troph

Pack the court is a strategy after a dem sweep. At this point Trump is getting off relatively unscathed. I’ve never held my breath for his imprisonment or anything other than a slap on the wrist (which is all the NY 34 felonies are). Done with Trump. Defeat him in November he has no political power then, he dies soon enough. It’s time to save our country and focusing on Trump isn’t the play. It’s all of it. Sweep the election, pack the court, reverse these horrible rogue decisions, and start rebuilding.

Maddow replay on rn. Must watch analysis. She’s going through the opinion.

No ability to be cutthroat not even to save the democracy. It’s so demoralizing.

This decision has me in full support of a pack the court strategy. Take it to 15. Hell appoint moderates that’s fine. This court is rogue, overturning precedent left and right. This isn’t all about Trump, I don’t want a stronger executive. It’s time to reign the judicial branch back in.

Not to cross post but in case some aren’t on the supremes thread, the holding isn’t benign like that. It actually allows a path to complete immunity for the abuse of power and obstruction of justice because official acts due to the statements that illegality of the act and POTUS motivations are not relevant to the determination of official or unofficial. So provided POTUS is exercising executive power, this ruling effectively provided unqualified immunity. It shouldn’t but it does. so yes, VOTE.

He paid lip service to it in the opinion before he said the convos with the AG about breaking the law are absolutely immune and before he said on official acts analysis motivation and legality of the act itself are not relevant.

POTUS can now use the DOJ as his personal revenge agency without pretense without remorse and without any concern of an obstruction or abuse of power charge later. Think about that. Immune.

CNN discussion - it’s exactly when POTUS abuses the power of the presidency that POTUS should be held accountable. Immune.

This, roe, chevron, the prior EPA case (this court), citizens united, are all recent really bad cases. Only citizens united was not this court. If we survive this the Roberts court will go down as one of the worst. And it’s been only 3-4 years.

If Biden wins some pressure is off, if Dems win the house and senate more pressure is off but unless they truly pack the court we are still fucked.

You’re missing the insidious part. And is ok it took me all day o find it. If it’s not an illegal act is not an issue. The framework should be immune for official acts unless it’s proven (not sure the standard) that the act was in fact illegal and the POTUS knew it was illegal and did it anyway. No way that’s an official act. Nixon wouldn’t need a pardon under this framework. bush wouldn’t need a legal opinion on torture under this framework. ollie north wouldn’t have needed to take the fall for Reagan. this is a MASSIVE problem.

100%. I know why this was hard to figure out - the fuckers cloaked absolute immunity under a fancy qualified immunity framework then quietly ruled the two most important kinds of evidence are not germane - illegality of the act itself and presidential motives (i.e. knowledge of and intent to break the law). We are so fucked.

Is worse than that. His conversations with he justice department to exert pressure on states to toss electors and to install trumps chosen ones - even if illegal and even if Trump knew and intended to break the law - is immune. That’s actually the core holding. it’s wildly problematic. i otherwise agree a qualified immunity framework is a nothing burger, but that’s NOT what this case holds. It’s qualified immunity with no ability to prove otherwise.

Yes the fact that motive and illegality of the act itself is not germane is in fact the chilling part of this. I had assumed this decision might be like an ordinary immunity framework where knowledge of illegality and motivation to break the law would be evidence to show the act was unofficial. Nope, not here. chilling.

Read my last post.

The best summary I’ve found so far: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/ Okay that seems really problematic to me. This seems wildly problematic. This is wildly problematic too, but he may not be immune. Attempting to persuade the legislative branch to violate its constitutional duty hardly seems official? Not yet concerned here but obviously SCOTUS can find he’s immune later. As they say in law school the rest is dicta. ………… So I’m now very concerned that POTUS criminal acts can be considered immune from prosecution. And that the criminality of acts and POTUS motivation are not germane to the determination of what is and isn’t official. fuck. I really think some form of immunity is fine. I really do, but knowledge of criminality and motivation to break the law should be enough to overcome official acts immunity. In fact that’s exactly the analysis that leads POTUS to have the office of legal counsel write opinions on what is lawful. The bush torture legal opinions? So he couldn’t be prosecuted. That opinion is no longer needed because the mere fact it is illegal is not enough and his motivation is off limits too. horrible decision. Like really fucking awful. lawdogs this isn’t an ordinary immunity framework. I think this could be red alert.

I get the fear, I sometimes can’t sleep at night - but not because of this ruling … yet.

I’m still having a hard time seeing the frame work of the immunity decision as a problem. I’m not saying it’s ok I don’t get it from a constitutional scholarly point of view. what I do know is over turning roe and chevron are wildly problematic just from a presidential value point of view. what I do know is this court cannot be trusted to even apply its own rulings justly. I guess I’m going to have to read the 100+ pages necessary no one is quoting the majority and pointing to the problematic language, they are quoting sotamayor’s dissent but the binding ruling and law is stated in the majority.

sorry for partying.

This is where I start too. Not sure if I should be freaked out or not, would love more analysis on a few points raised below. However, on its face, the idea of complete immunity from constitutional acts - no issue at all - question is was the act unconstitutional? Inciting and supporting insurrection clearly is not. Official acts? plenty of official acts, was the taking of a bribe an official act? of course not. Then all else, no immunity. There are concepts of immunity throughout the law, I take no issue with this basic structure, none at all. This was the first post that alarmed me. I doubt the dissent is pure alarmist rhetoric, but I guess it could be. I see all these tweets, order a drone strike on mar-a-lago and claim immunity. I don't think that's how it works. So I'm confused by the language in this dissent as it relates to the concept and application of immunity. I also don't have a problem with POTUS official speeches being deemed inadmissible as evidence. But I don't see how the Jan 6 speech was an official speech of the POTUS, it was that of a candidate. So again, I fail to see the huge concern here. But going back to a POTUS speech, if the POTUS says China, Iran and Russia are the new axis of evil and they must be stopped at all costs. Should that be allowed as evidence of a later crime? I actually think not. I think this distinction is quite appropriate as well. I do think as soon as Trump and the AG decide to jointly do something that is unconstitutional or not an official act then their conversations are germane though. I agree with this 100% as well. I'm here too. Which leaves me with this and the dissent quoted above. What are we or more specifically am I missing here besides the SCOTUS delayed like a M'fer making any trial only likely if and only if Trump loses the election (which in the end is what I suspect was their primary goal).

something like that yes.

I made the mistake of checking out his response to mine last night, that’s the only reason why we got into it. I’m trying to disengage again. ignore is a wonderful feature for the concern trolls.

I have no problem with camping bans, provided there is a designated place for homeless to set up. That was the essence of the 9th circuit ruling - without an alternative you have deemed existence criminal. Of course the ruling overturned the 9th circuit, but I agree in simple terms, effectively criminalizing existence is a violation of probably several constitutional provisions. I think the hotels are dumb. Absent an overhaul of state provided mental health care and substance abuse treatment, I think the city should set up a couple hundred acre tent facility. Bathrooms, showers, police presence, etc. enforce the law. i think the ban on camping elsewhere should also be enforced, because connected with that is petty crime, harassment, and a depression best use of land and resources. Austin had a downtown homeless problem in the 70’s and 80’s. And no one wanted to be downtown because of it.

We has.

Cass Report - let’s keep moving forward, carefully with trans care - including medical treatments such as hormones for minors. State of Texas - fuck that, and while we’re at it let’s outlaw trans adults too - we already have the road map with prior abortion laws through convoluted and draconian legislation made to regulate the medical profession making care in Texas next to impossible. The concurring opinion quoted above made it crystal clear - Republicans see trans existence as a moral and political issue not a psychological and medical issue. discussion on this topic with anyone who won’t rebuke that concurring opinion is a fool’s errand. ONLY when trans care is seen as PURELY medical and psychological will any broader discussion with non-experts about protocols be fruitful. Until then, we trans people have to walk through mine fields to find doctors and therapists that can help us.