The Supreme Court’s Immunity Ruling Is a Recipe for Utter Chaos
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Mr. Roberts has made his decision. Now let him enforce it. Goddamn this Supreme Court. It’s got me quoting the apocrypha of that genocidal madman Andrew Jackson.
The carefully manufactured conservative majority on the Court, by a 6–3 margin, ruled that presidents—specifically, Donald J. Trump, because if you think this decision will apply to Democratic presidents, please tell me where you buy your mushrooms—have something called “presumptive immunity” for “official acts” they took while in office.
This is specifically designed to hamstring Jack Smith’s prosecutions regarding the insurrection of January 6, 2021, especially in combination with the Court’s earlier decision in Fischer v. U.S. that disallowed the use of an obstruction-of-justice statute under which a number of the rioters had already been charged and/or convicted. On top of that we have Chief Justice John Roberts’s ancillary ruling, which will make a complete hash of the discovery process in any prosecution of the former president*. Roberts wrote:
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
In the short run, of course, this whole case, on which the Court never should have granted cert in the first place, was directly aimed at delaying the prosecution of the former president* until after the November election and thence, likely, to the Twelfth of Never. It certainly has accomplished that goal. It’s going to take months, if not years, for lower courts to distinguish between “official” and “unnofficial” acts, and every attempt will be appealed, and then appealed again. The former president*’s go-to legal strategy, the one he used to put glaziers and gardeners on the rack until they ran out of money, now has the blessing of the country’s highest court. Jack Smith is just another New Jersey subcontractor who never sees a dime.
However, in the long view of history, this is a pivot point to rival Marbury v. Madison or Dred Scott v. Sandford. The carefully manufactured conservative Supreme Court majority, having earlier arrogated to the judiciary the power to decide specialized questions involving executive agencies, has now decided that questions of a president’s culpability in attempting to ratf*ck a free election are beyond an unambiguous decision. This is a recipe for chaos in government.
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson seemed to grasp the epochal importance of the case. Sotomayor put paid to the notion that allowing Smith’s prosecutions to go forward would chill future presidents in the performance of their duties. She wrote:
...because of longstanding interpretations by the Executive Branch, every sitting President has so far believed himself under the threat of criminal liability after his term in office and nevertheless boldly fulfilled the duties of his office. The majority insists that the threat of criminal sanctions is “more likely to distort Presidential decisionmaking than the potential payment of civil damages.” If that is right, then that distortion has been shaping Presidential decision making since the earliest days of the Republic.
She also called out Roberts’s poisonous tinkering with the standards of evidence.
Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least. The majority’s extraordinary rule has no basis in law. Consider the First Amendment context. Although the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing most speech, it “does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech,” including its use “to prove motive or intent.”
And Jackson outlined the fundamental historical and constitutional heresy that the majority had adopted.
It is indisputable that immunity from liability for wrongdoing is the exception rather than the rule in the American criminal justice system. That is entirely unsurprising, for the very idea of immunity stands in tension with foundational principles of our system of Government. It is a core tenet of our democracy that the People are the sovereign, and the Rule of Law is our first and final security. “[F]rom their own experience and their deep reading in history, the Founders knew that Law alone saves a society from being rent by internecine strife or ruled by mere brute power however disguised.” United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 308 (1947) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). A corollary to that principle sets the terms for this case: “No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law, and are bound to obey it.” United States v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196, 220 (1882). We have long lived with the collective understanding that “[d]ecency, security and liberty alike demand that government officials shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen,” for “[i]n a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperilled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously.”
The carefully manufactured conservative majority on the Supreme Court is done with its work deforming democracy until October. One thing on which we can all agree is that it has been worth every dime that Leonard Leo, and Harlan Crow, and Paul Singer paid for it.
Tags
Who is online
650 visitors
Don't matter, any prosecutions from this day forward amount to election interference.
Pathological
Source article comes up subscribers only makes it a little hard to review the text of the article, but that's ok.
good, since i posted the entire article
Thanks I did not realize that - appreciate the clarification
You know, it has been long standing precedent that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted while in office. That is the absolute immunity that Trump wants to extend beyond time in office. Doesn't this SCOTUS ruling overturn that precedent?
The ruling that a President only enjoys immunity for official acts would seem to open the door for prosecuting Biden while he is in office. And, of course, the open door would allow prosecuting Trump if he returns to office. Doesn't that mean that a Trump reelection doesn't allow him to escape the indictments already in place?
They haven't been able to prosecute (thanks to Trump appointed judges) while he wasn't POTUS, and you think they'll be able to prosecute him, if the fckwad gets reelected afterwards...?
What does that have to do with Presidential immunity? That's a problem related to stacking the courts, isn't it?
Let's look at an example liberals can relate to. A President screwing the First Lady is not an official act described by the Constitution or law. A President having a sexual affair (such as Bill Clinton did) also is not an official act described by the Constitution or law. So, a President cannot rape someone (even with unrestricted access to abortion) and claim immunity from prosecution while in office or after leaving office because sex is not an official act. This SCOTUS decision actually limits the immunity of Presidents while in office or after leaving office. If this ruling had been made 30 years ago, Bill Clinton could have been prosecuted for sexual misconduct without the need for impeachment.
SCOTUS has made it clear that a President is not absolutely immune from prosecution for anything a President does. That should worry Joe Biden because he is the sitting President and is currently at most risk.
actually , with the new and improved immunity, it should worry Trump that ole sleepy Joe doesn't dial up good old Seal Team Six
the short run, of course, this whole case, on which the Court never should have granted cert in the first place, was directly aimed at delaying the prosecution of the former president* until after the November election and thence
this is the raving of a lunatic conspiracy theorist. Of course the Supreme Court has to settle this issue.
do you seriously take issue with that ? LOL
Of course. How insane do you have to believe otherwise?
Just look at Roberts using sotomayors words from other cases to explain Supreme Court processes and the folly of rushing decisions before the lower courts flesh out the issues. Democrats apparently now think due process means “whatever it takes to get trump on political timeline. Fuck the rule of law”
That is the Democrat justice system in a nutshell.
Rule of law only applies to those they say it does; and how the law is interpreted depends on who is being charged.
For Trump and Jan 6 rioters the law has been stretched to the breaking point and back. Mischarging and overcharging is the rule of the day. Allow testimony that has nothing to do with the charges; testimony from convicted perjurers that admit to stealing money from Trump enterprises; and barring witnesses for the defense that testimony that is damaging to the prosecution is common place. Anything to damage Trump.
For Hunter the law has been stretched in the exact opposite way. Weiss slow walked and impeded his own investigation from the start. He let the statute of limitations run out on the most serious of the tax charges. He tried to give Hunter a plea deal that would have protected him against future investigations and charges. Only problem was a judge that read the plea deal called Weiss out on it- and he had to backpedal or show how in the tank he was for the Biden family. No one was crying harder than Weiss when Hunter was convicted of filling out the federal application for a firearm falsely. The fact they didn't nail him for illegal possession of a firearm as well shows that Weiss' heart just wasn't into it.
Now we can all wait for Joe to pardon Hunter right after the election. Win or lose it doesn't matter. Weiss will be overjoyed when that day comes.
For Biden, Hillary, Bill, and Obama- rule of law never made it to the starting gate.
As for the ruling- given what Democrats have done to the judicial system they need to STFU; and pray they are never held accountable.
They didn't have a problem in Bush Vs Gore, or say in the Colorado case to keep Trump off the ballot, now did they .../?
all nonsense.
Really, the Supreme Court didn't have a problem in Gore abusing the lower courts in order to turn the election in his favor? You know they stopped the Florida Supreme Court ordered recount and agreed with the Democrat Secretary of State of Florida that Bush won.
Same with the Colorado case to keep Trump off the ballot. Which was a 9-0 ruling in favor of Trump.
Which is what all of these cases have in common- Democrat abuse of the legal system in order to try and win elections. Shocking./S
Hold Democrats to same standard as everyone else in the legal system is "nonsense"?
Exactly why Democrats have to be voted out of office at every level of government until they learn the law applies to everyone- including them!
The country cannot survive four more years of Democrat rule and weaponization of government and the legal system.
Bullshit !
I was exampling how they prioritized a damn priority, but neat way to deflect my point.
People who believe either conspiracy theories or the Republican congressional committees (they do overlap somewhat) are engaging in nonsense.
There is no "lawfare" against Trump, there are only attempts to hold him to justice that are successful to minimal degrees so far.
LOL. Katherine Harris was the Kari Lake of her day.
You are a product of your bought, taught, brought and Raught conclusion of confusion, for from what village does one dwell, to conclude such a deviant vision of this country, cause you should check out reality, as i hear it's a must see...
The proof that even democrats don’t really believe that trump will be god/emperor if he wins and end the country is they are falling in line behind Joe Biden, a mentally damaged invalid, who no one would hire for any management job, because it’s too much work to replace him,
nice off topic comment, but we all have to work with what we have
Sounds like you've resigned yourself to idea that he's not stepping down..... or has the narrative changed?
Interesting reading from a renowned blogger known for his wit and absurdist approach to some issues He is not an expert on legal matters.
His bias is demonstrated in the wording of this concluding statement
The carefully manufactured conservative majority on the Supreme Court is done with its work deforming democracy until October. One thing on which we can all agree is that it has been worth every dime that Leonard Leo, and Harlan Crow, and Paul Singer paid for it.
ginni, I mean clarence, has been bought and paid for by Harlan Crow, nazi sympathizer, among many others
Tessy
What does your comment have to do with the point I made? Absolutely nothing if you read my comment.
I was agreeing with part of your point and then adding my opinion to it so how does it not have to do with it?
I was making the point that the author of the article was hardly enough of a legal expert.
I do not agree with the totality of the decision but the hyperbole about what it means is laughable
Seems to me that America is starting to find itself more in common with dictatorships and monarchies now that it has trashed the concept that no man is above the law - a concept I beleive can only be valid if it is absolute without exception. Once any exception whatsoever is permitted, you can no longer use the words "no man". Things like that make it somewhat hypocritical to criticize other nations, does it not?
[✘]
The standing precedent has been that a sitting President cannot be prosecuted without first being impeached and removed from office. The sitting President really has enjoyed absolute immunity for everything they do while in office without exception. Today's SCOTUS ruling breaks that precedent.
Concerns over Presidential authority can now be addressed by limiting the official authority of the President. The SCOTUS ruling specifically limits immunity to official acts of a President; there's no longer immunity for unofficial activities by the President.
Remember Richard Nixon? Nixon could not be prosecuted for Watergate because he was the sitting President. If this SCOTUS ruling had been in place then Nixon could have been prosecuted while in office without the need for impeachment.
Keep in mind that Biden is a fucking liar. Biden is spinning this so HE can retain as much Presidential power as possible. Biden certainly doesn't want to be held accountable for anything he does while in office. Biden now risks prosecution if he engages in dirty tricks.
I apppreciate that you have provided a civil reply.
if only it was accurate
and civil