FACT CHECK: Biden’s 5 Lies About the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Trump’s Immunity
By: Tony Kinnett (The Daily Signal)
The SCOTUS ruling on Presidential immunity ( Trump v. United States ) applies to all former, current, and future Presidents. The ruling does not apply to only Donald Trump. The immunity ruling is not unprecedented and the ruling is certainly far from extreme. SCOTUS has clarified long standing assumptions surrounding Presidential immunity as guidance for lower courts.
The hair-on-fire opinionating over the immunity ruling are not premised upon the President being above the law. The dire prognostications are made from an extremely liberal viewpoint that the President IS the law. The arguments emerge from an assumption that a President has the power to do anything and only threats of prosecution holds that absolute power in check. (We should all be aware, by now, that political minorities invest political capital into obtaining and controlling an autocratic power of the Presidency. Especially those on the left of the political spectrum have created the untrue expectation that a President can govern by Executive Order to bypass both Congress and the courts. Those on the right of the political spectrum tell us a President has the power of dispose of the inconvenient social contract underlying the Constitution.)
The Trump specific hair-on-fire predictions are actually building justifications for imposing stringent limits on the official power of the Presidency. But look carefully at what these predictions are intended to achieve. These dire warnings are not intended to strengthen Constitutional checks and balances; they are intended to increase the power of Attorney Generals, District Attorneys, and prosecutors. The claims are that independent prosecutorial adjudication provides the bulwark of protection against abuse of power. That may sound proper and correct but it's actually a power grab. Those decrying Trump's, and only Trump's, immunity are in reality demanding a police state. That is what an independent (and unaccountable) Justice Department would become. Are we really willing to accept a police state just to prevent Trump winning reelection?
Is everyone really sure what they want? Is everyone really sure they understand what that would cost?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On Monday, President Biden delivered a surprise four-and-a-half minute address condemning the Supreme Court's decision in Donald Trump v. The United States released that morning.
Special prosecutor Jack Smith has alleged that Trump conspired to overturn the 2020 presidential election by "spreading knowingly false claims of election fraud." Trump's legal team argued that the allegations made by Smith fell under "the outer perimeter" of Trump's official duties as president, and he was therefore immune from prosecution (so the charges should be summarily dismissed).
The Supreme Court ruled that a former president is "presumptively" immune from prosecution for any "official" duties of the president of the United States, but he may be prosecuted for "unofficial" actions.
Biden began his address by stating that no one, not even the president, "is above the law," but then falsely asserted that "with today's Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity—that fundamentally changed."
1. 'Virtually No Limits'
"For all…for all practical purposes, today's decision almost certainly means that there are virtually no limits on what a president can do," Biden claimed.
This accusation is objectively false.
In the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that the president of the United States may not be prosecuted for duties he carries out under his constitutional authority, but may be prosecuted for all other actions .
While Biden claims that this decision is a "new principle" that sets a "dangerous precedent," there is little evidence in the decision showing a deviation from tradition in the Supreme Court's interpretation of a president's vulnerability to prosecution. In fact, Roberts cites a range of historical decisions from Chief Justice Marshall rebuking President Thomas Jefferson over submission to subpoenas to parsing the separation of powers in United States v. Nixon.
In short, Roberts outlined a detailed opinion, grounded in the Constitution and legal precedent, that defines presidential immunity and its limits to only official duties assigned to the executive branch by the Constitution.
Roberts argues that "the outer perimeter" of a president's duties as claimed by the defense were unclear—not deeming them "official" or "unofficial," and so kicked the decisions regarding these details to the lower courts.
2. 'Self-Imposed Limits'
Biden further claimed that "the power of the office will no longer be constrained by the law, even including the Supreme Court of the United States. The only limits will be self-imposed by the president alone." He later reiterated this claim, stating "the law would no longer" define "the limits of the presidency."
This is objectively false. No passage in the 119-page document gives the president the authority to define "official" and "unofficial" actions to avoid prosecution and assign himself unlimited power.
3. Attacks on 'Long-Established Legal Principles'
Biden continued by characterizing Monday's decision as what he considers to be a trend of "attacks" on a "wide range of long-established legal principles in our nation, from gutting voting rights and civil rights, to taking away a woman's right to choose, to today's decision, that undermines the rule of law in this nation."
The Supreme Court has not "gutted" voting rights or civil rights of any kind. Every citizen of the United States retains equal voting rights at the age of 18, the most a U.S. citizen has ever enjoyed in U.S. history. There is no poll tax to vote, nor a sex or ethnicity requirement. Every citizen maintains sovereign franchise at the ballot box—with noncitizens even allowed to vote in some local elections.
Furthermore, granting presidents immunity from prosecution for their official acts clearly falls within the Supreme Court's precedents and does not constitute a reversal from "long-established legal principles." As Chief Justice Roberts wrote in his opinion, the U.S. "has never before needed an answer" to the question of when a former president may "be prosecuted for official acts taken during his presidency."
The aberration is the prosecution, not the decision that some official acts are immune from it.
4. Sending 'a Violent Mob'
Biden accused Trump of sending "a violent mob to the U.S. Capitol to stop the peaceful transfer of power."
Two tweets on Jan. 6, 2021, counter this claim, showing Trump calling for protesters to remain "peaceful" and to "support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement."
Biden asserted that Americans deserved to see Trump "answer" in court for these actions "before Election Day."
"The public has a right to know what happened on Jan. 6 before they're asked to vote again this year," Biden said. "Now, because of today's decision, that is highly, highly unlikely."
It is unclear whether a different decision would have prolonged or expedited a trial date for Trump, much less ensured a trial by Nov. 5.
Biden then called for Americans to "do what the courts should have been willing to do, but will not: the American people have to render their judgment about Donald Trump's behavior."
The Supreme Court did not dismiss the Trump v. The United States lawsuit, but clarified terms of immunity so a lower court could render its decision. No court has refused to render a legal decision regarding the legality of Trump's behavior.
5. 'I Will Respect the Limits'
"I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers as I have for the last three-and-a-half years, but any president—including Donald Trump—will now be free to ignore the law," he added. He closed by echoing Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissension, suggesting that the president is now a "king" and "above the law."
Biden has not respected the limits of presidential power, however, and the Supreme Court has called him out on it, proving that the president is not a king.
When Biden sought to unilaterally "forgive" billions in student debt, the Supreme Court struck down his first attempt. He responded by issuing executive orders to dismiss even more debt.
Biden concluded the press conference by encouraging all Americans to "dissent" along with Sotomayor, and then walking away from the podium, refusing to take any press questions.
Tags
Who is online
37 visitors
The enemies of Donald Trump are not our friends. The enemies of Donald Trump are not trying to strengthen democracy or protect the Constitution. The enemies of Donald Trump are not seeking justice; they're seeking power.
Do we really want an independent, unaccountable police state just to prevent Donald Trump winning an election?
In other words, they are willing to destroy democracy in the name of saving it?
That does appear to be the question everyone is trying to ignore. Do we really want prosecutors to have unlimited power to threaten and coerce a President? Who would really be in charge in that situation?
The ruling is about protecting Biden more than anything else.
Afraid I have to disagree with that one. Overzealous prosecutors, motivated by political bias, are weakening the Constitution. The SCOTUS ruling is really about protecting the Constitution. So, it's really about the Presidency and not about Trump or Biden.
1.1.3
I agree with that, and that's what the decision is focused on:
Biden will be the next Ex-President, and the Court wants to stop the cycle before it consumes him.
Exactly the idea I was trying to convey in another conversation, but I didn't put it half so well.
How, exactly, does inventing Absolute and Presumptive immunity and inventing categorical inadmissibility of official-duty-related evidence protect the CotUS?
How does contradicting the principle and text illustrating that no man is above the law protect the CotUS?
Where do you see the CotUS in jeopardy ... what is the extant constitutional problem that had to be fixed?
It takes a lot of chutzpah to support Trump and complain about someone else not being held accountable.
The insidious danger of that political message is that the SCOTUS ruling is not only about Trump. The attention focused on Trump distracts from the potential for prosecutorial abuse against any President.
Prosecutorial discretion motivated by political bias also provides immunity from criminal prosecution. We've seen how prosecutorial discretion influenced both Trump and Biden possessing classified documents. Trump has not been immune while Biden has enjoyed immunity. An unelected bureaucracy of law enforcement is determining who has immunity according to personal biases and extralegal influences. How is vesting that much power and authority in a law enforcement bureaucracy different than a police state?
The SCotUS does not have the power to amend the CotUS. They created immunity and inadmissibility rules that are NOT in the CotUS and in fact contradict the CotUS.
Whoa .... The world just shifted 10 yards to the right.
Doesn't anyone remember that Joe Biden was going to ride Roe v. Wade to victory? Even the hair-on-fire claims about the ruling in Trump v. US comes from the dissent of the remaining liberal, activist justices on the SCOTUS bench.
SCOTUS didn't create Presidential immunity out of thin air. SCOTUS imposed limits and restrictions on prosecutors. And those limits and restrictions do not preclude indictments. SCOTUS raised the bar for prosecutors seeking to indict a President. Why wouldn't clearing that bar make a conviction more likely?
Show in the CotUS where:
And show how this does not contradict the CotUS ... in particular:
Article 1 §3 clause 7 spells out the prosecutorial authority of Congress. However, that prosecutorial authority does not mean Attorney Generals, District Attorneys, or prosecutors are officers of the Congress. The text "but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law" ensures that the legislature does infringe upon the authority of the courts (that's the checks & balances). The Constitution does not authorize the legislative branch to engage in criminal prosecution.
Article 2 §4 states "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." The section makes it clear that treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are not official functions of the President, Vice President, or civil officers and holding such office does not provide immunity from criminal prosecution for commission of those crimes.
CotUS makes a distinction between official functions of office and commission of crimes. Where in the SCOTUS ruling for Trump v. US was that distinction altered or removed?
I asked you to show how the granted immunity does not contradict the CotUS. Your response totally avoided the request.
A PotUS has been given absolute immunity for core constitutional duties. Article 1 §3 clause 7 explicitly states that a PotUS is liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law . It illustrates the constitutional principle that no man is above the law.
Absolute immunity from criminal prosecution puts the PotUS above the law.
Presumptive immunity for official duties coupled with the unconditional inadmissibility of evidence for official duties puts the PotUS above the law.
Don't just write words arguing points that are not even in question (e.g. "The Constitution does not authorize the legislative branch to engage in criminal prosecution.").
Address the challenge I put forth.
But I did answer your question with a citation from the Constitution. I didn't ignore the request; I refuted the contention made by the request.
You might as well quote from the Bible then since you did not show how granted immunity does not contradict the CotUS.
Don't just claim, actually deliver.
The part in blue illustrates that even when a PotUS is impeached and convicted (and thus removed from office) that he still must answer to the legal system. He is still NOT above the law.
The SCotUS just changed that and gave the PotUS new powers. The most powerful being absolute immunity for anything he does (anything whatsoever) while employing a core constitutional duty. He can still be impeached and removed from office, but that is it. The SCotUS precluded our system of justice from holding him accountable.
Same basic idea for presumptive immunity coupled with the inadmissibility of evidence related to official acts.
None of this is in the CotUS and the SCotUS is not authorized to contradict the CotUS (rather, the opposite).
This would be an entirely different matter if the SCotUS stated that a PotUS does have certain immunity based on specific circumstances and then left it up to the judicial process to deal with the specifics of an act by a former PotUS (while PotUS) in light of legal precedence, law, and the CotUS.
But they shut down the judicial process with absolute immunity and hobbled it with presumptive immunity and inadmissibility. They created immunities that do not exist in the CotUS and actually contradict the CotUS.
I can’t tell you how many people (but it’s a big number) - both my clients and not - who have complained about different outcomes in similar cases. Invariably, they are either ignorant of the differences in the two cases, or choose to ignore them because complaining is more satisfying.
Would you suggest that we start voting for the Attorney General, and maybe also the supervisors that work under him? If you think the DOJ is political now, you ain’t seen nuthin yet.
Special Counsel Robert Hur granted Joe Biden immunity through prosecutorial discretion. Failing to indict did not exonerate Joe Biden. And a court or jury did not determine the outcome; the violation of law was never adjudicated for reasons unrelated to the law.
Yes, I know. It hasn’t made them less political. If anything, it has made them more political. An elected AG doesn’t need to be a competent prosecutor or administrator to rise to that position. He just needs to be a good politician.
But additionally, you talked about the “bureaucracy.” That is more than just one person. So, do you want to elect the people who work for the AG, as well?
Both elected and appointed AGs can be influenced by political bias or can even be bribed. Are AGs above the law? Who holds AGs accountable?
I talked about an independent, unaccountable bureaucracy of law enforcement. Law enforcement falls within the official purview of executive duties and functions. For instance, the Dept. of Justice is supposed to be accountable to the President. An independent DOJ may overcome that conflict but at the cost of avoiding the responsibility of Congressional oversight. IMO the Constitution did not intend to establish an independent bureaucracy of law enforcement.
So, where does the judiciary fit into the mix? The judiciary is not responsible for accusations or indictments. The judiciary is responsible for protecting the rights and privileges of the accused as enumerated in the Constitution (and codex). The courts are responsible for maintaining a presumption of innocence until a judgement is reached.
What is the difference between a presumption of innocence and a presumption of immunity?
Most directly, the Executive - i.e., president or governor. Also, Legislatures or Congress through impeachment.
As you see, the AG is accountable to two branches of government, so while it functions independently, it is accountable. I’m not sure you expect the law to be enforced without a law enforcement agency.
Keep in mind that the Framers intentionally left certain things open-ended. They didn’t want individual rights abused just because they weren’t explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. They also didn’t want government to be paralyzed because a specific bureaucracy or office wasn’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Therefore, under Article II, we see that the president,
So, Congress was constitutionally able to create the office of the Attorney General (one of the first things they did), and President Washington appointed the first one. Something like a hundred years later, they created the DOJ and put the AG in charge of it - or most of it, anyway.
So why do we allow an AG to abridge that accountability by opening investigations against the branches and claiming independence to prevent tampering with justice? The Framers did not intend for law enforcement to become a fourth branch of government with independent inquisitorial authority. In fact, the Framers included the 4th through 8th amendments in the Bill of Rights as a check against the establishment of an independent inquisitor.
But Congress did not establish an office of Attorney General with independent autocratic authority over the three branches of government. Congress certainly did not intend for law enforcement to become a police state.
The Founders and Framers certainly did not want a government that derived its authority over the people through a presumption of guilt. That's how the monarchy and nobility of Great Britain retained power over subjects. The inquisitor was the law and the function of the courts was to protect the authority of the inquisitor.
A presumption of innocence is a founding principle for the United States. Why would it be inappropriate for SCOTUS to extend that founding principle to encompass executive immunity? Particularly as a check against bureaucratic law enforcement that has claimed the independent authority of inquisitor. The ruling instructs lower courts that their role is to protect a presumption of immunity just as it is to protect a presumption of innocence.
Because we believe - or we used to - that no one is above the law? We have a system that prosecutes law breakers. So does every other country in the world. I don’t know why you should find that strange.
It doesn’t have that level of authority.
And it’s not. I don’t know where you’re getting this idea, but it’s just not true.
Presumption of innocence and immunity from prosecution are WILDLY different things.
So another day ending with a "Y".
So this is where the idiots get the idea that the POTUS can call on Seal Team 6 to take out an opponent.
Bring on our supposed resident "expert" on the events of that day.
What's pathetic is Biden and his mindless lemmings actually believe that bullshit.
What's even more pathetic is their feeble attempts to get us to believe their hysterical paranoid BS.
I guess they think because stomping their feet and crying works for a toddler it would work for them.
Well, let’s see. The President - according to the Constitution - is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, of which Seal Team 6 is a part. According to the Court, that would be a “core constitutional power” and enjoys absolute immunity.
Now you might say murder is not a core constitutional power, and I’d agree. Therefore, it shouldn’t enjoy immunity, right? But the Court said courts may not deem an action as unofficial merely (their word!) because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
Believe me, I’d love to hear a solid legal argument as to how you’d prosecute a president for ordering Seal Team 6 to do pretty much anything.
And isn't that is a good example of how the current ruling has not changed the determination of an "official act" as it pertains to the determination of "immunity"? This statement could have been made before as easily as after the ruling. I am not a lawyer, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night....
No, I think the ruling has changed things a lot. Even though we have never previously prosecuted a former president - so the issue was not before the Court - it was at least assumed that we could.
Article II describes the procedure of impeachment, and includes the president. It then goes on to say that while impeachment is a procedure that only removes someone from office, they can still be prosecuted in the ordinary courts afterward.
There is every reason to believe this includes the president since he is specifically mentioned in the preceding sentence. Certainly, I think President Ford thought this was likely, or he wouldn’t have bothered to pardon Nixon.
Democrats need a boogeyman to scare vorters with. This ruling, the 2025 project are the flavors of the month. It will all blow over, just like the “unitary executive” or net neutrality and be totally forgotten.
and this is also example infinity about how fundamentally dishonest Joe Biden is. He became famous for being a inveterate liar, and nothing has changed,
[deleted][✘]
Haven't we been repeatedly told that the Jan 6th Committee did show us all that happened on that day? So were they lying then or is Biden lying now?
All depends on what today's definition of "lying" is.
You all know what happened and must have seen it with your own eyes and the bought and paid for 6 just put the former 'president' convicted felon and rapist traitor above the law along with those he incited that insurrection and sat and snacked and watched it unfold 'they're doing this for me' while family and staff BEGGED him to call an end to it all.
Looks like they're letting the traitor felon and his white supremacists incited get away with it - get out of jail free for the supremacist scum and their inciter
I'll take Biden lying for $100.00.
You do not think it is appropriate for the electorate to have an official legal ruling on the charges levied against Trump before voting for him as PotUS??
Imo, said committee showed us exactly what they wanted us to see and not necessarily all that happened on that day.
The only way to remove that concern from all voters is to have a trial.
Without a trial the electorate is denied the opportunity to have clear determination on the acts of Trump prior to voting for him.
And that is most likely going to happen. Joe, on the other hand could elevate much of the concern of him being a dementia ridden old man, even from his party. And he could do it today but wont. So it looks like millions of people are not going to get what they want.
The only way to do that is to have an unbiased investigation.
How do you figure? Trump's cases have all been successfully delayed with little chance to be adjudicated before people vote.
And now the SCotUS has hobbled the cases with their immunity ruling.
So, how exactly do you these trials delivering a verdict (or even start) before the election.
What does that have to do with the SCotUS ruling?
What are you talking about? A trial is a fact finding, deliberative process for determining guilt. You have been complaining about proof forever ... demanding a trial and a guilty verdict before you will acknowledge even wrongdoing. And now you want an 'unbiased investigation' rather than have our legal process play out with a trial??
Meant to say it is not going to happen.
You are talking about important information that should be known before the election. So was I.
Problem with the trial you suggest is that the liberal Democrat left would fight the very idea tooth and nail unless they could call all the shots beforehand like they did for the previously aforementioned J6 committee. I just do not see it happening.
And what we saw Pelosi and her misfit band of partisan asshats do was nowhere close to that.
I have. And nobody can provide ANY PROOF from an unbiased source. And I never demanded a guilty verdict. Quit making shit up.
Been looking for it from an unbiased source from the start. Thought that was implied. I guess I have to explain everything like I'm talking to Biden.
Not true.
That is a very cynical, one-sided view, Ed. It presumes that our legal system is controlled by political parties and singles out the Ds as the bad guys.
Bullshit! You insisted that without a guilty verdict there is no 'proof' (a word you repeatedly use) that Trump did anything wrong.
Provide the link to it.
One of many. You insist that proof of guilt requires the trial to complete with a verdict. And when you predictably say that you did not use those exact words, explain then what you were talking about here as proof of guilt.
This has been a common theme in your comments. Every allegation against Trump you reject claiming there is no proof . And even here with an indictment you say there is no proof. Well, Jeremy, after an indictment what actually will prove wrongdoing other than a guilty verdict?
To wit, your tactic is to constantly kick the can down the road. And even when a guilty verdict is announced, it is predictable that you will argue that the adjudication was corrupt.
This is a small forum. We all can see what you write. It is silly to deny what you have penned countless times already.
some equate indictment with guilt.
odd, isn't it?
Cannot help but wonder the reaction on the left if he should win his appeal and get said convictions overturned? I have a pretty good idea though.
What would be your reaction?
What would be your reaction?
Yeah, me too.
I think it would involve a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth.
That pretty much sums it up.
My reaction? I consider myself a reasonable person who would stay calm. I am however thinking others may not be so enlightened and will scream unfairness to the heavens and possibly riot. I am not saying it will happen, but the possibility is there. I'll just wait and see.
It depends upon the actual circumstances.
As always.
I can agree with that.
Neither Trump nor his cult members would ever believe that any investigation of him could be unbiased.
I remember that now. You never answered my question. Is an indictment proof of guilt? What I saw from you was deflection and so much tap dancing that Shirley Temple would be in awe. Although I kind of expected that. And what you quoted is not a demand for a guilty verdict. Try reading it next time.
And then they get upset when you call out their false equivalencies.
Won't know until that investigation is done.
No, but that is not the point. And I never implied that indictments were proof of guilt. So you have that wrong too.
The point is that you always kick the can down the road and refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump unless it is 'proven' in a court of law. And if it is ever 'proven' in a court of law that Trump was wrong to fraudulently assemble fake electors, suborn Pence to commit an unconstitutional act, etc. it will be quite a surprise if you do not declare the trial rigged.
There are many references like this where you refuse to acknowledge any wrongdoing by Trump. Your comment history is full of them.
Was that so hard?
All you have to do is prove it in a court of law. Anything outside of that are merely unproven accusations.
Because you haven't proven anything. All I've seen is you partisan opinion.
Of course not. I never even remotely hinted that an indictment is proof of guilt. That is your imagination working overtime.
And you now prove exactly what I stated. You will not acknowledge any wrongdoing of Trump unless convicted.
That must really get under you skin. The fact that I won't fall lockstep with you. You go on and on about "he did wrong" but haven't proven any of it.
A phrase you need to keep in mind - "Innocent until PROVEN GUILTY". Or does that not apply to certain people?
Have Trump or his supporters ever identified one investigation of him that they thought was unbiased?
Have you not been paying attention?
As a backdrop, refer to this key passage in our Constitution ('no man is above the law'):
Article 1 §3 clause 7 — Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law .
Compare these words with what the SCotUS just invented.
Yes, anything that the PotUS does as an individual are still subject to the legal system. But anything a PotUS does in an official capacity has immunity. If the PotUS was exercising a core constitutional power (undefined) then the PotUS has ABSOLUTE immunity from legal prosecution. If the PotUS was exercising an official power then there is the PRESUMPTION of immunity. This means that any subsequent legal proceedings must first prove that the PotUS is not immune (for some reason) and then it can determine guilt. But in this case, and any other case, any evidence dealing with an official act is INADMISSIBLE in court. Our legal system is thus now hobbled when dealing with criminal acts of a former PotUS if those acts were considered 'official'.
The SCotUS just created all encompassing rules that do not deal with the specific circumstances. In the past, it was the specific circumstances that were considered. That is, after all, how our legal system works. This ruling bypasses, in practical terms, our legal system for anything that can be considered an official act. Yeah, that is a new principle. Writ large.
Biden was close. See my first response which shows the limitations now imposed on prosecuting a PotUS based on official acts. Personal acts (e.g. raping someone in the Oval office) are still open for prosecution without any special limits.
This gets into Roe v Wade, etc. I am going to focus on the immunity ruling.
I agree with Biden on this in effect, but am focusing on the immunity ruling.
Biden is correct in principle. A rogue PotUS has been granted a level of immunity that does not exist in the CotUS. Again, I outlined this upfront.
The SCotUS just created all encompassing rules that do not deal with the specific circumstances.
that’s literally the job description of the the Supreme Court.
No it is not! The SCotUS is not empowered to expand / revise the CotUS. They are not empowered to amend the CotUS. They are empowered to interpret it.
A direct contradiction cannot possibly be a mere interpretation.
Thank you, Justice Scalia, but that's a deflection. You attacked the Court for creating an all encompassing rule that did not deal with the specific circumstances of this case. Again, creating general rules is litteraly the Supreme Court's job. The trial court than applies those rules to the specific facts before it. That's been the role of the Court forever.
No it is not. The SCotUS is NOT empowered to create general rules ... they are empowered to interpret the CotUS. That will involve connecting the dots, but not erasing dots or creating new dots.
Changes to the CotUS require an amendment. The SCotUS does not have that power.
YOu really don't seem to understand the role of the Court. Pretty much every Constitutional ruling involves the creation of a general rule that trial courts than apply to specific facts of the case before it. It's literally how our Court system has always functioned.
hanges to the CotUS require an amendment. The SCotUS does not have that power.
While I applaud your apparently new found zeal for originalism, you need to read the text more closely. The clause addresses whether a President who was impeached and removed from office isn't subsequently protected from prosecution. He's not. If the Court ruled that impeachment and removal protected him from prosecution, then they would in fact, be changing the Constitution.
Amazing watching you insist, absurdly, that the SCotUS can amend the CotUS.
Correct!! So you recognize that the constitutional remedy for a rogue sitting PotUS if first to impeach and convict thus making him a former PotUS. And that former PotUS is NOT protected from prosecution.
In direct contradiction of that we have:
You are trying to pretend that the rules of a former PotUS and those of an impeached and convicted former PotUS are different. Yet there is nothing that supports that. Instead the CotUS supports the idea that even a former PotUS is not above the law.
Get a grip. Dishonesty is bad. That's not even worthy of being called a strawman argument it's so absurd.
. ou recognize that the constitutional remedy for a rogue sitting PotUS if first to impeach and convict thus making him a former PotUS. And that former PotUS is NOT protected from prosecution..
So you are still struggling to understand what the text means. The clause simply states impeachment and removal does not bar prosecution. That's it. It simply means double jeopardy is not a valid defense to prosecution for a successfully impeached President.
Everything else you attribute to it is your imagination. Words Matter.
are trying to pretend that the rules of a former PotUS and those of an impeached and convicted former PotUS are different
No, I am accurately applying the actual words of the Constitution.
Amazing watching you contradict the plain reading of the CotUS and then call me dishonest.
No man, including a former PotUS, is above the law.
It is literally not. I find this amazing. What happen to the self-proclaimed originalists and literalists that once populated the Right? Suddenly the Court is free to make things up?
Lol. Do you know the difference between an appellate court and a trial court?
What happen to the self-proclaimed originalists and literalists that once populated the Righ
First off, whoever claimed Roberts was an originalist? His whole career argues against that.
The reality is there is no dispositive answer in the text. So roberts went with 200 years of precedent finding the Presidency does have inherent prerogatives and ruled consistently. It would be silly to hold ex Presidents have absolute immunity from lawsuits but zero immunity from criminal prosecutions. not even the Biden administration argued that the Presidency lacks all protection, but that's what our new found strict constructionists would have us believe the text demands.
But sure, I guess all the sudden converts to "originalism " who believe "orginalsim" means corrupting the text to mean something other than what it says to find no presidential immunity will suddenly demand the end of Miranda rights, gay marriage, all claims of executive privilege, the end of Presidential immunity from litigation, congress's oversight powers, the separation of powers doctrine etc.. They aren't being hypocrites and trying to make an argument that would only apply in this case, right?
A ridiculous non-sequitur. The purpose of the SCotUS is NOT to invent and install new capabilities and restrictions into the CotUS. The only mechanism provided to do that is a constitutional amendment and that has nothing to do with the SCotUS other than judicial review.
Tacos! was obviously not referring to Roberts; he was referring to GOP members who have apparently tossed aside their historical concern for originalist and textualist interpretation of the CotUS.
But surely you knew that.
That would be fine if the ruling was specific to Trump. It would be a judicial determination based on extant law and precedent and the specific circumstances of the case. It would be a legal ruling. But the Roberts court went far beyond that and invented changes to the CotUS that apply to ALL PotUS regardless of specific circumstances. Worse, their changes directly contradict the CotUS.
Again, bottom line, the SCotUS is not empowered to amend the CotUS. Even its power of Judicial Rule is not in the CotUS but rather is a result of precedent and convention. So the step beyond Judicial Rule to amending the CotUS is well beyond the framer's intent for the SCotUS. It is judicial activism.
This is basic. If you want to argue the Court shouldn't create rules for lower to follow when applying Constitutional provision likes 4th Amendment, go ahead. It's ridiculous and contradicted by almost 250 years of history, but if that's what you need to "get trump"... Have fun arguing against the existence of precedent and believing the Supreme Court should act as a trial court, issuing rulings that only apply to the very specific facts before it and that have no value when deciding similar cases.
Overthrowing our entire system of jurisprudence dating back almost a thousand years is about as radical as you can get. Good luck with that.
at would be fine if the ruling was specific to Trump.
The Supreme Court doesn't create rules for specific Presidents. That's the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do.
their changes directly contradict the CotUS
Lol. Only in your imagination.
the SCotUS is not empowered to amend the CotUS.
No shit, and it clearly didn't. It interpreted the Constitution consistently with the plain language of the document and 220 years of precedent. .
en its power of Judicial Rule is not in the CotUS \
Now you want to overturn Marbury v Madison. You are making Thomas look like the most moderate of moderates.
That is not the argument. The argument is that the CotUS just created immunities for a former PotUS that do not exist in the CotUS.
Show in the CotUS where:
And show how this does not contradict the CotUS ... in particular:
But that's what you claimed when you attacked the Court and claimed it's not empowered to create general rules. It's an absurd argument.
he argument is that the CotUS just created immunities for a former PotUS that do not exist in the CotUS.
The Constitution clearly contemplates Presidential immunity, as the clause you so helpfully provided proves. You just need to read the whole thing in concert and apply basic logic. Cherry picking half while ignoring the other half to pervert its meaning is simply dishonest.
The clause does not simply say the President shall be subject to criminal punishment. Instead, the drafters purposely attached that language to describe a specific situation where "immunity" would not apply. The only logical implication is that there must be some situations where it does apply, otherwise they would have just made a blanket statement that it never does. The extent of immunity and its application is, like so much else, left open by the Constitution. T
Roberts solved that issue by applying 200 years of precedent, including a Supreme court case which is almost an exact analog, the Nixon case that set forth absolute immunity from civil liability for ex-Presidents. Surprisingly, given the vehemence of the reaction to this ruling, I don't recall you or any other person ever railing against that case as presaging the end of the Republic.
More twisted 'reading' from you. It should be clear that I am arguing that the SCotUS just created new constitutional content. They created absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility of evidence related to official duties of the PotUS.
They just changed the powers of the presidency and that is solely a function of the CotUS. The SCotUS does not have the power to change the powers of the presidency.
What utter bullshit. You merely claim 'cherrypicking' yet remarkably fail to illustrate same.
That clause illustrates that even when a PotUS is impeached and convicted (thus made a former PotUS) that he shall still be subject to indictment, etc. You are trying to impose a truly ridiculous interpretation that would mean that only if a PotUS is removed from office through impeachment and conviction will he be subject to the rule of law.
The SCotUS ignored / downplayed the precedence which emphasized the principle that no man is above the law and focused exclusively on the special need for a PotUS to have some immunity in special circumstances. They then created absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility of evidence for official duties. This was a creation of this court and it did not simply rule on law but rather it changed the constitutional powers and protections of the PotUS.
That is not their charge and they have no authority to do this. They cannot operate as a substitute for a constitutional amendment.
So, as you continue to dodge, I repeat my challenge:
Show in the CotUS where:
And show how this does not contradict the CotUS ... in particular:
I do, indeed. I also know my ass from a hole in the ground, and many other, similarly irrelevant things.
Yeah…so I never mentioned the Chief Justice, but you go right ahead and keep slaying those straw men.
Neither I nor anyone here nor anyone I have ever encountered has argued that the president should have no immunity. But you are fuckin up those straw men, for sure.
Great, than let's stop the stupidity about originalism. The argument is that No Presidential immunity exists because it's not specifically granted in the Constitution. Glad you agree its rubbish.
And now you totally blur the distinction between some level of immunity and the absolute, presumptive, and inadmissibility protections invented by the SCotUS.
Our history has provided some implicit immunity for PotUS and this immunity was exacted in our legal system.
The SCotUS preempted much of the discretion of the legal system and made it impossible (for core constitutional duties) and very difficult (for all other official acts) to hold a rogue PotUS legally accountable for crimes while in office.
Nobody that I have seen has ever claimed that the the PotUS should have NO immunity. The objection has been the extraordinary blanket immunities invented by the SCotUS which largely prevent the specifics of a criminal act by a PotUS to be dealt with normally by our legal system.
Lol. That's what you claimed and you doubled down with your desire for this to be a Trump specific decision that didn't apply to other Presidents. You want to run away from that now?
ou merely claim 'cherrypicking' yet remarkably fail to illustrate same
I did demonstrate it. That you didn't understand it is not something I can fix.
You are trying to impose a truly ridiculous interpretation that would mean that only if a PotUS is removed from office through impeachment and conviction will he be subject to the rule of law.
Good thing I didn't claim that, at all!. but even that argument is more grounded in the text than yours is.
That is not their charge and they have no authority to do this
Where are you getting this? why don't you start by reading the precedent cited by the Court and get back to me. Then read the Roberts opinion. The Court has been defining the power of the presidency for generations. If nothing else, read the Youngstown and Nixon cases and get a basic understanding of the role of the Court and what its doing here.
So, as you continue to dodge, I repeat my challenge:
How are you not following this? The drafters created Presidential immunity but did not define or refine its parameters. That was left open. The Court has filled it in just like it has for pretty much every other clause in the Constitution.
I think there should be some level of qualified or presumptive immunity for the president performing his duties. I would never advocate “absolute immunity” for anyone, and it boggles the mind to see that SCOTUS justices would even entertain the notion.
However, what I personally think should be true is not necessarily legally true. Even the Court’s limited history of this point is just what they think the situation should be - not what the Constitution or US Code say.
The Trump opinion majority hangs much of this philosophical approach on the Separation of Powers doctrine. And that’s fine, to a point. But they take it further than is warranted by the law and the Constitution.
They completely disregard the equally sacred doctrine of Checks and Balances, the axiom that no man - even the president - is above the law, and a Constitution that explicitly anticipated the criminal prosecution of any federal officer, including the president.
If you take your extremist position seriously, there is no immunity ever, for a President. Not from lawsuits. Not from criminal charges. There is no executive privilege either. Get rid of Miranda rights too while you are at it. Take your own challenge and show where "some level of immunity" is expressly spelled out.
So this is a different argument than what I was addressing. It's essentially an opinion about the scope of the decision as opposed to a claim that the Court lacks the authority to create Presidential immunity under the Constitution.
Is this all you are going to do? Misrepresent my position on each turn? You cannot rebut my points so you make shit up?
The immunity is NOT in the CotUS but rather is implicitly in legal precedent. It was thus up to our legal system to deal with the specifics of a presidential action and adjudicate accordingly. This is the normal function of our legal system. It is what it is designed to do.
This has worked just fine for our entire history.
But now the SCotUS has cut the legal system out of the process entirely for core constitutional acts and hobbled it for all other official acts with its combination of presumptive immunity and inadmissibility of evidence.
Nowhere in our legal precedent is there a notion of absolute immunity for the PotUS. That was a total invention. The best we had was a principle of some presumptive immunity (albeit unnamed) in the sense that we recognize the unique role of the presidency. But still, the legal system was fully enabled to deal with the specifics of the case.
Now when the SCotUS includes this notion of categorical inadmissibility of evidence if it deals with an official act, it has hobbled the legal process and granted a rogue PotUS great privilege.
Well, I do think it’s still arguable that they lack the authority. What the Court has done is examine the situation in government, acknowledged the Separation of Powers doctrine, and reached two fundamental conclusions.
The first, is that the president would not be able to do his job effectively if he is always worried about being sued or prosecuted. I agree with that, and it’s why I endorse some level of immunity, but there is no statute or constitutional provision, which directly supports that idea.
The second conclusion is that because we have three separate, but equal branches of government - of which, the president is basically one by himself - the legislative and judicial branches lack the authority to hold him accountable. But by this thinking, the judicial branch should also lack the authority to bestow privileges - like immunity - onto the Executive.
In my view, this second conclusion directly contradicts the Constitution and ignores the doctrine of checks and balances intentionally woven throughout our government.
So, who has the authority to hold a President accountable to the law?
Why doesn't that unhobbled prosecutorial authority vest more power in the bureaucracy of law enforcement than the President has been granted by the Constitution?
What is the remedy? Is an independent, unaccountable, unelected legal system having power over the Presidency really what we want? Why doesn't this sort of remedy open the door for establishing a police state?
Should a President be immune from politically motived abuse of the legal system?
Could you untangle this into something clear and specific?
The legal system. That has been the remedy for our entire history. The SCotUS just changed the CotUS to solve a non-problem.
The determination of 'politically motivated abuse of the legal system' is determined by our legal system. And that question, if it had been asked, would eventually be put before the SCotUS. They could then rule on the specific case.
Here the SCotUS amended the CotUS providing broad categorical (making the specifics of the case irrelevant) immunity (qualified as I have described) for all PotUS' and directly benefitting Trump. The SCotUS is not empowered to amend our Constitution.
Only when Trump is the one involved
Why should any prosecutor have the authority to threaten and coerce the President with criminal prosecution? Why should any prosecutor have the authority to stop the functioning of government until SCOTUS makes a limited ruling on a case by case basis?
Is the 'legal system' above the law? How is the 'legal system' held accountable to the law?
The broad label of 'legal system' doesn't really tell us anything about authority or accountability. Alvin Bragg and Jaun Merchan have assumed the authority of the 'legal system' but they are independent from and unaccountable to the national electorate. The 'legal system' has been used by local officials with limited jurisdiction to interfere with Constitutional checks and balances and the Constitutional functioning of government. Jack Smith is an unelected and unconfirmed bureaucrat that has presumed the authority of the 'legal system' grants powers above those enumerated in the Constitution.
SCOTUS has asserted its Constitutional authority over the 'legal system'. The Constitution really does allow SCOTUS more authority over the legal system than the bureaucracy of law enforcement.
Because a PotUS could abuse the powers of office.
They do not have that power. The PotUS would first be impeached and convicted.
Get serious, Nerm. I am not going to explain the fundamentals of our Constitution and our legal system. Our legal system is the portion of our system that applies the rule of law to the myriad, specific circumstances of life.
The SCotUS has changed the CotUS and have directly contradicted literal text of same.
Then it follows that reducing the threat of potential abuse can be achieved by stringently restricting the powers of the office.
But your arguments are premised upon presumptions and assumptions that may not be accurate. And you are unwilling to test those presumptions and assumptions by answering simple questions.
The SCOTUS ruling didn't suggest a President is immune from impeachment or Congressional oversight. The SCOTUS ruling did not suggest a President is immune from judicial determination of Constitutionality. The SCOTUS ruling did not grant a President absolute power to bypass Congress or the Supreme Court. The SCOTUS ruling didn't provide immunity from criminal prosecution for unofficial actions undertaken by any President. So, the court ruling doesn't throw the Constitution out with the bath water.
Does the 'legal system' possess absolute immunity? How do we distinguish between institutional immunity and personal immunity? Is the SCOTUS ruling discussing institutional immunity or personal immunity?
This is ridiculous. You keep inventing strawmen.
Inconvenient facts are not strawmen. You claimed SCOTUS has thrown out the Constitution and given a President ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. But SCOTUS did not rule that a President is immune from impeachment or Congressional oversight; therefore, the President does not have ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY.
Your contention has been refuted.
That is a blatant, absurd lie. I clearly stated the specifics many times and you ignore them and flat out lie about my statements.
Some on the left have grossly misunderstood the Court's ruling.
Their hair-on-fire shenanigans and claims of a lawless Presidency are silly and beneath thinking humans.
Explain the ruling (absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility of evidence) and show how it is consistent with this:
You cannot and you will not. My prediction.
the left's wild-assed assessment of the ruling is comical in nature, claiming the President could order the murder of his political rivals.
It is too difficult to convince such folks willing to swallow that type of swill of anything sane so I won't waste time on it.
Predictably, you make this about me and taunt.
And, as noted, you cannot / will not explain the ruling (absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility of evidence) and show how it is consistent with the CotUS.
I'll let the internet lawyers battle it out.
Anyone thinking the President can order the murder of a political rival is flat out bonkers.
You claimed that some grossly misunderstood the SCotUS ruling and thus presented yourself as having full command of this understanding.
Yeah, I agree, let others who have a command of the facts and understand the decision 'battle it out'.
If you don't think claiming the President can kill someone with impunity isn't bonkers, I am left wondering what you WOULD consider bonkers.
One need not be a lawyer to recognize the sheer stupidity of such a claim.
You are deflecting to a specific claim that I did not make.
This is what I asked:
Explain the ruling (absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility of evidence) and show how it is consistent with this:
You are deflecting.
Nope, stating my opinion.
Those claims about a President being able to murder someone really show a fantastical grasp of the facts and NO understanding of the decision.
You continue to deflect rather than explain the ruling (absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility of evidence) and show how it is consistent with this:
This is what I asked. If you want to debate murder, do so with someone who has made the claim.
And if you are unable to admit that people who have and continue to push lies about an imperial presidency and blanket immunity for everything are just bonkers, just say so.
You've posted it several times now. You don't understand what you are posting?
See @5 . See See
I have explained it probably dozens of times now. You missed all of that?
[deleted][✘]
I pretty much ignore certain members for the most part but I'm guessing the majority of comments from certain members essentially equate to 'prove it'
...after you have essentially 'proved it' time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again
Yes, they continue in public to claim such things yet behind closed doors it seems there might be a different story brewing.
I do find it funny that the sheep from both sides will continue to parrot the talking points of the party and for much of it are completely ignorant of what is going on behind the scene. If we knew what was said behind closed doors this would be a very different world.
Half of Biden's campaign seems to be about protecting America and saving democracy from Trump.
The other half of it is the ceaseless "I am not Trump".
It’s literally how the country has operated since the founding. Marshall recognized executive privilege in a claim by Thomas Jefferson, for fucks sake. If there’s no immunity, there’s no basis for executive privilege and the entire system of the separation of powers would have to be relitigaged from scratch as numerous Supreme Court precedents would be overturned.
Roberts decision, as with all his opinions, is minimalist and institutionalist and designed to maintain the status quo with minimal disruption.
To me, this is yet another case of the unhinged going all Chicken Little over nothing.
What the left doesn't see or deliberately ignores is that they're providing justification for imposing stringent restrictions on a President's official authority.
It the President has immunity for issuing Executive Orders that violate the Constitution then the remedy would be to severely restrict the President's authority to write Executive Orders. The left's interpretation of the SCOTUS ruling opens the door for stripping a lot of power away from the Presidency.
You are claiming that removing the SCotUS ruling (going back to the situation before the ruling) is stripping a lot of power from the presidency.
That is equivalent to you admitting that this ruling has added a 'lot of power' to the presidency.
Your claim is the exact opposite of what I'm saying.
You are claiming the SCOTUS ruling grants absolute immunity while deliberately ignoring the distinctions between official, unofficial. and partially official actions by any President. But the actual ruling clearly states that immunity is limited by the official status of Presidential functions.
A President functioning in an unofficial capacity is not immune from criminal prosecution. The SCOTUS ruling indicates these functions have been presumed to be immune because they are presumed to be official. But a presumption of official status isn't sufficient to claim immunity from criminal prosecution; the courts have the authority to determine what is official and what is unofficial. Therefore, limiting the official status of Presidential functions will automatically limit immunity from criminal prosecution.
A blatant lie! How many times must I detail these distinctions before you understand that I am NOT ignoring them?
No shit, Nerm. How many times have I noted this? Good grief.
For example, did you even read my comment @5?:
Yes, I did read your comment @5. And you've restated the interpretations that what a President does in an official capacity has immunity.
So, it follows that reducing the potential abuse of that immunity can be achieved by restricting the official capacity of the President. The ability of a President to claim immunity is limited by the official capacity of the office. Reducing the official power of the President lessens ability to claim immunity. (How much redundancy is necessary to make the remedy understandable?)
You are off on a ridiculous tangent regarding Congress taking action (somehow) to reduce the official power of the president as a remedy for the SCotUS expanding the power of the president.
Um, no. Do you know what a motion is? If the prosecution believes that, even though a president was acting in an official capacity, if his actions were illegal, they can file a motion before the court to have the evidence presented in the trial if the judge agrees that the act taken by the president was not within the scope of his authority or was illegal, such as having a political opponent assassinated. Motions can be made pre-trial or even during the trial. They aren't decided within the trial itself but outside of it and solely by the judge presiding.
An example where absolute immunity would apply would be a president acting in his official capacity as commander-in-chief (a core Constitutional duty) approving or ordering some military action in a war that turned out to be disastrous, such as Biden's exit from Afghanistan. He could not be criminally prosecuted for that. He could not, as commander-in-chief, order to have the military leader in charge executed. He would not have immunity from that, even as Commander-in-chief.
Now a tangent on motions? I have already stated that before a trial on guilt can take place the court must first determine that presumptive immunity does not apply. It is a slimy tactic to argue a point not in contention to make it appear as though you are correcting your interlocutor.
Why are you giving examples of core constitutional duties? Core constitutional duties are undefined but a starting point are those duties enumerated in the CotUS (in particular Articles II). These now, per the SCotUS, enjoy absolute immunity. All other official duties have presumptive immunity and this hurdle must be passed before the trial can commence (as I have consistently stated).
But this is not the point of disagreement (at least not here). The point is that the SCotUS just made core constitutional duties absolutely immune from legal prosecution, not that a PotUS has core constitutional duties. Stating that core constitutional duties exist does not demonstrate where the CotUS provides the PotUS absolute immunity for abuse of those powers.
Show where this immunity is granted in the CotUS.
Show in the CotUS where:
And show how this does not contradict the CotUS ... in particular:
Keep in mind the SCOTUS ruling is intended as guidance for the lower courts. It would seem that the courts are to determine the extent of official capacity of the President (and by extension Vice President and civil officials) by adversarial testing of immunity in the same manner as adversarial testing of innocence. The role of the courts would appear to be protection of the presumption of immunity in the same manner as protection of the presumption of innocence.
An accused is presumed innocent until evidence proves otherwise. So, too, a civil official is presumed immune until evidence proves otherwise.
Here's a real world example to test that contention: Can Dr. Anthony Fauci be indicted and prosecuted for criminal negligence because he authorized funding research that contributed to the pandemic which killed millions? Or did the nature of Dr. Fauci's official capacity allow him immunity from prosecution?
It is more than a guide. Absolute immunity prohibits lower courts from acting. They cannot try the case.
Presumptive immunity is a guide for lower courts which directs them to presume immunity for official acts. Thus the lower courts must first ensure that the official act in question is not subject to immunity before they can try the case.
But inadmissibility is another prohibition, not a guide. It prohibits any court from using any action related to an official presidential act. While there must be a determination made by the lower court, if the act is official, the lower court is prohibited from admitting evidence related to the act.
Yes all nice and symmetric. Regardless, this was a dreamed up concept by the SCotUS. This would not be so much of a concern except for the inclusion of inadmissibility. Presumption + inadmissibility hobbles the legal system when dealing with criminal acts of a former PotUS.
First you would have to show that Fauci authorized research that contributed to the pandemic. (Partisan claims do not count.)
Fauci was not PotUS so his official capacity offers him no immunity under this new SCotUS ruling.
The case would be tried in a court of law where all the evidence can be analyzed with prosecution and defense arguments, judicial protocol, and jury deliberation.
You know, our legal system. A far better mechanism for determining truth than hyperbolic partisan claims.
Well, the SCOTUS ruling could well be as you say. But that means the point of the ruling was for SCOTUS to assert it's authority over the judiciary and setting limits on the extent of judicial activism.
The courts do not accuse, indict, or prosecute. The jurisdiction for authority and oversight of law enforcement is within the executive branch and not the judicial branch. The SCOTUS ruling also forbids that executive function infringing on the presumption of immunity in the same manner the executive function is forbidden from infringing on the presumption of innocence.
A prosecutor is not allowed to bypass the courts to make declarations concerning official immunity any more than prosecutors are allowed to bypass courts to make declarations of innocence or guilt. That is not within the purview or authority of a prosecutor. The SCOTUS ruling means that a lower court cannot accept a case based upon a prosecutor's declarations concerning official immunity. SCOTUS is telling the lower courts that they have a Constitutional obligation to protect presumed immunity just as they have an obligation to protect presumed innocence.
A special counsel cannot simply make a declaration concerning official immunity and proceed with an indictment. The courts have to be involved in determining official immunity and individual exposure to criminal liability. A determination of immunity serves to protect the institution rather than the individual holding an official title. That's why a determination of official immunity (inherent in the institution, itself) falls under the Constitutional separations of authority among the three branches. That's way above the pay grade of a prosecutor.
Translation: the SCotUS imposed restrictions on the legal system when dealing with criminal presidential actions.
Yes, Nerm, that is indeed the case. What is also true is that the SCotUS created new protections for the PotUS; protections that extend the CotUS (and even contradict it). Thus these protections require a constitutional amendment.
By the way, if one wants to stop all judicial activism then just remove all power from the judiciary. The point being that hobbling the judiciary to prevent it from improperly engaging in judicial activism also hobbles the judiciary from properly adjudicating actual crimes. So this ridiculous notion that these protections were necessary (never were necessary in our entire history) ignores the fact that these protections hobble the judiciary from dealing with a rogue PotUS. They embolden a rogue PotUS on the cusp of a potentially rogue PotUS being elected.
An entirely irrelevant point. Not under debate.
Another irrelevant point. Not under debate.
And yet again, an irrelevant point. Not under debate.
None of these points change the fact that the SCotUS created extraconstitutional rules that restrict the legal system from holding a criminal PotUS accountable. There is no provision in the constitution that grants these immunities to the PotUS:
Worse, these new SCotUS rules directly contradict the principle of no man being above the law and quite explicit language in the CotUS reflecting this principle:
Irrelevant, tangents are not an argument.
Here is my real world scenario which I now pose to you:
Isn't that the normal requirement for a prosecutor during a criminal case? A prosecutor must provide evidence that overcomes a presumption of innocence. At least, that's the way the legal system is supposed to work in the US. But the 'have to show Fauci authorized research' is predicated upon an indictment by a prosecutor.
Fauci was a civil official of the executive branch with institutional authority to fulfill Constitutional and legislated obligations on behalf of the President. (Which raises questions about Presidential liability for actions taken by bureaucrats. The expedient convention has been that bureaucrats possess a degree of independence vested in institutional authority. It is the Constitutional authority of the institution that provides immunity to the office holder.)
Yes, that is how adjudication of criminal liability works. But is exposure to indictment and prosecution a result of institutional overreach or rogue actions of an individual. If NIAID had exceeded its Constitutional authority then how would that affect the immunity of Dr. Fauci? Without a determination of the extent of institutional authority (and culpability) what would the jury be deliberating?
Could you relate this sidebar to the SCotUS decision?
Fauci was not PotUS so this SCotUS ruling does not apply in any way.
I am not interested in a side debate about Fauci.
That is exactly what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. SCOTUS asserting authority over the judiciary (and legal system) is a Constitutional obligation.
If a President has been impeached and convicted then was the individual receiving a bribe performing an official function? Impeachment and conviction overturns the election and strips any Constitutional authority, privilege, and protection from the individual holding the office. Both Article I and II of the Constitution indicate that a President receiving bribes, engaging in treason, or committing high crimes and misdemeanors exceeds the Constitutional authority of the Office of President. These actions are not within the official Constitutional capacity of the institutions of the executive branch.
The SCOTUS ruling does not indicate that a President is immune from consequences of exceeding the Constitutional mandate for the Office of President. A President seeking and/or receiving a bribe is beyond Constitutional authority and outside any immunity the Constitution by provide.
Now let's turn to another example to test the SCOTUS case. A President rejects a request for pardon and refuses to pardon or commute the sentence of an individual. However, new evidence is discovered at a later date that exonerates the individual. Here's the question. Can the President be indicted for wrongful conviction and unjust incarceration of the individual?
Would it make a difference if the President knew, with certainty, that the individual was innocent when they requested the pardon?
WTF - does Dr. Fauci have to do with this/anything
Insane
You write this as if I disagreed in the abstract. Yes, it is the job of the SCotUS to impose guidelines, restrictions, etc. In the abstract that is true. Now get back to the specifics at hand.
The individual receiving the bribe is the PotUS (per the scenario) and the pardon was the core constitutional (official) function. This is right there in the scenario!
An impeached and convicted PotUS does not, as a private citizen, have the authority, privilege, and protection that he had while in office. But he retains the immunity granted by the SCotUS for his official acts while PotUS.
Well of course taking a bribe is not an official act. The official act (the core constitutional act) in my scenario was the pardon.
It states that if a PotUS does something illegal as part of a core constitutional act, the PotUS is immune from criminal prosecution. Absolute immunity.
This just changed with the SCotUS ruling.
You just dodged the scenario by inserting a series of false claims. The scenario directly illustrates the SCotUS ruling but you choose dishonesty rather than dealing with the reality.
No, the PotUS has absolute immunity for core constitutional acts. A pardon (or denial of same) is a core constitutional act.
Just as the PotUS has absolute immunity for taking a bribe in return for a pardon. He can be impeached and convicted, but the SCotUS has just made it impossible to bring charges of bribery against the now former PotUS.
The Supreme court did not extend the limits of Constitutional authority. The Constitution cannot exceed its own limits. And the Constitution cannot provide immunity beyond its own limits.
Where does the Constitution fit within your scenario? Does the Constitution grant limited authority to the Presidency or does it grant unlimited authority to the Presidency? Does the Constitution grant the President the authority to reshape and rewrite the Constitution on a case by case basis? Does the Constitution allow the President to grant rights, repeal rights and bypass the checks and balances of the other branches of government?
Vesting that much imperial authority and power into the Presidency does require an equally powerful independent authority to hold the President in check. But that exceeds the Constitution as it was written. What you are suggesting with your scenario is that the Presidency already hold dictatorial power and infers that only an independent, unaccountable police state can hold that dictatorial power in check.
The SCOTUS ruling is premised upon the founding principles that the Constitution limits the authority of the President and the Constitution does not grant immunity to a President who exceeds the limitation of the Constitution.
The Constitution IS NOT a living document. And the SCOTUS ruling certainly does not treat the Constitution as a living document. The framers included the means adjusting and modernizing the Constitution only within the strictures of Constitutional requirements. Expediency does not allow ignoring those strictures and exigency can not permanently overcome those strictures.
It made rules that surpass the bounds of the CotUS and indeed contradict parts of it.
A silly statement refuting a claim that was never made.
Again refuting a claim never made.
It is clear that you are just playing a pointless game. The answer is obvious. It could not be any more obvious. The CotUS is involved in the determination of core constitutional powers and that especially means Article II. It is also involved in something I have repeated more than a dozen times in this seed alone:
This was the 'last straw' of my patience to contend with dishonest, pointless tactics.
That contention won't be supported by citing the Constitution. So, here's excerpts from the synopsis of the ruling. (Note I did provide links to download the full 119 pages of the ruling in the posted seed and editorial preamble.)
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43
So, immunity is clearly limited by the Constitutional authority of the President.
(1) Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” §1, cl. 1. The President
has duties of “unrivaled gravity and breadth.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 800. His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an
act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 585. In the latter case, the President’s authority is sometimes “conclusive and preclusive.” Id., at 638 (Jackson, J., concurring). When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. Pp. 6–9
The Constitution cannot be rewritten by criminalizing official Presidential actions through legislation or prosecution. Criminal justice is not a proper mechanism for testing the Constitutionality of Presidential actions. The Presidential authority, privileges, and responsibilities enumerated in the Constitution are immutable and changing them requires amending the Constitution.
(a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Determining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. 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 entitled to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15.
The Constitution is the determining factor for the extent of both official authority and immunity. SCOTUS is applying the Constitution and not rewriting the Constitution.
(2) Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, precedent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and criminal cases where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents. P. 9.
Absolute immunity is reserved for only exclusive Presidential authority provided by the Constitution and intent of the framers.
(3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decision making is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts. P. 15.
A President has no immunity from prosecution when they overstep the Constitutional limits of authority.
The synopsis goes on to provide guidance for other scenarios. But it is clear from the excerpts provided here that the intent of SCOTUS was to utilize the Constitution and intent of the framers to establish clear boundaries on President immunity as determined by the Constitutional extent of Presidential authority.
Claiming that the SCOTUS ruling gives a President absolute immunity to do whatever they please is not consistent with the language of the ruling itself. Supporting that claim requires scrutinizing the language of the ruling itself; the text of the Constitution is not informative about the scope and intent of the SCOTUS ruling.
Clearly incorrect.
Where in the ruling does SCOTUS grant blanket immunity against indictment, trial, judgement, and punishment according to law?
The SCOTUS ruling clearly states that any sort of absolute immunity is limited in scope; constrained by the Constitution. But the ruling does explicitly state that the extent of conclusive Presidential immunity cannot be altered by legislation. Sorry Congress, go suck wind.
You aren't even citing the appropriate portion of the Constitution. Article I of the Constitution is not applicable for determining the extent of Presidential authority or immunity.
Look at your first quote in blue. And, really Nerm, it is even easier than that. The opinion is summarized at its inception with this language:
then
Do you see any similarity between this summary and the summary I have provided (repeatedly)?:
The inadmissibility is dealt with later in the opinion:
I guess somebody doesn’t know how the phrases “for all practical purposes,” “almost certainly,” and “virtually” work.
He didn’t say that. He said limits … on the power of the office … will be self-imposed by the president alone. That’s a very generalized statement and does not mention the specific legal definitions of “official” and “unofficial” actions.
It’s hard to argue this because we don’t know what Biden was referring to. On the topic of voting rights, many see the Court’s decision a couple years ago in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee as making it easier for states to create discriminatory voting regulations, while also making it harder to challenge those regulations. Going back a little further, there was the Shelby decision, which weakened the Voting Rights Act. That was like 10 years ago, but it was still a similarly conservative court.
As to civil rights, I’m sure he sees the overturning of Roe v. Wade as an attack on civil rights, and I think that’s fair. Whatever you think of how Roe was initially decided, the Court in that opinion did recognize that a woman’s right to privacy encompasses her right to terminate her pregnancy under certain conditions. That is now gone. It’s remarkable because the Supreme Court has generally not been in the business of taking away rights already recognized. Some justices are already talking about taking away other rights.
So, I think the claims are at least arguable - not “objectively false.”
Which is fair, because he did. It’s certainly tough to argue that the mob didn’t think so.
Those tweets went out well after he sent those people to the Capitol and the violence was in full swing, and neither tweet encouraged anyone to go home and let the legal process happen.
This section doesn’t even argue the point. It just argues “what about Biden?”
Every president spars with Congress and the Court over the reach of his power as he tries to implement his policies. That’s not new. What’s new is the allegations that Trump committed actual generally applicable crimes - like fraud or incitement to violence - and he escapes prosecution easily under the new rules. Even if his crimes fail the presumption of immunity, courts are prohibited from hearing most incriminating evidence.
The Constitution envisions former officials - including the president - being prosecuted for crimes. The Court has now decided to ignore that. It’s not impossible to prosecute a former president, but going forward, it will be a lot harder than I think anyone ever imagined.
For emphasis.
What, exactly, is "new"? Have you actually read the decision by the court? They literally say they aren't making any new decisions on this issue.
The areas where they say the president does have absolute immunity was not decided by this Court at this time. They are merely communicating what was already there as evidenced by all the case precedent they site in their opinion. More specifically, this opinion did two things.
Concerning the second, the Court had this to say:
So, what the Court did was remand the case back to the lower courts to more properly develop the case. The function of the Supreme court isn't to try cases, per se, but rather, to assure that the lower courts tried them properly.
In reality, the left is just pissed that any trial won't happen before the election. Because of that, they're distorting what actually happened as the Court having done something new, or changed the Constitution, or granted the office of president immunity from any act it cares to take, no matter how egregious. In reality, the opinion has numerous examples from past cases where it shows the president does not in fact have absolute immunity from everything. The opinion did not at this time "grant" immunity to the president because that question was already decided by past courts. And even then, it wasn't "granted" but rather, recognized part of what imbues the presidency of its powers by article II of the Constitution. If the presidency did not have that protection of immunity for his core constitutional duties he'd be getting sued over every decision he makes, and considering today's political sewer, you know that would happen.
But if you still insist that some new thing has been done, please make an argument for it rather than just claiming it. Thank you.
They clearly did.
Show in the CotUS where:
False. The court stated that any core constitutional duty has ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY. That, logically, immediately includes all enumerated powers in Article II (but excludes any powers considered to be shared with Congress). So anything a PotUS does using one or more of those exclusive powers is free from any legal consequences. No conditions. Flat out, the former PotUS cannot even be indicted when absolute immunity applies.
They have removed the legal system from the equation for anything considered absolute immunity (no matter how egregiously legal). They have hobbled legal proceedings for any act that can be considered official (the court must first prove that the official act is not covered under presumptive immunity before a case can even proceed). Finally, they made all evidence related to PotUS official acts inadmissible as evidence.
These are categorical rules that eliminate in some cases and hobble in others the mechanism (our system of justice) that is supposed to deal with the specifics of a case.
This is not in the CotUS. And, as I repeatedly note, it contradicts Article 1 §3 clause 7.
The SCotUS made a ruling that contradicts the CotUS. Prior legal cases dealt with specific circumstances.
And it is also not the function of the SCotUS to modify the CotUS. Especially if their modifications contradict the CotUS.
In their opinion discussion, the SCotUS acknowledges historical precedent support for the 'no man is above the law' principle as well as cases where a PotUS must have special immunity in certain circumstances.
The problem is that they then essentially tossed out the 'no man is above the law' principle (and precedent) and went fully with the need for immunity. But they did not allow this immunity to be adjudicated. They excluded the legal system from adjudicating the specifics. Again, for core constitutional duties (implicitly Article II) there is no possible way to hold a former PotUS legally responsible for his acts no matter how egregious. For official duties outside of that, the court must first prove that the duties (somehow) do not enjoy the presumptive immunity categorically granted by the SCotUS. And in any case, any evidence from official duties is categorically inadmissible in any court.
Yeah, the SCotUS made no new decisions on this issue.
I think TiG does a good job here. I see no need to repeat the same stuff. See also, my brief comment @2.2.2
Really? Then show it. Asking the question you do here does not provide any illumination or argument to support your claim that they did.
Same thing again. There's nothing at all in what you post to support your assertion that my statement was false. In fact, you don't even address the statement. Instead, you just give an analysis of what you think absolute means legally, not when the court actually recognized such. Not only that, you get your own analysis wrong. You claim that:
You don't even seem to notice that your own argument contradicts itself when you later invoke Article 1 §3 clause 7, indicating your analysis is self-refuting. That is, even the concept of absolute immunity isn't what you portray it as, since even if the president is exercising a core duty that is purely the sole province of the executive branch he can still face charges if it is determined bribery, treason or other high crimes and misdemeanors were committed. Congress can impeach the president and he can be prosecuted.
You have yet to show the reasoning for it that doesn't ignore the separation of powers granted by articles I and II for the respective branches of government. For instance, Congress cannot compel a Supreme Court Justice to appear before a committee to answer for why he or she made the opinions that they do. It is the same with the office of president. Unless otherwise provided for by either the Constitution or laws enacted by the legislative branch, how the president operates his branch of government is his purview and no one else's.
Yes, that's true, but doesn't mean something new was done here. If you read the opinion, they state that that the Court has always tried each constitutional question as narrowly as they can rather than on broad terms. They have done so in order to keep broader rulings from accidentally causing unintended consequences later on.
At the same time, they also recognize that this is the first time in our country's history that a president or former president has been charged with a crime (thanks to Ford). This is why the current Court made no new rulings here but, rather, simply recognized those that already existed by past decisions and remanded this case back to the lower courts for further action.
True, but you are simply claiming that they have done so. You don't even seem to recognize that the president isn't the only one with absolute immunity. Courts at any level enjoy absolute immunity. That is why one cannot sue a court or a judge, either criminally or civilly, for the rulings they make at trials. Only the court system itself can do such things. Separation of powers again.
Again, wrong. Had they done that, presidents could not be impeached. They can be and, depending on the reason for an impeachment, can be criminally prosecuted. You ignore the reason that prior courts recognized the areas where presidents enjoy absolute immunity. Basically, to keep the president getting sued for every action he takes by either the public or his political enemies, either while in office or after. If the president takes an action that is obviously egregiously wrong, well, that's what impeachment is for, so I don't understand why you are so grossly twisting all of this. It simply isn't true, like the following statement.
Um, no. Article 1 §3 clause 7.
Not one single line of your argument actually addressed whether or not they created anything new. All you did was express your opinion on whether or not absolute immunity violates your understanding of the Constitution.
I hope you take the time to read my response to him in 7.2.3 to understand why he doesn't even address the question in his response, let alone do a good job of it.
I have repeatedly stated their new decisions regarding immunity and inadmissibility.
There is nothing in the CotUS that even mentions absolute or presumptive immunity (by any name). There is also nothing in the CotUS that even hints that evidence related to an official act of office is inadmissible in a court of law.
You do not understand the distinction between impeachment & conviction versus a legal adjudication of a crime??
How I describe absolute immunity is taken directly from the opinion. If a PotUS exercising a core constitutional duty that is 'determined' (since no trial will take place) to be bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors then the only recourse is impeachment & conviction. If said PotUS is impeached, convicted and thus removed from office, the new SCotUS ruling states that this PotUS has ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY from legal prosecution.
In direct contradiction to:
Impeachment, Drakk, is a non-legal constitutional mechanism for removing an official from office. It is not a criminal proceeding. The two are distinct.
Just tossing out nonsense to see if it sticks? I do not need to defend Article 1 §3 clause 7 as constitutional since it is right there in the Constitution.
The end result, however are new constructs that are NOT in the CotUS. You can make all the excuses you want but you continue to fail showing how these new constructs a) do not extend the powers of the presidency and b) how the SCotUS is empowered to change the CotUS — especially to contradict it.
You keep skirting the challenge. I know why, but this is getting old.
Another deflection. Focus, Drakk. The challenge is to show how the absolute, presumptive, and inadmissibility protections for the PotUS are constitutional (i.e. in the CotUS).
Again you illustrate that you do not understand the difference between removal from office (impeachment & conviction) and a legal finding of guilt (with sentencing).
Well at least you are getting close to the problem now. So here is a scenario for you to address:
Okay. At this point I must assume you are being intentionally disingenuous. You have repeatedly stated why you believe their decision violates your understanding of the Constitution. You have not spent one single line of argument supporting your contention that this is a new ruling. That was my question to Tacos! Upon what basis does he claim this is a new, unprecedented decision? You are trying to make this out to be about the Constitutionality of the immunity issue. That, TiG, is a classic strawman.
Since you only continue to do so in this post, I'm not going to bother with this any further.
Theatrics. Anyone can read my many posts which illustrate why this is a new ruling.
You, in contrast, fail to show where absolute, presumptive, and inadmissibility protections exist in the CotUS.
And of course you cannot show it because they do not exist as stated by the opinion of the SCotUS.
Theatrics is not an argument.
Yeah Drakk I give you a very clear scenario and now you cannot be bothered:
Then I invite anyone, including you, to point out where you have done so.
Absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility are NOT in the CotUS. These are extra-constitutional inventions of the SCotUS.
If you disagree then you need to show the constitutional text that provides these protections.
You keep ignoring this scenario which illustrates a key contradiction of the SCotUS ruling with the CotUS:
( By the way, this scenario was my most recent illustration of why this ruling creates new privileges which contradict the CotUS. )
Because it has absolutely nothing to do with when your alleged contradiction occurred. You are claiming that this is a new interpretation that SCOTUS came up with now, which ignores the precedent cited in their ruling that shows this interpretation already existed. In order for you claim that this is a new ruling to have any merit you need to pick apart the argument in their recent decision saying so in order to show that they have interpreted precedent incorrectly and that it is, in fact, a new ruling.
Rather than doing that, you keep trying to make this about whether or not such a ruling, regardless of when it was made, is unjustifiable according to your interpretations. I don't believe for a second you don't understand the distinction.
My claim is that SCOTUS has done nothing new. Rather, they have identified the playing field based on precedent and Constitutional law and then remanded the case back to the lower courts to adjudicate, along with pointing out the issues that must be addressed before bringing it to them. All relevant issues and questions must be thoroughly addressed by the lower courts before taking it to the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court does not perform criminal trials; rather, they oversee whether the lower courts properly did so in a manner that adheres to the purpose of the relevant laws.
It directly shows the contradiction.
No, I do not need to do that. It is up to you to show where in the CotUS we have absolute, presumptive, and inadmissibility. You cannot do that since it does not exist in the CotUS so you resort to theatrics.
You cannot even show where case law grants a PotUS absolute immunity or categorical inadmissibility of evidence. Our legal system has always had the means to try a former PotUS. It was not prevented (absolute) or hobbled (presumptive + inadmissibility). It could deal with the specific circumstances and use legal precedent as guiderails.
This is how our system normally works.
Then deal with the scenario I posed:
Show how shutting out the entire legal process in this circumstance is consistent with the CotUS and even consistent with legal precedent. That means, deliver an actual argument that our system formally granted a PotUS ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for core constitutional acts.
Bottom line, CotUS holds that no man is above the law. Legal precedent offers some conditional immunity (situation dependent). The SCotUS went waaay beyond that.
If this doesn't convince you that this is not a new decision and that your interpretation of what the ruling has done has problems, nothing will.
Since the topic is whether SCOTUS created a new, unprecedented ruling, no, I don't need to do that.
I've already covered why you are wrong. Articles I and II of the Constitution provide for that, as interpreted by the SCOTUS since nearly the beginning. You just rely on the fact there aren't words that specifically state something about it in the articles, as if the Constitution was written with the intent to answer any possible question that might come up. I know you are aware that the framers knew constitutional questions would come up, since it would be impossible to anticipate every possibility that may arise. In short, you're just sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "The constitution doesn't say anything about it!!!" at the top of your lungs.
That is untrue. I'm just not addressing it because it has no relevance to the question I posed to Tacos! You're just continuing your strawman argument.
Drakk is attempting to argue that this is 'basic' constitutional understanding under the rubric of "Unitary Executive Theory" as built into the constitution, but not deployed (until now) in the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS even ruled that the president is a 'single' head of his branch of governance: The federal system and all under him/her answer to him/her and are subject to him/her whims (official duties wise). Thus, the president can say and do anything that is official in nature without anyone to contest with federally or he can remove the 'problem' people as they serve at his/her pleasure. It is a way to get around departments internal policies and controls.
He, Drakk is intentionally is not 'entertaining' all the rich tradition and history of American jurisprudence that have been safeguards to the nation from a presidential gone 'mad' or rogue—in either political party as a discussion point.
That is Drakk's argument (above) that he is standing pat on. (Once again, we can see the conspiratorial nature of this manifesting as the 'fragments' of thought congeal-even on our space: NT.)
One other point of consideration. It is interesting that a conservative SCOTUS, thought nothing of stripping privacy for women, which is implied for women in the constitution under due process consideration and "precedented" by a prior SCOTUS, but now want to read as implied a "unitary executive theory" in the same document.
I can only assume that you did not read anything past the word 'immunity'.
Well, I did. So here is the text of your link:
In this case [Mississippi v. Johnson, 71 U.S. 475 (1866)] the SCotUS found that the judiciary could not interfere with the executive branch's performance of its duties. This case deals with the separation of powers for a sitting PotUS . Specifically it held that the judiciary could not issue an injunction against the President; it could not stop him from performing official duties.
It does not deal with holding a former PotUS criminally accountable for acts while he was in office. Did you not notice this?
I encourage you to read on:
Now let's review. I highlighted in blue that parts that speak against immunity and highlighted in red the parts that speak for immunity. Immunity in this case is a generic term ... not being specific to absolute vs. presumptive.
First the red parts.
"...could still withhold information from disclosure based on executive privilege..."
This suggests that a PotUS can withhold information from disclosure based on executive privilege. This is not speaking about categorical inadmissibility but rather about a sitting PotUS who (per blue) might be subject to a criminal subpoena and have the ability to not disclose everything . This is similar to the declassification power of the presidency. The part in red is the closest this comes to speaking about evidence inadmisibility but it is dealing with a sitting PotUS, not a former PotUS and it is entirely based on the circumstances (i.e. not categorical). This is nowhere close to the current SCotUS' categorical notion that NO evidence related to a PotUS' official act is admissible in ANY court proceeding.
"... the President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the outer perimeter of his official duties"
The next red part states absolute immunity for CIVIL actions. Not CRIMINAL (we have been talking about criminal actions, if you have noticed). Basically the idea is that presidential decisions will at times cause collateral damage and that without immunity he could be subjected to continual civil suits. This was never challenged. Civil immunity is fundamentally different from criminal immunity.
"...the President is absolutely immune in actions for civil damages for all acts within the outer perimeter of his official duties ."
... merely private suit[s] for damages based on a President’s official acts do not serve this broad public interest"
The final two red parts affirm that a PotUS needs to have some immunity and this is still in the context of CIVIL immunity.
[ My editorial: Some level of criminal immunity is valid (necessary, really) and this notion was stated upfront in my argument. Of course the PotUS needs to have some level of criminal immunity and our history has shown many cases where this has been granted in the legal system. ]
None of the red parts make your case ... at all. So let's now look at the blue parts:
"... does not stand for the proposition that the President is immune from judicial process" ☞ the Johnson decision should not in any way be taken to mean that a PotUS is immune from the judicial process (i.e. he can indeed be indicted, etc.)
"Nixon was amenable to a subpoena to produce evidence for use in a federal criminal case ." ☞ Nixon could be issued a subpoena to produce evidence for criminal cases.
" Supreme Court unanimously disagreed" ☞ Nixon's claim of immunity was denied
"... absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances" ☞ This absolute, unqualified privilege was denied by the SCotUS
"... courts may require the President to testify or produce documents in criminal proceedings" ☞ (no need to summarize)
"... the President was not exempt from the general provisions of the constitution, like the Sixth Amendment, which provides the defense compulsory process ..." ☞ Another illustration dating back to the framers that categorical inadmissibility is an invented concept.
"... the President could be subject to a criminal subpoena" ☞ (same as above but now with inclusion of 'criminal')
" ... the President was subject to federal criminal process ... " ☞ In the framer's era again: no man is above the law
"... the President was not absolutely immune from state criminal subpoena s." ☞ (same notion about subpoenas)
So if this is what you think justifies absolute immunity for core constitutional duties, presumptive immunity for all official duties and inadmissibility of evidence for any official act then your case is founded on quicksand.
What do you mean by “a new decision?” The nature of the SCOTUS is that just about everything they do is a new decision. There’s rarely a reason for them to revisit something they already settled just to reaffirm it.
Yes. So logically, this should also apply to members of Congress and Supreme Court Justices. Absolute immunity for core constitutional actions, presumptive immunity for the perimeter of their duties, evidence is inadmissible, etc.
And even if they violate a generally applicable rule, that allegation can't be used to turn an official act into an unofficial act.
Anybody think that's a good idea? Or that it's supported by the Constitution? Cuz I don't.
Still sticking with the strawman, huh? I have not here argued any such thing. What I have argued is that the recent decision by the court is not new. They cite the examples within the link you posted in full along with others in their decision. You know, the issue you keep deflecting from? So, my reply is primarily to show that the Court ruled on past precedent and did not in fact create something new. Although it is a waste of time to do so, I'll ask you to focus on that rather than whether the ruling was correct. Neither of us are lawyers, let alone constitutional lawyers, so we would ultimately be simply debating our opinions.
Yes. That is obvious. So, the question must be asked, why is it included here? Answer, because it relates to the issue. It establishes that the Court recognizes the separation of powers between branches, which is fundamental to the issue and is recognized in the recent ruling by the Court. (hereafter referred to as the "Ruling".)
It should be noted that even when Marshall recognized a privilege to withhold certain official papers, even that was not absolute, as denoted by the word "certain" rather than "any" or "all". The just cited section of the Ruling continues with...
You make make pretty much the same point in your own post.
Which I largely agree with, except for the distinction between a sitting and former president, which I believe is non-existent in this case. In any case, the Ruling essentially agrees as well, as denoted in red.
There is other such language in the Ruling which would make this post too long but the point is that this issue is not simply about whether any man, including the president, is above the law but, concurrently, about protecting the proper and intended execution of the office of the president, regardless of who holds it. As shown by the red text, the Ruling recognizes that even immunity doesn't mean everything a president does is protected under absolute immunity.
That is what everyone is missing about this issue. They think this is about whether Trump, the man, can be criminally prosecuted because he was a former president. It is not. What the Court is doing is not deciding whether Trump can be tried but, how, Constitutionally, the office of president can be prosecuted under the law and the decision they make will be a landmark decision affecting presidents in the foreseeable future. They have to balance the rights, duties and privileges of the office (not the person) with holding the office accountable to the law.
In order to do this, they cite past precedence in order to make the Ruling they did. If we just abandon protecting the privileges of the office in order to secure the justice craved, then that goes away. Biden could be held criminally liable for exercising his core duty as commander-in-chief for aiding and abetting enemies of the United States when he left all those weapons, ammunition and equipment behind in Afghanistan, for instance. Some of that material undoubtedly is currently sitting in Chinese and Russian labs right now. But because he has absolute immunity in his core duties, the concern marked in green in the cited ruling above is concerned with protecting the office from being too afraid to make decisions to actually act due to threat of criminal prosecution. Obama, in my opinion, was possibly even more criminally liable for denying due process to the three people he killed with a drone strike. The outer perimeter of the president's duties has the same problem to be dealt with.
In the end, it's the same question we've had since the beginning. Defining just what the separation of powers mean, how far do they extend and what are their limits. Right now, it appears to me that many are willing to effectively neuter the office of president just to get Trump, the man. To avoid this, based on the citations and precedents of past Court decisions, I think the Court made the right ruling here. Further, we don't actually know how this ruling will play out. If this trial ever actually happens, we'll have to see what the Court actually does once the trial ends.
Yes, like Obama's extrajudicial killing of three American citizens with a drone strike far from any armed conflict zone, for instance.
Of course you engage in theatrics while misrepresenting my position. Just one big show, eh?
I earlier provided an analogy for the SCotUS. Regarding the CotUS, the SCotUS provides the function of connecting dots. Here the CotUS is a dotted picture. Some of the dots were well-connected by our framers, others have been connected over time as we have applied the CotUS to real situations and drew lines (sometimes curvy) to connect dots.
This is interpretation. We do not expand the picture or change it to some other picture (that requires an amendment), we simply fill in blanks that were not detailed by the framers in a manner consistent with how they would have operated.
The SCotUS is not empowered to create new dots outside of the picture. That is, they are not empowered to add new constitutional powers. (They are not empowered to amend.) If a PotUS does not have absolute immunity for criminal acts committed while engaging in core constitutional duties, it is not the purview of the SCotUS to create these powers. Especially if the CotUS itself explicitly contradicts the notion of absolute immunity for criminal acts.
Another way to look at this is numerically. If the CotUS establishes a rule and basically draws out a domain between 1.0 and 2.0, interpretation (over time) will refine this rule and maybe deem 1.4 to be the most likely intent. A future SCotUS might find it to be 1.42. Detailing within the framework in a manner consistent with the framework and the perceived intentions of the framers.
I am not, of course, arguing that the CotUS must spell out everything. That is a bullshit strawman from you. I am arguing that the boundaries, the framework, the principles of the CotUS can only be altered by a constitutional amendment.
The principles at play here is that 'no man is above the law' and 'the PotUS must have some level of immunity'. In this balance, the SCotUS just pushed heavy on immunity to the point of literally contradicting CotUS text that clearly expressed framer intent regarding 'no man is above the law'.
Giving the office of the presidency absolute immunity for any illegal act committed while performing a core constitutional duty (e.g. a pardon) is increasing the power of the presidency. The CotUS does not give the SCotUS the authority to do that.
Similar argument for presumptive immunity + inadmissibility.
So if it is not new, then you should be able to show where in the CotUS we have absolute immunity for core constitutional duties, presumptive immunity for all other official acts, and categorical inadmissibility of evidence for all official acts. If it is not new then by definition it exists. Right?
Thanks for noting that the SCotUS recognizes the separation of powers between the branches. All those people who were arguing that this was not so should now respond.
Which supports my argument.
The case in point dealt with a sitting PotUS. Context matters.
Again you support my argument.
It is clear that you are attempting to baffle with bullshit here. Your cited link supports my argument and diminishes yours. My guess still is that you did not actually read the content but saw 'Immunity' and leaped to it.
My argument, by the way, is that what the SCotUS did was not only new (it obviously was new and being new is not the problem ... in any way) but that it went beyond the purvue of the SCotUS into adding new powers to the presidency.
Adding new powers to the presidency requires a constitutional amendment. The SCotUS overstepped its bounds and contradicted the CotUS in the process.
Now with all the content of your link, and the full opinion of the SCotUS and the full text of the CotUS, bring all your analytical skills together and deal with the very obvious scenario I posed to you:
I think the constitution does not answer the question of 'presidential immunity" and thus, the high court has FINALLY been 'bargained' to do so this year - by a scoundrel. And I believe this very decision was 'stacked and stored' for such a time as this when the court so-called conservative 'shift' stealthily came into the picture.
Thus, I believe its an 'inside job' with conservative lawyers conspiring with conservative justices to determine (whispering) the outcome of the case before it was brought forward. . . as Speaker Johnson states. . . 'I have justices that are my friends.' Implying much more than he may have realized, when he insinuated himself into the Hush-money case.
It’s one of many examples in the War and Terror that have challenged the limits of the Constitution. However, the Obama administration at least made some effort to justify the drone strikes under the law. They were also sued over it, but the plaintiff’s case was dismissed.
We have a long-standing authorization of the use of force abroad against terrorist targets that dates to the Bush administration. Further, the administration was authorized by Congress to identify such targets and move against them. Republicans were almost unanimously supportive of this policy until Obama started using it.
Anyway, let’s assume the president enjoys merely the kind of Qualified Immunity that police enjoy instead of this absolute immunity just bestowed upon him. In that scenario, as long as the president reasonably understands and operates within existing law, he is immune - even if the law is later determined to be unconstitutional.
I don’t love Qualified Immunity, either - largely because that is invented, too. But that would be far better than what we have now.
The Constitution is silent on the specifics of immunity, but it clearly contemplates the possibility of criminal prosecution when the president leaves office.
So I think it’s fair to conclude that “absolute immunity” - even to the point of ignoring generally applicable laws - is not what they intended. They explicitly said otherwise.
I truly do not want to 'cloud' your discussion with other trains of thoughts. . .but, some things must be highlighted in the moment of opportunity to have the greatest impact.
But that statement (quoted above) points out something that has finally 'infected' the 'mind' of the High Court. As it is with conservatives' rage, if you watch what they do and say: SCOTUS conservative in the majority are retaliating against perceived liberal acts and actions while in a mixed 'majority' for so long.
For instance, if liberals riot at a federal building. . . conservative riot at the Capitol. If conservative felt their 'voices' (wrong as they could be) were not heard at SCOTUS before, they shut their 'ears' to liberals now that they are in the majority (planning to do so for say fifty years at least should be 'sufficient 'returns.')
Now it seems to me that Justice Thomas has been sitting there all this time 'stewing' along with the 'arriving' other conservative justices in the so-called conservative minority. . . plotting a power shift. . .and so now they are retaliating against the liberal justices by wiping out their so-called 'Wins' and setting conservative 'Wins' right on top of the liberals opinions as a 'in your face' style of return.
In other words, inverse judicial activism conservative-styled! Meant to 'hurt' and 'injury' - as they felt was done to them. Of course, conservatives could not be actually hurt by others getting free of suppressions and repressions.
The problem I see here is that this SCOTUS majority is using the expression, "separation of powers" in a manner that we have seen them operate since gaining the majority. They 'govern' themselves as the final (majority) AUTHORITY on matters of law. They are defining the law as the conservative MAJORITY sees fit and expect all lower courts to respectfully oblige them so. . .as it did for those 'other' judge opinions they would label 'liberal' in character and purpose.
Thus, what we have is the high court majority reclassifying a legal understanding: congress you do your 'thing' without interference, president you do your 'thing' without interference, and SCOTUS (majority) will do its thing . . .none to be overly interested in what the other does in its field of control.
I could be wrong. . . what say you?
I'm sorry but I think you're missing the issue by being too specific. It isn't an example of the war on terror. It is an example of the impossibility of writing into the Constitution specific remedies for every possible contingency. Obama ordered a Constitutionally questionable action, but the Court's ruling here protects, correctly I believe, his actions necessary to carry out his duties as president. Although the president is sometimes required to consult with the legislative and judicial branches concerning intended actions, it would be impractical to require the president to do so concerning every decision he has to make, not to mention that it would essentially make the president a puppet of the other two branches of government.
The same applies to Biden and the way he withdrew from Afghanistan. My personal opinion is that his actions demonstrate that he could not be less qualified to act as commander-in-chief. I believe his actions were taken for no other reason to give himself and the Democratic party some sort of political advantage back home and no other. Be that as it may, acting as commander-in-chief is a core duty of the presidency and should have absolute immunity, regardless of how stupid his actions may have been. The only remedy provided for a demonstratably and consistently stupid commander-in-chief is for Congress to remove him as president.
Nor should a president have to worry about whether the decisions he makes will later result in charges of criminal acts. Right now, everyone is primarily concerned with Trump, the man, actions. Half the country hates him and would love nothing more than to see him behind bars. What they do not understand is that this case is much, much more than simply Trump. Instead, they don't care or don't realize that this case is also about protecting the office, not it's occupant. And, even if you explain it, most of them do not care. All they care is that Trump goes to prison no matter what it takes or what the results to the office are.
Right now, half the country is calling the Court an activist court simply based on the idea that they are protecting Trump when, really, they are trying to protect the office while still trying to protect justice. Not throwing out the baby with the bath water, so to speak. Remember, this is precedent setting. If they abandon protecting the office in order to please the public, and only half of it at that, then later presidents will suffer the consequences because of it. The Court doesn't want to set a precedent where both sides of the isle use it as a political weapon against each other. They don't want to set a precedent that "chills", as they put it, the ability of a future presidents to make bold and vigorous decisions out of fear of legal retaliations.
And if you take the time to read the ruling they made, you will see that this figures prominently in the Court's rulings throughout the years. You will see that past precedents, writings of the founders and other references informed their ruling.
That's a curious position to take. Concerning law, what isn't invented? Aside from that, what police officer is going to take action when, without qualified immunity, the officer's primary concern will be, must be, "how can I get sued or charged with a crime by taking action?" You will have a police force that will spend most of their time in the doughnut shop. I know I would.
That said, I've watched hundreds, perhaps thousands of vids of police acting badly. Amazingly badly, sometimes. In fact, police are either so badly trained concerning the law and the rights of citizens it is hard to believe. That or they know it but are trained to ignore rights and methods to do so. Their biggest problem is that, often, they do have the time to consider the question "how can I get sued or charged over this" but seem not to. Take 1st Amendment auditors, for example. They often stand on public property and record vids. Police must know by now that this is a Constituionally protected action, yet they still escalate the situation into an indefensible situation for themselves. Out of ego, it often seems.
In any case, I don't agree something like qualified immunity is a solution concerning the office of the president as it doesn't eliminate the concerns the Court has always had about undue influence necessary to do the job of president the founders envisioned. That is, qualified immunity would have the president second guessing or hesitating in the decisions he makes, forcing his personal welfare over what he believes is necessary for the good of the nation. A sword of Damocles hanging over his head.
That would be because they are. What do you believe they are? An advisory panel?
That comment is pathetic. A louse for president, be s/he a democrat, republican, trumpist, or independent will demonstrate openly for all to see the misery that can result from a rogue having official powers to abuse the office (to use an outside source: Putin-styled.) That is the type of problem 'area' your collective thought refuses to have for OBVIOUS reasons.
We are not distracted by 'scented words' down-playing a corrupting decision. . . particularly one that comes out of a conservative court with its 'AMBITIONS' and "REGRETS" that it seeking to now correct in various swoops, and highly probably planned acts against what it perceives as those (liberals and conservative justices) that got court opinions wrong.
That comment is Pathetic.
I think that a supreme court that is patterned after the world over should hold itself accountable to the people. Besides that the supreme court has been respected by the public because its decisions, even the controversial ones, had some measurable thread of reasonability that could be acceptable—not that it would unleash any 'rogue' character or grouping of such persons to satiate themselves on select groups of the citizenry. (By the way, you would CERTAINLY feel the same if a democratic president was shooting off his mouth and taking 'free-wheeling' acts against conservatives - just look at what you have intimated against democrats throughout this discussion.)
So now we see the 'blooming' of an idea that the supreme court is a check and balance on the constitutionality of this country's laws, but has no 'guiding principles' but its own "majority" over it.
Oh the irony of JUSTICES deluding themselves to believe that they can arbitrarily decide/opine on rightness and fairness for the people they serve, while granting themselves "immunity" from the same or similar rightness and fairness as expected by the peopl e.
So where in the constitution does it say congress has the power to impose an ethics code on the supreme court and what would it look like?
You are laser-focused on one edge of a two-edged sword.
Protection granted for a responsible PotUS (or anyone) on an otherwise criminal act which is done for the good of the nation ipso facto grants protection to a rogue PotUS engaging in a criminal act for his own purposes.
That is why the circumstances matter.
While I agree (a position I have held from inception) that a PotUS is a unique office with a need for certain protection, the recent categorical granting of immunity by the SCotUS (extraconstitutional) is dangerous because it prevents (absolute) and hobbles (presumptive+inadmissibility) our system of justice from dealing with the specific circumstances.
Thus we have scenarios like the one you absolutely refuse to acknowledge:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
The Necessary and Proper Clause1 concludes Article I’s list of Congress’s enumerated powers with a general statement that Congress’s powers include not only those expressly listed, but also the authority to use all means necessary and proper for executing those express powers. Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, congressional power encompasses all implied and incidental powers that are conducive to the beneficial exercise of an enumerated power.2 The Clause does not require that legislation be absolutely necessary to the exercise of federal power.3 Rather, so long as Congress’s end is within the scope of federal power under the Constitution, the Necessary and Proper Clause authorizes Congress to employ any means that are appropriate and plainly adapted to the permitted end.
The fact is a certain 'party' has been behaving with contempt towards its own opposite members in Congress, rendering many congresses 'neutered' in acting to correct certain features in the law. That should change, when only time will tell. The issue being as long as congress does not properly use its available powers in service of 'ALL' the people of this country; the people will languish and other branches are free to abuse their powers or develop wrong notions of what they can do and what can not be done to them.
In any case, up there is your answer. This time I replied to a question, but my position still stands. I will not be a willing participant in excessive questions from those I view as Trumpists (playing 'multiple' questions games).
You’re arguing there should be some level of immunity for the president. We agree on that.
What we don’t have is a law defining immunity, and that is a thing that should be carefully defined. So, the Court took it upon itself to do that legislative job, and then made the standard so extreme that it may be - for all practical purposes - impossible to hold a former president accountable for genuinely criminal behavior.
So, police immunity is a good example of the problem. The Court invented this standard and then proceeded to interpret it how they liked. In brief, cops are immune from civil or criminal liability unless they violate “clearly established law.” WTF does that mean? You might ask. Well, in practice it has meant the most hair-splitting differences between the precedent case and the present case will let cops off the hook.
Make believe example: A previous case held that beating the shit out of a suspect in his home violated his rights. In a later case - otherwise identical in every way - cops beat the shit out of a guy on his porch and the court finds this to be sufficiently distinguishable such that no “clearly established law” was violated. It works a lot like that.
The standard was made up out of whole cloth, and defined continuously by the courts. They created the concept and defined the parameters - just like in the Trump case. Qualified Immunity didn’t start out to be as sweeping as it now is, but because the Court invented and expanded it, at this point, you’d need some kind of Constitutional amendment to even legislate the issue.
This kind of thing needs to be handled in legislatures, not the Supreme Court.
Yes, I am. That would be because everyone in here thinks this is primarily about Trump, the man or, at the least, how this affects being able to "get" trump as their only concern. I don't think the SCOTUS is even concerned with Trump. I think their only concern is that, in all the political battles waged over this, the office of president is neither altered or damaged in the pursuit of justice. The democrats would do whatever it took, regardless of constitutional law and precedence concerning same if it took down Trump. The Republicans would probably, but not certainly, do the same if the situation was reversed. I am trying to address this issue without passion, emotion or regard for Trump by talking about what this Ruling is really about.
That would be because my reply to Tacos! set the subject you responded to. You are trying to change the subject. It's that simple. Why would I reward you for that by allowing you to divert the subject?
I don't think this isn't correct. In actuality, it has existed as long as man has existed in a civilization. They may not have formalized the concept with a name such as qualified immunity but servants of the existing power structure have always had some form of immunity.
With qualified immunity, what's actually occurred is that what's always been a part of being a servant of the relevant power has been recognized, along with rights of the citizens within that society in an attempt to balance the duties of the one against the rights of the other.
For instance, instead of soldiers of the local feudal lord having pretty much free reign to enforce their lords will any way they chose, because the citizens didn't really have much in the way of recognized rights, we now have a civilization that recognizes those rights and attempts to restrain its servants in how they go about exercising their duties. I suppose one could say it went from nearly absolute immunity for the servants of a power to qualified immunity in recognition of citizens rights, but it wasn't invented, just put in check, or is attempting to.
In my view, qualified immunity is necessary but will never be perfectly executed because people are people. We can only try to make the best of it we can.
Yet another bullshit claim.
My argument has been about judicial activism. You could not see that??
You do not see how the Trump case is dealt with throughout the opinion?? Or do you mean that the SCotUS majority is not concerned that Trump might be elected? If so, I certainly agree.
The CotUS provides the framework for each branch holding the other accountable. In the case of Congress and the SCotUS, a key place to look is Article II, Section 4:
The CotUS does not enumerate the many, varied ways an individual may engage in treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. But Congress has the power to impeach (the House) a justice and convict same (the Senate).
So, in the case of ethics, a particular Congress can indeed impose its current (the collective results of that congressional session) ethics code on a justice if they can muster sufficient votes.
Specific to Alito's remarks, Congress is certainly capable of articulating an ethics code intended for the SCotUS. That ethics code has no teeth other than if it is grossly violated in a way that can be considered a high Crime and Misdemeanor.
In the distant past Congress attempted to but failed to impeach Samuel Chase:
Historically this means such an act is extremely rare but it seems contemporary politics is breaking all sorts of new ground.
Really? Let's see. In 7.2 I asked Tacos! what made him think this was a new, not previously applied interpretation of Article II powers.
Your response was to ignore nearly 200 years of the Court's deliberations concerning that issue and say "Where does the Constitution say the president has absolute immunity? Which is about the most infantile argument that one could probably make. The Constitution is hardly a comprehensive document covering every contingency and anticipating every question. The courts have, since the beginning, interpreted intent and meaning for issues in every part of the Constitution. Asking "where does it say" is what a child would do. And it doesn't address the question I asked Tacos! There's no argument that the immunity wasn't already there, like the Court pointed out in the Ruling.
But then, right after you say "another bullshit claim" you prove that it wasn't. I mean, literally the next thing you say!
Yes, I can. I can also see that it has nothing to do with answering the question I asked Tacos! There has been no argument from you that addresses the Court's Ruling that shows that the office of president didn't already have that immunity. Instead, your efforts have been to change the subject I set to what you want to talk about; judicial activism.
In order to do that you present what you apparently think is an impossible question in light of what you think the Court has done.
I haven't answered this because it doesn't have anything to do whether past courts recognized the immunity everyone claims this Court just "granted" Trump. But I also haven't answered it because I hoped you'd see just how ridiculously easy this is to answer.
Since you won't leave it alone, here's your answer. The president cannot be criminally charged for the pardon because a pardon is a core duty. A bribe, however, is not a core duty or official act. It is not in the outer perimeter of his duties, either. A bribe is a criminal act and, therefore, an unofficial act and prosecutable. No contradiction of Article 1 §3 clause 7.
That is what the Ruling was about, TiG. Nothing was granted. The Court identified the playground and the problem, which was that none of the lower courts had identified which acts were official and which weren't and so, remanded the case back to the lower courts to make those arguments.
That is because, Drakk, the SCotUS did not simply rule on the Trump case based on precedent. They went futher and gave all PotUS' powers beyond those granted by the CotUS. They made categorical rules that in some cases shut out our legal system (absolute) and hobbled it (presumptive+inadmissibility).
Further, the 200 years of precedent rulings DO NOT grant a PotUS absolute immunity for any core constitutional duty (as you claim). The precedent recognized situations where the PotUS should be given deference but this is qualified immunity that depends upon the circumstances. Absolute immunity not only goes well beyond that precedent but codifies absolute immunity for core constitutional duties for ALL PotUS'. That requires a constitutional amendment, not a SCotUS opinion.
You demand I prove a negative? No, Drakk, it is up to you to prove your claim that the office of the presidency already has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers. You cannot do so because no such immunity existed prior to this ruling. You can show presumptive immunity for some official acts (qualified immunity) and on that I have never suggested otherwise. What I have stated is that presumptive immunity coupled with inadmissibility of evidence for official acts is a new protection that has never existed.
The SCotUS does not have the authority to grant power to the Executive branch. That requires a Constitutional amendment or an act of Congress.
A feeble excuse.
Correct! So if the PotUS committed a crime using a core constitutional duty, he cannot be tried.
And you now immediately try to change my scenario. A PotUS making a bribe† is not a core constitutional duty, but I wrote of accepting a bribe in quid pro quo for performing a core constitutional act of pardoning a criminal. The PotUS can accept a bribe to pardon and cannot be tried for the crime. He can be impeached, convicted, and thrown out of office, but he has absolute legal immunity for the illegally driven pardon because his act (the pardon) is a core constitutional duty. And if this were not a core constitutional duty, the court would have to prove he does not have presumptive immunity. And then if that was done, the court would have to try the case but all evidence surrounding the pardon is categorically inadmissible.
Yeah, that does not contradict the CotUS:
† A bribe is not a core constitutional duty but we cannot exclude making a bribe as part of a core constitutional duty — especially foreign relations. It seems likely that a PotUS could produce the effect of a bribe while conducting normal business. The bribe would be something that worked its way to one or more individuals and, if exposed, could very well be criminal. But if part of a greater core constitutional duty the PotUS would have absolute immunity. And would at the very least have presumptive immunity and inadmissibility of evidence.
The key problem with the SCotUS ruling is that while it provides much stronger protections for a responsible PotUS (a good thing) it equally provides strong protections for an irresponsible / rogue PotUS.
And this is on the cusp of arguably the most likely rogue PotUS in our history (Trump) possibly being elected.
I really don't think the former president scum is going to be elected again.
Right now, in terms of the election, everything seems to be working in Trump's favor.
He is an incredibly lucky candidate. If Trump hadn’t had his head turned completely to the right, that shot would have hit his forehead.
It is what it is. The Biden staff will have to reset and come back out fresh and invigorated. This young republican, I suppose he was, may have left some note(s) as to his reasoning to give up his life on a 'fool's errand to kill. . . we will have to wait for it (if it exist in the hands of investigators).
Biden is an 'old soul' politician who has weathered many deaths in his life and even experienced the Reagan shooting and its political results in polling.
All is not lost. . . it can't be: Nothing has changed. The candidates are the same. The personalities are the same.
Onward, Mr. Biden, campaign smarter and harder!
That can sometimes happen when the opponent is Biden.
What, in the Ruling, supports this? I don't want your own words. I want you to post the section that says the office of president can commit crimes as long as it's attached to a core or outer boundaries of his duties. Because what you are saying is just plain silly. There is no way that the Court would not see such as an obvious and immediate conflict of Article 1 §3 clause 7 and, therefor, indefensible.
And now I just have to say, what??? Aside from the fact that I didn't change anything, what you're saying here doesn't even make sense. You have me saying what? That the president in your example bribed the person he pardoned to let him pardon him? How on earth did you turn what I said, which was simply pointing out that bribery is not a core duty into the president being the one making the bribe?
The rest of your analysis is just silly. You're just claiming that because the crime was attached to a pardon that it makes the president immune from prosecution. Please provide an actual example of this. Otherwise, I'll just have to consider your analysis as something you simply manufactured in order to make your scenario work.
Nonsense again. You're saying that the Court intends that, even though there's enough evidence to get 2/3rds of the Senate to impeach the President, that you believe the Ruling states that because the crime was committed in the exercise of a core duty it somehow protects him from prosecution of said crime, even though it doesn't for impeachment? Even though the Constitution expressly states that it doesn't? You think the Court doesn't see that or is ignoring it? On what basis? Certainly not precent!
So, what we really have here is you simply insisting on your view and nothing else. Bribery is not a core duty. There's nothing in the Ruling that states that crimes attached to the exercise of a core or even an outer boundary of a president's protected actions are not prosecutable. Why do you think Ford pardoned Nixon? It's rather obvious why he did so.
Lastly, if the Court did what you say they did, why wouldn't it have simply dismiss the case with prejudice rather than remand it back to the lower courts in order to determine what were official acts and what weren't? There'd be no point in doing so.
Right in front of your nose (just listing the absolute immunity language, skipping presumptive and inadmissibility for brevity):
No! I described a scenario in which the PotUS accepted a bribe in return for a pardon. Quid pro quo.
This illustrates as clear as a bell that you are playing games. No way on this planet do you honestly misunderstand my scenario this badly. You have now resorted to a truly absurd level of faux obtuseness rather than honestly deal with my scenario.
If you ever choose to honestly address my scenario I will respond. At this point, I cannot take what you wrote seriously.
Correct!!! That is exactly the case, Drakk!
Impeachment is a political process designed to remove a rogue official from office. It is not a criminal proceeding. The extent of the 'punishment' upon conviction is removal from office (and inability to hold office in the future).
This is wholly different from a criminal trial. And the CotUS states in crystal clear language that an impeached and convicted PotUS is still liable for criminal prosecution. I have repeated that text well over a dozen times now.
Read the opinion (including the dissent). Engage other sources that provide analysis of this ruling. Open up your mind to the possibility that reality is different than what you would normally expect and consider, objectively, what just took place in the SCotUS.
Really? Let's look at that, shall we?
And properly so but, according to your interpretation, bribery, whether offered or accepted, is now a protected core duty of the president??? Are you serious? Or, because offering a pardon is protected that the Court is saying that it becomes such? Are you kidding me??? Why would the Court remand the case back to the lower courts to determine what constituted official vs unofficial acts, then? What would be the point???
Correct. It would make no sense to grant the power of pardon to the president and then claim he's guilty of a crime if he exercises it.
Same as previous point.
Yes. The alternative is either a president that can't say what's on his mind out of fear of how it may be perceived by his enemies and, also, to prevent floods of subpoenas over every conversation he has in the course of his duties within his own branch.
This appears to be the same as the first point.
And this just takes us back to giving a president a power and then criminalizing him when he uses it. Your argument makes no sense unless you claim that because an actual crime was committed while exercising a legitimate core duty such as a pardon it becomes protected. The problem with that view is there is nothing in the ruling that supports your view. It is you yourself that insists on that interpretation, not the Ruling.
Well, you're right about one thing. I have not misinterpreted your scenario and that isn't what's going on here. Somehow you took the following...
... and somehow turned that into me changing the scenario you gave to one where it was the president offering the bribe. In response to your charge of me changing the scenario from accepting the bribe to offering the bribe. That would make no sense whatsoever, which I tried to point out with...
The point, TiG, is that bribery is a crime, (regardless of who's doing the offering or accepting) and is therefore not a core duty of any president. I'm not the one playing games here.
If that is the case, why did the court remand the case back to the lower courts for the purpose of separating official acts from unofficial acts? What would be the point? Answer. None.
In the end, you're just insisting that the Court gave presidents the power to commit an egregious crime and, therefore unofficial act such as bribery, under the cover of their actual official acts, even though the Constitution spells out and even names bribery as an example of what a president can be criminally charged with. Yet you insist that this little fact has somehow escaped the notice of the Court.
Here's what I think is a fact. This argument between us will not be settled until this case tried, if it ever is. However, seems to me your interpretation seems to eliminate the idea of official acts vs unofficial acts. That is, everything becomes an official act. To suggest that this is what the Court has Ruled is ridiculous.
Good advice. I hope you listen to it.
I do not know what to make of this from you. To take what I wrote and absurdly interpret it as 'bribery is a protected core duty of the president' is bad enough. But even after I have illustrated your (inexplicable) mistake, you come right back with the same crap.
You are not even attempting to be serious, or honest.
It is a fact, Drakk, that the SCotUS has put forth a ruling that any act of the PotUS that is a core constitutional duty such as giving a pardon is immune from criminal prosecution. So any crime committed in the execution of this core constitutional duty is untouchable by our system of justice. I have delivered the text and provided the explanation.
A PotUS can commit an egregious crime, but if this is done as part of a core constitutional duty (such as pardoning), he may be impeached and convicted but cannot be held criminally liable. He has absolute immunity. And if the PotUS commits a crime as part of an official act he has presumptive immunity coupled with inadmissibility of evidence related to the official act. So even if the court can determine that presumptive immunity does not apply, the evidence still is inadmissible.
This is why I think your wrong. A crime, especially one as egregious as your example, cannot be done "as part of" a core constitutional duty because a crime cannot be such. A crime can be committed concurrently with a core duty but it cannot be considered a part of it. That is why it was remanded to the lower courts. To separate the official actions from the unofficial. Again, there is no point in the Court in doing so if the distinction makes no difference if your interpretation of the Ruling is correct.
It plainly states that an unofficial act is not covered under immunity (red highlight). In your example, there's no way to argue that accepting a bribe can in any way be a part of a core constitutional duty such as pardoning or that because such a crime occurred concurrently with an actual official act does not through some process of osmosis imbue the criminal act with officialness.
It goes on to state that the lower courts did not separate official acts from unofficial acts in their case (green highlight) and it is not the job of the Court to do it for them. The Court's role is to decide if the lower courts ruled correctly, not try the case itself.
And the blue portion, as I previously stated, is just what it says it is. That, combined with identifying the playing field, was what the Ruling was about, not creating something new or altering the constitution.
Depends on how the evidence was obtained, which was pointed out by the justices in their opinion.
Further...
At this time, the charges against Trump are alleged. The Court is exactly right, here. This is exactly what would happen and the reason why presidents don't spend most of their terms in court.
Now you may not be happy with this, and to be honest, my opinion is that Trump acted inappropriately to put it mildly, the problems outlined by the Court still remain. In order to maintain the separation of powers, the president must be able to act without worry that every decision or conversation he has within the duties granted by the constitution will result in allegations and subsequent examination of what are his exclusive constitutional authority. If the Court takes any other position, this sets the precedence that every president after that will be subject to the same intrusion and political machinations going forward. There will be no separation of powers, since anyone would be able to prevent the president from acting simply by making a legal allegation in court.
No absolute immunity here. Just guidance on what the lower court has to do.
I could keep going but...
Thing is, there's enough evidence already presented in this post that the Court isn't being activist. They are trying to satisfy both the necessity of the separation of powers and what needs to happen for this case to be tried. Trump does not have absolute immunity over anything or everything he does.
It is amazing. I gave you quotes from the opinion where the court declared absolute immunity. And now you are attempting to argue (with a theatrical display of voluminous quotes) that they really did not mean what they wrote??
Further, your quotes are all over the place and do not counter the absolute immunity for core constitutional duties specified in the quotes I delivered. Apparently you do not understand or do not care that civil immunity is fundamentally different from criminal immunity, that presumptive immunity is different from absolute immunity, and that an unofficial act is different from an official act (much less a core constitutional duty), etc.
You are not being serious nor honest.
What does it mean to have absolute criminal immunity?
Clearly it means that one is immune from prosecution for a crime they allegedly committed. Right?
If a PotUS is executing core constitutional duties and has not committed a crime, then immunity serves no purpose.
Immunity only serves a purpose to protect a PotUS from criminal indictment and prosecution for a crime. This is great for a PotUS who is responsibly carrying out his duties. But this protection also extends to PotUS' who are engaging in criminal activity. Absolute immunity protects a criminal PotUS from prosecution for committing a crime that is involved in executing a core constitutional duty such as a pardon.
Your exasperation that it is ridiculous for a SCotUS to allow a rogue PotUS to commit a crime as part of executing a core constitutional duty is correct in spirt. It is ridiculous. Moreso, it is irresponsible and dangerous. But what you refuse to acknowledge is that this is what the SCotUS actually created.
On this, you simply declare 'no way'. Yet if a PotUS issues a pardon and there is an allegation that the pardon was granted due to a bribe, that allegation will go nowhere due to absolute immunity.
And even if a trial was allowed (it is not, no indictment is possible), the evidence surrounding the pardon is inadmissible in court.
Your no way argument from incredulity has no merit.
The worst that can happen here is that the PotUS is indicted and convicted and thus removed from office.
To wit, for immunity to protect a responsible PotUS, it will also protect an irresponsible rogue PotUS. You seem to think that absolute immunity (the example we are working with) will protect PotUS' and allow them to do their jobs responsibly but when an irresponsible rogue PotUS engages in criminal activity that absolute immunity will (somehow) not apply.
It is a double-edged sword.
This is pointless. Speaking to you is pointless.
It is pointless to engage me with theatrics and dishonesty as I will not let you get away with it.
The SCotUS did in fact, clear as a bell, rule that a PotUS has absolute immunity for core constitutional duties. A crime committed while executing a core constitutional duty such as issuing a pardon is out of the reach of the judicial system. Full stop. No exceptions. Unqualified! The PotUS, when former, cannot be indicted and cannot be criminally (or civilly) tried. In addition, the evidence surrounding that (and all other official acts) is inadmissible in a court of law.
The only consequence now for a rogue PotUS committing a crime as part of a core constitutional duty is impeachment and conviction; in short, removal from office.
Absolute immunity from criminal trials means what the name implies — the immunity is absolute; the immunity is unqualified. This is well beyond historical precedent and in direct violation of the CotUS:
And this absolute immunity is declared multiple times in the ruling:
Absolute immunity = immunity that is " not qualified or diminished in any way "
(The Court noted that the constitutional duty of courts to do justice in criminal prosecutions was counterbalanced by the claim of presidential immunity. To accept the President’s argument, the Court further reasoned, would undermine the separation of powers that was at the core of a workable government as well as gravely impair the role of the courts under Art. III.
Sneaky note: We can now see something occurring in 'real-time.' It does appear that today's SCOTUS is operating purely as a separate (of) POWER unto itself to take down and put up opinions going forward based solely on its own majority's points of view. That is, it seems this Court is determined to negate what it sees negatable and affirm what seems RIGHT to its conservative majority. Over-ruling outside influences on its 'sphere' of legal domain. Taking little account of what the other branches understands to be settled (prior) law.)