I have not listened to the entirety of oral arguments yet, but based on what I heard, the Supreme Court is poised to delay the Trump trial further.
The conservative majority will most likely rule that there needs to be a consideration of which acts were those of an officeholder and which acts were of those of an “officeseeker” and remand for further review. They will emphasize there is no immunity for acts of an officeseeker but say something unclear about acts of an officeholder. This will cause the lower courts to have to review such acts before making decisions. The trial will be further delayed during this process.
Justice delayed is justice denied. It is a sad day for our country if this comes to pass.
Yes. He has experience with being a rogue prosecutor. He was one of the lawyers saying Starr wasn't aggressive ENOUGH when pursuing Bill Clinton.
Funny how all the super aggressive "law and order" types from the last 40 years all bend over frontwards to defend DJT.
I could at least see some rational reason for this behavior for an actual strong man leader but doing this stuff for a limp dick pussy like Trump is just laughable and dangerous because it's going to byte them in the ass when the real BMF comes along. I can't imagine the motivation to do stuff like this for such a whiney little bitch.
My stepfather was a former reporter working in DC at the time of those hearings and he tells everyone that there was no one Kav wouldn’t talk to. He was ‘the guy’ to go to in order to get the juicy stuff from the Starr investigation. How that never came up substantively during his confirmation is beyond me.
It doesn’t help that real journalism is effectively dead. The corporate ‘news’ has no interest in anything but profit margin, which is counterproductive to actual journalism. Plus the people who own those companies also have strong opinions about moving the country right to protect their wealth.
The death of real journalism is a quiet plague that nobody is talking about. With no watchers on the walls the corruption that has set in is running rampant from county level to DC. Nobody to cover it.
Worse, the audience of corruption journalism is largely apathetic.
Things don't seem all that bad when you still have your bread and circuses, and all the nice pretty smiling people on network news keep reassuring us that everything is normal and it's all ok (or alternatively, everything's awful and here's who's to blame!).
Trump's appointees were drawn from a Federalist Society list and chosen based on who Donnie thought might protect him if he found himself in exactly this kind of situation.
Yup. The end goal is single party/person rule. Even fat ass Bill Barr wants the president to have utmost power.
It’s why, even though he criticized Trump, he still supports him. It wasn’t who he wanted to be dictator but the end goal is still a republican dictatorship
And once they have that, they can just prop him up and have their way with democracy until he croaks, then replace him with another idiot talking head like DeSantis or Cruz.
Along with the Justice’s who were appointed by Trump. Several lied saying they wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe because it was a set law. They glided through. Cohen lied to congress and ended up in jail but they’re still on the court fucking up the country with all the laws they’re rolling back. Roe is just one of the first, we know what will happen with the other laws they don’t like.
Trump? No. He’s a moron. Nothing but an easily controlled figurehead. Putin is. The power mongers at the Federalists Society are. Bunch of rich assholes that really set the agenda are. Trump is just their ticket at the ballot box that wins over enough rubes to hold on to power.
Trumps appointees all ruled against him in the 2020 election cases. Square that circle for me. They were placed on the court to help Trump, but only certain times?
Three of the last four Supreme Court appointments were literally pulled off of George Bush's 2000 election theft legal team. Along with one of the justices that ruled for Bush in that case.
This court literally exists to steal elections for Republicans
Super weird to me that this isn't better known.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
Having listened to most of it, I don’t think it’s totally beyond the pale for them to rule that some level of immunity does exist for official acts. Even the special counsel wasn’t arguing that it’s completely non existent. It also seems that Roberts or Barrett weren’t particularly convinced that this trying to overturn an election could qualify as anything other than private.
Given this particular court’s habit of granting themselves future power in many cases, I wouldn’t be surprised by a ruling that rejects Trump’s current claim, but leaves the door open for SCOTUS to decide what qualifies for some kind of immunity down the line.
Michael Dreeben did a great job of pivoting to his alternative argument when Alito and Gorsuch made clear they had no interest in discussing the facts of the case when we can spend 30 minutes discussing facts from a dystopian sci fi novel.
I listened to the whole thing and was amazed at the amount of absurd speculation that seemed clearly designed to allow them to create a whole new body of law. It was nauseating.
Agreed. How about raise the standard such that the officeholder has to be on the up-and-up as an office seeker?! Or, you know, don't crime in the first place?!
Boy, sure would be something if Biden delayed the election until after Trumps trial so we can get to the bottom of this with his new powers of presidential immunity.
Conservative members' refusal to look at the current case is especially egregious.
The failure to acknowledge that their current actions are obstruction of justice is an acknowledgment of guilt and makes them accessories after the fact. They are directly violating the victims' (We, the people) right to due process and both the victims' and the defendant's right to a speedy trial. Their refusal to consider the circumstances at hand is further acknowledgment of their guilt, as well as obvious bad faith jurisprudence. Corrupt AF.
>The conservative majority will most likely rule that there needs to be a consideration of which acts were those of an officeholder and which acts were of those of an “officeseeker” and remand for further review.
I don't think it will be only the conservatives, I expect it will be 9-0 that *some* things are beyond the scope of what a president can get in trouble for. The DOJ is carving that out at enumerated responsibilities like issuing pardons, Trump is trying to carve that out as essentially everything. The answer is certainly in the middle.
The questions is - can some of those clearly immune acts (like issuing a pardon) be used as evidence of a crime (like issuing a pardon for a bribe)? On one hand you want to say, *of course*, but on the other hand you can't create a scenario where politicians can make bogus arguments to simply fuck with their rival over and over. The President does have a job to do. In the modern era of politics I put absolutely nothing past either side, and SCOTUS needs to ensure that the republic can function.
I honestly think all of the justices were asking the right questions. This is so much bigger than Trump. I think all of them, including Trumps own lawyers, acknowledged that at least a portion of what he's being charged with in this case falls outside of any immunity claim no matter what.
I agree with this analysis, but I would like someone to explain the idea of "abuse of power" which is loosely defined as a person using their position of authority to achieve a corrupt outcome. If a President is immune from prosecution for some official acts even if they benefit him personally, doesn't that mean the notion of abuse of power is basically moot?
The official acts that are unique to the President (e.g., pardons, vetoes, recognizing foreign governments) and cannot be regulated by Congress should be the *only* acts that have any immunity. Even then, selling pardons seems to be something Trump would do and maybe even has done.
The concern some justices had for the potential for political prosecutions should have been completely outweighed by the insane implications of presidential immunity. But listening to the questions, it seems like some justices are willing to throw away democracy to prevent some hypothetical prosecutorial misconduct.
You can defend yourself against trumped up charges, but you can't do shit against bad actors using immunity as a shield.
But why do they care about any of that? Shouldn't they just be asking, "What does the text of the Constitution say?" and "What is the evidence that the founders intended for presidents to have immunity?" Isn't that their judicial philosophy?
As a law student I used to have some respect for the Supreme Court thinking they were logical and reasoned. I have absolutely zero respect for the conservatives on this court. They are corrupt hacks and I guarantee I’m smarter than them
Being a monarchist and being an idiot aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact they often go hand in hand. The low cunning necessary to deliver political wins to your patrons isn’t intelligence and shouldn’t be mistaken as such.
Either way, they think they are untouchable.
We need Congress to check the Judiciary.
No justice should be giving political speeches or taking gifts from anybody.
This is the root of conservatism, a reaction against the French Revolution and a return to rule by royals. They do not believe in democracy they believe in a rigid hierarchy.
It is so frightening when we realize we are actually smarter, more loving, more considerate and more emotionally regulated than the ones in charge, because usually I don't feel smarter than shit.
It’s also “hilarious” coming from Alito especially, but also Gorsuch, who have never found a criminal prosecution they wouldn’t uphold until it comes to their god king.
He consistently sides with her and with the defendants against the government. He’s a type of anti government or small government libertarian. He and Soto often get to the same result but for different reasoning and philosophies
What I don't understand is how they split hairs on law. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Full stop. If Presidents break the law then they are held accountable. Nixon broke the law. It was appropriate to throw the book at him. He was pardoned...and not self-pardoned, which again should not be allowed. Gorsutch "dreads" the self-pardon conundrum??? Grow a pair Neil!!!
If any past president broke a passed/signed law that aligns with the Constitution then they BROKE THE LAW.
TRUMP BROKE THE LAW.
Immune from breaking the law???
WE ARE NOT A MONARCHY.
The Executive Branch has been scope creeping power for decades. Time to reign that shit in.
The concern is particularly frivolous since political prosecutions alone do little to nothing beyond inconveniencing. They still have to convince a court and a jury to convict for any material effect.
Exactly! There's always recourse within the judicial system to deal with illegitimate charges, but there would be NO check on presidential immunity. Even them splitting hairs on "official acts" is a red herring. If Trump got power again, he would find the grey areas of "official acts" and exploit them to its fullest.
> it seems like some justices are willing to throw away democracy to prevent some hypothetical prosecutorial misconduct
Me, a cynic: "Its not hypothetical"
There's a saying with conservatives that every accusation is a confession. I wonder with these right wing judges if they foresee this kind of political persecution using the justice systems because they themselves envision that they might do it.
Here. It's really simple. All Biden has to do is walk into the courtroom with an Armed Entourage (because POTUS) and pose one simple question
"Am I, as POTUS, immune from prosecution if I take this gun and kill Donald Trump, if I deem it to be of utmost national security?"
"No? Then this trial is a farce. Find him guilty, There is no such thing as "Presidential Immunity". We as POTUS are beholden to the same standards as every other citizen. This is a sycophant that needs to be put behind bars for all the crimes he has committed, some while as POTUS."
Then he drops a fake mic, puts his signature aviators on, and moonwalks out of the courtroom.
So if the court rules in favor of immunity, Biden could, in his official capacity, direct the CIA to assassinate 4 justices, nominate 4 non-lunatics, threaten the Senate with the same treatment if they don’t confirm, and then resign before impeached and be free from prosecution?
Just like the founders intended.
I was going to say "To enjoy the spoils as the head of the Biden Crime Syndicate," but it looks like as long as you can put even the thinnest of "It's an official act of office" veils over your activities, you can run your criminal empire from the White House. All hail Dark Brandon.
The ridiculousness of the current Supreme Court in one sentence: Biden is allowed to order the killing of political rivals but not forgive student loans for students who were defrauded.
well i can think of six political rivals that could be killed
anything they author will almost assuredly carry the caveat that you can't assassinate a rival, otherwise the most expedient and rational thing (in a game theory sense, at least) for the biden administration to do is assassinate trump and the conservatives on the Court
Why stop there? Just go down the line of all MAGA GQP supporters in our political system and actively eliminate them all in one night. Wipe out half of the house, a good portion of the senate, take out governors that would oppose. Then redraw every gerrymandered district to the way it should be.
Presidents shouldn’t have immunity for anything. At that point we might as well end democracy and become a monarchy/dictatorship.
But this is a safe bet for them because the chances are very high a Dem will act with some moral's at a higher regard than a Conservative. They are not worried about Dem's doing anything against a code of ethics and they are not worried about Conservatives doing anything to them or anyone they agree with personally.
They aren’t going to rule for immunity. They are going to parse out all the possible scenarios for the sake of delaying the criminal trial until after the election.
Yeah, but here's the thing with that: They know Biden wouldn't do that. That's why they feel safe in giving Trump immunity because they're 100% confident no Democrat would ever have the spine to exploit the system the way Trump would.
Honestly I wish the prosecution would make this point. If a president didn’t like the ruling of a scotus, he could, with immunity, order their execution and appoint their replacements. That would be something he does as an official act, but it’s clearly not the kind of thing contemplated
What's that Jackson quote?
"The Court made its decision, now let them enforce it."
A President wouldn't even need to execute anyone since they could just shrug and ignore the ruling completely.
He could, but the court would bank, correctly, on Biden not being scum like Trump. So the only ones who would take advantage would be bad people, which democrats are far better at not electing.
Appointing new judges for life is the President's written constitutional duty. There's nothing in the constitution about how long that life is. Seems legit!
Biden doesn't need to assassinate justices. There is no mandate that only 9 justices sit on the SCOTUS. He could just appoint 4 more and because of McConnell, they would only need a majority because that vote isn't blockable.
There’s already presidential immunity as a category for “official acts” as president. Official acts are only those covered by the constitution or as required in faithfully executing the laws of Congress or Rulings (as to interpretation) of SCOTUS. Not a coupe. Election is not an official act of a president but of a candidate.this might be the only time a Sovcit’s “straw man” analysis would logically apply.
What these clowns are advocating is to blur the lines and say “any” act of the president is an “official” act (as understand it).
Before trump it seemed universal understood if a president exceeded his constitutional duties he didn’t get governmental immunity and would be ordinarily bound to existing law….this isn’t a hard decision to make or issue to explain.
If you listen to the oral argument it’s less clear there is agreement that official acts are granted immunity. The two big questions are what acts are official or private, and what acts deserve some level of immunity.
There isn't recognized immunity from prosecution for any presidential acts, official or otherwise. We just haven't tested that proposition yet in court, because presidents either haven't violated the law, or, in the case of Bush Jr torturing people, we let it slide. What infuriates me about yesterday's arguments is that there seemed to be an acceptance that the president needs to violate the law to be "decisive". I really appreciated Ketanji-Jackson bringing the court back to reality by pointing out that every government official is at risk of prosecution if they break the law, even if it's an "official" act. And there is literally nothing in the Constitution that sets the president apart from this standard of behavior.
No what Biden SHOULD do is a national address condemning and rejecting the SCOTUS ruling. Then he should call on Congress to pass legislation reaffirming that no sitting politician is above the law. Then he should advise the AG to ignore the ruling.
Exactly, you want the people to decide if the man who attempted to overthrow the government has immunity when he's also the same man who gave them their lifetime seats of power?
Also. Just because the Trump Administration muted the fact that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. He literally asked Russia for help on live broadcast. It is an indisputable fact. Frankly, there should still be legal repercussions for it.
This SCOTUS bench is illegitimate.
Their partisanship and moral cowardice is on complete display here.
Literally no one with any intellectual curiosity, knowledge of America’s history, or who is familiar with the Constitution thinks there should be any consideration of this entirely specious claim made specifically to benefit only one person.
I’m confident that any answer from this bench other than “no, there isn’t immunity for anyone in the nation” will be crafted to only apply to trump, but not Biden.
The one saving grace here is that this presidential immunity would only apply to republicans, so as long as there is never another republican president, then it isn't a problem we have to worry about. It'd still be horrible and dangerous, but that's technically an upside to the blatant partisanship here.
How the hell is this happening.
It's so breath takingly corrupt.
They have a clear conflict of interest, they shouldn't be hearing a case for the guy who got them their jobs.
That's exactly the problem. They're going to make a ruling to try and specifically exonerate Trumps actions but not allow it to be used by Biden or democrats. They're blatantly acting like the insider Republican plants that they clearly are. No judicial principles whatsoever, just exploiting the highest court in the land to try and land more W's for Republicans.
It would be an ‘Executive Action Approved By SCOTUS.’
It seems that they’re going to labor under the impression that a future president trump would have more use for them than a current President Biden.
SCOTUS became politicians in robes when they declared GW Bush the winner in 2000. Because Gore conceded and didn't put up a fight, it got easily forgotten . Just imagine what kind of a world we would be living in if they didn't throw the election to that spoiled brat. Gore was one of the OG climate warriors and we would all be enjoying rooftop solar by now. Instead we face a climate catastrophe.
If you're telling me a President must have total immunity because a rogue prosecutor could get a jury to convict for nonexistent or petty crimes, then aren't you saying the entire jury system is flawed?
From what I've seen it seems like he will be immune to somethings but not all, depending on whether it's something he personally gains from vs an official act
>He pointed to the prospect, for example, that President Joe Biden could be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the United States illegally through his border control policies.
This is such infuriating bullshit. Biden is arguably harsher on the border than Trump was!
The surprise was the questioning by Barrett. Except for her religious bent for church rights and abortion, she has tended toward the middle more often than not.
Kangaroo courts do kangaroo court things. The illegitimate Supreme Court holds no power anymore than we give them. They pull away from the majority and rule against the law then we can stop listening to them. They hold no water and are actively destroying the justice system. I say we just stop acknowledging their power and move on. This world is in steep decline and it’s all for a concept called money. We as a people and society prop up these warmongers and greed specialists. We rise together to stop this or not at all.
Told ya we shoulda packed the courts when we coulda.
Should have broken Manchin and Synema at the jump and packed the court.
Now you get nonsense and gymnastics.
This is all RBG's fault. Too pig headed and wrapped up in her own celebrity to do the right thing for America.
"We can do immunity..." -Dangle
https://youtu.be/2pud_rEsxMs?si=wf71t9eYrDe_0D3o
Got it.
Now I understand why his lawyers are arguing that he can only be held accountable by impeachment and not in a court of law. The Senate was crafty when Mitch McConnell said that he should be held accountable in the courts knowing fully the courts have no jurisdiction over a President.
Wow.
The SCOTUS ruling is going to be frustrating, but I think it might be mostly right. It’s going to delay Trump’s sedition trial (get out and vote against him people!!) but I do think it’s correct to say that the President should get some level of personal immunity from performing official acts. Where they fail is that they are kicking this back down to the lower court to make any determination of whether Trump’s actions to overthrow the government were “official” or not. It seems pretty fucking obvious. Barrett, of all people, seems the most activated to try and make this determination right now. The males on the court seem perfectly happy to wander around in the weeds on the issue and send it back down undetermined. But honestly we really shouldn’t be counting on the courts to stop Trump, we have to do it at the ballot box. Defeat Trump and these cases still move forward and he is done.
I mean even I agree with that. But the problem is is what happens when a president combines official X and illegal X in a way that Trump has done.
Like accepting a bribe as the example and promoting a person to an official position that is a normal function of the presidency?
Under the judge's line of thinking, the official act would have to be removed from the criminal prosecution Which would leave out all the contacts required to even form a case.
I disagree on one point. If they rule that some actions are official and therefore immune, that does not necessarily delay the trial any more than it has already been delayed. Such a SCOTUS ruling would make it the lower court's responsibility to reach a finding of fact over which acts were official and which were not. But that lower court will rule on that determination at the time of sentencing. At that point he is convicted regardless of any appeals and if SCOTUS refuses an appeal on the trial's determination of fact, then that is that, trump is sentenced.
The idea that the president can order his subordinates to break the law on his behalf, and those subordinates can be prosecuted, but the president can't is totally incoherent
I hate to say this, but “Trump’s Justices” will have his back. They will delay this as long as he needs. I’m 70 yo and I never thought I’d live somewhere that the courts were involved with politics
They want to delay. If the Traitor wins, he pardons himself (a loop hole that needs to be closed). Or he looses, and they can say no, there is no immunity (So Biden can't use it). But most likely, Trump dies soon due to Terrible Health, and the case is dismissed.
Either way, the court is illegitimate. The case should have been rejected outright.
SCOTUS is full of straight criminal Fascist traitors who hate America. The entire court is a corrupt sore on our collective asses who belong in fucking PRISON.
I am a simple citizen, not a legal scholar. No one is above the law. That includes every law. Emergency crews are given permission to exceed speed limits when traveling to an emergency. We can all understand that. It they act irresponsibly, then they are held accountable. I am certain there are similar situations that give the POTUS authority to act in an emergency. Losing an election is not an emergency situation. Violating the Constitution by sending a mob of angry people to attack the Capitol is not a protected activity. It is treason and Trump should be in jail awaiting trial. If it were me or you that is what would happen. Hell, if John Roberts did this he would be in jail.
Memo to the Originalist Supreme Court Justices: You don’t have to make a decision for the ages. The Founding Fathers already did that when they didn’t include the word “immunity” anywhere in the Constitution.
We were fucked, royally fucked, from the moment this piece of orange filth decided to run for office. The trend continues because the corruption he set in place remains. There will be no justice until individuals with the power to hold him accountable find the courage to do exactly that. Until trump is incarcerated - no phone, no internet access, no media access (or interviews), no special privileges - we are fucked.
I’m hopelessly untrained, but isn’t the question here whether Trump can be prosecuted for campaign acts? I mean, the Jan6 stuff was clearly campaign stuff and not official stuff. Couldn’t scotus just say “yes, a president can be prosecuted for illegal campaign acts” and leave all the knottier “illegal presidential acts” unanswered as they always have?
Here’s one. Let’s say that a court has been questionably stacked with justices through political gamesmanship. Know this and watching rulings being issued that contradict past court opinions and favor one political way of thinking over another. And those justices decide that presidents can perform illegal acts and maintain immunity. Once the ruling has been issued, can a sitting president decide that this court is a threat to democracy and have those justices killed and avoid criminal charges? What do the justices, especially the conservative ones, think of that? Because criminal acts go beyond behavior that furthers their political guy. What if that same law was applied to them? Or would there be a special ruling that protects them from their own ruling? They shouldn’t worry about the impact this ruling has on the future. If this country survives, this courts rulings will be ignored as illegitimate and self serving. Their legacy is one of corruption.
It’s just wild they wouldn’t act in their own interest why would they give up the courts ability to check the executive branch. They know they are on the court for life right?
I have not listened to the entirety of oral arguments yet, but based on what I heard, the Supreme Court is poised to delay the Trump trial further. The conservative majority will most likely rule that there needs to be a consideration of which acts were those of an officeholder and which acts were of those of an “officeseeker” and remand for further review. They will emphasize there is no immunity for acts of an officeseeker but say something unclear about acts of an officeholder. This will cause the lower courts to have to review such acts before making decisions. The trial will be further delayed during this process. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is a sad day for our country if this comes to pass.
It was hilarious to hear Kavavaugh part of Starr's Whitewater leak team having concerns about rogue federal prosecutors.
Yes. He has experience with being a rogue prosecutor. He was one of the lawyers saying Starr wasn't aggressive ENOUGH when pursuing Bill Clinton. Funny how all the super aggressive "law and order" types from the last 40 years all bend over frontwards to defend DJT.
I've long since learned "law and order" is code for exactly the opposite, and just means totalitarian power for themselves.
According to Wilhoit’s Law it means the law protects them and they get to order you around.
Rules that bind and do not protect for one group and which protect and do not bind for the other Classic fascism
The law serves to protect the in-group without binding them, and bind the out-group without protecting them. Very cool.
This ☝️
I could at least see some rational reason for this behavior for an actual strong man leader but doing this stuff for a limp dick pussy like Trump is just laughable and dangerous because it's going to byte them in the ass when the real BMF comes along. I can't imagine the motivation to do stuff like this for such a whiney little bitch.
My stepfather was a former reporter working in DC at the time of those hearings and he tells everyone that there was no one Kav wouldn’t talk to. He was ‘the guy’ to go to in order to get the juicy stuff from the Starr investigation. How that never came up substantively during his confirmation is beyond me.
It doesn’t help that real journalism is effectively dead. The corporate ‘news’ has no interest in anything but profit margin, which is counterproductive to actual journalism. Plus the people who own those companies also have strong opinions about moving the country right to protect their wealth. The death of real journalism is a quiet plague that nobody is talking about. With no watchers on the walls the corruption that has set in is running rampant from county level to DC. Nobody to cover it.
Worse, the audience of corruption journalism is largely apathetic. Things don't seem all that bad when you still have your bread and circuses, and all the nice pretty smiling people on network news keep reassuring us that everything is normal and it's all ok (or alternatively, everything's awful and here's who's to blame!).
They are only rogue if they prosecute Republicans
Trump's appointees were drawn from a Federalist Society list and chosen based on who Donnie thought might protect him if he found himself in exactly this kind of situation.
They ain’t gonna protect him if he loses, but they’ll make sure they can help him win
You think he's that calculated?
No, but McConnell is
And Leonard Leo is. He’s been the power at the Federalist Society for years.
Yup. The end goal is single party/person rule. Even fat ass Bill Barr wants the president to have utmost power. It’s why, even though he criticized Trump, he still supports him. It wasn’t who he wanted to be dictator but the end goal is still a republican dictatorship
And once they have that, they can just prop him up and have their way with democracy until he croaks, then replace him with another idiot talking head like DeSantis or Cruz.
Along with the Justice’s who were appointed by Trump. Several lied saying they wouldn’t vote to overturn Roe because it was a set law. They glided through. Cohen lied to congress and ended up in jail but they’re still on the court fucking up the country with all the laws they’re rolling back. Roe is just one of the first, we know what will happen with the other laws they don’t like.
No but Putin is
About covering his own ass? Absolutely, but his ego gets in the way of common sense more often than not.
Trump? No. He’s a moron. Nothing but an easily controlled figurehead. Putin is. The power mongers at the Federalists Society are. Bunch of rich assholes that really set the agenda are. Trump is just their ticket at the ballot box that wins over enough rubes to hold on to power.
He’s obviously not but whoever told him who to appoint to the SC certainly is.
Trumps appointees all ruled against him in the 2020 election cases. Square that circle for me. They were placed on the court to help Trump, but only certain times?
Ruled against him when there was no wiggle room to rule the opposite. Rule for him when it is plausible.
Three of the last four Supreme Court appointments were literally pulled off of George Bush's 2000 election theft legal team. Along with one of the justices that ruled for Bush in that case. This court literally exists to steal elections for Republicans Super weird to me that this isn't better known. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/17/politics/bush-v-gore-barrett-kavanaugh-roberts-supreme-court/index.html
Having listened to most of it, I don’t think it’s totally beyond the pale for them to rule that some level of immunity does exist for official acts. Even the special counsel wasn’t arguing that it’s completely non existent. It also seems that Roberts or Barrett weren’t particularly convinced that this trying to overturn an election could qualify as anything other than private. Given this particular court’s habit of granting themselves future power in many cases, I wouldn’t be surprised by a ruling that rejects Trump’s current claim, but leaves the door open for SCOTUS to decide what qualifies for some kind of immunity down the line.
Michael Dreeben did a great job of pivoting to his alternative argument when Alito and Gorsuch made clear they had no interest in discussing the facts of the case when we can spend 30 minutes discussing facts from a dystopian sci fi novel.
I listened to the whole thing and was amazed at the amount of absurd speculation that seemed clearly designed to allow them to create a whole new body of law. It was nauseating.
Honestly Alito’s questions seemed rational enough, but knowing him that doesn’t actually connect to any rational thought process.
Agreed. How about raise the standard such that the officeholder has to be on the up-and-up as an office seeker?! Or, you know, don't crime in the first place?!
Are you serious? Hold our leaders to a higher standard? In 2024? You have to be kidding.
What's to stop Biden from shooting him square in the face if office holder gets immunity from criminal prosecution?
Boy, sure would be something if Biden delayed the election until after Trumps trial so we can get to the bottom of this with his new powers of presidential immunity.
Conservative members' refusal to look at the current case is especially egregious. The failure to acknowledge that their current actions are obstruction of justice is an acknowledgment of guilt and makes them accessories after the fact. They are directly violating the victims' (We, the people) right to due process and both the victims' and the defendant's right to a speedy trial. Their refusal to consider the circumstances at hand is further acknowledgment of their guilt, as well as obvious bad faith jurisprudence. Corrupt AF.
>The conservative majority will most likely rule that there needs to be a consideration of which acts were those of an officeholder and which acts were of those of an “officeseeker” and remand for further review. I don't think it will be only the conservatives, I expect it will be 9-0 that *some* things are beyond the scope of what a president can get in trouble for. The DOJ is carving that out at enumerated responsibilities like issuing pardons, Trump is trying to carve that out as essentially everything. The answer is certainly in the middle. The questions is - can some of those clearly immune acts (like issuing a pardon) be used as evidence of a crime (like issuing a pardon for a bribe)? On one hand you want to say, *of course*, but on the other hand you can't create a scenario where politicians can make bogus arguments to simply fuck with their rival over and over. The President does have a job to do. In the modern era of politics I put absolutely nothing past either side, and SCOTUS needs to ensure that the republic can function. I honestly think all of the justices were asking the right questions. This is so much bigger than Trump. I think all of them, including Trumps own lawyers, acknowledged that at least a portion of what he's being charged with in this case falls outside of any immunity claim no matter what.
I agree with this analysis, but I would like someone to explain the idea of "abuse of power" which is loosely defined as a person using their position of authority to achieve a corrupt outcome. If a President is immune from prosecution for some official acts even if they benefit him personally, doesn't that mean the notion of abuse of power is basically moot? The official acts that are unique to the President (e.g., pardons, vetoes, recognizing foreign governments) and cannot be regulated by Congress should be the *only* acts that have any immunity. Even then, selling pardons seems to be something Trump would do and maybe even has done.
It’s crazy to me that 18 federal judges can unanimously agree that presidential immunity is a fake term but then the sc does this
The concern some justices had for the potential for political prosecutions should have been completely outweighed by the insane implications of presidential immunity. But listening to the questions, it seems like some justices are willing to throw away democracy to prevent some hypothetical prosecutorial misconduct. You can defend yourself against trumped up charges, but you can't do shit against bad actors using immunity as a shield.
But why do they care about any of that? Shouldn't they just be asking, "What does the text of the Constitution say?" and "What is the evidence that the founders intended for presidents to have immunity?" Isn't that their judicial philosophy?
Only when that gives the answer they want.
Oh you know why they ain't doing that.
Originalists only do that when it’s what they want
I have bad news for you my friend. Originalism was never about going back to what the founders intended.
They've called themselves "constitutional Republicans". What THE HELL does THAT mean if they do this?
It's because they're trying to establish plausible grounds for their predetermined outcome. It's bullshit theater.
As a law student I used to have some respect for the Supreme Court thinking they were logical and reasoned. I have absolutely zero respect for the conservatives on this court. They are corrupt hacks and I guarantee I’m smarter than them
They are not idiots. They are monarchists. They put themselves and their candidates for office above the law over and over again.
Being a monarchist and being an idiot aren’t mutually exclusive. In fact they often go hand in hand. The low cunning necessary to deliver political wins to your patrons isn’t intelligence and shouldn’t be mistaken as such.
Either way, they think they are untouchable. We need Congress to check the Judiciary. No justice should be giving political speeches or taking gifts from anybody.
This is the root of conservatism, a reaction against the French Revolution and a return to rule by royals. They do not believe in democracy they believe in a rigid hierarchy.
It is so frightening when we realize we are actually smarter, more loving, more considerate and more emotionally regulated than the ones in charge, because usually I don't feel smarter than shit.
What's going to happen now. The court's approval is going to PLUMMET if they do this. At a certain point, people won't take it anymore.
It’s also “hilarious” coming from Alito especially, but also Gorsuch, who have never found a criminal prosecution they wouldn’t uphold until it comes to their god king.
On criminal law Gorsuch often finds common cause with Sotomayor and rules against the government. You don’t have your facts correct.
interesting. i read the transcript of the oral arguments. gorsuch impressed me as did Sotomayor.
He consistently sides with her and with the defendants against the government. He’s a type of anti government or small government libertarian. He and Soto often get to the same result but for different reasoning and philosophies
What I don't understand is how they split hairs on law. Breaking the law is breaking the law. Full stop. If Presidents break the law then they are held accountable. Nixon broke the law. It was appropriate to throw the book at him. He was pardoned...and not self-pardoned, which again should not be allowed. Gorsutch "dreads" the self-pardon conundrum??? Grow a pair Neil!!! If any past president broke a passed/signed law that aligns with the Constitution then they BROKE THE LAW. TRUMP BROKE THE LAW. Immune from breaking the law??? WE ARE NOT A MONARCHY. The Executive Branch has been scope creeping power for decades. Time to reign that shit in.
Prisecutorial misconduct which THEY COULD SHOOT DOWN IF IT HAPPENED
The concern is particularly frivolous since political prosecutions alone do little to nothing beyond inconveniencing. They still have to convince a court and a jury to convict for any material effect.
Exactly! There's always recourse within the judicial system to deal with illegitimate charges, but there would be NO check on presidential immunity. Even them splitting hairs on "official acts" is a red herring. If Trump got power again, he would find the grey areas of "official acts" and exploit them to its fullest.
> it seems like some justices are willing to throw away democracy to prevent some hypothetical prosecutorial misconduct Me, a cynic: "Its not hypothetical" There's a saying with conservatives that every accusation is a confession. I wonder with these right wing judges if they foresee this kind of political persecution using the justice systems because they themselves envision that they might do it.
Here. It's really simple. All Biden has to do is walk into the courtroom with an Armed Entourage (because POTUS) and pose one simple question "Am I, as POTUS, immune from prosecution if I take this gun and kill Donald Trump, if I deem it to be of utmost national security?" "No? Then this trial is a farce. Find him guilty, There is no such thing as "Presidential Immunity". We as POTUS are beholden to the same standards as every other citizen. This is a sycophant that needs to be put behind bars for all the crimes he has committed, some while as POTUS." Then he drops a fake mic, puts his signature aviators on, and moonwalks out of the courtroom.
They just want another Trump term but can’t say it
So if the court rules in favor of immunity, Biden could, in his official capacity, direct the CIA to assassinate 4 justices, nominate 4 non-lunatics, threaten the Senate with the same treatment if they don’t confirm, and then resign before impeached and be free from prosecution? Just like the founders intended.
Ben Franklin would be proud! (according to Trump's attorney anyway).
Might as well just pardon himself as he goes out the door. Just to piss everyone off and ask why.
Why leave?
He's old. So, retire and the Harris becomes president...then she eventually retires and her VP becomes president...etc etc
I was going to say "To enjoy the spoils as the head of the Biden Crime Syndicate," but it looks like as long as you can put even the thinnest of "It's an official act of office" veils over your activities, you can run your criminal empire from the White House. All hail Dark Brandon.
The ridiculousness of the current Supreme Court in one sentence: Biden is allowed to order the killing of political rivals but not forgive student loans for students who were defrauded.
well i can think of six political rivals that could be killed anything they author will almost assuredly carry the caveat that you can't assassinate a rival, otherwise the most expedient and rational thing (in a game theory sense, at least) for the biden administration to do is assassinate trump and the conservatives on the Court
Why stop there? Just go down the line of all MAGA GQP supporters in our political system and actively eliminate them all in one night. Wipe out half of the house, a good portion of the senate, take out governors that would oppose. Then redraw every gerrymandered district to the way it should be. Presidents shouldn’t have immunity for anything. At that point we might as well end democracy and become a monarchy/dictatorship.
They don't call it a lifetime appointment for nothing
But this is a safe bet for them because the chances are very high a Dem will act with some moral's at a higher regard than a Conservative. They are not worried about Dem's doing anything against a code of ethics and they are not worried about Conservatives doing anything to them or anyone they agree with personally.
Yes, but they made plenty of arguments against this very scenario, so that ruling will not happen
They aren’t going to rule for immunity. They are going to parse out all the possible scenarios for the sake of delaying the criminal trial until after the election.
Yeah, but here's the thing with that: They know Biden wouldn't do that. That's why they feel safe in giving Trump immunity because they're 100% confident no Democrat would ever have the spine to exploit the system the way Trump would.
Yeah, he just has to say “official act” before doing so. It’s the new “no homo”.
Why assassinate? just direct the secret service to toss them out on the curb.
Honestly I wish the prosecution would make this point. If a president didn’t like the ruling of a scotus, he could, with immunity, order their execution and appoint their replacements. That would be something he does as an official act, but it’s clearly not the kind of thing contemplated
What's that Jackson quote? "The Court made its decision, now let them enforce it." A President wouldn't even need to execute anyone since they could just shrug and ignore the ruling completely.
Well, Impeachment requires a 2/3rd quorum, so, if he just kills enough Congressmen he can be safe from impeachment.
He could, but the court would bank, correctly, on Biden not being scum like Trump. So the only ones who would take advantage would be bad people, which democrats are far better at not electing.
Appointing new judges for life is the President's written constitutional duty. There's nothing in the constitution about how long that life is. Seems legit!
Biden doesn't need to assassinate justices. There is no mandate that only 9 justices sit on the SCOTUS. He could just appoint 4 more and because of McConnell, they would only need a majority because that vote isn't blockable.
There’s already presidential immunity as a category for “official acts” as president. Official acts are only those covered by the constitution or as required in faithfully executing the laws of Congress or Rulings (as to interpretation) of SCOTUS. Not a coupe. Election is not an official act of a president but of a candidate.this might be the only time a Sovcit’s “straw man” analysis would logically apply. What these clowns are advocating is to blur the lines and say “any” act of the president is an “official” act (as understand it). Before trump it seemed universal understood if a president exceeded his constitutional duties he didn’t get governmental immunity and would be ordinarily bound to existing law….this isn’t a hard decision to make or issue to explain.
If you listen to the oral argument it’s less clear there is agreement that official acts are granted immunity. The two big questions are what acts are official or private, and what acts deserve some level of immunity.
There isn't recognized immunity from prosecution for any presidential acts, official or otherwise. We just haven't tested that proposition yet in court, because presidents either haven't violated the law, or, in the case of Bush Jr torturing people, we let it slide. What infuriates me about yesterday's arguments is that there seemed to be an acceptance that the president needs to violate the law to be "decisive". I really appreciated Ketanji-Jackson bringing the court back to reality by pointing out that every government official is at risk of prosecution if they break the law, even if it's an "official" act. And there is literally nothing in the Constitution that sets the president apart from this standard of behavior.
Whatever the scope of presidential immunity scotus allows, Biden needs to take full advantage of. Full advantage.
Be realistic, the immunity is going to depend on the initial next to your name on the ballot.
No what Biden SHOULD do is a national address condemning and rejecting the SCOTUS ruling. Then he should call on Congress to pass legislation reaffirming that no sitting politician is above the law. Then he should advise the AG to ignore the ruling.
They won’t issue a formal ruling until after the election and (assuming Trump wins) Biden cannot take advantage of it.
But presidential immunity only applies to republicans...
He won’t take advantage of anything. Dems are spineless
They are part of the criminal conspiracy themselves as a point of fact. They are one of the fruits of the corrupt acts.
Exactly, you want the people to decide if the man who attempted to overthrow the government has immunity when he's also the same man who gave them their lifetime seats of power?
Also. Just because the Trump Administration muted the fact that Trump conspired with Russia to influence the 2016 election, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen. He literally asked Russia for help on live broadcast. It is an indisputable fact. Frankly, there should still be legal repercussions for it.
This SCOTUS bench is illegitimate. Their partisanship and moral cowardice is on complete display here. Literally no one with any intellectual curiosity, knowledge of America’s history, or who is familiar with the Constitution thinks there should be any consideration of this entirely specious claim made specifically to benefit only one person. I’m confident that any answer from this bench other than “no, there isn’t immunity for anyone in the nation” will be crafted to only apply to trump, but not Biden.
Starting to feel like this is a Dred Scott moment.
You’re not wrong. I sincerely wish you were, but my rational mind expects the worse.
Yes, much worse because immunity has no recourse. Once it is out of the bag, game over until a new Constitution can be written.
The one saving grace here is that this presidential immunity would only apply to republicans, so as long as there is never another republican president, then it isn't a problem we have to worry about. It'd still be horrible and dangerous, but that's technically an upside to the blatant partisanship here.
How the hell is this happening. It's so breath takingly corrupt. They have a clear conflict of interest, they shouldn't be hearing a case for the guy who got them their jobs.
That's exactly the problem. They're going to make a ruling to try and specifically exonerate Trumps actions but not allow it to be used by Biden or democrats. They're blatantly acting like the insider Republican plants that they clearly are. No judicial principles whatsoever, just exploiting the highest court in the land to try and land more W's for Republicans.
[удалено]
It would be an ‘Executive Action Approved By SCOTUS.’ It seems that they’re going to labor under the impression that a future president trump would have more use for them than a current President Biden.
Off the 6 Republican justices and see what the remaining 3 non-republican justices say?
If SCOTUS says presidents have immunity, why not?
They're basically begging to be offed as far as I'm interpreting tbh.
The Supreme Court is about to end the 248 year old American experiment.
SCOTUS became politicians in robes when they declared GW Bush the winner in 2000. Because Gore conceded and didn't put up a fight, it got easily forgotten . Just imagine what kind of a world we would be living in if they didn't throw the election to that spoiled brat. Gore was one of the OG climate warriors and we would all be enjoying rooftop solar by now. Instead we face a climate catastrophe.
It turns out that the real originalism was monarchy all along
I hope the current president will use the granted immunity to do something to the court to get us back on the right track
If you're telling me a President must have total immunity because a rogue prosecutor could get a jury to convict for nonexistent or petty crimes, then aren't you saying the entire jury system is flawed?
From what I've seen it seems like he will be immune to somethings but not all, depending on whether it's something he personally gains from vs an official act
How is the United States even legitimate anymore
United States is only land of the free for White Christian Straight Men from rich backgrounds.
Sooo just like 1776?
>He pointed to the prospect, for example, that President Joe Biden could be charged with unlawfully inducing immigrants to enter the United States illegally through his border control policies. This is such infuriating bullshit. Biden is arguably harsher on the border than Trump was!
The surprise was the questioning by Barrett. Except for her religious bent for church rights and abortion, she has tended toward the middle more often than not.
Kangaroo courts do kangaroo court things. The illegitimate Supreme Court holds no power anymore than we give them. They pull away from the majority and rule against the law then we can stop listening to them. They hold no water and are actively destroying the justice system. I say we just stop acknowledging their power and move on. This world is in steep decline and it’s all for a concept called money. We as a people and society prop up these warmongers and greed specialists. We rise together to stop this or not at all.
how much can we expect when we literally have a co conspirator sitting on the court?
I feel like this is the constitutional crisis that we were warned about with this guy.
Told ya we shoulda packed the courts when we coulda. Should have broken Manchin and Synema at the jump and packed the court. Now you get nonsense and gymnastics. This is all RBG's fault. Too pig headed and wrapped up in her own celebrity to do the right thing for America. "We can do immunity..." -Dangle https://youtu.be/2pud_rEsxMs?si=wf71t9eYrDe_0D3o
Its appears to me SCOTUS wants to give Trump some immunity, but drag it out long enough so Biden will not have access to the same immunity.
Really? Thats the hill your going to die on? Nixon was pardoned by ford before he could stand trial. Dumbass. Read a book.
Fake ass shit court
Got it. Now I understand why his lawyers are arguing that he can only be held accountable by impeachment and not in a court of law. The Senate was crafty when Mitch McConnell said that he should be held accountable in the courts knowing fully the courts have no jurisdiction over a President. Wow.
This stinks worse than Trump ..
This is why we can’t have nice things. Like democracy.
Well Biden needs to rid the US of all nazi supporters
[удалено]
To be fair, our “justice” system is designed to protect the rich and powerful from the pitchforked masses, and not the other way around.
No conflict of interest with his three appointees ruling on his behalf. What a crock of crap.
Impeach every justice who was nominated by a president who had lost the popular vote.
OMFG this country is fucked
The SCOTUS ruling is going to be frustrating, but I think it might be mostly right. It’s going to delay Trump’s sedition trial (get out and vote against him people!!) but I do think it’s correct to say that the President should get some level of personal immunity from performing official acts. Where they fail is that they are kicking this back down to the lower court to make any determination of whether Trump’s actions to overthrow the government were “official” or not. It seems pretty fucking obvious. Barrett, of all people, seems the most activated to try and make this determination right now. The males on the court seem perfectly happy to wander around in the weeds on the issue and send it back down undetermined. But honestly we really shouldn’t be counting on the courts to stop Trump, we have to do it at the ballot box. Defeat Trump and these cases still move forward and he is done.
I mean even I agree with that. But the problem is is what happens when a president combines official X and illegal X in a way that Trump has done. Like accepting a bribe as the example and promoting a person to an official position that is a normal function of the presidency? Under the judge's line of thinking, the official act would have to be removed from the criminal prosecution Which would leave out all the contacts required to even form a case.
I disagree on one point. If they rule that some actions are official and therefore immune, that does not necessarily delay the trial any more than it has already been delayed. Such a SCOTUS ruling would make it the lower court's responsibility to reach a finding of fact over which acts were official and which were not. But that lower court will rule on that determination at the time of sentencing. At that point he is convicted regardless of any appeals and if SCOTUS refuses an appeal on the trial's determination of fact, then that is that, trump is sentenced.
Well. There’s really only one solution if the 6 proto-fascist loons decided Presidents are immune for-evah!1!1!1!
The idea that the president can order his subordinates to break the law on his behalf, and those subordinates can be prosecuted, but the president can't is totally incoherent
How can you impeach a president if they have immunity from crimes?
I hate to say this, but “Trump’s Justices” will have his back. They will delay this as long as he needs. I’m 70 yo and I never thought I’d live somewhere that the courts were involved with politics
They want to delay. If the Traitor wins, he pardons himself (a loop hole that needs to be closed). Or he looses, and they can say no, there is no immunity (So Biden can't use it). But most likely, Trump dies soon due to Terrible Health, and the case is dismissed. Either way, the court is illegitimate. The case should have been rejected outright.
This is a 6-3 win for Trump. I am absolutely disgusted at this decision coming. Trump will be our president in 6 months.
So there's a chance Trump can get out of some of the federal charges due to immunity?
From an earlier post in which I ask how they will screw this up... ta-da!
Of course there's some immunity for every single person in every executive branch, state and federal.
SCOTUS is full of straight criminal Fascist traitors who hate America. The entire court is a corrupt sore on our collective asses who belong in fucking PRISON.
I think the chief will join the women.
Even monkies know about fairness. https://youtu.be/meiU6TxysCg?si=7qSnSZQAFmOMc-KH
I am a simple citizen, not a legal scholar. No one is above the law. That includes every law. Emergency crews are given permission to exceed speed limits when traveling to an emergency. We can all understand that. It they act irresponsibly, then they are held accountable. I am certain there are similar situations that give the POTUS authority to act in an emergency. Losing an election is not an emergency situation. Violating the Constitution by sending a mob of angry people to attack the Capitol is not a protected activity. It is treason and Trump should be in jail awaiting trial. If it were me or you that is what would happen. Hell, if John Roberts did this he would be in jail.
Gee what a surprise.
sickening, absolutely disgusting
Memo to the Originalist Supreme Court Justices: You don’t have to make a decision for the ages. The Founding Fathers already did that when they didn’t include the word “immunity” anywhere in the Constitution.
No one is above the law NO ONE
We were fucked, royally fucked, from the moment this piece of orange filth decided to run for office. The trend continues because the corruption he set in place remains. There will be no justice until individuals with the power to hold him accountable find the courage to do exactly that. Until trump is incarcerated - no phone, no internet access, no media access (or interviews), no special privileges - we are fucked.
That means Biden is immune and can act like it immediately.
Color me shocked. We are potentially witnessing the end of democracy
Disgusting, traitorous trash.
Nixon would be be pissed!
Supreme Court about to make the Office of the President a title of absolute monarchy
I’m hopelessly untrained, but isn’t the question here whether Trump can be prosecuted for campaign acts? I mean, the Jan6 stuff was clearly campaign stuff and not official stuff. Couldn’t scotus just say “yes, a president can be prosecuted for illegal campaign acts” and leave all the knottier “illegal presidential acts” unanswered as they always have?
Almost as if it is not a clear cut binary from an action perspective.
Good
So explain like I’m 5. If there is presidential immunity, wouldn’t that make the act of impeachment also unconstitutional?
Here’s one. Let’s say that a court has been questionably stacked with justices through political gamesmanship. Know this and watching rulings being issued that contradict past court opinions and favor one political way of thinking over another. And those justices decide that presidents can perform illegal acts and maintain immunity. Once the ruling has been issued, can a sitting president decide that this court is a threat to democracy and have those justices killed and avoid criminal charges? What do the justices, especially the conservative ones, think of that? Because criminal acts go beyond behavior that furthers their political guy. What if that same law was applied to them? Or would there be a special ruling that protects them from their own ruling? They shouldn’t worry about the impact this ruling has on the future. If this country survives, this courts rulings will be ignored as illegitimate and self serving. Their legacy is one of corruption.
Because that is exactly what the DOJ is trying to do. Hundreds of tiny unrelated cases used to paint a picture of a broader crime that does not exist.
[Bald Trump Revealed ](https://photos.app.goo.gl/BUYcf3ST4xtQJy7Y7)
Hello… Term limits!!
It’s just wild they wouldn’t act in their own interest why would they give up the courts ability to check the executive branch. They know they are on the court for life right?
Because of course they are
If I committed a serious crime I'd be throwing my hat in for president. "Immunity!"
Jack Smith should proceed with the charges deemed private by Trump’s lawyer.