The Supremes

[Js1 85417]

11 minutes ago, hornbri said:

Apparently it is in pages 16-33 of the 112 page ruling…

So to sum it up:

Chutkan - inciting an insurrection is neither a constitutional act nor an official act

Trump - nuh uh, appeal 

[hobbes2702 13045]

1 minute ago, miguelito said:

They couldn't have issued that decision weeks or months ago?

That wouldn’t have helped Donald 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

So when do they decide if Biden can have him executed?

[hornmpa96 2618]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

That wouldn’t have helped Donald 

Exactly - then the Court may have had time to find that trying to overthrow a valid election isn’t an official act.

[Red Five 40862]

Well, we elected a criminal president, and he did a bunch of criminal things while in office. Perhaps we shouldn't elect a criminal president going forward, instead of looking for ways to make his criminal acts legal. 

[Mo Horn 8849]

1 minute ago, Red Five said:

Well, we elected a criminal president, and he did a bunch of criminal things while in office. Perhaps we shouldn't elect a criminal president going forward, instead of looking for ways to make his criminal acts legal. 

Well much of the American electorate are idiots, so that's a big ask. 

[Michael Knight 12988]

cool

[HenryJames 66125]

12 minutes ago, miguelito said:

They couldn't have issued that decision weeks or months ago?

They could, but they want Trump to win so they are helping him as much as they can.

[Brisketexan 105158]

3 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Well, we elected a criminal president, and he did a bunch of criminal things while in office. Perhaps we shouldn't elect a criminal president going forward, instead of looking for ways to make his criminal acts legal. 

[Pawn Star Dudes] Sorry, best I can do is re-electing him in November. [/Pawn Star Dudes]

[Stringer 1439]

“And if a former president’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, “the independence of the executive branch” may be significantly undermined.”

I’m sorry. Didn’t they just destroy the independence of the executive branch? Or is the Executive Branch just the President now?

[wildcat09 29355]

13 minutes ago, Js1 said:

So to sum it up:

Chutkan - inciting an insurrection is neither a constitutional act nor an official act

Trump - nuh uh, appeal 

Yup.

Also, they went way out of their way to bless basically anything Trump wants to do to his enemies or to enrich himself if he wins in November.

[HenryJames 66125]

Keep in mind that this ruling will only apply to a Republican president.

[Pancho 44858]

So can Biden just drone strike trunp at Maralago now and it be okay?

[Neonmoon 38129]

The legal system is a joke

People shouldn’t abide by it if only the poor are held accountable 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

any lawyers wanna slither up in here and defend this shit?

[Michael Knight 12988]

Well as long as Biden is acting officially he can unilaterally fire Roberts Scalia and Alito for corruption, arrest insurrectionist in Congress and Trump, and expand the court to 20  and appoint whoever he wants

[wildcat09 29355]

Scalia?

[Michael Knight 12988]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Scalia?

I mean unless you think he's really dead

[Shut up Lou Holtz 2043]

3 minutes ago, Michael Knight said:

Well as long as Biden is acting officially he can unilaterally fire Roberts Scalia and Alito for corruption, arrest insurrectionist in Congress and Trump, and expand the court to 20  and appoint whoever he wants

This is where I’m at. Just state “this is an official act of the office of the president” then fire away 

[Red Five 40862]

So when Trump gets mad and nukes California, as long as he says "This is an official act" right before he does it, then he's cool? 

[Dahobbs 17625]

Biden should go ahead and order drone strikes on some of the justices and Trump. Reap what you sow.  

[pacman 7359]

George Washington, "This is bullshit! Where can we setup new colonies to flee the King of USA?"

[Goredho 17408]

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

The legal system is a joke

People shouldn’t abide by it if only the poor are held accountable 

This is the worst fallout of the Trump presidency and why Putin and anyone who wants to see a weakened America loves him.  He's a chaos monkey stress test for our country's democratic norms.  He's basically called everything established over 200+ years of presidential conduct into question.  He exposes the weakness and fragility in our Federal government, the judicial system and the idea of checks and balances and shared power.  He makes everyone lose faith that our government "of the people for the people" is anything but a sham.  The power associated with governance is for whoever wants to seize it provided they can get their allies in the right places to lower the decaying gates protecting American democracy.

[Pancho 44858]

Biden’s first official act after this ruling should be to postpone the election.

[Foosters 17858]

12 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

any lawyers wanna slither up in here and defend this shit?

The reflexive desire to jump down the throats of all lawyers on this board whenever bad shit happens is truly bizarre. 

 

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

34 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

So when do they decide if Biden can have him executed?

After the fact, hopefully. 

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

22 minutes ago, Pancho said:

So can Biden just drone strike trunp at Maralago now and it be okay?

Let’s find out. 

[Brisketexan 105158]

3 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

any lawyers wanna slither up in here and defend this shit?

I haven't read it all, just excerpts of the opinion and dissents....but....MAYBE.  In other words, I'm trying to find a way to read the opinion and NOT be freaked out about it.  And I'm actually kinda sorta a little bit there.

Imagine that we're talking about a generic POTUS, not a shameless bad actor like Trump.  Hell, let's go with Biden, or Obama.  They commit acts X and Y while in office (say one is a drone strike on a target in Syria, another is some internal intelligence action, like a raid on a suspected terrorist information hub).  After they leave office, prosecutors decide that a crime was committed - maybe an American was at the site in Syria, and the president killed him with the drone strike.

Was a crime committed (or, more specifically, is he immune because his action was an official action)?

If the president acted on legit intel, and didn't know an American was there: official action, immunity.

If he acted on legit intel, which informed him that the American was actively engaged in terrorist activity: official action, immunity.

If he ordered the strike on his own, and the American killed was just a dude he owed a lot of money to: quite likely that is NOT an official action, even though he used official resources to carry it out, NO immunity.

 

It's a fact-specific inquiry.  And it's that way for most any government official.  The inquiry is often called an "ultra vires" inquiry - is it within the scope of that official's authority, and is it an exercise of that authority, or not?  The cops raiding your house under a search warrant is an official act where there is likely immunity.  If a cop just kicks in your door and steals a bunch of your shit, that's not an official act, and there is no immunity.  But in any case, it requires analysis of the exact facts of each case.

It sure seems to me like the court spent a lot of time restating what the law is and has been for most officials.  But I definitely need to read the whole thing at some point.

 

[DDD Dad 14339]

The most troubling aspect of what I’ve gleaned from this ruling is the placement of the burden of proof on the government to negate a presumption of immunity. What evidentiary standard must they meet?  Beyond reasonable doubt? On something that should be an affirmative defense?

 

SMDH. Official corruption has essentially been legalized. 

[Js1 85417]

12 minutes ago, Goredho said:

This is the worst fallout of the Trump presidency and why Putin and anyone who wants to see a weakened America loves him.  He's a chaos monkey stress test for our country's democratic norms.  He's basically called everything established over 200+ years of presidential conduct into question.  He exposes the weakness and fragility in our Federal government, the judicial system and the idea of checks and balances and shared power.  He makes everyone lose faith that our government "of the people for the people" is anything but a sham.  The power associated with governance is for whoever wants to seize it provided they can get their allies in the right places to lower the decaying gates protecting American democracy.

At least after the civil war, or when America breaks into 2, we have a better template to codify everything into law or explicitly into the founding document immediately. No more norms or good faith shit, put it in writing with the ability to adapt as the times change 

[chainsaw 9870]

Joe Biden should actually open the border now.

[C-Man 27230]

12 minutes ago, Goredho said:

This is the worst fallout of the Trump presidency and why Putin and anyone who wants to see a weakened America loves him.  He's a chaos monkey stress test for our country's democratic norms.  He's basically called everything established over 200+ years of presidential conduct into question.  He exposes the weakness and fragility in our Federal government, the judicial system and the idea of checks and balances and shared power.  He makes everyone lose faith that our government "of the people for the people" is anything but a sham.  The power associated with governance is for whoever wants to seize it provided they can get their allies in the right places to lower the decaying gates protecting American democracy.

That and completely destroying any confidence in the main stream (I shudder even typing those two words together because it gives me PTSD) media. Yes, the NY Times and Washington Post get shit wrong sometimes but they're not bullshit peddlers like Billy Liucci.

[Red Five 40862]

Hey, let's elect Donald Trump and burn it all down! What's the worst that could happen? 

[chainsaw 9870]

1 minute ago, C-Man said:

That and completely destroying any confidence in the main stream (I shudder even typing those two words together because it gives me PTSD) media. Yes, the NY Times and Washington Post get shit wrong sometimes but they're not bullshit peddlers like Billy Liucci.

[David Dennison 18923]

31 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

They could, but they want Trump to win so they are helping him as much as they can.

Republicans understand politics and power.

The only Democrats who have even the slightest grasp of those two things are really, really, really old.

[Brisketexan 105158]

Oh, and on my analysis....yes, the challenge here is that these standards were never contemplated with a completely rogue actor like Trump in mind.  They are made to handle people who step beyond the margins/boundaries.  Not people who just blow right through them, repeatedly.

Trump is indeed a stress test for ALL of our systems (see, e.g., the "failsafe" of impeachment), and our systems just are not up to the task.

The hard and brutal truth is that when you have someone willing to go so far outside the law....your likely solutions are also...outside the law.  And THAT, folks, is how you end up in a bloodbath.

[Js1 85417]

2 minutes ago, C-Man said:

That and completely destroying any confidence in the main stream (I shudder even typing those two words together because it gives me PTSD) media. Yes, the NY Times and Washington Post get shit wrong sometimes but they're not bullshit peddlers like Billy Liucci.

That’s pretty bold considering one of those publications won’t cease hit pieces on the president until he sits down to interview them. That’s not a legitimate newspaper. 

[Dbeasy 15068]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

The idea that being too poor to own a home couldn’t be made a criminal offense sent shivers down your spine?

You know full well that is not the real issue at hand and framing it that way is disingenuous. 

[David Dennison 18923]

1 minute ago, Dbeasy said:

You know full well that is not the real issue at hand and framing it that way is disingenuous. 

No, the issue there is that America hates poor people and wants people to know that being poor is a lifestyle choice that we simply cannot have in respectable neighborhoods.

Edited July 1 by David Dennison

[Longhorn94 2453]

23 minutes ago, Red Five said:

So when Trump gets mad and nukes California, as long as he says "This is an official act" right before he does it, then he's cool? 

so long as he communicates with the US Military then it is presumptively an official act and he has presumptive immunity. this shit is bananas yo!

it is encouraging the president to use official government resources to commit whatever crimes he wants and so long as he does that - US military, justice department, CIA, FBI, Seals - then he is presumptively immune. 

[Firemans4Horn 18107]

Nomination to rename this thread “6 motherfuckers in robes”

[wildcat09 29355]

9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I haven't read it all, just excerpts of the opinion and dissents....but....MAYBE.  In other words, I'm trying to find a way to read the opinion and NOT be freaked out about it.  And I'm actually kinda sorta a little bit there.

Imagine that we're talking about a generic POTUS, not a shameless bad actor like Trump.  Hell, let's go with Biden, or Obama.  They commit acts X and Y while in office (say one is a drone strike on a target in Syria, another is some internal intelligence action, like a raid on a suspected terrorist information hub).  After they leave office, prosecutors decide that a crime was committed - maybe an American was at the site in Syria, and the president killed him with the drone strike.

Was a crime committed (or, more specifically, is he immune because his action was an official action)?

If the president acted on legit intel, and didn't know an American was there: official action, immunity.

If he acted on legit intel, which informed him that the American was actively engaged in terrorist activity: official action, immunity.

If he ordered the strike on his own, and the American killed was just a dude he owed a lot of money to: quite likely that is NOT an official action, even though he used official resources to carry it out, NO immunity.

 

It's a fact-specific inquiry.  And it's that way for most any government official.  The inquiry is often called an "ultra vires" inquiry - is it within the scope of that official's authority, and is it an exercise of that authority, or not?  The cops raiding your house under a search warrant is an official act where there is likely immunity.  If a cop just kicks in your door and steals a bunch of your shit, that's not an official act, and there is no immunity.  But in any case, it requires analysis of the exact facts of each case.

It sure seems to me like the court spent a lot of time restating what the law is and has been for most officials.  But I definitely need to read the whole thing at some point.

 

Man, they came pretty close to openly saying Trump could have his political opponents assassinated.

[Brandywine 1316]

The Supreme Court alone should make people think seriously on who to vote for. Trumps election in 2016 set these decisions in motion. Reelection of him will be far worse. How anyone can make a decision strictly on optics is childish and ignorant. 

[wildcat09 29355]

3 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

You know full well that is not the real issue at hand and framing it that way is disingenuous. 

No, that's absolutely what this case was about.  It about whether being too poor to afford shelter and having nowhere else to go could be penalized as a crime. The dissenters thought it couldn't and you said that sent a shiver down your spine. 

[chainsaw 9870]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Man, they came pretty close to openly saying Trump could have his political opponents assassinated.

That's what the founding fathers envisioned, after all.

[Dbeasy 15068]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

I can't disagree that neither party does a good job of actually governing, but I think it's important to consider the "why". Republicans actively want to take away civil rights and turn women into chattel and have been destroying public education for their donors private ed play. Democrats are just a hot mess of out of touch olds fighting internal power squabbles rather than focusing on actual political strategic outcomes. 

The repubs are actively shitty, and the dems are just incredibly ineffectual and distractible. I do think the "why" matters even if outcomes are shit either way 

I don’t disagree that the Republican Party’s motivations and actions are bad. But, I do believe there is one aspect of the Democratic Party’s views and policies that are also very very dangerous, but in a different way. 

Some of the policies go against one of the fundamental tenants of the values of this country.  Namely that an individual must take responsibility for their own actions. Too often, policies are in conflict with that value. Republicans do it too, so Democrats aren’t alone on that. But the Democrats do it more often. 

[washparkhorn 9939]

Immune, immune, immune. 

[Dbeasy 15068]

6 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No, the issue there is that America hates poor people and wants people to know that being poor is a lifestyle choice that we simply cannot have in respectable neighborhoods.

Another complete mischaracterization of the situation. 

[wildcat09 29355]

The inescapable conclusion is that the justices in the majority actually want Trump to exterminate their political opponents.

[David Dennison 18923]

4 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

The Supreme Court alone should make people think seriously on who to vote for. Trumps election in 2016 set these decisions in motion. Reelection of him will be far worse. How anyone can make a decision strictly on optics is childish and ignorant. 

 

1 minute ago, washparkhorn said:

Immune, immune, immune. 

Yeah, they just gave Donald Trump a green light to do whatever he wants in an official capacity.

It's chilling, but there's a horse race to cover, so the punditocracy won't compare what the Supreme Court just did to the Enabling Act of 1933. After all, history is for nerds.