Supreme Court Gives Trump Blueprint for Dictatorship, Ruling the Constitution is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Ignore the title since it is too extreme. A more appropriate title would be:
The SCotuS Contradicts the CotUS and Gives a Rogue PotUS Dangerous Powers.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
…
Imagine a simple hypothetical designed to highlight the key constitutional clauses that should have been the court's starting point.
In the year 2150 —when Trump and Biden are presumably long gone— a fictitious person David Dealer commits serious drug crimes and then bribes the president Jane Jones to pardon him. Is Jones acting as president in her official capacity when she pardons dealer? Of course, she is pardoning qua president — she is pardoning as president. No one else can issue such a pardon —the Constitution expressly vests this power in the president:
“The president shall have power to Grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.”
But the Constitution also contains express language that a president who takes a bribe can be impeached for bribery and then booted from Office:
“The president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction in the Senate of treason bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”
Once our hypothetical president Jones has been thus removed and is now ex-president Jones, the Constitution's plain text says that she is subject to ordinary criminal prosecution just like anyone else:
“In cases of impeachment, the party [here, the president] convicted shall be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment according to law.”
Obviously in Jane’s impeachment trial in the Senate all sorts of evidence is admissible to prove not just that she issued the pardon but also why she did this to prove that she had an unconstitutional motive to prove that she pardoned dealer because she was bribed to do. So just as obviously, in the upcoming criminal case all of this evidence surely must be allowed to come in. But the Trump majority opinion written by Roberts says otherwise proclaiming that courts may not inquire into the president's motives. In a later footnote all about bribery, the Roberts opinion says that criminal trial courts are not allowed to admit testimony or private records of the president or his advisers:
“… probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the president's motivations for his official actions and to second guess their propriety.”
(Quoting from Chief Justice Roberts opinion.)
But such an inspection is exactly what the Constitution itself plainly calls for. An impeachment court and later a criminal court would have to determine whether Jones pardoned dealer because she thought he was innocent or because she thought he had already suffered enough or because he put money in her pocket for the very purpose of procuring the pardon. The smoking gun may well be in Jane's diary, her private records, or in a recorded Oval Office conversation with Jones advisers (as was the case in the Watergate scandal).
…
Tags
Who is online
48 visitors
Just to help realize the implications if a PotUS is elected who lacks the character, discipline, responsibility, and integrity to work for the nation rather than for him/herself.
The pearl clenching about forcing Democrat judges to do their damn jobs is borderline ridiculous.
FDR a Democrat through and through already pulled Japanese internment camps during WWII- that targeted anyone that even looked Asian.
Where was the pearl clenching then? Where were the constraints on absolute presidential power?
Go ahead and try to claim that act was legal.
Remember the laws only apply to who and how Democrats say they do.
Your FDR example illustrates how our system has worked since its inception. FDR was not impeached for this and if he had been removed from office he likely would have not been prosecuted. Truman is another example. His bombing of Japan certainly could have been considered unlawful, but his actions as PotUS were taken as such.
Now, that said, illustrate that you understand the implications of the SCotUS ruling. And cease with the partisan crap.
Trump is as much an aberration to the politics of the United States as The Mule was to Hari Seldon's legacy in The Foundation Series.
No my friend. Trump has initiated something that will live on as Trumpism. He and the rest of Trumpists have no intentions of surrendering to the GOP its party back! Donald has provided Trumpists with a road map of conducts and behaviors to challenge government at every turn. . . through courts made partisan. Sometimes, I wonder if Roy Cohn is responsible for showing Donald the value of taking a case, any case, to court. . . shooting for the stars and taking home what you get as 'receipts.'
In any case, Donald Jr. is a 'prince-in waiting' for the political reins after Donald's (hopeful return to power) and establishing the steps to his son's succession.
The United States must remain a democracy. We must (all) see to it.
I don't know the series you speak of but I consider him to be an abomination and a freak of nature.
I loved the Foundation Series (on-screen productions.)
He's not a freak. Just an aberration.
The series that I was intending was originally written serially by Isaac Asimov in, gosh, I think the 40's.
Let's See:
I answered one of my English Regents exam questions by comparing and contrasting plot and characters from the initial trilogy... and that is my geeky fact of the day
are suggesting possible real world comparisons as symbolic of this 'show' that i know, not of /? orv just describing it.
Sorry, Iggy. Just a description. Although with AI you never know
I will have to watch it.
even if the corrupted justices retired tomorrow, mcconnell would just try to move the confirmation goalposts again...
"Just to help realize the implications if a PotUS is elected who lacks the character, discipline, responsibility, and integrity to work for the nation rather than for him/herself."
That description precisely defines 10% Biden, with the additional baggage of a total lack of intellectual, emotional, and physical fitness. A respected neurologist says Biden exhibits the symptoms of Parkinson's disease.
The lefties need to face reality....Biden is likely to lose the presidency, the Republicans are likely to take control of both the House and Senate, and the current members of the Supreme Court aren't going anywhere, in spite of all the progressive crying, whining, wailing, and the gnashing of teeth. Hopefully the libs will be able to deal with it.
Neurologist says Biden displays 'hallmark' symptoms of Parkinson's: 'Not a hard case' to diagnose (msn.com)
Make a thoughtful comment on the topic or go somewhere else.
"if a PotUS is elected who lacks the character, discipline, responsibility, and integrity to work for the nation rather than for him/herself."
It's obvious you were referring to Trump.
It's my opinion and assessment of the current sitting president. A lot of thought went into it.
Your assessment of Biden is off topic. The topic is the SCotUS ruling and the power it gives to an irresponsible PotUS.
No more warnings.
good luck with that ...
If there is enough evidence to remove a sitting president through impeachment then, presumably, that same evidence would be sufficient for prosecution.
Seems to me the SCOTUS ruling applies to cases where there is no evidence sufficient for impeachment. The idea is to protect presidents from taking action out of fear political enemies will use some action to prosecute them once they are out of office; a sort of using legal action as a form of blackmail. Considering the two impeachments Trump was subjected to for political purposes, this is a real issue.
Once out of office Biden's acts and conduct as POTUS are likely to come up for Investigations. Some of those acts and conduct might be his possible involvement in all those indictments against Trump. The Supreme Court decision might end up being a benefit for him.
If Biden engaged in a crime such as taking a bribe for political favors, would you think it appropriate that he NOT be immune from legal consequences?
I would lose all respect for Biden if he did take a bribe or rounded up his enemies and detained them indefinitely without any charges
Same here.
I try to get people to understand their own arguments (implications) by encouraging them to take partisan politics out of the equation. One great way to do that is to substitute the 'other side' and then see what conclusion they would draw.
As usual, that is met with silence.
There those on the left and the right that can't leave their partisan politics at the door to examine a situation critically
It is astounding how many 'echoes' are heard on these boards when the 'chambers' ' door slam shut against a well-stated/reasonable response. It is clearly evident some don't care to change or be corrected.
yeah, but think of all those maga votes that would crossover in november... /s
no, not when they have their own peer review to reinforce their ignorance.
Yes, but much of the evidence has been made non-admissible by the SCotUS ruling.
Where do you find that in their opinion?
Yes, and that is a protection in principle I would support. Indeed, this protection has been in place our entire history through actual practice. An unwritten rule with no guarantees but it has worked just fine. And it was always based on the actual circumstances. This ruling is a categorical immunity that does NOT allow the specific circumstances to be questioned in a court of law.
We don't actually know that yet. That is, we won't know how the ruling will play out in a court of law until it happens. Much would depend on the specifics of the case. In the example of bribery and impeachment given in the article, I would imagine that much would depend on the evidence, how it was obtained and so forth. Right now all we have is a bunch of people saying it will result in this or that outcome, but we won't really know until the first case is tried. In Trump's case, if I understand correctly, SCOTUS returned his case to the lower courts in order to more specifically separate their argument concerning what constituted official and unofficial acts. If the case ever goes forward, we'll see how the ruling is applied.
Do you mean the part about insufficient evidence for impeachment? That's an assumption on my part. If there is sufficient evidence for a president to be impeached by both chambers, I would imagine that would be an entirely different animal, legally, than going after a former president by one party.
Yes, which is what kept Obama from being prosecuted concerning specifically targeting three American citizens with a drone strike and killing them without due process. According to the ACLU:
This is about as classic an example of a president needing immunity when acting in their official capacity as one could want. On the one hand, he killed three American citizens who presumably fought or were intending to fight for our enemies. Do citizens who do that lose their constitutional protections? On the other hand, these citizens chose to fight with our enemies. When they were killed, they were apparently not in actual conflict or anywhere near where conflict was occurring but should that matter?
My personal feeling is that if these citizens went to fight with our enemies and they get killed, the blood is on their own heads. However, that's assuming they die fighting. Obama essentially assassinated them. Conflicted about that, too, but I think Obama stepped over the line here. These weren't commanders or movers and shakers. Their only value was that they were Americans and, presumably, Obama was sending a message.
And, as you point out,
Obama, and any other president, used drone strikes as a method of assassination of our enemies, a questionable practice legally, to say the least, has benefitted from that. FDR benefitted from that when he interred Japanese Americans, possibly the most illegal thing a president has ever done. The presidents involved in Viet Nam benefitted from that. But in Trump's case, we want to strip that protection from him. And for political reasons alone.
Yes we do. Read the opinion. If the evidence is tied to an official act it is categorically inadmissible. It cannot even be known in the court.
Per the opinion, it does not matter. Any evidence brought forward in the impeachment that is tied to an official act is inadmissible in a court of law.
We agree on something.
Don't you think, then, that it would be appropriate to allow our legal system to deal with the specifics of a case involving the PotUS? If the act was core constitutionally, the PotUS has absolute immunity. No legal recourse of any kind is possible. If the act was official then it is presumed that the PotUS has complete immunity and the legal system must first prove that immunity does not apply. Then it would have to prove guilt. These are the consequences of the ruling.
Wow, what a leap. Trying Trump for his crimes would (have been) operating under the exact same laws and constitutional interpretation of every other PotUS in our history. And trying the only PotUS who used coercion, fraud, lying, and incitement in an attempt to steal a presidential election and disenfranchise voters seems like a very appropriate case for our legal system to adjudicate.
Not really, and I think you know it. Everything is political, at that level. Vic just posted about a House panel having subpoenaed Biden aids about his mental fitness. This is political as well, along with everything everyone in DC is doing. None of them are going after justice and if you think otherwise, you're naive.
No, Drakk, I meant exactly what I wrote.
Trump's wrongdoing is obvious and historically unique. It was way over the top and set a horrible precedent ... lowering the bar for outrageous behavior that a PotUS (and others) might get away with.
If you believe that Trump did not engage in (illegal/unconstitutional) fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement in an attempt to steal a US presidential election (the first such attempt by a PotUS in our history) then you labeling me naive is pure projection.
But you are trying to use that as an excuse to argue that Trump should not be held accountable for his wrongdoing. Regardless of partisan dynamics, what Trump did was historically wrong and outrageous and he should be held accountable for same.
Unfortunately the SCotUS is helping to ensure none of his trials take place and to embolden Trump if he is elected to be even more rogue.
Okay, I read the first part of the opinion and you're correct. Until now I only read what some article presented. I now have a better understanding and I am in agreement with the decision. That evidence should be inadmissible.
No, I don't and for the reasons stated in the opinion.
Also, I was going to watch the vid rather than just read the text but the guy lost me immediately when he said "...the extreme right-wing justices...". Concerning core constitutional duties you yourself have pointed out presidents have enjoyed this immunity all along, yet when it comes to Trump it doesn't apply. Don't see how you cannot see this.
I disagree. FDR folded, spindled and mutilated the Constitution and then put it through a shredder when he interred Japanese Americans. Trump just has different details. He's hardly the first president to do patently illegal acts. Hell, Biden is doing everything he can to get all of us to pay the college debts of college students, even though SCOTUS said he couldn't. Biden inarguably is criminally derelict in his duty to secure the border, yet he's going to get away with it because he has immunity.
Even so, presidents need that immunity to be effective, even if they do something we don't like. If what they are doing is so egregiously wrong that something needs to happen we have impeachment to take care of that. Unfortunately, our government is so broken that that's never going to happen for the foreseeable future. Just the way it is, until people wake up.
Nope. If Trump has done something not covered by immunity then I'm all for him getting his day in court. That's what COTUS did, you know. They are not the court of first resort, but last. They remanded the case back to district courts to determine what were official acts and which weren't. What everyone is pissed about is that there's no way that this will be settled before the election, which is what this is all about. Instead, most people know what the issues are and Trump will face a different court. One where the verdict will have him elected or Biden.
FDR did not engage in fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement in an attempt to steal a US presidential election and disenfranchise the electorate.
I made that explicit statement on purpose, Drakk. That is the specific historically unique wrongdoing of which I wrote. What I stated was not ambiguous. And I did not claim that Trump was the only PotUS who engaged in wrongdoing.
What Trump did was outrageous and he should be held accountable for it. Do you think the nation should ignore all that he did? Do you believe the nation should excuse all that he did because he was PotUS at the time?
A point on which we already agree.
I disagree with the way the SCotUS handled the situation. Rather than resolve the situation at hand (does Trump have absolute immunity or can he be tried for his wrongdoing in a court of law?) they took the opportunity to engage in judicial activism and formally impose factors of immunity (absolute,presumptive,inadmissible evidence) that do not exist in the CotUS and indeed contradict the text of the CotUS and the constitutional principle that no man (including the PotUS) is above the law.
No but he and his administration hide and lied about the seriousness of his health before his final campaign.
Nice. You include the new immunity condition. That is now a very safe bet for someone who does not want Trump to be held accountable.
I did not ask about that, I asked about wrongdoing. So you are fully embracing the SCotUS decision.
It is very safe to claim that you are all for trying Trump per the SCotUS ruling because that pretty much means he will not be tried or tried in a very hobbled fashion (inadmissible evidence).
I think most in the electorate have a very superficial understanding of what took place.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the point. This topic is not whether or not other PotUS' engaged in wrongdoing. It is about the SCotUS empowering presidents and enabling an irresponsible rogue PotUS to do harm.
If so, then you are right. SCOTUS didn’t help FDR hide his serious health issues from the voters.
Our nation has, for its entire existence, operated with the explicit and implicit constitutional notion that no man is above the law. Even an impeached PotUS is not, per the letter of the CotUS, NOT above the law.
Until now.
We historically granted PotUS' great deference given our understanding that they must sometimes take actions that are unlike anything a normal citizen would take. But we always had the ability to hold the PotUS legally accountable in cases where he crossed the line of deference. Not anymore.
as exampled by these correspondences. As it is very unlikely Trump will ever be tried for his blatant wrongdoings, and laws violated, if Trump is again elected. The Supreme Courts decisions make it extremely difficult to hold a president accountable for about anything, and obviously done with mal intent, as The Constitution be bent, as introduced today were some possible actions to investigate Clarence Thomas and Alito, and about fckn time and neetoe. Also AOC introduced impeachment ;proceedings, the Gop will obviously thwart, but both are steps in the right direction
To tie together my thoughts to your Supreme Court, for Pardon Purposes, I can certainly see WHY, Thomas and Alito may wish to shuffle the deck, as Trump being again elected, could insure if found guilty of their obvious violations, from being ousted via Trump pardons, as this is truly problematic for this country's rule of law.
I know. Like most on the left, you want immunity to be selective. Apparently, you feel that what you think Trump did is somehow more egregious than what FDR did or any other president, for instance. You say:
But in fact all SCOTUS has done is apply immunity in the same fashion precedence has established all along. And not even total immunity at that. Instead, rather than make your argument from that, your argument simply ignores precedent and rests on the idea that "no man is above the law" in spite of the fact that historical precedent states otherwise.
To my mind, that is what this is all about. The office of president must be protected from political manipulations just such as this one. You can't have it both ways, TiG. You can't say presidents have enjoyed immunity in their official capacity except in cases that you personally don't like. They either have it or they don't. There is no in between. If the president does something so egregious it then becomes Congress' duty to impeach them. That's the best that can be done. To do otherwise would destroy the separation of powers between the branches of government.
Not according to the opinion I read. They stated case law for every step of the decision they made. There was no activism involved.
TiG is not the only one that feels Trump has gone, by far, over and above his predecessors, and it should be rather apparent he has Supreme Justices, both of which should have recused themselves,writing opinions specific, to shield and benefit Trump. A most very inappropriate action, especially when Ginny was a participant in Jan 6th, while Alito and the Mrs.'s were busy sending flags up the flagpole to signal their support for the participants of an insurrection at our Capital in an attempt to thwart the transfer of power. And this which is quite glowing, even to those who attempt to be not knowing, what these Injustices Supreme were obviously Showing...
Don't label me, Drakk. Focus on the content.
Our system of laws is based on principles applied to the specifics of a circumstance. Absolute immunity removes the circumstances and categorically allows any behavior that falls under core constitutional duties. Even if the behavior is a total abuse of power, if that power was a core constitutional power then the PotUS can never be held legally accountable.
And if that behavior is an act of office then the PotUS not only is presumed to be immune (lack of immunity must be proved) but any evidence regarding the behavior is not admissible.
It is, in a very real practical sense, impossible in some cases and very difficult in the balance to hold the PotUS accountable for abuse of his powers.
A non sequitur and irrational belief. I made no such comparison. And the comparison is entirely irrelevant to the topic. We are dealing with changes to the CotUS by the SCotUS and those changes were directly in response to the Trump cases. So talking about how they apply to Trump is fine. But this is not a topic on which PotUS engaged in the most egregious acts. It is about what NOW can be done when a PotUS abuses the power of his office.
This pattern is predictable; you always turn things personal. This is not about what I like. It is about the effective change in the CotUS.
Sure, a PotUS either has absolute immunity or they do not. So would you like us to have a Monarchy? How about a dictatorship? No, Drakk, this is not binary. We have a system of justice and the SCotUS just effectively granted the PotUS the right to be above the law. And somehow you are okay with that.
Probably best for you to start with the CotUS. This passage has now been contradicted:
There is nothing in the CotUS that gives the PotUS absolute immunity or even presumed immunity. And worse, there is nothing that suggests evidence from an official act is inadmissible in a court of law.
This is the 'no man is above the law' clause. It has been violated.
Nor did this Supreme Court help Trump hide is obvious, probably more serious than Biden's in my opinion, psychotic and neurotic behaviors, that Trump only finds to be erotic.
Untrue. The writers of the Constitution made that clear by providing an example such as treason or bribery so, clearly, they did not intend absolute immunity of the sort you're describing. The problem is, when faced with such things, at what point does a sitting president create such an egregious violation? To my mind, Biden could, and perhaps, should be charged with treason for his conduct concerning the border. He has left the border wide open for most of his presidency, threatening our security and forcing the citizenry to pay for the welfare of illegal immigrants. On the one hand it is claimed that Trump attempted to commit a crime, while Biden has been committing one on the border since he took office. Funny thing, perspective.
Which you yourself acknowledged as precedent.
True, but the presidency is a unique position so has unique conditions.
Hardly. We are talking about taking legal action against a president for acts not protected by the constitution concerning his powers, are we not? FDR could not have enacted a more unconstitutional act if he'd tried. It was an even more clear cut case of abuse of power. I'd say that was pretty relevant.
And what, precisely, did the SCOTUS change in the Constitution? I will remind you again what you said.
The Court didn't change anything. They addressed the "unwritten rule" for the first time, recognizing that it has always been there but no case had come up before like this one, so it seems new. I will also remind you again that the Court cited precedence for their decision. If you want to claim they changed the Constitution then it would seem you would necessarily have to address all the precedence they cite and argue that they aren't using them correctly or have distorted them in some way.
Or you just take it personally. "You" can have a general sense, you know. But I'm used to you making it about you.
What I am okay with is the idea that the president can't be tied down with wondering whether or not he's going to be tried or sued over every decision he makes at some later date. That is the point behind the president's immunity. Can it be abused? Yes. Is it perfect? No. But if the Court had not made the ruling they had, the one recognizing the same immunity enjoyed by every president to date, then what we'll end up with is Biden being tried for treason by the Republicans for what he's done with the border. And every president after that will be stifled in their decisions out of fear of legal actions at some point.
Sorry, not seeing how this applies. It all goes back to the quote you made and I keep posting. What grants the immunity are the first two articles of the Constitution, which establishes the three branches of government. While not expressly granting immunity, case law, as cited in the Court's decision, has always assumed it, apparently. Right now, all you're doing is claiming that the Court changed the Constitution without actually providing evidence that they did. You just rest your case on "no man is above the law".
But hey, if you don't like what the Court did, do this. Have a constitutional convention and address this issue. Come up with some way that Constitutionally establishes a non-vague interpretation that suits what you want to happen and go for it. I'd love to see what you come up with.
And I think this concludes my participation in this discussion. I've made my views on this subject clear enough and I don't have anything else to add.
Yes, Drakk, the framers did not intend for the PotUS to have absolute immunity. I agree.
Whenever we face judgment calls of law vs. actions we use our legal system. That is what it is for, to adjudicate specific circumstances per our system of laws.
In the case of a sitting PotUS, the CotUS offers impeachment as the remedy for removing a rogue PotUS from power. But it explicitly states that this PotUS, once removed from power, is still subject to the rule of law (can be indicted, etc.).
Then you have completely misunderstood what I wrote because I have not in any way claimed that there is a precedent where evidence from a presidential act is inadmissible in court.
Yes it is. We agree on that principle.
Irrelevant. FDR and every other former PotUS are not on trial. The only former PotUS currently indicted and thus testing this new SCotUS ruling is Trump. FDR is a deflection.
They codified their own determination of immunity. They made it up out of whole cloth. There is no concept of absolute immunity for core constitutional duties in the CotUS. The CotUS does not mention 'absolute immunity' nor does it even mention (much less define) 'core constitutional duties'. The CotUS does not even mention (much less define) 'presumptive immunity'. And the CotUS does not mention any notion of the official acts of a PotUS being categorically inadmissible in a court of law. All of this was made up by the SCotUS and they did so in direct contradiction to the text of the CotUS.
They addressed the "unwritten rule" by changing the CotUS and even contradicting it. This can only done through amendments. The SCotUS does not have the power to amend our CotUS. They interpret, they do not change.
Again, we agree on this principle. The principle is not my objection. My objection is the categorical expansion of protection which all but takes our legal system out of the equation when dealing with a former rogue PotUS.
You do not see how this applies????:
Give us all a break. This passage shows that a former PotUS is subject to indictment, trial, etc. Absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and inadmissibility of evidence contradict this clause.
The SCotUS created protections that are NOT in the CotUS. Flat out. They have no power to amend the CotUS but they just penned rules which contradict the text and principle of the CotUS.
But your 'argument' is that you just do not see it.
So, you admit that this is only an issue for you because.... TRUMP! I knew this already but you confirm it, which is nice. Your calling FDR and the internment of Japanese Americans a deflection only proves it, even though any honest person can see that the FDR and many other exercises of presidential powers in the past have direct bearing on this case. You claim they aren't relevant because they're not Trump.
FDR deprived Japanese American citizens of their Constitutionally guaranteed rights. A right so fundamental that, without it the rest of the Constitution would be meaningless, through an executive order. The Supreme Court, 6-3, backed him up. Congress participated in the violation of the Constitution as well when they passed a law providing penalties for violating the executive order even before the order was actually issued. All because of their race. We know it was about their race because the same thing did not happen to German Americans, one of which was my grandmother, who, even having been born here, couldn't even speak English until her teens.
A more egregious example of a criminal use of executive power could not be manufactured, yet you say it is irrelevant. It has no relevance to Trump's case because FDR is not Trump. Well, that just shows there's no point to this discussion.
No, you are not okay with this. And here is a hypothetical based on your comment:
If you were okay with sitting presidents being free from 'wondering' about prosecution or being sued, your mind would not have stated what you did above!
In my opinion, "you" —the collective you- are okay with Donald, who supports your worldview, (at least for the time being) being given freer rein over the country to 'molest' groupings of people whom "you' detest at this point.
And it would have fallen hollow as a charge on its face. Given the opportunity to their face to do something corrective at the border-even greater than republicans imagined the democratic senate to SUPPORT: The house/senate Trumpists choked!
"You' can't impeach a president for making the offer "you" wouldn't support because of Donald, the angry, lying, ex--president who has more power over his Trumpists out of office than he used in office. Trumpists are lying to the country. They have no deep and abiding wish for the border crisis to end, because it is hoped to be useful as a complaint for the fall presidential election.
Our law has always assumed good faith in the selections of presidents. It was, is, the opportunity for the people of the country to be mature and pick whom they would have to lead them always with the implications being- the best choice-of the best candidates. . . .not a leader 'sworn' to be petty, trifling, of evil intent, even vile personal character who goes about promising to give his supporters the 'heads' of the other people in the country and let his supporters 'ride' over their fellows.
It is a noble cause the founders hoped to give us-increasing self-maturity; right now, it is in deep danger of failing. But, God deliver the people—from their fellows!
It SCOTUS 'backlash.' This SCOTUS has looked at the landscape and decided to make its own payback (likely through having discussion with other conservative think-tanks and the like) for the times when its own so-called, "conservative justices" joined/reasoned and assented to liberal points of view in questions of the constitution leading to implied privacy rights for women through abortion, same sex marriage, and the like.
The 'Unitary Executive Theory' has not just now popped into the minds of a conservative court, it is a planned strategy that through hook and crook (Ginsburg untimely death) that frees the court to act in retaliation-while the issues are 'ripe' and their 'numbers' on the court. . . ripe.
It's clear to see this, because the Court has not only added new understandings - it removed 'out of the way' precedent in order to facilitate its new intention to have a president LOCK others out of coming to court, any court, to plead for certain types and forms of relief!
Officially, the SUPREME COURT once friends of the people (mostly) just SPIT in the face of the same! We should 'hark up' and spit right back in the faces of conservative justices—one by one and collectively!
That is we will keep POUNDING ON THE DAMN DOOR of the high court until they let us in to be heard and changes come befitting a great nation such as ourselves. Or, may our country be under a curse until done so!
Is this really the best you can do nowadays, Drakk? Pathetic.
FDR's internment of Japanese Americans is moot, because it is 'out of step' with the times we live.
For one thing, FDR was at war with Japan and it was a grave war involving our yet struggling (fighting) for its own MATURITY country.
Two, the country was not yet sure of its science. We are 'certainly' surer today.
Three, FDR is dead and no amount of digging him up to spit in what's left of his face will accomplish anything for the corpse or for the country.
Four. The nation eventually PAID reparations to the descendants of the Japanese Americans detained and removed out of their place in the country.
Fifth and final. If "you" collectively say that FDR was wrong to do what he did to the Japanese, then "you" are expected to be better in your analysis of what to DO future-tense that won't result in the same/similar set of errors in judgement and actions!
If the indignity, indecency, and error speaks out for itself, there is no future justification for using it as a model of proper behavior 'today.' It's just making a case for retaliations and as such taking a proven case of 'bad form' from history to justify farther acts of the same.
Great, critically thought-out counter argument, TiG. Well done.
I have countered all of your arguments, Drakk. I have no interest engaging you when you switch to dishonest snark.
Right. Simply declaring relevant actions and precedence of past presidential actions as irrelevant is a great counter.
What snark? Until my previous comment, I employed no snark. Since you want to disregard past precedent as irrelevant, the only reason to single out Trump is Trump. You want to single him out because you believe his actions were unprecedented, disregarding that there's no logical reason to single out his alleged crimes while, at the same time, discounting or flat out ignoring history and precedence where other presidents violated the Constitution as egregiously or arguably worse. What else could it be other than "TRUMP!" Can you imagine what would happen had it been Trump who executed three American citizens without Constitutionally guaranteed due process? Pretty sure I'm not the one being dishonest here.
And yet again you bring us to this end. I'm guessing it's a tactic you use when you're losing in order to deflect. Go ahead and have the last word. I'm done with this nonsense.
Given all I have written, you claim that is what I argued? Since there is no way you could have missed my repeated argument, I conclude that your claim is a lie.
That is a lie. You deflected to FDR rather than focus on the fact that the SCotUS just changed (and contradicted) the CotUS to empower a rogue PotUS.
Another lie. Trump could very well win. And Trump easily could exploit his new immunity.
No, it is because the SCotUS ruling is based on a Trump appeal and Trump is currently likely to be the next PotUS. (Obviously)
Start with what I argued. Real simple: the SCotUS has changed the CotUS ... and not just extending it, but also contradicting it. I have explained this in great detail.
Trump, who has been given extraordinary deference? The only PotUS in our history to use fraud, coercion, lying, and incitement in an attempt to steal a US presidential election and disenfranchise the electorate whose criminal trials regarding this have been successfully delayed until after the election? That Trump? Get real, Drakk.
Regardless, your speculation goes nowhere. This topic is about the actions of the SCotUS empowering a rogue PotUS with the chance that a potentially rogue PotUS (Trump) will take the oath in 2025.
Projection. Arrogant, at that.
This is text that I have focused on as a fine example of framer intent. This text illustrates the principle that no man is above the law. It illustrates that even if a PotUS is impeached and convicted by Congress, that he is still liable for criminal charges as a former PotUS. No restrictions. The framers left the adjudication of crimes to our legal system. They left it up to the legal system to deal with the specific circumstances in consideration of the extant law. No surprise there.
If you think you can rebut my claims then I just gave you the three items that you need to rebut.
american terrorist associates that stray from the domestic protection of due process are fair game...
does bush's gitmo and secret prisons ring any bells?
yeah, I didn't think so ...
Such profound agnorant projection
[✘]
.
...
Full disclosure, I have not watched the video. I am just opining.
That would have been alliterative and descriptive...
As much as there are people screaming about the decision, I think we still have to wait and see just what can be tied to an official act and where the boundary exists between official and not-official. I do not think that it is clear, at all, just what actions can be described as official acts. If the ruling means that any communication between the president and any person in government who's duties can be construed as belonging under Article II of the constitution is automatically removed from judicial revue, then that does go against the spirit and the letter of the constitution because how would any President be impeached if all that he has to do is state "Official Act"?
Please tell me if I am missing something here.
It would seem that if the President were talking to his Attorney General about the election would not be an official act, it would be the act of a candidate who happens to be talking with the Attorney General.
Governments depend on the good faith actions of the members. Donald Trump may have dealt in good faith when he was a child, but most all of his subsequent escapades have been anything but "In Good Faith" to the point of absurdity.
It seems from the opinion that an official act is any act taken by a PotUS that he or she is constitutionally empowered to take. An official act is anything that a PotUS does operating as PotUS.
For example, running for office is something a private citizen does. So it is not an official act for a sitting PotUS to run for reelection and that includes all the campaigning, fund-raising, etc. Any wrongdoing in that domain is not protected by immunity.
But it is an official act to pardon someone, direct funds to someone, order the killing of someone (typically enemy combatant), fire, hire, give orders, etc. And if a PotUS receives personal benefits from official acts, those are still official acts.
I doubt there is much difficulty distinguishing what a PotUS can do (what is within the realm of the office) from what a private citizen can do. The difficulty would be determining if an act is legal / illegal and constitutional / unconstitutional.
And here is where we have a problem because unless we can clearly show that an act by a PotUS was purely a private act (e.g. having dinner with family, writing a personal diary entry, writing a congratulation letter to a friend, running a business, campaigning, etc.) the evidence associated with that act is inadmissible in court. There is no chance for litigation ... the evidence cannot be known in the trial.
The SCotUS allowed a former PotUS to still be tried as a private citizen for private citizen misbehavior (e.g. embezzlement, business fraud, tax evasion, ...) but what he or she did operating officially as PotUS is essentially covered by immunity. And if the act is core constitutional (e.g. pardon) it is absolutely immune from the legal system.
So if the President is holding a luncheon at the Whitehouse, because that luncheon is an "official" act of the President, any and all actions that the President may take at that luncheon are determined to be immune? Or is it a finer distinction than that. Say that at the luncheon they see someone ogling their spouse and tell the secret service to rough them up. Would that not be a reason for the courts to say that that was a private act, ie, the act of a private citizen, and therefore met the standards for judicial action?
I guess what I am saying is there are actions that can be taken as a private citizen whilst in the midst of official duties. Phone conversations can be official, but I find it hard to believe that the results of the Met's game is really an official act.
Sorry. I am just thinking to myself and typing. Trying to figure out if the world is about to end or if it's just another invasion from Mars. Don't get me wrong, I feel that the evidence against Trump is solid and incontrovertible and to have it thrown out would be a travesty not only of justice but paradoxically against the CotUS by it's supposed guardians on the SCotUS.
That would be presumptive immunity (per my reading of the opinion), not absolute immunity.
From my reading, it is within the power of the PotUS to give orders to his SS. Thus the evidence surrounding the order cannot be admitted in a court of law. So the PotUS is presumed to be immune from prosecution which means a court would have to first prove that the PotUS is not immune for the act and then (and only then) it would have to find the PotUS guilty of a crime. But, again, sans the evidence surrounding the act.
Sure. Let's adjust your scenario and say that the PotUS himself directly assaulted the luncheon guest and, as a result, the man died. In this case that would be a private act and the PotUS could hold trial for involuntary manslaughter, etc.
A phone conversation while PotUS is not ipso facto an official act. Talking, pointing, writing memos, tweeting, etc. are not ipso facto official acts. A PotUS will of course perform everyday acts so not everything a PotUS does is ipso facto official. But if a PotUS sends a tweet as PotUS it will be very likely that the tweet will be deemed an official act. If the PotUS tweets his girlfriend for a rendezvous ... different story.
Alright, I am feeling dumb today (it is a common occurrence), but WTF is 'presumptive immunity'? I have looked around but could find no really satisfying definition. Maybe I was looking in the wrong places.
Well, that sucks. Sounds more and more like a mob boss every day.
I still see much grey area in this decision. And of course, if the activities of the president are official, such as tweeting as President, is it not possible to just put the facts on plain view and then claim it was official?
I mean, Really?
Didn't Donald Trump once say that he could shoot someone on fifth ave and suffer no repercussions from the electorate?
i'm beginning to believe the cult leader indeed, could get away with as much, and now the Court Supreme, like in a bad dream, has said there would probably be no charges, cause Trump said it was an official Presidential Duty, for the victim accused Trump of giving her a cootie.
And his cult ivated lemmings would defend him for stopping the next proclaimed Trump pandemic
It is a term the SCotUS just made up. The SCotUS divided PotUS powers of office into two categories: core constitutional and all others. Core constitutional powers (e.g. the power to pardon) have absolute immunity. They cannot, under ANY circumstances, be challenged legally.
Presumptive immunity applies to all other powers. It means that the PotUS is presumed to be immune from legal challenge for those powers. So to legally deal with a rogue PotUS who abused powers other than 'core constitutional', the court must first prove that the PotUS is NOT immune. That the presumption of immunity does not apply. If successful, then the court can try the PotUS. However, none of the evidence dealing with the PotUS' official actions are admissible in court. Thus presumptive immunity greatly hobbles the adjudication of a PotUS.
Given what we have seen with Trump's attorney and complicit judges, it is clear that a rich, well-known, powerful player can tie courts in a not and basically escape justice. So in grey areas, it would seem that the PotUS would likely prevail.
He said his supporters would still support him. He did not predict that in 2024 the SCotUS would pave the road for him to be elected to the presidency and then behave rogue with the worst consequences being impeachment.
the SCOTUS decision's sole purpose was to add another layer of ambiguous insulation to a common criminal.
While the courts may have trouble prosecuting something like this, there is no presumed insulation from impeachment.
That said I'm unimpressed with the current crop of GoP Senators that supported Trump with the argument he couldn't be impeached after leaving office and his then lawyers argument he couldn't be tried criminally because he wasn't impeached.
And now if he was impeached, the evidence dealing with any official acts are inadmissible in a court of law. Congress can use the evidence for the purposes of impeachment but the legal system is categorically denied the ability to use this evidence.
I suppose that could be determined during the Congressional proceedings. If Congress stipulates the impeachable offense was not an official act, it could then be entered into evidence in criminal proceedings. I think this was the courts take all along, except they recognized the political implications of a highly partisan Congress... so...(shrug)
This ruling will eventually be overturned when some President abuses his authority. It won't be this court, but it will be some court at some time. It's an absurd interpretation of the law.
Seems to me that this would prevent them from impeaching the PotUS.
I fully agree. However it may take decades. In the meantime, we have the very real possibility of an unfit, vindictive, loose-cannon, irresponsible individual assuming the presidency armed with this newly codified level of immunity. The USA could have a rogue, empowered PotUS.
Nothing in the SCOTUS ruling effects Congressional impeachment powers.
If Trump wins he will be all that AND a bag of stale chips. Unless he can disband Congress there is still a stop gap there from his worst abuses. If he tries to disband Congress then its civil war...
It is pretty sad that the only check on a populist tyrant is a weak-kneed partisan senate whose jobs are dependent on pleasing said populist tyrant for fear of stirring up the wrath of his mind-numbingly stupid voter base who have proven they would support their dear leader regardless of his actions. Their dear leader could hog-tie and repeatedly rape their grandmothers, wives and daughters and his sycophantic supporters would simply be celebrating the fact that their dear leader took an interest in their family.
But if Congress declares the act underlying the impeachment a non-official act, do they not ipso facto kill their impeachment case?
What if we have a GOP / MAGA Congress?
I don't disagree. We live in strange times and I've been saying it for awhile now that we may need to be reminded of what authoritarianism looks like before the country can course correct. I hope not, but more and more it looks as if it must.
No, in fact, I think under a criminal act it does just the opposite. As you've pointed out something can be both criminal and an official act so that may be more difficult to prosecute. This is where I think a court would have to overturn the decision but it would have to be something quite egregious.
If they don't disband Congress, the MAGA Congress is open to being voted out of office if they go against the will of the people. The worst of the platform policies Trump has voiced are unpopular according to recent polling.
Common is right - his whole life he's been nothing but a low life no class white trash scumbag with money
These people constantly make me reassess my stance on public education.
The ACLU is already working on checking the worst of Trump's instincts -
Alas and sighing! Where there is a will there is a way. . . we just have to keep fighting for what should be ours to possess freely in this country we love. When we 'talk' about persecution, I can with certainty say a select grouping of conservatives are persecuting their liberal counterparts. At the most, I can say that both extreme conservatives and extreme liberals are persecuting each other!
It is easy to see the 'onion' layers of a conspiracy playing out between house/senate/scotus (lower cased on purpose) - all under conservative control at opportunistic intervals of recent. A large picture is forming. . . . All the 'thing with a thousand-eyes monster' is up on the screen before us!
'We' the people will have to facilitate the overturning. It can not stand up as some IGNORANT form of retaliation that harms INNOCENT people just because Donald is a stupid ass fool who does not know that people do not want to kiss his 'ass'—not next year or in a distant future!
And we will fight back. . . as only we know how in this country! We have a reputation for freedom for all, because we earned it. And we can keep it. . . even if Donald and his supporters don't like it. We will not serve an 'errand' leader who won't serve the people. The good people will stand up and fight LIKE HELL for our share of justice—too!
I don't know if I will go with the rape remarks, but I will vote the comment up, all the same! As I get the drift of what you mean by it.
Clear 'evidence' that we the people must act to stifle/defeat the Trumpists/MAGAs/GOP this fall in both congressional houses with all our might! Get fired up and ready to go!
Good! If there is a WILL there is a WAY!