The Supremes

[Surly Bevo 24692]

So it took a while longer than expected but ultimately this guy was right

 

[Neonmoon 38127]

Trump has now asked the Manhattan conviction be thrown out citing President immunity 

clown country 

[Slacks 6791]

16 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

It's been what... ten hours or so since the immunity ruling came down?  Why are dotard, McConnell, Cruz, Hawley, Alito, Thomas, etc still alive?

7:22 in the a.m.

[SubliminalHorn 6671]

Cannon will soon throw out the documents case too 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

12 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Trump has now asked the Manhattan conviction be thrown out citing President immunity 

clown country 

[Pancho 44432]

[immamac 42513]

Can't there be a 28th amendment effectively reversing this completely bogus decision? I can't imagine many Republicans are a fan of this either. 

[wildcat09 29213]

3 minutes ago, immamac said:

Can't there be a 28th amendment effectively reversing this completely bogus decision? I can't imagine many Republicans are a fan of this either. 

You really can't? 

[Biff Tannen 45491]

5 minutes ago, Pancho said:

The comments are fucking insane. 

[immamac 42513]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

You really can't? 

Some sure, not many. 

[elfenix 34169]

3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

As I understand it, a POTUS can announce in his SOTU on television that he raped and murdered someone and that statement can’t be introduced in court.

WTF are we doing as a country anymore. 

No no, it's that he can announce in the SOTU he's going to murder Ginny Thomas, and when he later runs over Ginny Thomas in a crosswalk, he can claim his foot slipped off the brake and he totally didn't intend to run her over, and his statement in SOTU would be inadmissible to prove that he intended to kill her 

[BamaATL 16592]

19 minutes ago, immamac said:

Some sure, not many. 

I'm not thinking it's realistic to get the needed few hundred members of the House or the twenty or so Senators to publicly do so.  Hell, they got 8 to renounce Jan 6th and all are now unemployed and pretty much personas non grata in their own political realm.  

So if you'd like to hold your breath while you wait for the 28th amendment be my guest.  You have a better chance of walking on Mars, but to each their own.  

Edited July 2 by BamaATL

[immamac 42513]

This isn't that hard. Stop coming up with fever dream stupid shit. 

The military can no longer refuse illegal orders from the commander in chief because no order from the commander in chief is illegal. 

The military can be instructed to do anything the president asks. Want to send troops to the border and kill anyone who crosses? Just command it. Want to use the military to round up anyone of the wrong skin color or religion? The word is law. 

Will there be litigation for violating people's rights? Sure, but there will be no penalty. That's the point. The point is that if there is no penalty what keeps the person from committing the crimes that can't be crimes? 

It's actually incredible how fucking pathetic these opinions are. It's like reading straight up brain rot propaganda. 

[956 Worldwide 34404]

16 minutes ago, Pancho said:

We are destroying our republic not for a Caesar or Napoleon or even a Lenin but for Donald Fucking Trump.

Even the Norks had two dear leaders before they got someone as embarrassing and fat as the current big special boy. 

[Woland 729]

I honestly have no idea how people can be so fucking checked out what is going on. 

Grooming.

[softlynow 1783]

8 minutes ago, immamac said:

Some sure, not many. 

If by "not many" you mean 50-60 million, then you nailed it!

[troph 24560]

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. 

 

 

[Party_Taco 3674]

One thing about this that just really highlights the difference between the two parties is how they will react. Imagine for a moment if Biden took this ruling and did something that looked even slightly like it was for personal gain? The media would thrash him for it, many in the Democratic party would thrash him for it, and many of his voters would stay home. But if Trump were in office, he would immediately do something so wild that was obviously beyond the pale, and nobody would bat an eye (e.g., lead a crowd to overthrow the government). The parties play by different rules because voters hold them to different standards. As much as I wash Biden would be like "OK, let's fucking do this then, here's EO No's 1-100" and even if I personally agreed with every order, I truly believe it would tank his campaign because "that's not what a good Democrat should do!"

Who needs a campaign? EO-1 is eliminate of the election and personal anointment as king.

[tx 3 putt 76288]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

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. 

 

 

 

 

[wildcat09 29213]

19 minutes ago, immamac said:

Some sure, not many. 

Are you...are you not familiar with who makes up the Republican party these days? 

[tx 3 putt 76288]

2 minutes ago, Party_Taco said:

Who needs a campaign? EO-1 is eliminate of the election and personal anointment as king.

it’s an open secret that Trump passed along top secret info to the Russians and Saudis. Let the Israelis take care of him, then pardon them 

[YGIFS 19449]

No sitting President, even Commander Dipshit Trump, is going to deploy the U.S. Military on American soil.  Nor will Biden or whomever wins in 2028.  

But last I checked, Trump still travels abroad from time to time to play golf at his resorts.  USSOCOM has embedded teams all over the world who know the language, local customs, and grids.  A 8-person security detail on Trump in a foreign country would be no match for them.  Nobody would like it, but it's by far not the hardest target ever reached on foreign lands by JSOC.  

[Francisco 2.0 32312]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/today-i-saw-the-grim-brutality-of-a-conservative-supreme-court-close-up?ref=home?ref=home

 

Quote

The announcement of the Presidential immunity decision today in Trumpversus United States was a grim affair. As a first-time audience member for the announcements of high court opinions, I was surprised by the repeated “shushing” from SCOTUS security before the court session even started to an already quiet courtroom. Only very soft subdued conversations were happening mostly between lawyers who were sitting in the section reserved for members of the Supreme Court bar and there was almost no conversation in the public section. 

 

 

Quote

The “shushing,” however was delivered by security facing the public with their backs to the lawyer section and the dais where the justices would be sitting. In other words, only the public was being warned to be silent. Of course, decorum is important at the high court—as it is in any courtroom— but the preemptive warning to the public seemed needless: much ado about something that had not happened. It would prove to be a metaphor for the majority opinion that Chief Justice John Roberts announced from the bench when court did start.

 

 

Quote

In an opinion that likely placed the last nail in the coffin of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s chances of getting the Jan 6 case against Trump tried before the election, the Chief Justice wrote for a majority comprised of the right-wing majority: Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch (absent without explanation), and Coney Barrett (more personable than expected—she even joked with the public about the opinion she announced as not being the one everyone was waiting to hear). 

 

 

Spoiler

In his opinion, Roberts made clear that U.S. Presidents must be granted complete immunity for acts that fall within the powers assigned exclusively to Presidents, allowed for the possibility that Presidents might undertake non-official acts for which they might be prosecuted but concluded that the high court doesn’t know enough about the Jan 6 events to determine which of former President Trump’s actions might subject him to prosecution. Therefore, as many experts had predicted, the case was kicked back to the lower courts to figure those parts out first (after which those decisions will no doubt again be appealed to the Supreme Court).

Wrote Roberts: “At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity. At the current stage of proceeding in this case, however, we need not and do not decide whether that immunity must be absolute.”

A foundation of the ruling is Roberts’ handwringing over how the threat of potential criminal accountability would cause a President to experience “hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly,” and that “The Framers’ design of the Presidency did not envision such counterproductive burdens on the “vigor[]” and “energy” of the Executive” (citing to the Federalist No. 70). 

Of course, as Roberts notes at the very start of his analysis, no criminal prosecution of a President for what he did in office has ever happened before which means we have gone two centuries with Presidents unprotected from a danger that has never happened. That’s the needless “shushing” analogy.

Roberts read from his opinion in a matter-of-fact way, while his conservative majority mostly looked detached or preoccupied. Justice Thomas sometimes leaned back appearing to rest his eyes while Justice Alito seemed to busy himself with something in front of him with an air of smug satisfaction. Justice Kavanaugh kept his head attentively turned towards Roberts as the Chief Justice read, with an expression that reminded me of a college student trying to look like that were paying attention by sitting in the front row. Justice Coney Barrett, perhaps anticipating the coming discomfort of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent, looked straight ahead, emitting a distinctly less carefree vibe than when she quipped about her own opinion.

As Justice Sotomayor began to read her dissent, the atmosphere in the courtroom grew palpably more tense. In a powerful dissent joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, Sotomayor called out the majority’s lack of legal reasoning, writing: “[a]rgument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force” and calling the majority’s conclusions “utterly indefensible.” 

Pointing out the majority claims of starting with an assessment of how the Constitution treats Presidential power sound fake given that the Constitution says nothing about immunity for Presidents, Sotomayor punctuated her reading by at times turning directly towards her conservative colleagues on her left, seeming to focus particularly on Chief Justice Roberts. During these moments, Coney Barrett, physically separated from her fellow conservatives by Gorsuch’s empty chair and Sotomayor, stared stiffly ahead at some point in the back of the courtroom where the 44-foot high ceiling meets the garish red velvet drapes that run ceiling to floor.

Sotomayor’s dissent sets forth the potential parade of horribles unleashed by the majority’s ruling. Referencing the now immortal hypothetical posed by D.C. Circuit Judge Florence Pan at the Court of Appeals argument, Sotomayor wrote about the President: “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 to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon. Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

In her powerful conclusion, Sotomayor wrote: “With fear for our democracy, I dissent.”

Tellingly, she omitted the traditional use of the word “respectfully” which is a traditional salutation used in dissent closings. Justice Jackson’s dissent, in which see wrote: “I agree with every word of [Sotomayor’s] powerful dissent” also chose the same omission of the word “respectfully.”

I said at the outset that this was a grim affair, and it was. The excited feeling of anticipation in the courtroom had completely drained out of the room by the time the announcements ended. A list read by Chief Justice Roberts thanking court staff, his colleagues and noting retirements seemed to drag on. Even Robert’s misspeak, in which he accidentally referred to his colleague justices as employees produced only a few laughs.

In Sotomayor’s strong prose, I heard a tone of not just anger but isolation. The isolation of a jurist powerlessly watching the high court taken over by the brutish power of a conservative majority decades in the making. Never was that isolation clearer than in the numerous times Justice Sotomayor turned directly towards Chief Justice Roberts as she spoke. In normal conversation, when someone turns directly toward you as they speak, it is common to look back at them, perhaps even nod or smile to make them feel included and acknowledged. But Roberts never so much as looked back at her, his fellow Justice. I guess he saw no need.

 

[elfenix 34169]

2 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

No sitting President, even Commander Dipshit Trump, is going to deploy the U.S. Military on American soil.  Nor will Biden or whomever wins in 2028.  

But last I checked, Trump still travels abroad from time to time to play golf at his resorts.  USSOCOM has embedded teams all over the world who know the language, local customs, and grids.  A 8-person security detail on Trump in a foreign country would be no match for them.  Nobody would like it, but it's by far not the hardest target ever reached on foreign lands by JSOC.  

Quote

If he wins a second term in November, Donald Trump has pledged to embark on the biggest deportation program in U.S. history on his first day back in office.

It could mean that a second Trump administration deploys the National Guard—and even the military—and builds huge detention camps along the U.S.-Mexico border to achieve Trump's goal of expelling the millions of people living in the U.S. without legal status.

https://www.newsweek.com/what-mass-deportation-trump-look-like-1916649

[immamac 42513]

5 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

No sitting President, even Commander Dipshit Trump, is going to deploy the U.S. Military on American soil.  Nor will Biden or whomever wins in 2028.  

But last I checked, Trump still travels abroad from time to time to play golf at his resorts.  USSOCOM has embedded teams all over the world who know the language, local customs, and grids.  A 8-person security detail on Trump in a foreign country would be no match for them.  Nobody would like it, but it's by far not the hardest target ever reached on foreign lands by JSOC.  

Wtf are you talking about. They are literally talking about doing this exact thing. 

[tx 3 putt 76288]

51 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Trump has now asked the Manhattan conviction be thrown out citing President immunity 

clown country 

Supreme Court going to add an * sex with porn stars and the cover up is exempt for all politicians 

[troph 24560]

13 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

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

 

 

Edited July 2 by troph

[Captainant 27400]

27 minutes ago, immamac said:

Will there be litigation for violating people's rights? Sure, but there will be no penalty when the republicans abuse the power the dems leave in place 

Ftfy

[YGIFS 19449]

Yes, they're talking about it.  It's a campaign tactic and will likely have legs early on in the administration.  But the Joint Chiefs will knock it down before it gets out of the building.  But this simulation continues to surprise even my demented ass. 

Best two ways to get to Commander Dipshit, are a JSOC team abroad when he travels to his resorts.  Or the food supply at Mar-a-Lago or his 757 caterer.  Since McKinley over 120 years ago, they've guarded the food chain that the First Family consumes.  Trump is the first one since McKinley to ignore those directives and just eat what the Mar-a-Lago kitchen sends up to him from local suppliers and caterers.  Lot easier than a high-floor shot at a moving target.  Somebody's gonna have to step up and do what's best for the Republic.  I'm fucking great at getting into places I shouldn't be at like a Food Distributor or Catering Kitchen that then delivers to Mar-a-Lago after I disappear.  Drawback is I got a C in Biology and a C in Chemistry.  I'd probably screw it up and a dozen innocent people at a Bar Mitzvah would die.   

 

[Party_Taco 3674]

Cannon will soon throw out the documents case too 

No way. If she did that it open the ability to move forward in DC, in some fashion, in advance of the election, allowing the facts of the case to be entered into the public record.

[troph 24560]

The best summary I’ve found so far:

https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/
 

Quote

In a ruling on the last day before the Supreme Court’s summer recess, and just over two months after the oral argument, a majority of the court rejected the D.C. Circuit’s reasoning. As an initial matter, Roberts explained in his 43-page ruling, presidents have absolute immunity for their official acts when those acts relate to the core powers granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments

 

Quote

Weighing those two sets of interests, Roberts concluded, a president should have immunity from criminal prosecution for his official – but not his unofficial – acts unless, at the very least, prosecutors can show that bringing such charges would not threaten the power and functioning of the executive branch.

 

 

Quote

Determining which acts are official and which are unofficial “can be difficult,” Roberts conceded. He emphasized that the immunity that the court recognizes in its ruling on Monday takes a broad view of what constitutes a president’s “official responsibilities,” “covering actions so long as they are not manifestly or palpably beyond his authority.” In conducting the official/unofficial inquiry, Roberts added, courts cannot consider the president’s motives, nor can they designate an act as unofficial simply because it allegedly violates the law.

Okay that seems really problematic to me. 
 

Quote

Turning to some of the specific allegations against Trump, the majority ruled that Trump cannot be prosecuted for his alleged efforts to “leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors.”

This seems wildly problematic. 
 

Quote

With regard to the allegation that Trump attempted to pressure his former vice president, Mike Pence, in his role as president of the senate, to reject the states’ electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures, the court deemed Trump “presumptively immune” from prosecution on the theory that the president and vice president are acting officially when they discuss their official responsibilities. On the other hand, Roberts observed, the vice president’s role as president of the senate is not an executive branch role. The court therefore left it for the district court to decide whether prosecuting Trump for this conduct would intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.

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? 
 

Quote

The court did the same for the allegations in the indictment regarding Trump’s interactions with private individuals and state officials, attempting to convince them to change electoral votes in his favor, as well as Trump’s tweets leading up to the Jan. 6 attacks and his speech on the Ellipse that day. Making this determination, Roberts wrote, will require “a close analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations

Not yet concerned here but obviously SCOTUS can find he’s immune later.

Quote

He portrayed the ruling as a relatively narrow one that decides only “that immunity extends to official discussions between the President and his Attorney General, and then remand to the lower courts” for them to determine whether the other acts alleged in the indictment are entitled to immunity.

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. 

Edited July 2 by troph

[SubliminalHorn 6671]

7 minutes ago, Party_Taco said:

No way. If she did that it open the ability to move forward in DC, in some fashion, in advance of the election, allowing the facts of the case to be entered into the public record.

Oh my sweet summer child. Him directing the documents to be moved will be called an official act of the presidency. *poof* no more case. 

[CTC2 2743]

21 minutes ago, troph said:

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

 

 

You obviously haven’t contemplated what can be done to you and still be an official act. 

[immamac 42513]

19 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Yes, they're talking about it.  It's a campaign tactic and will likely have legs early on in the administration.  But the Joint Chiefs will knock it down before it gets out of the building.  But this simulation continues to surprise even my demented ass. 

Best two ways to get to Commander Dipshit, are a JSOC team abroad when he travels to his resorts.  Or the food supply at Mar-a-Lago or his 757 caterer.  Since McKinley over 120 years ago, they've guarded the food chain that the First Family consumes.  Trump is the first one since McKinley to ignore those directives and just eat what the Mar-a-Lago kitchen sends up to him from local suppliers and caterers.  Lot easier than a high-floor shot at a moving target.  Somebody's gonna have to step up and do what's best for the Republic.  I'm fucking great at getting into places I shouldn't be at like a Food Distributor or Catering Kitchen that then delivers to Mar-a-Lago after I disappear.  Drawback is I got a C in Biology and a C in Chemistry.  I'd probably screw it up and a dozen innocent people at a Bar Mitzvah would die.   

 

What the fuck are you talking about? They can no longer refuse. They can resign and be imprisoned. 

[troph 24560]

3 minutes ago, CTC2 said:

You obviously haven’t contemplated what can be done to you and still be an official act. 

Read my last post. 

[wildcat09 29213]

From Popehat on Bluesky:

Quote

There are two elements to the immunity decision that are particularly extreme in a way that many will miss: (1) motive is irrelevant and (2) immune acts are not just excluded from prosecution, they’re excluded from evidence.

/1

/2 Motive being irrelevant means that the President can do a thing for expressly lawless reasons so long as the thing is within the extremely broad range of official acts.  So question isn’t “can the President conspire to defraud,” it’s “can the President call a state official about an election.”

/3 The problem is that almost anything can be shoehorned into an official act depending on how you characterize it or the level of generality you use.  The Court’s “well of course a President has to use due care that election laws are enforced” hints at this.

/4 More powerful, to a trial lawyer, is the prohibition on the use of immune acts as evidence. In almost every other context (save Speech & Debate), you can use things as evidence when you can’t prosecute for them.  If I say “this man must die,” that’s usually protected by the First Amendment ….

/5 …but it’s obvious that my statement can be introduced as evidence if I’m accused of murder.

Contrast this type of Presidential immunity.  Say Donald Trump, days into his second term, meets with the Department of Justice and demands a way to deport all Muslims, reviling them as subhuman.

/6 Later Trump orders a staff member at Mar-A-Lago to kill a Muslim employee, possibly by serving him the food.  Under the Court’s rule, even assuming that ordering Mar-A-Lago to kill people is unofficial conduct (not 100% clear), Trump’s anti-Muslim tirade to the AG would be inadmissible at trial.

/7 Justice Roberts smug and superior dismissal of the dissents’ concerns seems to come to us via time warp from some time that never knew Trump.  The danger of lawlessness he poses are manifest — he and his followers brag of them. Only a liar or fool would dismiss them.

/8 At any rate, congratulations to the Federalist Society for an achievement beyond the reach of the British, outside the grasp of bloody civil war, impossible to Nazis and Soviets and terrorists:  defeating the American idea.

This is the most succinct analysis of the problems with today's ruling that I've seen so far. There's essentially no abuse of power (you know, those things we should be most worried about) that wouldn't be an "official act" as this SCOTUS has decided to (sort of) define it. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

19 minutes ago, troph said:

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. 

@Brisketexan @TwiceHorn 

Eh, it's sort of a qualified immunity, with the qualification not being clearly unconsitutional actions, but actions clearly outside the scope of Article II duties.

It's fairly consistent with the civil immunity the President enjoys, with the outer perimeter duties/functions being only presumably immune.

I think for Trump, Chutkan is smart enough to analyze these things in accordance with the opinion where he is not immune.

The troubling part of the opinion is that "immune acts" cannot be used as "other bad acts" to prove motive, intent, etc.  That doesn't sit right with me.

[troph 24560]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

From Popehat on Bluesky:

This is the most succinct analysis of the problems with today's ruling that I've seen so far. There's essentially no abuse of power (you know, those things we should be most worried about) that wouldn't be an "official act" as this SCOTUS has decided to (sort of) define it. 

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. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

From Popehat on Bluesky:

This is the most succinct analysis of the problems with today's ruling that I've seen so far. There's essentially no abuse of power (you know, those things we should be most worried about) that wouldn't be an "official act" as this SCOTUS has decided to (sort of) define it. 

Yeah, I tend to agree with that part about subjective intent.  I don't think it can be the only criteria, but to dismiss it entirely is bad, a mistake.

[troph 24560]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh, it's sort of a qualified immunity, with the qualification not being clearly unconsitutional actions, but actions clearly outside the scope of Article II duties.

It's fairly consistent with the civil immunity the President enjoys, with the outer perimeter duties/functions being only presumably immune.

I think for Trump, Chutkan is smart enough to analyze these things in accordance with the opinion where he is not immune.

The troubling part of the opinion is that "immune acts" cannot be used as "other bad acts" to prove motive, intent, etc.  That doesn't sit right with me.

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. 

 

Edited July 2 by troph

[tx 3 putt 76288]

49 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

No sitting President, even Commander Dipshit Trump, is going to deploy the U.S. Military on American soil.  Nor will Biden or whomever wins in 2028.  

But last I checked, Trump still travels abroad from time to time to play golf at his resorts.  USSOCOM has embedded teams all over the world who know the language, local customs, and grids.  A 8-person security detail on Trump in a foreign country would be no match for them.  Nobody would like it, but it's by far not the hardest target ever reached on foreign lands by JSOC.  

trump attempted at least twice to deploy troops with orders to shoot out their legs 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

24 minutes ago, SubliminalHorn said:

Oh my sweet summer child. Him directing the documents to be moved will be called an official act of the presidency. *poof* no more case. 

Good thing that really isn't part of any of the charged offenses.

[YGIFS 19449]

4 minutes ago, immamac said:

What the fuck are you talking about? They can no longer refuse. They can resign and be imprisoned. 

The senior/flag officers don't pledge an oath to case law precedent---even from SCOTUS, they pledge it to the Constitution.  The vast majority of them will honor that oath and refuse to operate within our borders for non-defensive purposes.  

The real shitshow begins when the minority of senior/flag officers operate under an Executive Order that indicates persons of color, undocumented residents, LBGTQ+, Muslims, recent Asian immigrants, et. al to be removed or encamped; and our Armed Forces goes to war with itself.  On our own soil.  We are going to fix it so we suffocate ourselves and then blame the "different" people for forcing our hand.  And that's when the citizen 'militias' emerge, to support the "National Defense" and we have military-on-citizenry violence on U.S. grass.  This how it begins,  the battle theater could be gamed out in weeks, not months. 

There are only two ways out of this---get the middle 25mm Trump voters to have a substantial portion of that stay home in November out of disgust, or have him die.  The third option, is far more grim.  Arrange it so they go to war with one another on our lands, and watch unimaginable innocent Americans die in the conflict.  While our enemies laugh and laugh, without having fired a round. 

[wildcat09 29213]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

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. 

 

It should go without saying, but their "he can illegally order/conspire with DOJ officials..." obviously extends to "he can illegally order the Navy Seals to murder his political opponents." If they can't look at corrupt motive, they're both clearly core executive functions and thus absolutely immune.

[tx 3 putt 76288]

42 minutes ago, troph said:

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

 

 

Stephen Miller (with help from the federalist society) will have a stack of orders for dumb ass to sign in the first hour 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

1 minute ago, troph said:

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. 

 

But it would really open up a can of worms if every convo between a POTUS and AG was subject to investigation for criminal intent, without regard to the fact that no crime actually occurred.

But this is where it blends into that "other bad acts" thing that I strongly object to.

If you read the opinion, at least from the characterization of the oral argument, the government kind of overplayed its hand in trying to argue absolutely zero immunity, just like Trump overplayed his hand in arguing absolute immunity.  The government seemed to have to make a lot of concessions about official acts, subjective intent, etc.

[wildcat09 29213]

1 minute ago, YGIFS said:

The senior/flag officers don't pledge an oath to case law precedent---even from SCOTUS, they pledge it to the Constitution.  The vast majority of them will honor that oath and refuse to operate within our borders for non-defensive purposes.  

He will fire or have murdered anyone who opposes him until he finds people who don't. That's how every fucking dictatorship in the history of the world works. 

[TwiceHorn 31240]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

It should go without saying, but their "he can illegally order/conspire with DOJ officials..." obviously extends to "he can illegally order the Navy Seals to murder his political opponents." If they can't look at corrupt motive, they're both clearly core executive functions and thus absolutely immune.

He actually is not charged with a crime arising out of this.  There was no crime, maybe possibly an attempt, but it isn't charged.

This is the other bad acts, part of the ultimately unlawful conspiracy.

[immamac 42513]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

He will fire or have murdered anyone who opposes him until he finds people who don't. That's how every fucking dictatorship in the history of the world works. 

Without repercussions. 

[troph 24560]

12 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It should go without saying, but their "he can illegally order/conspire with DOJ officials..." obviously extends to "he can illegally order the Navy Seals to murder his political opponents." If they can't look at corrupt motive, they're both clearly core executive functions and thus absolutely immune.

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.

Edited July 2 by troph