The Supremes

[wildcat09 29,577]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Twice, man, are you ok? Bark twice if you're being held hostage. You are entirely too fucking not stupid to not understand that I'm obviously speaking to what could happen if he wins again.

[troph 25,198]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

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.

Edited July 2 by troph

[Party_Taco 3,889]

The real lawyers on Lawrence O’Donnell didn’t pull any punches tonight… fucking terrifying stuff.

[wildcat09 29,577]

2 minutes ago, troph said:

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.

We are so fucked.

We're not fucked. We just have to win in November, then expand the court by...a lot, and probably have Biden (or Harris) drone strike every conservative justice and then resign and get charged with a bunch of crimes in connection therewith because obviously SCOTUS will need new cases in which to overrule this bullshit. Things are fine, is what I'm trying to get across here.

[troph 25,198]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

We're not fucked. We just have to win in November, then expand the court by...a lot, and probably have Biden (or Harris) drone strike every conservative justice and then resign and get charged with a bunch of crimes in connection therewith because obviously SCOTUS will need new cases in which to overrule this bullshit. Things are fine, is what I'm trying to get across here.

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. 

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

Without repercussions. 

Trump cabinet meetings …..

 

[27-25 2,084]

So will this rank right up there with Dred Scott as one of the all time hits of horrible Supreme Court rulings?  Feels like it at the moment.

['stache 22,131]

34 minutes ago, immamac said:

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

Yes they can absolutely refuse. Immunity from criminal prosecution doesn’t make an illegal order legal. The fact that the president can’t be prosecuted after the fact is absolute bullshit from a rogue court but it doesn’t make it a legal order. If the military acts on illegal orders to shoot and kill on US soil, or even to block polling places, were fucked anyway, full blown banana republic, the courts wouldn’t have a say anyway. 

[troph 25,198]

4 minutes ago, 27-25 said:

So will this rank right up there with Dred Scott as one of the all time hits of horrible Supreme Court rulings?  Feels like it at the moment.

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.

 

Edited July 2 by troph

[troph 25,198]

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

 

[troph 25,198]

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. 

Edited July 2 by troph

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

 

[DDD Dad 14,644]

1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

 

[troph 25,198]

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

 

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. 

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

ustice Clarence Thomas used the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity on Monday to again request that the constitutionality of special prosecutors, like Jack Smith, be called into question.

In his opinion, Thomas asked the lower courts to render a ruling on Smith and the legality of the special prosecutor’s office before they proceed with Donald Trump’s pair of federal criminal cases that Smith’s team is prosecuting. No other justice signed onto Thomas’ opinion.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

[Biff Tannen 46,151]

2 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

ustice Clarence Thomas used the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity on Monday to again request that the constitutionality of special prosecutors, like Jack Smith, be called into question.

In his opinion, Thomas asked the lower courts to render a ruling on Smith and the legality of the special prosecutor’s office before they proceed with Donald Trump’s pair of federal criminal cases that Smith’s team is prosecuting. No other justice signed onto Thomas’ opinion.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

I, for one, am shocked!

[Captainant 28,509]

1 hour 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.

You're doing your weird act again where you diminish just how bad this is and you keep using minimizing language to describe the systemic issue. If the qualification is """CLEARLY""" unconstitutional, then that fuckin standard is gonna get calvinball'd to hell and back by this batch of imperial supremes.

The fact that you ignore this reality is maddening. It puts ever more barriers between Trump and accountability for the FUCKING FASCIST COUP ATTEMPT THAT HAPPENED ON LIVE NATIONAL TV THREE AND A HALF YEARS AGO

Edited July 2 by Captainant

[troph 25,198]

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. 

[immamac 44,320]

1 minute ago, troph said:

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. 

Dem strategy is so bad it's incredible 

[Captainant 28,509]

Just now, immamac said:

Dem strategy is so bad it's incredible 

It's like Greg Davis is in charge

[troph 25,198]

1 minute ago, immamac said:

Dem strategy is so bad it's incredible 

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

[linux 1,785]

The supreme court expanding to 15 does not prevent Trump from going Andrew Jackson "have the court enforce it".

At the end of the day this is a slow moving coup, if a president can make all official acts immune to discovery then the complicit media lied to me to protect Trump.

[safe sex 11,984]

Is it possible to dig up LBJ and jolt him back to life?

[linux 1,785]

Buchanan and Johnson are considered by historians worse presidents than Trump, Biden was wrong, inaction on the eve of a civil war is what will destroy Biden's legacy, I hope he is aware of it.

[troph 25,198]

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

Edited July 2 by troph

[RomaVicta 30,556]

1 minute ago, linux said:

Buchanan and Johnson are considered by historians worse presidents than Trump, Biden was wrong, inaction on the eve of a civil war is what will destroy Biden's legacy, I hope he is aware of it.

Johnson isn't. Please show your work.

[troph 25,198]

10 minutes ago, linux said:

The supreme court expanding to 15 does not prevent Trump from going Andrew Jackson "have the court enforce it".

At the end of the day this is a slow moving coup, if a president can make all official acts immune to discovery then the complicit media lied to me to protect Trump.

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. 

[linux 1,785]

3 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

Johnson isn't. Please show your work.

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

Donald J. Trump	312	41	NA	NA	NA
Franklin Pierce	312	42	41	40	39
Andrew Johnson	230	43	42	41	40
James Buchanan	227	44	43	42	41

[Sheep Have Wool 1,053]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

Twice, I appreciate you as a poster, have learned quite a bit from you, respect your profession, and am impressed with your ability to be patient as you are with the "NUKE THE JUDICIARY FROM ORBIT" crowd.

My guy, this is absolute immunity in a wig.

 

Let's maybe not even partially legitimize throwing away what had been a fairly decent run for the sake of a few hypothetical edge cases that haven't ever happened.

[linux 1,785]

Media is saying the SCOTUS is fine, lets go back to the debate shit. They are complicit on the Trump dictatorship.

[tchookem 3,967]

Johnson isn't. Please show your work.

Andrew Johnson? I think he got them mixed up.

[tchookem 3,967]

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

Donald J. Trump	312	41	NA	NA	NA
Franklin Pierce	312	42	41	40	39
Andrew Johnson	230	43	42	41	40
James Buchanan	227	44	43	42	41

Oops.

[linux 1,785]

Pierce also failed to do what was right before the Civil War, and obviously Lincoln was #1 at the end of the day someone needs to explain to Biden that his legacy is on the line.

[RomaVicta 30,556]

8 minutes ago, linux said:

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2021/?page=overall

Donald J. Trump	312	41	NA	NA	NA
Franklin Pierce	312	42	41	40	39
Andrew Johnson	230	43	42	41	40
James Buchanan	227	44	43	42	41

Got to be specific with Johnsons. Careful, too. 

I didn't think long enough to see this is the one you obviously meant. Apologies.

ETA: Well, maybe not apologies. Safe Sex had mentioned LBJ just above your post. It's a big deal. We should argue about it all night.

Anyway, have a nice night.

Edited July 2 by RomaVicta

[troph 25,198]

Nina Totenberg was on Maddow and said the scholars she’s talked to both conservative and liberal thought the court gave Trump more than he even asked for. 
 

she highlighted Barrett’s concurring opinion where she disagreed with the majority in their ruling that the actions taken in an official capacity could not be used as evidence in a claim of official versus unofficial acts - example being a bribe for a pardon. 
 

she also said that maybe the court wouldn’t agree but based on the opinion it is a reasonable interpretation to conclude the president can use the the DOJ for personal revenge, and that yes Nixon should be given his presidency back (maddow’s words but she agreed). Totenberg seemed solemn but still rather shocked. She mentioned that scholars of her age assumed this was settled law in US vs Nixon. 
 

I think the key issues are narrowed to four points: (1) core constitutional acts are absolutely immune - this outlined in the opinion and held that conversations with the AG are exactly that, (2) with respect to official immunity the determination of official versus unofficial cannot consider (i) legality of the act, (ii) presidential motivations, and (iii) the actual acts taken in that official capacity (i.e. the actual bribe).
 

In essence, the only question is if POTUS didn’t know it was illegal, didn’t intent to break the law, and didn’t break the law would it be an official act? If yes then immune. 
 

again, absolute immunity for abuse of power, obstruction of justice, and blatantly illegal acts while acting as president cloaked in language of qualified immunity. 

Edited July 2 by troph

[Brian Fantana 6,862]

43 minutes ago, immamac said:

Dem strategy is so bad it's incredible 

It's almost like it's on purpose.

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2,692]

"Weighing those two sets of interests" ... admittedly I haven't read the opinion. Can someone explain the legal underpinning of it based on the continual drumbeat of originalism? Because it seems to me if you're weighing interests to reach a conclusion instead of being textual like the purported [and disingenuous] Roe rationale ("is a right to abortion inherent in the Constitution), you're taking inferences based on policy concerns to reach a particular outcome, rather than looking to the plain language in the Constitution. Which seems extremely hypocritical and transparent. Why is the default immunity, vs. lack of immunity based on the literal text being applied? 

[troph 25,198]

5 minutes ago, ChuckNorrisActionJeans said:

"Weighing those two sets of interests" ... admittedly I haven't read the opinion. Can someone explain the legal underpinning of it based on the continual drumbeat of originalism? Because it seems to me if you're weighing interests to reach a conclusion instead of being textual like the purported [and disingenuous] Roe rationale ("is a right to abortion inherent in the Constitution), you're taking inferences based on policy concerns to reach a particular outcome, rather than looking to the plain language in the Constitution. Which seems extremely hypocritical and transparent. Why is the default immunity, vs. lack of immunity based on the literal text being applied? 

Sotomayor quoted the federalist papers in a bit of a “what the fuck?” response to Roberts using originalism against them.

i may read the opinion later but I’ve been reading about it, quotes from it and listening to a number of analyses - this is a sneaky opinion with a nothing burger headline - we lawyers all understand the idea of qualified immunity no big deal - this opinion is wildly not that. It’s arguably one of the most dangerous opinions the court has ever given. Not hyperbole.

Edited July 2 by troph

[Pods 7,637]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

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.

You keep saying Cannon is making mistakes, that the Supreme Court is making mistakes, but mistakes are things that happen by accident.

You are far too intelligent of a poster to not see that all of it is on purpose. It's not remotely subtle. They are barely trying to hide it. 

[Slacks 7,047]

Dark Brandon needs an Executive Order 66 to execute.... In his official capacity of defending the Republic. Then he can pardon himself even though he doesn't have to.

[WithoutAClue 16,115]

[elfenix 34,744]

1 hour ago, tx 3 putt said:

ustice Clarence Thomas used the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity on Monday to again request that the constitutionality of special prosecutors, like Jack Smith, be called into question.

In his opinion, Thomas asked the lower courts to render a ruling on Smith and the legality of the special prosecutor’s office before they proceed with Donald Trump’s pair of federal criminal cases that Smith’s team is prosecuting. No other justice signed onto Thomas’ opinion.

“If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people,” Thomas wrote. “The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the special counsel’s appointment before proceeding.”

this guy's whole thing is to riff on shit not before the court to signal to all the other assholes on leonard leo's payroll to start bringing lawsuits.

[Satchel 6,982]

9 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

They substantially changed what is considered "official" and greatly limited what evidence can be evaluated when making that determination. 

The Leo Court also said the POTUS’ potentially criminal motive could not be considered when determining legality.

[Macanudo 13,314]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

It's like Greg Davis is in charge

Too soon.

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

47 minutes ago, elfenix said:

this guy's whole thing is to riff on shit not before the court to signal to all the other assholes on leonard leo's payroll to start bringing lawsuits.

 

they're making beeline to amarillo 

[NWBuck 8,629]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

this guy's whole thing is to riff on shit not before the court to signal to all the other assholes on leonard leo's payroll to start bringing lawsuits.

Isn't this argument (Smith shouldn't be on this case) part of Cannon's current review? 

He's telling her that the runway is clear... 

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28,928]

4 hours ago, troph said:

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.

Also gutting the Voting Rights Act. 

[tx 3 putt 78,668]

18 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Also gutting the Voting Rights Act. 

roberts enjoyed that one 

[troph 25,198]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Also gutting the Voting Rights Act. 

How could I forget that one, I guess so much has happened in 3 years.

provided we defeat Trump in November it will be his Court that proves to be the greater threat than him. 
 

 

Edited July 2 by troph