County recorder, board of supervisors and director of elections challenging the results of the election, which was dismissed by a district court, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Supreme Court. (She appealed the Supreme Court decision and the litigation is ongoing before the Arizona Court of Appeals).
In October of 2023, Lake officially launched her campaign for U.S. Senate, for the seat currently held by outgoing Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I). In her Senate campaign, Lake is attempting (and failing) to somewhat rehabilitate her image as a hardline MAGA conspiracy theorist, saying in her announcement speech that she wants to “restore honest elections,” which she said was “not a Republican issue. It’s not a Democrat issue. It’s an American issue,” according to the Wall Street Journal.
Kari Lake is still an election denier and her attachment to the writ of certiorari filed today cements her connection to one of the biggest lingering election litigation fueled by conspiracy theories.
Mark Finchem
Years before Finchem launched his campaign to be Arizona’s secretary of state he cultivated a reputation as one of the state’s most extremist Republican politicians. He’s a longtime member of the far-right paramilitary group the Oath Keepers and, throughout his tenure in the Arizona House of Representatives, promoted a long list of racist, antisemitic and QAnon conspiracy theories, including that 9/11 was an attack by the federal government and that the deadly 2017 Unite the Right white supremacist rally was a Democratic deep state psyop.
Finchem attended the rally near the White House on Jan. 6, 2021 that preceded the deadly attack on the U.S. Capitol. He later tweeted photos of protesters trespassing on the Capitol grounds and was subsequently interviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice and the House committee tasked with investigating the attack.
Like Lake, Finchem lost his 2022 election and sued to get the results overturned. A trial court dismissed the lawsuit and Finchem’s appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court was denied. Finchem appealed the Supreme Court’s denial but eventually withdrew it after a Maricopa County Superior Court Judge sanctioned him and his lawyer over the suit, writing that the lawsuit “was groundless and not brought in good faith.” His lawyer was forced to retire after the sanction. In July of 2023, Finchem filed a “statement of interest” to run for a seat in the Arizona state Senate.
Alan Dershowitz
Dershowitz — one of the most well-known Constitutional lawyers who’s represented everyone from O.J. Simpson, to Julian Assange, to Jeffrey Epstein and Trump in his first impeachment trial — said that he joined Lindell’s legal team in 2022 out of “respect for civil liberties and the Constitution.”
Specifically, Dershowitz said that he joined Lindell’s legal team to represent him in a lawsuit against the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over their search and seizure of his phone as part of an investigation into a Colorado county clerk allegedly tampering with voting equipment in 2022.
Yet Lindell kept Dershowitz on retainer and said that he “hired” him to help with Lake and Finchem’s lawsuit to ban electronic voting machines in Arizona. Dershowitz, along with Lake, Finchem and the other members of Lindell’s legal team, were sanctioned by a district court judge. Dershowitz asked the court to reconsider, but his request was denied. In the order granting sanctions, the judge wrote that the claims of the lawsuit were “frivolous in that they are ‘both baseless and made without a reasonable and competent inquiry,’” and specifically called out Lindell’s legal team for defending claims about electronic voting machines that “baselessly kicked up a cloud of dust.”
In a statement to Arizona Central in response to the sanctions, Dershowitz wrote that he “never challenged the results of any Arizona elections,” but that he “provided legal advice about the future use of vote counting machines by companies that refuse to disclose the inner workings of their machines.”
Lawrence J. Joseph
Lawrence Joseph, an attorney who is representing the applicants in their petition filed in the Supreme Court today, is a familiar name to those who paid close attention to Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. That is because Joseph was instrumental in the legal efforts that attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. Joseph notoriously filed a petition on behalf of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue the state of Pennsylvania over their certification of 2020 election results.
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a request to hear the case, and an amicus brief filed by a group of former Republican officials opposing the effort said that Paxton’s lawsuit “make a mockery of federalism and separation of powers.”
Lawrence also filed a lawsuit on behalf of Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert (R) against former Vice President Mike Pence that sought to force Pence to reject the electoral votes in certain states and instead have him choose electors to cast their ballot for Trump.
Related Links
- Combating Threats to Election Workers Ahead of the 2024 Election
- As She Rakes In Republican Support, Kari Lake Is Still an Election Denier
- Trump Should Be on Trial Today for Trying To Overturn the 2020 Election. Here’s Why He’s Not.
- New Study Tells Compelling Story of Support for Various Election and Voting Policies
- “It Goes Back To Redistricting:” Black Voters and the Fight for Fair Representation
Sign up for our free newsletters.Email*Help keep our content free.We depend on your support to keep bringing you the latest information and insight on the fight for democracy – always free and available for all. After all, we can’t fight for the future of our democracy unless we know what’s happening.
© Democracy Docket 2024
Want exclusive sneak peeks, hot
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
And Dershowitz wonders why he’s persona non grata on the Vineyard? Please.09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR; 05/03/2025, New Orleans, LA;
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©0 -
Courts & Litigation Criminal Justice & the Rule of Law Democracy & Elections Executive Branch Moving Beyond Absolutes on Presidential Immunity Trevor W. Morrison Monday, March 18, 2024, 8:00 AM Share On: Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn Presidents are sometimes immune from criminal prosecution, but only in limited circumstances. Trump’s case doesn’t come close.
Published by The Lawfare Institute
in Cooperation With
Subscribe to Lawfare
Since the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the presidential immunity issue in Trump v. United States,
much has been said about the Court’s choice to wait until late April
for oral argument. If the Court ultimately rejects Trump’s claim of
immunity, it is not clear whether there will be time for the trial to
happen before the November 2024 election. That is a concern. Equally
concerning, at least, is the possibility that the Court might hold Trump
immune. We cannot discount the possibility that the timing the Court
selected for oral argument could reflect that at least five justices are
presently inclined to hold Trump immune and thus are not worried about
leaving time for a trial. To hold Trump immune would be a grave
constitutional error and a travesty of justice. Yet describing precisely
why is not as straightforward as some commentators have suggested. In
my view, former presidents are immune from federal prosecution for
exercising those powers that the Constitution grants to them
exclusively, in ways that Congress may not regulate. But the immunity
should extend no further, and Trump’s case involves no such exercise of
power.The Court granted certiorari to review the following
question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former President
enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct
alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” (In
context, we can assume the Court means to confine the question to
federal prosecution, as I do here.) As summarized in the government’s initial filing
before the Supreme Court, the charges against Trump allege, among other
things, that he used deceit toward certain state officials to subvert
the legitimate results of the presidential election in those states;
that he deceitfully organized fraudulent slates of presidential electors
in several states and caused them to send false certificates to
Congress; that he leveraged the Justice Department to deceitfully cause
state officials to replace their legitimate slate of presidential
electors with electors who would vote for Trump; and that he tried to
enlist then-Vice President Pence to fraudulently change the election
results during the certification process in Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.As
a preliminary matter, it is not entirely clear which of these alleged
actions constituted “official acts”—that is, acts taken by the president
in his capacity as president. But let’s assume that at least some of
them were official acts, insofar as Trump presented himself as president
when taking the alleged actions and purported to invoke the authority
of his office when trying to direct or persuade others to act as he
wanted them to act. The question now before the Court is whether and to
what extent Trump is immune from prosecution for those official acts.
(As Marty Lederman has pointed out, if any of the actions the government alleges do not constitute official acts, the Supreme Court’s ruling may not actually impact Trump’s prosecution
with respect to that conduct. The question of which acts were not
official acts would presumably fall to the district court on remand.)Ordinarily,
the fact that someone acted in an official government capacity when
committing a crime would provide no immunity from prosecution. But as
the Supreme Court has long recognized, the president “occupies a unique position in the constitutional scheme.” His far-reaching responsibilities are not all reducible
to textually explicit grants of power, but extend to include implicit
“obligations growing out of the Constitution itself” that reflect “the
nature of the government under the Constitution.” In order to ensure
that he is not distracted from fulfilling those sweeping
responsibilities, the Court in Nixon v. Fitzgerald held
that the president is absolutely immune—both while in office and after
leaving it—from civil damages liability on the basis of his “official
acts.” And official presidential acts, the Court explained, include
conduct falling within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official
responsibility.But Nixon was limited to civil lawsuits (and only
certain kinds of such suits, as I’ll explain below). The Court has
never addressed whether and to what extent a comparable immunity applies
in the very different context of federal criminal prosecutions. Thus,
another way of framing the question in the current case is this: Whether
and to what extent does Nixon v. Fitzgerald immunity apply to criminal prosecutions?Trump
and the government seem to have embraced opposite but equally
absolutist answers to that question. Trump has suggested that as long as
the charged conduct involved official presidential acts, a former
president is always immune (unless he was first removed from
office for those acts through the impeachment process). The government,
in contrast, has seemed at times to suggest that a former president is never
immune from prosecution for any acts, official or otherwise. The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit seemed to embrace a similar
position in its opinion below, on the theory that any presidential
action that violates generally applicable federal criminal law
necessarily exceeds the president’s lawful authority. In my view,
neither of these absolutist positions is tenable.The “Never Immune” PositionAlthough
the precise question of a president’s immunity from criminal
prosecution is one of first impression, it is part of a more general
question: Whether and when may Congress regulate the president’s
official conduct? The Supreme Court’s separation of powers jurisprudence
is instructive here, especially the framework laid out by Justice
Robert Jackson in his famous concurring opinion in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer.
As Jackson put it, “Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate,
depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.”
The president’s authority is at its maximum when he acts “pursuant to
the express or implied authorization of Congress”; it is in a somewhat
ambiguous “zone of twilight” when he acts in the absence of
congressional authorization or prohibition; and it is at its “lowest
ebb” when he acts in ways that are “incompatible with the express or
implied will of Congress.” The last category is the key one for present
purposes—Trump is charged with violating federal criminal statutes,
meaning that he is alleged to have acted contrary to Congress’s will as
expressed in those statutes.If the president has the power to
take a particular action even in the face of congressional prohibition,
it is because the Constitution grants him exclusive authority in that
area. It is no small thing to conclude that the president possesses such
exclusive authority. Indeed, as Jackson emphasized in Youngstown,
“[p]residential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive
must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the
equilibrium established by our constitutional system.” Yet we know that
there are some limited areas where the president does wield such power.One example is the recognition power, which is the president’s power to recognize or decline to recognize a foreign state. In Zivotofsky v. Kerry,
the Court held that the recognition power belongs to the president
alone and, therefore, that Congress cannot “command” the president “to
issue a formal statement that contradicts” his own exercise of that
power. The issue in Zivotofsky was whether Congress could
require the executive branch to issue U.S. passports indicating that a
person born in Jerusalem was born in Israel, despite the president’s
determination not to take a position on whether Jerusalem was formally
part of Israel. The Court held that Congress could not compel the
executive branch to take that position. It follows that Congress also
could not criminalize the president’s refusal to recognize Jerusalem as
part of Israel. A former president would surely be immune from any
attempt to prosecute him for violating such a statute.Another example is the president’s power to grant pardons for federal criminal offenses. As the Supreme Court has explained,
the president’s “plenary authority” over pardons comes solely from the
Constitution, not from statute, and Congress cannot modify, abridge, or
diminish it. (That is not to say that the scope of the pardon power is
unlimited; even if Congress cannot restrict the president’s exercise of
it, courts could conceivably determine that the power itself does not
reach certain things—such as, perhaps, a self-pardon.) In other words,
Congress may not direct the president in his exercise of the pardon
power. It could not, for example, prohibit the president from pardoning
people for committing certain crimes, nor could it compel him to do so.
And by the same token, a former president could not be prosecuted for
failing to adhere to any purported legislative restrictions on his
pardon power.There are two further points worth noting here.
First, one might object that the immunity I am describing is not really
an immunity at all. These hypothetical statutes are substantively and
facially unconstitutional because they impermissibly intrude on powers
that the Constitution grants exclusively to the president. One might
distinguish between such substantive unconstitutionality on the one hand
and official immunity on the other, where the latter concerns whether
an otherwise valid legal rule can be enforced against a particular
defendant in a particular context. For example, when a court concludes
that a state officer enjoys qualified immunity
in a money damages suit, it is not saying the underlying legal rule is
invalid, or that the officer’s conduct was lawful. It is merely holding
the officer immune from damages liability because their conduct was not
clearly unlawful when they acted. Indeed, the real force of qualified
immunity is that it can protect officers from liability for unlawful
conduct. One might argue that the term “immunity” should be reserved
only for that kind of situation. If so, the president would still be
protected against criminal prosecution in the circumstances noted above.
It just wouldn’t be called “immunity.”However, I don’t think
presidential immunity should be conceptualized the same way as qualified
officer immunity. Instead, the better analogy is to Supremacy Clause
immunity, which shields federal officers from state criminal liability
in certain circumstances. The leading case is Cunningham v. Neagle,
which involved an attempted state prosecution of a U.S. deputy marshal
for shooting a man he believed was about to attack a justice of the
Supreme Court, whom the deputy had been assigned to protect. The Court
held the deputy immune from state prosecution for any act that was
authorized by U.S. law and within his duties as a U.S. marshal, provided
“he did no more than what was necessary and proper for him to do.” The
deputy’s entitlement to immunity, in other words, turned on whether
federal law (which, under the Supremacy Clause, trumps contrary state
law) authorized him to act as he did. That is analytically comparable to
the conception of presidential immunity I am describing here, which
turns on whether the Constitution (which trumps contrary federal
legislation) grants the president the exclusive power to take the action
in question. The president’s immunity is a function of those powers
that the Constitution grants exclusively and preclusively to him.That
leads to the second point. My hypothetical laws regulating the
president’s recognition and pardon powers would apply directly and only
to the president. What happens when Congress passes a law of more
general application that, if applied against the president, would
impinge impermissibly on his exercise of an exclusive, unregulable
power? The answer is straightforward: Although the law might be
constitutional as applied to others, the president would remain immune
from prosecution for the reasons stated above. (Notably, the D.C.
Circuit failed to account for this possibility.)
continues.....
© 2024 The Lawfare Institute Published by The Lawfare Institute in Cooperation With
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
-
putting this here though it should probably go in the Smith thread....
Washington, D.C. Trump Federal 2020 Election Subversion Indictment
United States v. Trump
Filed: August 1, 2023
Indictment of former President Donald Trump by a federal grand jury in Washington, D.C. Trump was indicted on four counts relating to his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
“[F]or more than two months following election day on November 3, 2020, the Defendant [Donald Trump] spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won. These claims were false, and the Defendant knew that they were false,” the indictment reads.
According to the unsealed indictment, Trump is charged with:
- Conspiracy to defraud the United States;
- Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding;
- Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding and
- Conspiracy against the right to vote and have one’s vote counted.
On Aug. 3, 2023, Trump pleaded not guilty as his arraignment in Washington, D.C. On Oct. 17, the court entered a gag order prohibiting Trump from making public statements about U.S. Department of Justice attorneys, the court’s staff and witnesses. Trump appealed the order to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which largely upheld the order on Dec. 8.
On Dec. 1, the district court denied Trump’s motion to dismiss the indictment based on presidential immunity grounds. On Dec. 7, Trump appealed this ruling to the D.C. Circuit.
On Dec. 11, 2023, the government filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to rule on whether Trump is immune from criminal charges for actions he took while serving as president.
Meanwhile, on Dec. 13, the district court granted Trump’s request to stay proceedings while his presidential immunity appeal plays out.
On Dec. 22, the Supreme Court denied the government’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Litigation is ongoing in the D.C. Circuit regarding Trump’s immunity from criminal prosecution.
continues.....
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
the wife of senator running man is arguing against the use mifepristone at scotus this morning.....do better missouri._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
we are trying to get him the fuck out. keep an eye on lucas kunce.mickeyrat said:the wife of senator running man is arguing against the use mifepristone at scotus this morning.....do better missouri."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
I don't know who that is but he's better than Hawley.gimmesometruth27 said:
we are trying to get him the fuck out. keep an eye on lucas kunce.mickeyrat said:the wife of senator running man is arguing against the use mifepristone at scotus this morning.....do better missouri.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin 2024 Napa, Wrigley, Wrigley 2025 Nashville (II)0 -
he is a young vet. progressive. has been hammering hawley since 1/6 and it seems like he actually has a chance.OnWis97 said:
I don't know who that is but he's better than Hawley.gimmesometruth27 said:
we are trying to get him the fuck out. keep an eye on lucas kunce.mickeyrat said:the wife of senator running man is arguing against the use mifepristone at scotus this morning.....do better missouri.
next we have to get schmitt out of there."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
interview with Breyer...._____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140 -
_____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '140
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help







