╌>

Judicial Activism in 2024

  
By:  TᵢG  •  2 weeks ago  •  164 comments


Judicial Activism in 2024
The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.

Leave a comment to auto-join group Critical Thinkers

Critical Thinkers

There is a twisted irony in saying, as the majority does, that the person charged with “tak[ing] Care that the laws be faithfully executed” can break them with impunity.

The Ruling


This case originated from a request late in 2023 by Jack Smith for the SCotUS to preemptively rule on the then ridiculous claim that Trump had total immunity from future criminal prosecution in his role as PotUS.   After much delay and ruling by lower courts that no such immunity exists in the CotUS, the SCotUS finally took the case and now after several more months of delay has granted Trump the immunity to ensure he is not held accountable for his actions while PotUS.

Justice Sotomayor’s candid dissent encapsulates the Trump indictment considered by the SCotUS in its ruling:

The indictment paints a stark portrait of a President desperate to stay in power.  In the weeks leading up to January 6, 2021, then-President Trump allegedly “spread lies that there had been outcome-determinative fraud in the election and that he had actually won,” App. 181, Indictment ¶2, despite being “notified repeatedly” by his closest advisers “that his claims were untrue,” id ., at 188, ¶11.  When dozens of courts swiftly rejected these claims, Trump allegedly “pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote; disenfranchise millions of voters; dismiss legitimate electors; and ultimately, cause the ascertainment of and voting by illegitimate electors” in his favor. Id ., at 185–186, ¶10(a). It is alleged that he went so far as to threaten one state election official with criminal prosecution if the official did not “‘find’ 11,780 votes” Trump needed to change the election result in that state. Id ., at 202, ¶31(f ). When state officials repeatedly declined to act outside their legal authority and alter their state election processes, Trump and his co-conspirators purportedly developed a plan to disrupt and displace the legitimate election certification process by organizing fraudulent slates of electors . See id ., at 208–209, ¶¶53–54.

As the date of the certification proceeding neared, Trump allegedly also sought to “use the power and authority of the Justice Department” to bolster his knowingly false claims of election fraud by initiating “sham election crime investigations” and sending official letters “falsely claim[ing] that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome” while“falsely present[ing] the fraudulent electors as a valid alter­native to the legitimate electors.” Id ., at 186–187, ¶10(c).  When the Department refused to do as he asked, Trump turned to the Vice President. Initially, he sought to persuade the Vice President “to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” I d ., at 187, ¶10(d). When persuasion failed, he purportedly “attempted to use a crowd of supporters that he had gathered in Washington, D. C., to pressure the Vice President to fraudulently alter the election re­sults.” Id ., at 221, ¶86.

Speaking to that crowd on January 6, Trump “falsely claimed that, based on fraud, the Vice President could alter the outcome of the election results.” Id ., at 229, ¶104(a). When this crowd then “violently attacked the Capitol and halted the proceeding,” id ., at 188, ¶10(e), Trump allegedly delayed in taking any step to rein in the chaos he had unleashed. Instead, in a last desperate ploy to hold on to power, he allegedly “attempted to exploit the violence and chaos at the Capitol” by pressuring lawmakers to delay the certification of the election and ultimately declare him the winner. Id ., at 233, ¶119. That is the backdrop against which this case comes to the Court.

On this, the SCotuS was expected to deliver a ruling that would take one of three possible approaches:

  1. Rule that a PotUS does NOT, per the CotUS, have absolute immunity from criminal acts committed while PotUS.   Let the courts decide each case on its own merits.
  2. Carve out a constitutionally supported rule / test identifying when a PotUS is immune from criminal acts due to the necessity to act as PotUS.  
  3. Rule that a PotUS DOES have absolute immunity and is thus above the law.

Most people expected the SCotUS to exercise 2.    The SCotUS instead went fully to approach 3;  a ruling that most dismissed as unthinkable.   They created out of whole cloth a notion of presidential immunity that contradicts the fundamentals of our constitution ... the notion that no man is above the law.

Unqualified immunity allows immunity regardless of the specific circumstances.   But justices cannot foresee every situation where a PotUS acts and categorically deem them all immune from prosecution.  This is why we have trials.  Trials apply the specific circumstances of a case to extant laws and precedents.  

For a PotUS, the first course of action is impeachment.   This is the constitutional mechanism for stripping a rogue PotUS from power.   Beyond that, there is nothing in the CotUS that states that a PotUS is above the law.   Indeed the CotUS weighs in on legal consequences beyond impeachment:

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 .

The CotUS does not hold that the PotUS is above the law, it holds the opposite.   The SCotUS has ignored both text and principles of our Constitution to fundamentally change the limitations imposed on a PotUS:

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency . It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.   Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the Presi­dent, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Con­stitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts , I dissent.  —JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR

The SCotUS now states that a PotUS has absolute immunity for anything he or she does as part of their "core constitutional" duties.   This is a new term that apparently means any act that follows the undisputed constitutional powers enjoyed by a PotUS.   For example, authorizing the killing of Osama Bin Laden would be considered a "core constitutional" duty and the PotUS would be immune from prosecution for "murder".    But since "core constitutional" is undefined this also applies to misuse of power such as using an executive order to gun down illegal immigrants who illegally cross our border.    And, in Trump's case, this could excuse his subornation of his V.P. to table certified votes from states under the notion that the PotUS 'believes' they are the result of fraud.   

Beyond this broad, vague umbrella of immunity, the SCotUS also invented (again out of whole cloth) a notion of "presumptive immunity".   This states that a PotUS is presumed to be immune from prosecution for any official act.    So if a PotUS can argue that what they did was an official act (vs. a private/personal act) the PotUS is presumed to be immune from prosecution.   This would excuse Trump from sitting on his thumbs (failing to act) while his supporters violently entered the Capitol to disrupt a session of Congress that was certifying the election.   His official act (in this case inaction) was to allow this to play out without any intervention from the executive branch.

Going even further, the SCotUS ruled that any evidence of intent based on official acts by a PotUS cannot be used in a court of law.   

Justice Barrett (who agreed with the majority) offered her dissent on this point:

Consider a bribery prosecution—a charge not at issue here but one that provides a useful example. The federal bribery statute for­bids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 U. S. C. §201(c). The Con­stitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. See Art. II, §4 (listing “Bribery” as an impeach­able offense); see also Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the Presi­dent’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice Pres­ident Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitu­tion 5 (Aug. 28, 1974) (suggesting that the federal bribery statute applies to the President). Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleg­ing a quid pro quo , the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo , even if the quo , standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability. I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evi­dence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury. Ante , at 31. But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis. Most importantly, a trial court can exclude evidence of the President’s protected conduct “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice” or “confusing the issues.” Fed. Rule Evid. 403; see also Rule 105 (requiring the court to “restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury ac­cordingly”). The balance is more likely to favor admitting evidence of an official act in a bribery prosecution, for in­stance, than one in which the protected conduct has little connection to the charged offense. And if the evidence comes in, the trial court can instruct the jury to consider it only for lawful purposes. See Richardson v. Marsh , 481 U. S. 200, 206–207 (1987). I see no need to depart from that familiar and time-tested procedure here.

Justice Sotomayor offers this scenario:

Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legis­lation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (of­ficial act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the Presi­dent’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder .

The SCotUS acknowledges that a non-official act (e.g. raping someone while PotUS) does not have immunity.   So they left that at least.

Trump as PotUS would be dangerous under the constraints that were true for all prior presidents.   We now face the real possibility that a vindictive, loose-cannon narcissist will have the powers of the presidency along with broad immunity from criminal prosecution.    The SCotUS just handed a loaded gun to Trump and any other future PotUS who cannot be trusted.



 Applying the Ruling to Trump


Let us see how this ruling manifests in the Trump case.   From Chief Justice Roberts' delivery of the court opinion:

(i) The indictment alleges that as part of their conspiracy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to leverage the Justice De­partment’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors. According to the indictment, Trump met with the Acting Attorney General and other senior Justice Department and White House offi­cials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a letter from the Department to those States regarding such fraud . The indictment further alleges that after the Acting Attorney General re­sisted Trump’s requests, Trump repeatedly threatened to replace him . The Government does not dispute that the indictment’s allegations regarding the Justice Department involve Trump’s use of official power. The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The Executive Branch has “exclusive au­thority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Ex­ecutive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney Gen­eral—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial func­tions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the Presi­dent cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitu­tional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department of­ficials. Pp. 19–21.

Go ahead and corruptly abuse the DoJ.   As PotUS you can do as you please with the DoJ and rest assured that you cannot be held criminally liable for even gross abuse.

(ii) The indictment next alleges that Trump and his co-conspira­tors “attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the elec­tion results.” App. 187, Indictment ¶10(d). In particular, the indict­ment alleges several conversations in which Trump pressured the Vice President to reject States’ legitimate electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures for review. Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re­sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the Jan­uary 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the VicePresident. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification pro­ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump­tively immune from prosecution for such conduc t.

You can suborn Pence to engage in an unconstitutional act and/or an illegal scheme to steal an election through fraud.    And do not worry, none of this can even be offered as evidence in a trial.

The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of in­trusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Pp.21–24.

Good luck trying to pierce this barrier we have constructed.   You will have to prove that your prosecution would not have any ill effects on the Executive branch.   Yes, of course, when the Executive Branch engages in wrongdoing any exposure of same will pose a danger of intrusion but that is your problem.

(iii) The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s in­teractions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. In particular, the indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to convince cer­tain state officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their States, and thus electoral votes for Trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for Trump. After Trump failed to convince those officials to alter their state processes, he and his co-conspirators allegedly developed and effectuated a plan to submit fraudulent slates of Presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper admin­istration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the Pres­ident to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations.  The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial . Pp. 24–28.

You can now determine if Trump's fraudulent electors was conceived as an official or unofficial duty.   If you find that this is official, remember that this can be appealed and we will likely hear the appeal.

(iv) The indictment also contains various allegations regarding Trump’s conduct in connection with the events of January 6 itself. The alleged conduct largely consists of Trump’s communications in the form of Tweets and a public address. The President possesses “ex­traordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701. So most of a President’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perim­eter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily in­form the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453. Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily fact bound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first in­stance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. Pp. 28–30.

You can now determine if Trump's incitement speech was conceived as an official or unofficial duty.   Again, if you find that this is official, remember that this can be appealed and we will likely hear the appeal.

(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be im­mune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.

Reminder:  you will have a tough time finding evidence that we have not already categorically excluded from consideration.



Bottom line, SCotuS granted Trump (and all future PotUS') broad immunity for anything that can be argued to fall within the scope of ‘ official ’ duties.   And for all others, has precluded using evidence based on official duties in the trials.

SCotUS not only delayed the criminal trials of Trump almost ensuring they will not be tried before the election, but have essentially tied the hands of the prosecutors by inventing extra-constitutional rules and conditions from whole cloth.


Red Box Rules

This topic is strictly focused on the SCotUS ruling on Trump's immunity.

Trump's immunity is the topic.   Any other candidate and political party is off topic.

The intent is to discuss the degree to which the SCotUS has crossed the line into judicial activism and what it means for our nation to so empower a PotUS.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1  author  TᵢG    2 weeks ago
“Today’s Court, however, has replaced a pre­sumption of equality before the law with a presumption that the President is above the law for all of his official acts.” — Justice Sotomayor

I never thought I would see a day where the SCotUS —our last bastion of objectivity— would cross the line this far into activism.   This is well beyond my most cynical expectations.

Sady, I accept the fact that our SCotUS is activist.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

the imperial SCOTUS majority has just created an imperial presidency...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.1  CB  replied to  devangelical @1.1    one week ago

The Unitary President Theory has finally 'struck' our nation. Delivered by a conservative SCOTUS majority.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.2  devangelical  replied to  CB @1.1.1    one week ago

looks to me like the SCOTUS majority has already decided who the next president will be...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.1.2    one week ago

That part was obvious by simply observing all the unnecessary delays.   This is a time-critical case if the intent is to give the American people an understanding of the guilt or lack thereof of someone who might be PotUS.   The mere fact that the SCotUS dragged its feet is strong evidence of an intentional delay tactic.   Again, this is so atypical for the SCotUS ... just sickening to see the last branch be so infected with ideological bias.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.4  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    one week ago
none of the males on that bench deserve to be there.
SCOTUS now seems to be the best long term investment money can buy.
 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.1.5  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    6 days ago
just sickening to see the last branch be so infected with ideological bias

there's only 3 ways to correct a defective lifetime appointment...

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.2  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

For all I know, this ruling was based on the Constitution and the law. It is up to the Justices to interpret the law as intended by the Framers, and fairly apply the law. This decision would also apply to Biden and any future president, in case they were charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, or traitorous acts.

What leads you to believe this an activist court?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2    one week ago
What leads you to believe this an activist court?

I just wrote a lengthy article explaining this in detail.

For all I know, this ruling was based on the Constitution and the law.

Where in the CotUS does it say that a PotUS is immune from criminal prosecution for what he does in an official capacity?

The typical way to deal with a rogue PotUS is impeachment.   But on impeachment, the CotUS actually does weigh in.  I provided this excerpt in the article:

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 .

This is rather clear language that (to my surprise and dismay) was among the language flat out ignored by the majority.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
Professor Participates
1.2.2  Greg Jones  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.1    one week ago

The key word is convicted.

If convicted in the Senate, while in office, then punishment 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.

If convicted once out of office, then the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

At this point. neither is likely, and Trump will win come November. I don't think the Democrats will have people's support or the numbers to go through another failed impeachment.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Greg Jones @1.2.2    one week ago

The point, Greg, is that this shows that the framers did not consider a PotUS immune from criminal prosecution after leaving office.

Given the framers recognize that a PotUS could be liable for indictment, etc. then by definition the framers did not hold that a PotUS has absolute or presumptive immunity.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.4  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.3    one week ago

if biden loses in november, this SCOTUS ruling has the potential of being a game changer for 10 weeks.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.2.4    one week ago

Sure, but Biden, like every other PotUS except for Trump, would not attempt to steal the election.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.5    one week ago

Yeah, no matter what, most Democrats/Liberals/Progressives and any and all decent people just can't be hateful and evil like #34 and the cult of maga and can't/won't/wouldn't/couldn't do the things he and all those who aided in his traitorous acts have done and will/would do.  

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.7  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.5    one week ago

IMO it's best to play their games by beating them with their own rules.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.2.7    one week ago

I would never condone engaging in anything illegal or unconstitutional ... even if one can get away with it.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.9  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @1.2.8    one week ago

what's considered illegal by a president if he goes thru official channels now?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.2.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  devangelical @1.2.9    one week ago

Good question.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.2.11  Igknorantzruls  replied to  devangelical @1.2.9    one week ago
what's considered illegal by a president if he goes thru official channels now

According to the Supremes, basically nothing, and by the time it made it through the court system ole sleepy Joe would be sprawled out in the great hammock in thev sky, and yes, I Know how the Dems always attempt to take the high road, well that high road got US Trump and three far right conservative court appointease that have left this country a damn mess. And Garland is probably feeling like Judy on jury duty following munchkin minions with biased opinions attempting to write our rules, to protect arrogant racist fools, like themselves, so i've mentioned much in a pre-emptive strike to bowl over those who's' back alley deals in their spare time attempt to pin it all on the one Biden his lost time whilst they shield the one who will most likely benefit and yield the most from their egregious post verdict split of some truly perverted justice shit, and unless preempted, guarantee if Trump triumphs, our country as we know it, will cease and desist, to exist as we know it today, and hope i'm wrong and it all goes away, just don't see fruition in that happy mannerism, i see mass confusion with Trump delusion invoking and creating, a lot of shit show and most of all, a lot of hating, as the division will be profound, judgement not sound, off pitched from the mound to catch off guard those on,  and Constitution Crisis's will abound, all from that vote in 2016 against Hillary cause some Weiner with heavy, couldn't keep it in his pants, ,,,so we will see what we shall see, but the Dems better think this through, for we know the GOP does not care about playing fair, so may the fare be too much for they to bear, for , there was a time, when ALL OF AMERICA DID   

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.2.12  CB  replied to  devangelical @1.2.9    one week ago

A crime. All crimes are illegal . Albeit, the courts will not be able to use federal documentations and maybe even agencies to prosecute. (Those will be considered protected by immunity.) It makes it difficult to prosecute a president (going forward), but not completely impossible.

Incidentally, CJ Roberts talks about this in one instance plainly: 

B. 

But of course not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority.

As Justice Robert Jackson recognized in Youngstown, the President sometimes “acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” or in a “zone of twilight” where “he and Congress may have concurrent authority.” 343 U. S., at 635, 637 (concurring opinion).

T he reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive authority therefore do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress .

We recognize that only a limited number of our prior decisions guide determination of the President’s immunity in this context. That is because proceedings directly involving a President have been uncommon in our Nation, and “decisions of the Court in this area” have accordingly been “rare” and “episodic.” Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U. S. 654, 661 (1981). To resolve the matter, therefore, we look primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers, our precedent on Presidential immunity in the civil context, and our criminal cases where a President resisted prosecutorial demands for documents. 

  (Page 9 SCOTUS internal numbering)

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.3  CB  replied to  TᵢG @1    one week ago
Because the Presi­dent cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitu­tional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department of­ficials. Pp. 19–21.

Let me lead in to this discussion with a mention of something a well-known attorney stated on this Tuesday's, "Morning Joe":  'Donald Trump is a vile Administrator.' (Paraphrased.) I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment. That said and out of the way. . . .

I have begin the process of reading this protracted SCOTUS opinion. My takeaway on the quote from the article above.

The Chief Justice is saying, it is the opinion of the court that the President, any president, by virtue of Article 2 of the Constitution is the "Administrator" (without equal) in control of the administrative branch of governance during his/her time in office. Any other administrative "official" serves at the pleasure of the Administrator (without equal). Indeed, the entire sphere of the administrative "state" belongs (in four years cycles) to the "pleasure" and doing of the Administrator elected to run it. Thus, as it relates to the DOJ, it can not hold to its own 'select' and continuing policies which it uses to span from one administration to another administration.  The department is obligated to place itself under the complete and private direction of the active presidential officer holder and its communications between "head/body" is sacrosanctSuch communications can not be used against the president in a criminal proceeding.


Personal view: This speaks to going forward our nation's need to wholly vet, select a man or woman of integrity and strong relative moral character, while neglecting a 'vile' character to lead us. As this SCOTUS majority will not stand with the people against the Unitarian President in-charge of our federal system. (Exception: The Federal Reserve and Special Counsels.)

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  TᵢG @1    one week ago
"This case originated from a request late in 2023 by Jack Smith for the SCotUS to preemptively rule on the then ridiculous claim that Trump had total immunity from future criminal prosecution in his role as PotUS."

Maybe Jack should have kept his mouth shut.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.4.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.4    one week ago

It would have run the same course.   Just a slightly different path.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
1.4.2  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @1.4    one week ago

You know Trumps' lawyers would have appealed all the way up to the far less than 'Supreme' Court.

Thus why Jack attempted to leap frog the other court, and the Supreme scums threw it back at him, as if it was not of any urgency. Total bullshit, as knowing whether or not the GOP presidential candidate was a criminal, which most already knew, before the election, is crucial, as his base has no clue, as they aren't allowed to view news channels that don't carry Trumps lies as truth, their own version of a new James Wilks Booth, to shoot down attempts to prosecute the POS that appointed three of these bassturd traitorous Supreme SCUM. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.4.3  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @1.4.2    one week ago

Obviously Smith knew well enough where this bought and paid for 6 were headed and hoped to avoid them giving the Teflon Don a get out jail free card.  

Sounds like they're giving his maga mob a get out of jail free card also.

 
 
 
squiggy
Junior Silent
1.5  squiggy  replied to  TᵢG @1    one week ago
Sady, I accept the fact that our SCotUS is activist.

Sixty years ago, when the Supreme Court threw Jesus out the schoolhouse window the left was all about the rule of law. Today, when a novel idea presents, they're all dissenters of the activist opinion.[]

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.5.1  CB  replied to  squiggy @1.5    one week ago

By comparison, 60 years (or so) ago, many individuals writing today were youths!  Today, certainly not so!

Like regular water freezing at 32° - the degree to which a thing occurs affects how it is received! It's easily understood in practice. We deal with ebbs and flows in our lives all day/everyday.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.5.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  squiggy @1.5    one week ago
Today, when a novel idea presents, they're all dissenters of the activist opinion

A weak argument that sidesteps thoughtful discussion on this case.

You come into my article to merely lambast a political group while offering not a shred of constructive comment regarding this ruling.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2  George    one week ago

So what has changed other than the supreme court made it official, we had a President at the minimum guilty of conspiracy to commit murder before this ruling, and nothing was done. so we are now outraged it is official? amazing where partisanship will lead some people. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  George @2    one week ago

I just wrote an article dealing with the issues in detail and all you can do is refer vaguely to an example of what the SCotUS (and prior SCotUS') would clearly find to be solidly in the realm of core constitutional duties.   You have ignored the entire discussion, attempted to distill this down to a case that that has little debate, and then make a snarky quip.   

Do not engage in this crap on my articles.

Do you think it is constitutionally supported to grant a PotUS  absolute immunity for anything that falls under core constitutional duties and presumptive immunity for any official act?   Do you think it is constitutionally supported to stifle ALL evidence dealing with official presidential acts in any legal suit?

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.1  George  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    one week ago
solidly in the realm of core constitutional duties.

So executing Americans without due process is part of the core constitutional duties of a president, that comment is ignorant and ill informed. [deleted][]

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.2  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    one week ago
Do you think it is constitutionally supported to grant a PotUS  absolute immunity for anything that falls under core constitutional duties and presumptive immunity for any official act? 

Yes, otherwise every president will be sued as soon as he leaves office for "ANYTHING" that took place under his watch. Biden for instance would be held liable for the 13 deaths in Afghanistan,  every death caused by an illegal alien, every death from Covid, every death from Fentanyl just for starters.  Is that what you want? 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.3  devangelical  replied to  goose is back @2.1.2    one week ago

what a completely misinformed comment...

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.2    one week ago

You do not see how this is extreme?

It is one thing for the PotUS to be protected from lawsuits for normal, constitutional practices such as dealing with terrorists (e.g. killing Bin Laden).   That is something that PotUS' in our history have been able to do and there has been no problem.   So the SCotUS if fixing a problem that has never occurred.   But I am okay with fixing that.   

What they did though is go far beyond protecting a PotUS from critical decisions made during office and have granted the PotUS absolute immunity for core constitutional duties (undefined) and presumptive immunity for any official act (undefined).   

They cannot possibly foresee all that a PotUS could do but they went ahead and categorically granted immunity.   That goes against the point of having trials.   Laws exist as basic guidelines but trials exist to deal with the specifics of a situation.    The SCotUS just greatly expanded the power of a rogue PotUS.   Plus the imposed a restriction the prevents evidence that comes from official acts of a PotUS while in office.

Is that what you want? 

So in summary.   I would have no objection to the SCotUS carving out a clear boundary for immunity (if possible) that would grant immunity only for responsible acts by a PotUS.   What they did, however, is formalize legal protections that not only protect responsible PotUS' but also rogue PotUS'.

You should be concerned that a rogue PotUS is now so empowered.   Trump might win and we would then have a rogue PotUS.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.5  CB  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.4    one week ago
They cannot possibly foresee all that a PotUS could do but they went ahead and categorically granted immunity.   That goes against the point of having trials.   Laws exist as basic guidelines but trials exist to deal with the specifics of a situation.    The SCotUS just greatly expanded the power of a rogue PotUS.   Plus the imposed a restriction the prevents evidence that comes from official acts of a PotUS while in office.

During the last debate, Donald turned to Biden and 'jumped' on him for not firing 'everybody' who did not do their job to shut down the border. Donald stated they 'all' should have been fired!


Trump Knocks Biden for Not Firing People

By  Andrew Restuccia

Former President Donald Trump criticized President Biden for rarely firing senior members of his administration during moments of crisis. “He doesn’t fire people. I’ve never seen him fire people,” said Trump, who was known for pushing out members of his administration while he was in office, from cabinet officials to White House aides.

As The Wall Street Journal previously reported, in crisis after crisis since taking office, Biden has resisted pressure to fire members of his administration. He rejected calls for the ouster of national security advisers following the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. The president has declined to push out cabinet secretaries or senior aides in response to the rise in migrants illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border, or dramatically reshape his team of political advisers amid poor polling.


Now then, turn to Project 2025 written up by The Heritage Foundation and Former Trump OFFICIALS. It's a coalition report for 2025 governance:

Report: The Impending Danger to the Nation’s Civil Service

A far-right strategy to purge dedicated civil servants in favor of partisan and political loyalists threatens American democracy.

This report details the methodical and wide-ranging plans by far-right organizations and activists to dismantle the civil service under a future anti-democratic administration.

The  report  highlights how Project 2025, a coalition led by former Trump administration officials, the Heritage Foundation, and more than 80 other organizations is already reportedly vetting ideologically-aligned workers to replace career civil servants that would be purged by a future, anti-democratic administration, among other tactics.

Project 2025, as well as other aligned organizations, are lending their significant capacity to dismantling the federal civil service, posing a perilous threat to American democracy. 

In addition to identifying threats to the civil service, the report also features information about how the pro-democracy community has started to respond to efforts like Project 2025. In November, for example, 26 organizations joined with Democracy Forward to submit comments in support of Office of Personnel Management’s proposed Upholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles rule. The proposed rule is intended to counter a return of the so-called “Schedule F,” which was a proposal to reclassify large numbers of civil servants into positions from which they could be readily terminated at the end of the Trump administration.

Project 2025 specifically mentions plans to reissue Schedule F. 
Report: The Impending Danger to the Nation’s Civil Service - Democracy Forward

Civil service/senior experts will be gone for shallow 'one-timers' with CON-servative sets of agendas!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  goose is back @2.1.2    one week ago

(deleted)

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.6    one week ago

Well the former 'president' said he could shoot someone and it wouldn't cost him a vote.  It appears the Teflon Don is untouchable.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.6    one week ago

If the premeditated murder can be shown to be a result of core constitutional duties then yes, he would have absolute immunity.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.8    one week ago

I deleted my comment because I didn't read your article very well. You answered my question below. If he committed murder that was a non-official act, he can be prosecuted. Correct?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.9    one week ago

Yes, exactly.   The SCotUS generously 800 did not offer immunity for non-official acts.    The trick, as we shall see this year, is to prove something is strictly non-official.   Any hint of ' official ' will be exploited legally.  

Further, even when litigating non-official acts, any evidence from an official act that would support state of mind, etc. for the non-official act is categorically not admissible as evidence.

So if Trump (as PotUS) mentions his hatred for someone in a document to a government operative (official business) his stated hatred cannot be used as evidence in a trial alleging that Trump attacked this individual after leaving office.    Another gift by the SCotUS to Trump.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.10    one week ago
The trick, as we shall see this year, is to prove something is strictly non-official. 

hmm...

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.12  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.4    one week ago
What they did though is go far beyond protecting a PotUS from critical decisions made during office and have granted the PotUS absolute immunity for core constitutional duties 

The President already had immunity, unless you can provide a President that was held liable for an act he performed in office. The bigger question is what is an "Official Act".  Give me an instance that you feel would be criminal and an official act.     

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.13  goose is back  replied to  devangelical @2.1.3    one week ago
what a completely misinformed comment...

Oh really.....how so?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.14  author  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.12    one week ago

The fact that no former PotUS was held liable for official acts does not mean they were immune.   The CotUS provides no immunity and in fact indicates that a PotUS is indeed subject to the laws of the land after leaving office.

Nixon was pardoned to spare him from subsequent legal action.   

Until Trump we have not dealt with a rogue PotUS who tried to steal a presidential election with fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.   The SCotUS just codified categorical immunity that does NOT exist in our constitution.   They just gave Trump a major gift.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.15  CB  replied to  goose is back @2.1.12    one week ago

Goose is back, both sitting and former presidents who take say usual risks to execute 'questionable' acts while in office often are granted tremendous "courtesies" from a 'grateful' public by being asked to resign the office or if they are voted out. . .to go away 'peaceably and quietly.' (The DOJ would not file (expansive) charges and the matter would relegate itself to the historians, history books, and commercial book writers.

President Johnson's escalation of the Vietnam War (bloody conflict). President Nixon's Watergate (the cover-up was the crime and its occurring revealed Nixon had other abuses of power). President Bush's war in Iraq over WMD (none found).  Each of theses for instances could have been pursued expansively by the DOJ had those presidents: 1. Resign. (Nixon).  2. No running for a second term (Johnson).  3. Go 'peaceably and quietly.' (Bush). 

What each of these men did as president could be considered official duties or if you will "duti-ish' and yet each former president once out of office was allowed to 'retire.'  No hearings, no courts, no sentences.


Along comes President Donald Trump. . . rude, crude, 'nasty,' (and we all have read about the rest of the man's attempts to pushback against the DOJ. Claiming every 'contested' matter he executed, official and unofficial while a sitting president should not be subject to judicial proceedings AFTER he leaves office.

That brings us to where we are today; where the SCOTUS has taken up to clarify (once and for 'all') that official acts can be covered. And non-official acts while a sitting president can be subject to judicial proceedings. 

Trump has 'won' his question in part; but not in whole. 

Hope this helps clarify some of your concern.

Of course,TiG is welcome to give his 'takeaway' on this comment as well.  :)

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.16  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.14    one week ago
The SCotUS just codified categorical immunity that does NOT exist in our constitution.

Please, give a scenario where an illegal act takes place and the President would have immunity. 

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.17  goose is back  replied to  CB @2.1.15    one week ago
That brings us to where we are today; where the SCOTUS has taken up to clarify (once and for 'all') that official acts can be covered. And non-official acts while a sitting president can be subject to judicial proceedings. 

Did the SCOTUS provide Immunity to Trump? The answer is "NO", were his actions considered part of his duties, that remains to be seen.  Everyone having a heart attack about immunity is premature.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.18  author  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.16    one week ago
Please, give a scenario where an illegal act takes place and the President would have immunity. 

Read the article.   In particular read the SCotUS opinion and the dissents.

Once you have done that and understand, you will be able to use the examples provided or create your own.   Because, Goose, anything (and I mean anything) that falls under core constitutional duties and is illegal has absolute immunity; it cannot be subjected to any adjudication.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.17    one week ago
Did the SCOTUS provide Immunity to Trump?

Yes ... as you note any action that can be deemed core constitutional grants Trump absolute immunity.

Any action that can be deemed as official grants Trump presumptive immunity.

Anything that Trump did that can be considered official cannot be used as evidence against him in any trial for any reason.

Just look at what is taking place in response to this ruling if you think this is nothing.    Judge Merchan has deferred sentencing based on this.   Trump's attorneys are now going to argue that the trial included evidence based on official acts (e.g. tweeting) and this is no longer admissible.   Jack Smith has to remove various charges from his indictment.

This is not business as usual, this is an activist act that invents rules that are not in the CotUS.   This greatly benefits Trump.   Just ask Trump's attorneys who are giddy about this.

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.20  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.19    one week ago
any action that can be deemed core constitutional

Has it been deemed Constitutional?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.21  author  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.20    one week ago

What is the 'it' of which you vaguely speak?

The term 'core constitutional' is undefined but it intuitively means anything that is indisputably a power of the PotUS.

If you ask another question, give enough specifics so that it can be answered.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.22  CB  replied to  goose is back @2.1.16    one week ago
Give me an instance that you feel would be criminal and an official act. 

We can't easily attest to the criminality of Nixon (because the DOJ did not make a detailed case (their evidence/rationale for prosecution) for future indictment public. But, we know that he was 'threatened' with criminal prosecution, if he did not resign. Thus, he took the opening provided. Hope that addresses your concern/helps!

Admittedly, some of this is extrapolation based on circumstances and law around 'bygone' times. . . but, it's reasonable presumption.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
2.1.23  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.9    one week ago
I deleted my comment

nice and pre-emptive...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.24  CB  replied to  goose is back @2.1.17    one week ago

We are not having any unfounded so-called, 'heart attack" over Donald's past presidency. Do keep in mind that Donald is right now a mildly LEADING candidate for a repeat presidency and he has expressed no humility or remorse, or further positive growth and development about the office of the president! Emphasis on the word, positive. In fact, Donald has clearly expressed  plans to, if you can imagine a word 'cloud':  'dictate,' 'expel,' 'retribution,' 'punish,' and 'persecute,' so forth and so on his critics who he feels have turned on him.

Our 'fears' over Donald are future tense and not past tense. The past is in a word: Done.  In the sense they are relegated to experiences we know about Donald, the presently former president.

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
2.1.25  George  replied to  CB @2.1.24    one week ago
Donald is right now a mildly LEADING candidate for a repeat presidency Mr. Trump now leads Mr. Biden 49 percent to 43 percent among likely voters nationally, Trump Widens Lead After Biden’s Debate Debacle, Times/Siena Poll Finds - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.26  goose is back  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.21    one week ago
What is the 'it' of which you vaguely speak?

Have "any" of Trump's actions that he has been indicted for been deemed Constitutional ?

 
 
 
goose is back
Sophomore Guide
2.1.27  goose is back  replied to  CB @2.1.22    one week ago
but, it's reasonable presumption.

But you say he was facing "criminal prosecution" if he did not resign. You seem to indicate that had Nixon been operating under the current SCOTUS he would be immune, I totally disagree.  Trump would have never been prosecuted had he not elected to run again. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.28  author  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.26    one week ago

Yes, read the Chief Justice's majority opinion.

If you want a shortcut then read the portion of my article under the heading "Applying The Ruling To Trump".

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.29  author  TᵢG  replied to  goose is back @2.1.27    one week ago
You seem to indicate that had Nixon been operating under the current SCOTUS he would be immune, I totally disagree. 

Based, precisely, on what?   What is the logical basis for your belief?

Nixon should NOT have had immunity, but as long as his actions could be seen as official then he would have had presumptive immunity by this ruling.   Any actions that were considered core constitutional would have had absolute immunity.

And, pay close attention, anything he did in an official capacity could NOT be used as evidence in a subsequent trial.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.30  CB  replied to  goose is back @2.1.27    one week ago

But, Nixon was not operating under 2024 guidelines. . . . So, as SCOTUS likes to put it: Originalism can not be 'adopted' to look backwards at decisions affecting the 60's.

As for Donald, he was already indicted or whatever. But look, now you are delving into personal and professional motives of DAs and AGs - I can't aid or speak to that. It simply is beyond my ability to know/discuss.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
3  Gsquared    one week ago

We are no longer living under the Constitition as envisioned and created by the Founders, but instead, we are now governed by what shall henceforth be known as The Roberts Perversion.  

American parents traditionally taught their children that no one, not even the President of the United States, is above the law.  In the new era of The Roberts Perversion that aphorism is lost as a childhood lesson.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
3.1  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @3    one week ago

my memory must be going. didn't we fight a war of independence against a nation with an army that wore red coats and were trying to force us to remain under imperial rule and accept a national religion?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Senior Expert
3.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Gsquared @3    one week ago

[deleted][]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
3.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2    one week ago

One need not be a strict constructionist to recognize that our framers established a system that intentionally distributed powers and imposed checks & balances to ensure that no branch grows too powerful.   They especially were concerned with limiting the powers of the PotUS to ensure we do not migrate towards a monarchy (or worse).

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4  Nerm_L    one week ago

How has the SCOTUS ruling expanded authority and protections for the President?  Before this ruling Presidents have claimed broad immunity for everything they've done while in office.  You know, Barack Obama really did politicize the IRS and really did use the military to assassinate a US citizen.  And Obama claimed immunity from prosecution.

What happens to Sotomayer’s dissent if the President does not have Constitutional authority to oversee elections?  We're all very familiar with case-by-case litigation of Presidential authority before SCOTUS.  Does Biden have the authority to forgive student loans?  If Biden doesn't have that authority then student loan forgiveness is an unofficial use of Presidential power.  Doesn't the SCOTUS ruling mean Biden could now be prosecuted for exceeding Constitutional authority?

What worries liberals is that this SCOTUS ruling now requires determining what a President can and cannot do; establishing firm limits on Presidential authority.  Exceeding the limits of Constitutional authority is not an official function of the President.  The Presidency is smaller today than before the SCOTUS ruling.  A President can't do anything they can get away with.  A President can now be indicted and prosecuted by Federal courts and by state courts for exceeding Constitutional authority without the necessity of impeachment.

A President no longer has absolute immunity from investigation or prosecution.  A President no longer has unlimited absolute authority over government.  And a President can no longer obstruct investigations into unofficial use of power by claiming executive privilege.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4    one week ago
How has the SCOTUS ruling expanded authority and protections for the President? 

Stated in the article.   I could copy and paste the entire article ... but that is why I wrote an article rather than simply pen a comment.

What happens to Sotomayer’s [sic] dissent if the President does not have Constitutional authority to oversee elections? 

That is not in question.   Nobody is questioning legal / constitutional actions performed by a PotUS.


Amazing that you see this as a limitation to the powers of the presidency.   No reasoning with someone who can come to such a conclusion given the facts.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.1    one week ago
Amazing that you see this as a limitation to the powers of the presidency.   No reasoning with someone who can come to such a conclusion given the facts.

It's necessary to reiterate an example that can be understood by liberal minded justices. 

A President screwing the First Lady is not a Constitutional requirement of the Presidency.  A President having a sexual relationship with an intern also is not a Constitutional requirement of the Presidency. 

The Constitution does not expressly forbid these unofficial activities but neither does the Constitution impart any sort of official status to these activities.  Holding the title of President does not impart an official status on everything a President does.  The Constitution really does impose limits on the official authority of a President and, by extension, the official legal immunity of a President.  Even legislated authority must conform to Constitutional limits. 

So, a President cannot claim that raping someone is immune from prosecution; it has already been established that legal sexual relations would be an unofficial activity, therefore, illegal sexual relations would also be an unofficial activity.  But now it is not necessary to impeach the President before prosecuting the President because the title of President no longer provides implied absolute immunity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.1    one week ago
Holding the title of President does not impart an official status on everything a President does. 

Nobody has stipulated that.

The Constitution really does impose limits on the official authority of a President and, by extension, the official legal immunity of a President.  

And the SCotUS just relaxed those limits through immunity.

So, a President cannot claim that raping someone is immune from prosecution

Again, nobody has even remotely suggested that.   In fact I explicitly offered that example:

TiG (article):  The SCotUS acknowledges that a non-official act (e.g. raping someone while PotUS) does not have immunity. 

It is in the article.

But now it is not necessary to impeach the President before prosecuting the President because the title of President no longer provides implied absolute immunity.

Bizarre inversion of reality.   A sitting PotUS can only be impeached.   Prosecution can only take place after the PotUS is out of office.   And that prosecution is now seriously hobbled for anything that could be successfully argued as official duties.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    one week ago

And the SCotUS just relaxed those limits through immunity.

the court delineated what everyone assumed were the limits of presidential immunity for the last century, 

We’ve had a  president  throw thousands of people in internment camps based solely on their race with no legal repercussions for him.  Nothing has approached that barbarism since, and our country survived Roosevelt not going to prison.

 if trump were not involved, this would be the standard pretty much every mainstream judge would settle upon. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.2    one week ago
Nobody has stipulated that.

But the article claims Sonia Sotomayor did stipulate that the title of President imparts absolute immunity on everything a President does.  That's what Sotomayor's claim that the SCOTUS ruling provides absolute immunity means.  Sotomayor's dissent is claiming that a President can now do anything they want simply because they hold the title of President.

Bizarre inversion of reality.   A sitting PotUS can only be impeached.   Prosecution can only take place after the PotUS is out of office.   And that prosecution is now seriously hobbled for anything that could be successfully argued as official duties.

Well then, let's play it your way.  The Democrats' claims that SCOTUS has created absolute immunity provides an excuse for Joe Biden to assassinate Donald Trump.  The FBI raid on Mar-a-lago already included boiler-plate, blanket authority to use deadly force and Democrats certainly defended that.  Sotomayor has opened the door for Biden to take the next step and order the extrajudicial killing of Donald Trump.  Biden could then drop of the 2024 election without concern over prosecution.  Sonia Sotomayor has explicitly told Biden she has his back.

Why isn't that scenario just as possible as all the hair-on-fire claims about Trump?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.5  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.4    one week ago
But the article claims Sonia Sotomayor did stipulate that the title of President imparts absolute immunity on everything a President does. 

Everything that is core constitutional or official.   You are not carefully reading Sotomayor's dissent.

Sotomayor has opened the door for Biden to take the next step and order the extrajudicial killing of Donald Trump.  

She did not open that door — the SCotUS opened it (in principle), she argued that a rogue PotUS is now technically able to engage in acts like that and face at worst impeachment.

Sonia Sotomayor has explicitly told Biden she has his back.

Nerm, just stop with this ridiculous hyperbole.   I want serious, thoughtful discussion here.   We have enough crap to deal with.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.3    one week ago

The SCotUS just gave a PotUS absolute immunity on core constitutional duties (undefined) and presumptive immunity on all official duties (undefined).

You are okay with that?   This is vague and broad protection for any rogue PotUS.

In addition, any trial that could take place is hobbled by not being able to use any evidence resulting from any official act of the PotUS.

Again, you approve of this??

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.5    one week ago
Everything that is core constitutional or official.   You are not carefully reading Sotomayor's dissent.

Now the claim is that the SCOTUS ruling only affirms the Constitutional limits on the Presidency (and, by extension, on the execute branch).  And Sonia Sotomayor dissents with that ruling?

Nerm, just stop with this ridiculous hyperbole.   I want serious, thoughtful discussion here.   We have enough crap to deal with.

I've laid out two diametrically opposed hypothetical scenarios to test the claims being made from both ends of the spectrum.  And both scenarios are within the scope and context of the published article.  Somehow that response doesn't indicate a desire to discuss anything.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.8  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.7    one week ago
Now the claim is that the SCOTUS ruling only affirms the Constitutional limits on the Presidency ...

No.

There was absolutely no plan to use deadly force at Mar-a-Lago.   I do not take seriously comments that include absurd crap like that.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.6    one week ago

The SCotUS just gave a PotUS absolute immunity on core constitutional duties (u

And that’s been the working assumption since the founding of the republic.  Obama should not face prosecution for his drone strikes.  

nothing in this decision would have been particularly noteworthy if the court had issued it as an advisory  opinion (not that it could) in 2012. No one would have batted an eye and I’ll guarantee the three dissenters would have agreed.  It’s just trump hysteria and progressives inability to ever look beyond trump and fashion something that will last for generations. “  it’s a fundamental inability to understand the role of the Supreme Court and to look beyond the moments partisan needs. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.9    one week ago
And that’s been the working assumption since the founding of the republic.  

Yes it has been the working assumption and an implicit and vague understanding of 'core constitutional duties' and up until Trump, we have had presidents who are responsible enough to believe that they would never abuse their powers to the point where this would be an issue.

But core constitutional duties is undefined.   We now have the SCotUS granting ABSOLUTE immunity to anything that might fall within core constitutional duties and presumptive immunity to every single official act of a PotUS.

Do you recognize the difference between an undefined basic assumption and a formal ruling of SCotUS?   Before, anything that would be considered extreme (e.g. authorizing the assassination of a foreign leader such as the President of Mexico) could be litigated.   Now the limit is simply impeachment.   If we had a rogue PotUS who engaged in such extreme behavior that could be viewed as 'core constitutional' and the reasons for doing so are irrational, there are no legal consequences.   For example, engage in actions to steal a US presidential election.  

That should bother you if you recognize that the USA could indeed elect a rogue PotUS — a loose cannon who might do crazy shit that no other PotUS would ever do.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.10    one week ago

or example, engage in actions to steal a US presidential election.  

lol.  Good luck Claiming rigging electrons is a core constitutional function of the presidency, it’s such a silly argument. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.12  author  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.11    one week ago
... Claiming rigging electrons is a core constitutional function of the presidency ...

I will assume that your leap to a ridiculous strawman means you have run out of points to argue.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1.13  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.8    one week ago
There was absolutely no plan to use deadly force at Mar-a-Lago.   I do not take seriously comments that include absurd crap like that.

Correct, there wasn't a plan to use deadly force.  But there's no denying that boilerplate, blanket authority to use deadly force was included in the FBI search warrant to raid Mar-a-lago.  And Democrats really did defend inclusion of that authority.

So, would planning to use deadly force against a political opponent be considered an official function of the Presidency under this SCOTUS ruling?  Was Sonia Sotomayor correct in her dissent?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.14  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.6    one week ago

What if President Biden, heaven forbid, does not win in November, what if he says I refuse to accept the results?  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.15  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.13    one week ago
But there's no denying that boilerplate, blanket authority to use deadly force was included in the FBI search warrant to raid Mar-a-lago. 

That is true for every FBI search warrant.   The fact that you bring this up means you are trying claim intent that was never there.   Stick with truth.

So, would planning to use deadly force against a political opponent be considered an official function of the Presidency under this SCOTUS ruling?

Since 'official act' is undefined all I can say is that it might be based on my reading of the opinion.   It is a fine example of something that might be official and also outrageously illegal, immoral and irresponsible.   Note that tweets that threw Pence under the bus (triggering cries to murder him) during the insurrection would almost certainly be considered official acts (that is what is being done right now to try to dismantle Trump's criminal convictions).   Trump could have repeatedly tweeted incendiary attacks on Pence and his cult would grow increasingly agitated.   If they then had found Pence and harmed him (or murdered him), this ruling would leave Trump preemptively immune to criminal prosecution for his incendiary tweets in a violent situation.

Do you think this ruling is good for our nation?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.16  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.14    one week ago

Can he then stage/incite an insurrection and set up fake electors and just refuse to accept the results, if again heaven forbid, he loses?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.17  MrFrost  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.14    one week ago

What if President Biden, heaven forbid, does not win in November, what if he says I refuse to accept the results?  

Then there is little anyone could do about it. All he would have to do is say, "I am doing this to protect America", and he's home free, (as ya do). 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1.18  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.15    one week ago
Do you think this ruling is good for our nation?

Yes because, IMO, the ruling serves to clarify what had become conventional wisdom.  Ultimately SCOTUS has reaffirmed that the Constitution would be the final measure of limits on a President's official authority, power, and function.  Personally I am hopeful that this ruling will eventually arrive at a conclusion that any political activity engaged in by a President cannot be considered an official function of the Presidency.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.19  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.18    one week ago

The problem is that in the past, the specific situation could be dealt with by trial.   Conventional wisdom would not bring a trial against a former PotUS without cause.   The only PotUS who crossed the line and brought forth legal actions was Trump.   And what he did was outrageous.

Now, every PotUS has the confidence to know that there is almost no chance for legal consequences no matter what they do in office if there is a chance it can be seen as an official act.

That is a profound change.

And on top of that, do you realize that no evidence from official acts can be used in any trial of a former PotUS?  

What a sweetheart deal for a rogue PotUS.  

And you think it is a good idea to solve a problem that had never occurred by granting coarse and broad immunity to any PotUS on a categorical basis.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.20  CB  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.9    one week ago

That comment is crap. Project 2025 is a document put together by former Trump officials and The Heritage Foundation. And now this 'move' by the conservative justices 6 in total to grant Donald a 'fearless' presidency to do whatever the office of the presidency permits him to do. . .up to and touching firing 'loads' of career civil servants which get in the way of execution of 'the plan.'  And if need be, any of Donald's own newly-minted officials who find they don't have the heart for the tasks he charges them to do. Oh, and do not forget. . . Donald wants to DEPORT millions of undocumented people mercilessly in a 2025  presidency!

SCOTUS' conservative majority has been and continues 'prepping' the path forward for Project 2025 implementation on Day One and following of a new Donald administration!

Stop. Gaslighting us, ain't happening!

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.21  CB  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.10    one week ago
But core constitutional duties is undefined.

and so are presumptive duties undefined as well. Meaning, the plan is for such questions of law (and Donald's lawyers have an 'open door' to the conservative SCOTUS) to make their way up to SCOTUS for a final decision on a case by case basis. (Or some such thing as such.) Favorability: HIGH.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.19    one week ago
The only PotUS who crossed the line and brought forth legal actions was Trump.

That is not entirely correct.  Andrew Jackson engaged in physical assault while President.  Abraham Lincoln really did suspend the Constitution (and was censured by Congress).  Ulysses S. Grant was mired in corruption (and was considered the worst US President for quite a while).  Grover Cleveland was embroiled in a sex scandal. Richard Nixon was forced to resign over misdeeds (and perhaps only avoided prosecution through a pardon).  Trump has not been the first rogue as President and certainly is not the only President that did something outrageous or crossed the line.  

Democrats have tried to carve out an exception to long standing conventional wisdom that only applies to Trump.  The SCOTUS ruling says Democrats cannot do that; if there is an exception then it must apply to all Presidents.  

SCOTUS has not allowed itself to be a political tool of the Democratic Party.  That can only be a good thing.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
4.1.23  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.14    one week ago

Then he should be charged mercilessly the same way Trump has been.

Not given a clean pass like Gore, Kerry, Hillary, and host of other Democrats that have refused to accept election results and fought tooth and nail to have them overturned.

If he leads a real insurrection; because unlike Jan 6th rioters leftist terrorists don't do half assed- then he will be held accountable under the law. With a legally appointed Special Counsel. Not some Garland TDS driven hack given massive power to do anything he wanted in terms of investigation; that was never requested or given authority by Congress. 

I am sure Biden won't mind fighting the charges all the way to the Supreme Court to find out if he truly does have total immunity like the leftist lunatics now claim.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.24  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.22    one week ago

None of that compares with Trump attempting to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.   Trump engaged in his wrongdoing not because he was trying to do what was right by the nation but rather simply because his ego could not handle losing.

Jackson was assaulted and defended himself.   Seriously, Nerm, this is what you think compares to Trump's collective wrongdoing?

Lincoln did not suspend the constitution, merely the writ of habeas corpus and that was done during wartime and for the good of the nation, not the good of Lincoln.   Further it is constitutional to suspect the writ of habeas corpus but the debate was whether the Executive branch could do this without the approval of Congress.   Regardless, not even remotely comparable to Trump attempt to steal the election.

Grant, Cleveland and other presidents had corruption and personal moral failures.   You seriously compare that to stealing a presidential election?

Nixon's wrongdoing is the closest to Trump's of all US presidents and his act of coverup and obstruction for the Watergate break-in.   Trump still kicks Nixon's butt in terms of collective wrongful acts.

Trump's attempt to steal the election overshadows all of this by far.   History will distinguish him as a rogue PotUS and will be at the top of the list with nobody in second place.   He will be seen as the only PotUS in our nation's history who was unable to be presidential and who put his own interests above those of the nation.

SCOTUS has not allowed itself to be a political tool of the Democratic Party. 

Of course, this is all partisan for you.    Creating new rules out of whole cloth is not what the SCotUS is supposed to do.   Trump brought this on himself and the SCotUS is bending over backwards to let him escape accountability.   If anything this is the SCotUS being a political tool for the GOP, but that kind of discussion is explicitly off-topic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.25  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @4.1.23    one week ago
Not given a clean pass like Gore, Kerry, Hillary, and host of other Democrats that have refused to accept election results and fought tooth and nail to have them overturned.

It is absurd to pretend that all Trump did was challenge election results he believe were wrong.   He stands alone in his attempt to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
4.1.26  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.24    one week ago
None of that compares with Trump attempting to steal a presidential election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.   Trump engaged in his wrongdoing not because he was trying to do what was right by the nation but rather simply because his ego could not handle losing.

Well, of course not.  That absolutely true from a certain point of view.

Of course, this is all partisan for you.    Creating new rules out of whole cloth is not what the SCotUS is supposed to do.   Trump brought this on himself and the SCotUS is bending over backwards to let him escape accountability.   If anything this is the SCotUS being a political tool for the GOP, but that kind of discussion is explicitly off-topic.

Well, then, why doesn't Joe Biden do something.  SCOTUS just handed Biden absolute power with absolute immunity.  According to the hair-on-fire claims, Biden can whatever he wants to do.  Trump can't do anything until he's reelected.

The Presidential debate should have convinced everyone that Joe Biden can handle absolute power with absolute immunity.  And Joe Biden already is the President; he won the last election didn't he?  So, why are we wasting air on what Trump might do if he wins the election.  Joe Biden can do something about that right now with absolute immunity.

So, why isn't everyone demanding Biden get off his ass and DO something.  Apparently SCOTUS just gave Biden permissions to do whatever is needed to eliminate the threat of a Trump reelection.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.27  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.26    one week ago
Well, then, why doesn't Joe Biden do something.

Because Biden is not a rogue PotUS.   Because Biden has principles and does not view the presidency as something he can exploit for personal reasons.

But this article is about the SCotUS ruling and the notion of it being an activist court.   Biden is not the topic.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.28  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.25    one week ago
Hillary

She conceded the election within 12 hours. Trump STILL hasn't conceded the election he lost in 2020. Get your facts straight. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.29  author  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.28    one week ago

You replied to the wrong person.   Also, Hillary, et. al. are not the topic.   The SCotUS immunity ruling and/or how this applies to Trump are the topic.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
4.1.30  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.29    one week ago

Damnit! Sorry TiG, my fault..

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
4.1.31  George  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.28    one week ago
Get your facts straight. 

Amazing..

President Donald Trump conceded publicly for the first time Thursday that he will not serve a second term, stopping short of congratulating President-elect Joe Biden but acknowledging a transfer of power is now underway.

Trump finally concedes Biden will become president

Trump concedes election and denounces attack on Capitol for first time

https://www.ft.com/content/5875dfa8-689f-43bd-8cd6-d0cbb152fb66

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.32  author  TᵢG  replied to  George @4.1.31    one week ago

The topic is the SCotUS immunity ruling and its impact on Trump.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.33  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.27    one week ago

Because Biden is not a rogue PotUS.   Because Biden has principles and does not view the presidency as something he can exploit for personal reasons.

lol. 

 
 
 
Gazoo
Junior Silent
4.1.34  Gazoo  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.33    one week ago

[]

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
4.1.35  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.33    one week ago
Because Biden is not a rogue PotUS.   Because Biden has principles and does not view the presidency as something he can exploit for personal reasons. lol. 

to lol as the projection projected by Trump and the 'right' is a joke, Biden is far from a perfect POTUS, but he is principled and nothing like all for Trump and Trump for none...

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.36  devangelical  replied to  Igknorantzruls @4.1.35    one week ago

some people need more than 1 religious icon to bear the weight of hypocrisy...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
4.1.37  CB  replied to  devangelical @4.1.36    one week ago

And Right-wing Evangelicals are "all-in' in giving their approval to Donald, "Project 2025," and  the Heritage Foundation's taking liberties from their fellow citizens. Once before and now again, the Church has signed on to a policy of destruction of innocent lives and their freedoms for its own selfish gains. Remember, in recent memory certain select churches apologize for their sins on account of it! I see it and I call it out! To be clear, it is not all Christians, but it is of Christians to their shame.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.38  devangelical  replied to  CB @4.1.37    one week ago

seems like most are only prepared to meet geezus during the short walk from the conclusion of sunday services to their car in the church parking lot.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.39  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4.1.38    one week ago

yeah I remember working at McDonald's when I was real young and the Sunday morning church goers were the most nasty of all

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @4.1.35    one week ago

The projection will be the main diagnostic factor when the DSM Psychiatric Manual catches up to this TDS/MAGA Cult phenomenon.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.41  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.40    one week ago

they're living proof that there's no shortage of gullible suckers on this planet...

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4.1.42  Tessylo  replied to  devangelical @4.1.41    one week ago

and fucking morons

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
4.1.43  devangelical  replied to  Tessylo @4.1.42    one week ago

I was trying not to sound too redundant...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5  MrFrost    one week ago

512

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1  Gsquared  replied to  MrFrost @5    one week ago

What's the likelihood that if Biden is re-elected the Supreme Court will suddenly reverse itself and declare that not only does a President have no immunity, but that a sitting President can be prosecuted.  Especially by red state Attorneys General.  Good chance, I bet.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Gsquared @5.1    one week ago

[]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.1    one week ago

No chance.   They will not reverse themselves since that would further damage their credibility with no gain.   The reversal of this overreach will come from some future SCotUS and there are quite a few justices that will have to retire before that happens.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
5.1.3  evilone  replied to  Gsquared @5.1    one week ago
What's the likelihood that if Biden is re-elected the Supreme Court will suddenly reverse itself

There is a better chance the Dems rally around these various issues and take the majorities in both House and Senate and impeach a few judges, than there is for them to reverse their ruling. That said the chances of it happening are slim at best.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.4  CB  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    one week ago

This 'situation' with a democratic party win this November. . .may mandate a new 'advent' in SCOTUS personnel. Since SCOTUS can rethink 'it'. . .whose to say the president and his party officials (in-Charge) can-not rethink 'it.'?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
5.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.1    one week ago

Crazy how those words are acceptable when others use,   I have no patience anymore for the endless dishonesty and bullshit claims. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    one week ago

I was being facetious, of course, in light of MrFrost's comment.  Although, it wouldn't surprise me one bit!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.7  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.6    one week ago

Oh, sorry.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  evilone @5.1.3    one week ago

Addressing your comment seriously, I think it will be next to impossible for any of the Supreme Court Justices to be impeached, except possibly Alito and Thomas if there is further evidence revealed of the immensity of their corruption.

the chances of it happening are slim at best

And I said good chance, so maybe we have room to compromise!

 
 
 
Gsquared
Professor Principal
5.1.9  Gsquared  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    one week ago

No reason to apologize.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
5.1.10  MrFrost  replied to  Gsquared @5.1    one week ago
Good chance, I bet.

Absolutely..

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  MrFrost @5    one week ago

Funny you forget about Nixon, if Ford hadn't pardoned him and he went to trial, all the shit with trump likely wouldn't have happened. Just mho

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.2.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2    one week ago

Because consequences would have been realized?

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.2  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  TᵢG @5.2.1    one week ago

Just my opinion? Yes, it would have made ANY politician after that realize , no matter how high ther went , no matter how much power they acquired, they too could and would be held accountable in front of the masses. And that could likely have deterred many issues , not just on the executive level, but also I the judiciary and legislative.

Personally I think it All needs a good power washing and barnacle scraping.

ADD: The issue with this line of thought though is it would have had to have been consistently applied non partisanly, I know good luck with that.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
5.2.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.2    one week ago
Personally I think it All needs a good power washing and barnacle scraping.

I think what's needed is a can of gasoline and a match

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
5.2.4  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  Trout Giggles @5.2.3    one week ago

That's how I plan on handling squatters if the situation ever comes up.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.2.5  devangelical  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @5.2.4    4 days ago

it won't out in bfe...

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.3  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @5    one week ago

Funny how we never had a partisan corrupt FBI, CIA, IRS, and DOJ that favored Democrats and went mercilessly after their political opponents. 

Funny how we have never had a party use lawfare and every other means to try and keep a political opponent off the ballot.

Funny how the rule of law has been suspended for the likes of Bill, Hillary, Obama, and now Biden- but is being used full force against Trump for doing far less.

Either the law is applied equally to everyone or no one. Democrats and leftists still haven't figured that out. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.3.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @5.3    one week ago

You are off topic.   See RBR.   This is a discussion about the SCotUS ruling and the impact on Trump.

This topic is strictly focused on the SCotUS ruling on Trump's immunity.

Trump's immunity is the topic.   Any other candidate and political party is off topic.

The intent is to discuss the degree to which the SCotUS has crossed the line into judicial activism and what it means for our nation to so empower a PotUS.
 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6  MrFrost    one week ago

The one question that the right cannot seem to answer is why does a president need immunity? 

Trump wants immunity so he can break the law and knows he has broken the law. Simple solution...

Elect a president that respects the rule of law. Not one that wants permission to break laws. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  MrFrost @6    one week ago

The one question that the right cannot seem to answer is why does a president need immunity?

It’s discussed all the time. It’s why Obama wasn't prosecuted for killing American citizens without due process via drone, nor would FDR have faced prosecution for internment had he survived.  

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one week ago
It’s why Obama wasn't prosecuted for killing American citizens without due process via drone

Where in the USA did this happen? 

Are you leaving out any other info or was it just...."Obama decided to kill two Americans for no reason at all." 

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.1.2  devangelical  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.1    one week ago

apparently some think their american rights follow them around like a halo, even outside our country...

 
 
 
Mark in Wyoming
Professor Silent
6.1.3  Mark in Wyoming   replied to  devangelical @6.1.2    one week ago

As protection from our own government and extrajudicial actions , they do as citizens.

What your thinking is when someone goes out of the country and expects the host country to let them live by the laws of the US , griener ring a bell? 

She should have had to have servered her entire sentence in a Russian jail.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.4  Ronin2  replied to  MrFrost @6.1.1    one week ago

So you think it is legal for a President to kill US citizens overseas w/o due process?

We only have the Obama administration, DOJ, and what passes for US intelligence (the same US intelligence that mistook a wedding for an Al Qaeda gathering under Bush Jr, and killed a US aid worker ally and a good portion of his family in Afghanistan under Biden) that both were guilty of crimes that death was warranted.

Funny how Obama fought tooth and nail to close Gitmo; and released terrorists that had actually killed people- including US citizens; and refused the death penalty on 9/11 planners- yet thought it was OK to execute two US citizens w/o due process.

Maybe it is only OK if a Democrat president does it? Is the D behind the name really that powerful?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
6.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  Mark in Wyoming @6.1.3    one week ago

Griener is special- she has paid her leftist dues.

She checks all of the boxes- black, lesbian, somewhat famous basketball player.

She deserved special treatment from the US government over US citizens that have been imprisoned in Russian far longer than she; and who actually may have been falsely charged and convicted.

Remember laws only apply to those Democrats say they do. That includes any freedoms granted under the Constitution.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.5    one week ago

How does this relate to the SCotUS immunity ruling?

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.1.7  MrFrost  replied to  Ronin2 @6.1.4    one week ago
Funny how Obama fought tooth and nail to close Gitmo; and released terrorists that had actually killed people

Um...

512 512

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
6.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  MrFrost @6    one week ago

The reason for immunity, as argued by Trump's attorneys and as embraced by the majority is so that a PotUS can freely exercise his/her powers of office without fear of personal legal liability.   For example, the many varied decisions made by war-time presidents such as the decision to kill Osama Bin Laden.

This is a solution, however, for a problem that has never manifested.   And the problem is that it codifies categorical immunity.  

We will see this play out in current circumstances as the charges against Trump fall apart.   Trump is the only PotUS who attempted to steal a US election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.   The SCotUS has already substantially diluted the charges with this ruling.

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.2.1  MrFrost  replied to  TᵢG @6.2    one week ago
Trump is the only PotUS who attempted to steal a US election through fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement.

Agreed. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.2.2  evilone  replied to  TᵢG @6.2    one week ago
This is a solution, however, for a problem that has never manifested.   And the problem is that it codifies categorical immunity.

What this does is put a heavier burden on the DoJ to prove which acts were personally criminal vs Presidentially unpopular. Trump is now trying to claim immunity from cooking his business books in NY after he was elected as a Presidential act. 

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
6.2.3  Igknorantzruls  replied to  evilone @6.2.2    one week ago
Trump is now trying to claim immunity from

paying off a pornstar is of course, an official Presidential duty, as is selecting fake electors, and stealing government top secret documents, inciting riotous insurrectionists via hate speech and telling them they're not gonna have a country, as well as the election was rigged and Trumps a porky pigged criminal that should rot in jail without bail, as the entire US is on and for sale, by him, and he will, against ours, and these blinded bunion slicing onion crying about the hell Biden has raught , as they delve in another dimension and live in different fiction based world that has spun them mc silly, and left them in suspension, shocked having to mention how they are oblivious to Trumps' actual intention, cause his truth invention has changed our country something dramatic, as if it was now turned into a junkie pseudo truth addict where presidents get immunity from paying off pornstarsthey fckd, sexually assaulting asz plucked from by the pussy grabber in chief, good grief, Charlie Brown nosing Lucy to smell her briefs, in short, cause Trump was not meant to be, he was always a full term abort, shunned by those who could see the first second and third trimester brought us this afterbirth

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
6.2.4  evilone  replied to  Igknorantzruls @6.2.3    one week ago

He was never prosecuted for paying off a porn star or hate speech, but now it will be up to prosecutors to demonstrate which charges are 'offical acts'. I know Trump is trying to claim the 'fake electors' were not fake, but 'alternates' which is a distinction only lawyers and partisans will appreciate. 

In a perfect world the Dems would use this ruling to piss off the partisan right by using it against them and show them their error.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
6.2.5  Igknorantzruls  replied to  evilone @6.2.4    one week ago
n a perfect world the Dems would use this ruling to piss off the partisan right by using it against them and show them their error.

Don't B leave we need a perfect world scenario, for if Trump, God, Zeus, Indian with a Papos in the sky, forbid, that POS is elected by that rigged damn system, we are going to in very short order see how far this new "immunity" can be stretched , and speaking of Indians, HOW can we not see that Trump is capable of ? How can we sorta guess, Trump be Patell in US that he is going to go Indian War Dance in his diaper under pantz, and a tempt christ into pulling a major Dicktator tot heist and have Seal team Six Six Six puttin red dots on his enemies far heads, but closer, cause the despot gone wild, is not going to run mild, he will test every boundary as we already did see, he is capable of, so, Biden oughta preempt the Love, and dial up some Indian smoke signals of his own, and possibly in some manner or another, pre de throne  the naked and afraid dicktater tot and twot grabbin goober, lyft him into a driverless Tesla Uber, make him smokem piece pipe, and get him all ready for Thelma and Loise Cliff Note ending, cause that's the message the Dems need ta B sending, imhopine 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
6.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Igknorantzruls @6.2.5    one week ago

jrSmiley_93_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
6.2.7  devangelical  replied to  evilone @6.2.4    6 days ago
In a perfect world the Dems would use this ruling to piss off the partisan right by using it against them and show them their error.

I agree. republicans are famous for being unable to see 100 feet down the road when their warped dogma is implemented, and I always think it's hilarious when it backfires on them. biden needs a plan b utilizing the carte blanche official acts of the SCOTUS ruling, in case of a trump victory in november. project 2025 is a domestic terrorist manifesto.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
6.3  CB  replied to  MrFrost @6    one week ago
(i) The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “ vigorous ” and “ energetic ” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 750. Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.” Id., at 749, 751, 752, n. 32. 
In Fitzgerald, for instance, the Court concluded that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from “damages liability for acts within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.” Id., at 756. 

The Court’s “dominant concern” was to avoid “diversion of the President’s attention during the decision-making process caused by needless worry as to the possibility of damages actions stemming from any particular official decision.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 694, n. 19.

   (pages 2 and 3. using pdf numbering .)

Also this: 

Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising
prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could
quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid.
Source: Ibid. (same as above)  Page 41 SCOTUS opinion number system.

MrFrost, what they mean is a president should be able to act  Fearlessly in performing his or her core constitutional duties. In theory , those high-minded words above together sound great! In practice, the voters had better know well the character and integrity of the president they elect to office!  Or,  POW !

Of course, a brazen liar like Donald has a 'fertile' imagination and a businessman's knack for exploitative ideas. He will give you 'vigorus' and 'energetic' up the old 'wazoo.'

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Guide
6.3.1  MrFrost  replied to  CB @6.3    one week ago

Of course, a brazen liar like Donald has a 'fertile' imagination and a businessman's knack for exploitative ideas. He will give you 'vigorus' and 'energetic' up the old 'wazoo.'

Exactly. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7  Vic Eldred    one week ago

"For these pundits and politicians, justice is merely an extension of politics and subject to the whims of the majority.

These are same voices who chastised Judge Aileen Cannon for “slowwalking” her decisions by holding hearings on constitutional questions. They pointed to Judge Tanya Chutkan, who supported the efforts of special counsel Jack Smith to try Trump before the election, turning her court into a rocket docket.

Chutkan quickly set aside this challenge, as well as other objections from  Trump .

Indeed, at the oral argument, Chief Justice Roberts marveled at the conclusory analysis by Patricia Ann Millett in upholding Chutkan. He referred to the opinion  celebrated by the left  as little more than declaring “a former president can be prosecuted because he’s being prosecuted.” Chutkan and the DC Circuit were fast but ultimately wrong. Indeed, the Supreme Court noted that the judge created little record for the basis of her decisions.

In a perverted sense, Democrats are giving the public a powerful lesson in constitutional law. As Alexander Hamilton stated in The Federalist No. 78, judicial independence “is the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws.”

This is the moment that the Framers envisioned in creating the Court under Article III of the Constitution. It would be our bulwark even when politicians lose faith in our Constitution and seek to dictate justice for those who they dislike."

Age of Rage: Critics Unleash Threats and Abuse on the Court Following the Presidential Immunity Decision – JONATHAN TURLEY

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @7    one week ago

This is off topic.   

Do you have something to say in regards to the Trump immunity decision?   Speak on the merits of the case rather than simply engage in partisan spin by dropping quotes from others.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    one week ago

[]

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    one week ago
 Speak on the merits

I just did. You don't seem too concerned about "merits."


rather than simply engage in partisan spin by dropping quotes from others.

Says the guy who published the minority opinions of the left leaning justices.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    one week ago

You offered nothing.    Dealing with the merits means making a case for or against the ruling, not merely dropping quotes to try to discredit those with whom you disagree.  

Says the guy who published the minority opinions of the left leaning justices.

I published the majority and the minority opinions and offered my analysis.   Do better than make bullshit claims.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    one week ago
You offered nothing.  

I gave you the opinion of a law professor.


 Dealing with the merits means making a case for or against the ruling, not merely dropping quotes to try to discredit those with whom you disagree.  

Like the way you tried to mislead people, by trying to pretend a President has "total immunity." That isn't what they said.


 Do better than make bullshit claims.

I will. I'll leave you and your hate for Trump where it belongs.

 
 
 
Igknorantzruls
Freshman Quiet
7.1.5  Igknorantzruls  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.2    one week ago

Why does it consistently seem that you, and like minded individuals, can only look at a case like this and feel you have to side with the far right conservative justices ? Everything need not be seen in blue and red, cause you should try red and blue sometimes, cause i've read it as this should have blew out the window, as the amount of bending over for the miscreant malignancy growing like a tumor on our Democracy, has got to be really brutal on some of the backs of these "justices", as the term of justice anymore, doesn't seem applicable for they, for to these jurists despicable i say, need to be honed inn to stay, but without some Republicans gettin out of the way and agreeing to put our country first, these Supremes will continue their course as the worse, the worse Supreme Court appointed by one who appointed the last three, as they attempt to anoint he, and that he would be POS wanna by tyranical wrecks with the short arms and little hands Trumpy

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1.4    one week ago
Like the way you tried to mislead people, by trying to pretend a President has "total immunity." That isn't what they said.

You clearly did not even read my article.   Don't participate on my articles if you are going to make bullshit accusations without even taking the time to understand what I wrote.

You do not even understand what the SCotUS wrote:

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.
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.

Read the opinion.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    one week ago

SSDD

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9  devangelical    5 days ago

SCOTUS has also ruled that prepaying republicans for corruption is a bribe, but money given to republicans after the corruption has taken place is now considered a gratuity...

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
9.1  CB  replied to  devangelical @9    5 days ago

This is what conservative SCOTUS really thinks of the country, not as governed by Rule of Law, but instead conservative viewpoints of law unto themselves. We are experiencing activism. . .in the other direction.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
9.1.1  devangelical  replied to  CB @9.1    4 days ago

the males on the SCOTUS bench deserve to look over their shoulders for the rest of their lives...

 
 

Who is online


Kavika


44 visitors