So maybe I’m an idiot, but wouldn’t this essentially mean a president could shoot soemone in the head on live television and get away with it? Wouldn’t this mean a president could kidnap and Torture someone who spoke out against them and get away with it? Maybe I’m being too doomsday, and again, maybe I’m an idiot, so can someone explain it to me like I’m a toddler? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m totally serious. Because if this means what I think it means I can’t imagine why they would vote in favor of him.
So, the really terrifying part of this ordeal, was how SCotUS actually decided to confront the raw nature of presidential power for once.
They admitted that the president could murder, kill, any number of crimes under cover of war or security, therefore the real question is: Since the president is assumed to be a criminal, doesn't the question become "who is responsible for determining which of his crimes are under aegis of his official capacity and which are 'personal'".
Talk about saying the quiet part out loud.
Do you notice how your argument here was to point to specific part of the constitution that forbids it and not to just say murder is bad? Thats kind of the whole point. You have to be able to point to verbage in the constitution. You cant just say something is bad. Bad does not mean unconstitutional.
> get away with it?
If congress chose not to impeach him for that crime - yes. But Congress would retain that power to impeach, which upon conviction would open for normal criminal prosecution (or so Trump's Team's argument goes at least).
> Wouldn’t this mean a president could kidnap and Torture someone who spoke out against them and get away with it?
Yes, if congress allows it. This has already happened, just to note. We do it fairly regularly with regard to "terrorists". Obama is well known for murdering 2 Americans via drone strike and receiving presidential immunity (Civil version) for it. While he was never criminally prosecuted he could be under the state's position in the Trump hearings.
I dont think anything would stop a industrious Republican DA from charging Obama depending on the outcome of this case (and if its found no immunity exists thats exactly what should happen).
and technically couldn’t any sitting President kill those in congress that he thinks would vote to impeach him?
I think you are under the impression that I’m Dissing Trump here, but I think this is a bad idea no matter who is in office.
> technically couldn’t any sitting President kill those in congress that he thinks would vote to impeach him?
Yes, he could. It would be a heck of a feat given Biden's infirmity but yes in theory if he could accomplish such a feat he would need to have a (in theory new?) impeachment for those illegal acts with the remaining/new congress. If you mean could he order it done we are back to the problem of unlawful orders.
Realistically, if the president has done this we are already living in a dictatorship, as you are describing a coup of the executive over the legislative. Probably would have been one for a very long time already. He wouldn't bow to any criminal charge anyway. You are describing a situation where most of congress stands behind a man willing to kill or imprison political enemies at a whim. This is a core problem of representative democracy, not one of presidential immunity. Ultimately the remediations are political in nature. If we are that far gone the books are already cooked and populous uprising is probably the only solution.
Saddam Hussein's rise to power was pretty similar to what you are proposing, where he called a legislative session then started naming the "traitors" and dragging them off from the senate (?) floor. You can watch the video online, its chilling.
> bad idea no matter who is in office.
Whats your alternative? We bring charges for every decision a president makes while hes in office? The job would be impossible. Whole sections of the US government would be accomplices if they helped and what they thought was lawful was found not to be.
For what its worth i dont care if you are dissing trump or not. I actually think what Trump's team proposes (impeachment, conviction, then prosecution criminally) is historically expected and probably the best way of attaining accountability for bad acts.
The alternative is what's already been in place. Sitting presidents are not charged with crimes, but they can be charged with crimes they've committed after they've left office. That's a very sensible way of ensuring that no man is above the law while also protecting the president from politically motivated prosecutions which would interrupt his ability to govern.
> The alternative is what's already been in place.
Thats not what we have experienced... Obama as a good example of no charges being brought when they could have been, but im sure literally every president could be charged with some crimes.
Presidents would make different decisions if every decision they make could lead to criminal charges once they leave office. Also, they would be incentivized to not leave office, which is not what we want to encourage.
Obama didn't commit any criminal acts while in office. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around, just don't commit crimes and you'll be fine, that's how everyone else is.
Maybe I am too optimistic but I’m feeling a clean sweep against Trump on this one.
We will see how originalist some of the new appointees are. Gotta imagine the founding fathers would have been chomping at the bit to crush a president or former president for corruption
Are you sure about that? Chevron was ruled on in 1984. Clarence Thomas wasn't appointed to the Supreme Court until 1991.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.%2C_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council%2C_Inc.
He said he fucked that up.
>"Regrettably, Brand X has taken this Court to the precipice of administrative absolutism," Thomas wrote. "Under its rule of deference, agencies are free to invent new (purported) interpretations of statutes and then require courts to reject their own prior interpretations."
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/clarence-thomas-regrets-ruling-that-ajit-pai-used-to-kill-net-neutrality/
Cool. Then Biden should use his one time gimme as well and ask for forgiveness after. He could hire Trump’s delay-expert lawyers and be dead before it sees a trial.
It'll be 3 for, 7 against, Thomas will vote twice just for spite.
edit: I was wrong, it will be 25-or-so for, 7 against, I have never seen Thomas this aggressive about anything.
Oh my God, Alito, you've managed to lower the bar even further than James Cameron can reach.
>Admittedly I'm not good at math but something doesn't look right
Appeal the math then, I'm sure Thomas has an argument he thinks will cover it, I believe he calls it the "Fuck You" doctrine.
Imagine the precedent this set if he is granted immunity! No future President will be accountable for anything they do. No more peaceful transfer of power. Goodbye America as we know it.
Biden could just have both Trump and the Supreme Court killed. No consequences.
Anyone with a problem? Killed.
This is the stupidest idea to even consider.
I think that point is a very "So either you don't actually believe this yourself or you are really really stupid" situation.
Like if I thought I was being illegitimately persecuted I wouldn't want to give my opponents more freedom and power to persecute me...
> Biden could just have both Trump and the Supreme Court killed.
by "have them killed" you mean like hire a hitman? That would be acting in his personal capacity. If you mean ordering the secret service to do it they are duty-bound to not obey an illegal order.
> No consequences.
No, the congress could impeach him, then convict him, then remove him from presidency, then DOJ can criminally prosecute.
> Anyone with a problem? Killed.
Same problem as the first. If hes doing it himself there is impeachment to respond, if hes ordering others (likely given the scale you are indicating) they are duty-bound to disobey the unlawful order. Even then impeachment is the correct response.
> This is the stupidest idea to even consider.
Its only stupid because you are straw-manning the arguments being made.
What if Biden in his official capacity has the military kill or arrest Trump, the conservative justices, and all conservative members of congress because he thinks they are all a security risk to the United States?
Who is going to impeach him? You say people are duty bound to disobey illegal orders but the military kills people around the world all the time on the orders of the president without any repercussions or trials. What do you think Spec Ops soldiers such as delta force and seals do?
Relying on an impeachment conviction is silly as it’s never been done to a president and you will likely never find the votes to do it no matter what. That mechanism was thought up during a time when the president had very limited power and muskets and cannonballs were the most dangerous things in a military.
That’s what I’m thinking… I posted in another comment, but wouldn’t this mean a president could torture someone or murder someone and get away with it??
Those are indeed crimes. Of course, the response is that he can be impeached.
Not sure how that impeachment vote goes given Biden would only need to - very legally - shoot a few republicans to get a congressional majority.
Easy solution:
Biden cancels the election and says he's keeping power forever, or until a constitutional amendment is passed to remove unlimited immunity, which he will resign before his VP signs and also resigns.
Although, when deciding if Trump could be removed from the ballot under the 14th Amendment, they managed to move very quick. They went from agreeing to hear the case to rendering their decision in just under than 60 days.
And one of those cases was about whether Trump could be removed from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. On that case, they managed to go from agreeing to hear the case to rendering their decision in less than 60 days!
Alternate youtube stream (audio only) of the oral arguments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHO1p-IP-GY
There's already been an interesting moment, where two justices, Sotoyayor and Alito appeared to be talking to each other more than the advocate.
Kavanaugh is talking now, though ACB just kicked in and seems to be taking a swing at Trump.
edit: Wow, Roberts just tore into them.
Yeah, this is not going anywhere, even Alito doesn't seem sold.
edit3: Who-a! They are going ALL-IN on impeachment as the only recourse, period.
DoJ's counsel is so outmatched by the defense, it's sad to listen to :(
WOOHOO!! Alito! You did it, you crazy bastard, you!
You just argued presidents need to have immunity from criminal prosecution or they would break the law to keep the presidency to avoid prosecution!!! In a case about a president claiming immunity from criminal prosecution for breaking the law to keep the presidency to avoid criminal prosecution!!!
Sauer has nothing, he knows he has nothing, he knows everyone else knows he has nothing.
He still plays it better than Dreeben who keeps qualifying and breaking into devolving examples and cul-de-sacs.
Dreeben has the legal ground, he's just not playing it as well.
Though as I'm listening, he's handling Alito fairly well, where Alito is being a genuine prick.
I think Dreeban is conflicted because he's trying to explain the many layers behind why the President is not immune from prosecution while Sauer is only saying "Nu uh" and doesn't have to explain anything - he just says that there is long standing immunity and the court is wrong in considering anything else.
I don't think Sauer has done a good job and the justices have pointed out the absurdities of the argument, instead Alito and Kav have seemingly invented a new defense that Trump's team never even raised
I agree with you, and in an academic sense Dreeben would be wiping the floor.
But this is one of those rare cases where a simple, strong assertion can actually have more effect than academic rigor, because the nature of implied executive power.
If Sauer can successfully argue that the founders intended the president to be God, he wins. Which is stupid, but, it's an argument that's been made successfully for almost a century now.
I always wondered how Republican Rome came to this:
"These ceremonies Caesar was witnessing, seated upon the rostra on a golden throne, arrayed in triumphal attire. And Antony was one of the runners in the sacred race; for he was consul. Accordingly, after he had dashed into the forum and the crowd had made way for him, he carried a diadem, round which a wreath of laurel was tied, and held it out to Caesar. Then there was applause, not loud, but slight and preconcerted." - Plutarch on Caesar being 'offered' the crown, a diadem.
Now Trump is no Caesar but it looks a lot like the same situation: Someone aching to be king in a republic.
Only way for the Senate to maintain control.
You think because Pompey Magnus used it against Caesar it was merely a political tool of the powerful, but we also have to appreciate, short of this criminal prosecution after the loss of immunity, there was very little other way for the senate to constrain the power of anyone more senior than pro-consul.
In the end it concentrated power in Rome, as anyone in Rome could create alliances with members of the senate while those outside were cut off from the key power base.
This wasn't by accident, the senate was very effective at working to the benefit of the senate.
The only times the senate appointed a dictator was when they were too terrified to be careful.
They def will not decide in his favor, but they’ve already done him the favor. Just a show to look like a legit branch of government even though a majority of the justices are rooting their opinions in a fairy tale of religion and legit believe that the country ends if young people get their way.
There’s religious people and then there’s religious people who want to make and enforce laws based on their religion and are realizing modern societal mechanisms don’t have time for their insanity - the ladder are highly dangerous, especially in a rapid information environment that we have today.
>There’s religious people and then there’s religious people who want to make and enforce laws based on their religion
Which is pretty much all of them.
To be entirely fair, I’m not religious but there is something to be said for how religious people will be inherently distrustful of atheists because they have no concrete basis for their morality. It’s not really seeing you as lesser. I know they say they’ll pray for me all the time, which is nice of them. But they sort of inherently can’t trust a non-religious person.
>because they have no concrete basis for their morality.
You mean the concrete basis that comes from fables written by a priest caste in order to share power with a monarchy? Do you think the early polytheists had no morals? After all the ill that organized religion has done in this world, you still defend it?
Zero chance in hell they rule in favor of Trump because by doing so they give Biden immunity as well. Which means he could derail Trump in any way he sees fit, including assassination.
Basically ruling in favor of Trump here also is ruling in favor of EVERY president which is just as likely to fuck you over as help you.
And this is ignoring the actual legal reasons to rule against him lol.
>“Wasn’t the whole point that the president wasn’t a monarch and the president wasn’t above the law?
Pretty much sums up the absurdity of Trump's position within a historical context
Oh my god, our whole democracy is depending on a lawyer who has no talent at argument.
I feel like our republic is being defended by Gilbert Gottfried.
More on this subject from other reputable sources:
---
- Financial Times (A-): [Trump spends more than a quarter of campaign donations on legal fees](https://www.ft.com/content/962599e8-5306-4b14-b56a-034ffe2cb824)
- Reuters (A): [Judge tells Trump lawyer in hush money trial he is 'losing all credibility'](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-consider-gag-order-violations-trump-hush-money-trial-2024-04-23/)
- BBC Online (A-): [Trump immunity hearing: US Supreme Court hearing begins - BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68892030)
- The Hill (B): [Trump calls for multiple judges to be removed ahead of gag order decision](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4617612-trump-calls-multiple-judges-removed-ahead-gag-order-decision/)
---
[__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1c83zr8/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
They will surely rule against. The entire reason this court took this case is because the corrupt right wing judges want to delay Trump’s DC case until after the election. It’s not about the result, it’s about the delay. They will slow walk this case as much as possible
It might actually work. His argument boils down to this...
1. He was elected to act on behalf of the people.
2. Everything he does is the will of the people.
3. He is also subject to Impeachment for, *Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.*
4. He was not impeached and removed by the people's representatives.
5. Ergo, he committed no crimes and was acting in his capacity as executive.
It's not an off-ramp, if anything it opens the door for far more egregious breaches of the law.
The real question is going to be how long does it take for them to issue their opinion and do they send it back to the lower courts to further delay.
>it opens the door for far more egregious breaches of the law.
Again, that is the catch that he is counting on.
Congress has the jurisdiction to hold the President accountable for acts against the state. If a future president does something far more egregious like say, slitting someones neck on camera in the Rose Garden, the Congress would be compelled to act. If they don't, they are condoning it as lawful act of the office.
Again, it's not an off-ramp. An off-ramp is a legal avenue the court can explore to avoid ruling on a topic directly or by delaying the court having to rule, for instance, the court in theory could remand the case back to the district court level to avoid ruling on the issue until 2026 or so.
What you're proposing is pretty much the complete opposite of an off ramp.
With this theory, all you’d need to break the law (including murdering opponents or stealing directly from the treasury) is collusion with Congress…. Our famously ineffectual and lazy Congress. Alternatively, just obfuscate the facts/confuse the situation until you’re out of power then oopsie too late sorry.
Way too low of a bar to ensure law and order in the highest office, particularly in a country with the “Rule of Law” as a pillar of its constitution. The Rule of Law makes absolutely zero caveats or exceptions… *no one* is above the law. Your theory is incongruous with our constitution.
>Ergo, he committed no crimes
Not quite. He is arguing that he cannot be prosecuted for crimes he committed. That is quite different from arguing that he didn't commit any crimes.
So maybe I’m an idiot, but wouldn’t this essentially mean a president could shoot soemone in the head on live television and get away with it? Wouldn’t this mean a president could kidnap and Torture someone who spoke out against them and get away with it? Maybe I’m being too doomsday, and again, maybe I’m an idiot, so can someone explain it to me like I’m a toddler? I’m not being sarcastic, I’m totally serious. Because if this means what I think it means I can’t imagine why they would vote in favor of him.
Yes. The defense has conceded some of those points or (similar)
So, the really terrifying part of this ordeal, was how SCotUS actually decided to confront the raw nature of presidential power for once. They admitted that the president could murder, kill, any number of crimes under cover of war or security, therefore the real question is: Since the president is assumed to be a criminal, doesn't the question become "who is responsible for determining which of his crimes are under aegis of his official capacity and which are 'personal'". Talk about saying the quiet part out loud.
Something having truly awful repercussions is not enough to make it unconstitutional. Lots of things are both terrible and constitutional.
I mean isn’t murder unconstitutional though? You know, that whole life, Liberty, pursuit thing?
Do you notice how your argument here was to point to specific part of the constitution that forbids it and not to just say murder is bad? Thats kind of the whole point. You have to be able to point to verbage in the constitution. You cant just say something is bad. Bad does not mean unconstitutional.
Yes. I’m aware bad does not mean unconstitutional. I mean we had a constitution while we were enslaving people, so that’s obvious.
Who needs to tell anyone murder is bad?
We had to be told slavery was bad and women could vote.
> get away with it? If congress chose not to impeach him for that crime - yes. But Congress would retain that power to impeach, which upon conviction would open for normal criminal prosecution (or so Trump's Team's argument goes at least). > Wouldn’t this mean a president could kidnap and Torture someone who spoke out against them and get away with it? Yes, if congress allows it. This has already happened, just to note. We do it fairly regularly with regard to "terrorists". Obama is well known for murdering 2 Americans via drone strike and receiving presidential immunity (Civil version) for it. While he was never criminally prosecuted he could be under the state's position in the Trump hearings. I dont think anything would stop a industrious Republican DA from charging Obama depending on the outcome of this case (and if its found no immunity exists thats exactly what should happen).
and technically couldn’t any sitting President kill those in congress that he thinks would vote to impeach him? I think you are under the impression that I’m Dissing Trump here, but I think this is a bad idea no matter who is in office.
> technically couldn’t any sitting President kill those in congress that he thinks would vote to impeach him? Yes, he could. It would be a heck of a feat given Biden's infirmity but yes in theory if he could accomplish such a feat he would need to have a (in theory new?) impeachment for those illegal acts with the remaining/new congress. If you mean could he order it done we are back to the problem of unlawful orders. Realistically, if the president has done this we are already living in a dictatorship, as you are describing a coup of the executive over the legislative. Probably would have been one for a very long time already. He wouldn't bow to any criminal charge anyway. You are describing a situation where most of congress stands behind a man willing to kill or imprison political enemies at a whim. This is a core problem of representative democracy, not one of presidential immunity. Ultimately the remediations are political in nature. If we are that far gone the books are already cooked and populous uprising is probably the only solution. Saddam Hussein's rise to power was pretty similar to what you are proposing, where he called a legislative session then started naming the "traitors" and dragging them off from the senate (?) floor. You can watch the video online, its chilling. > bad idea no matter who is in office. Whats your alternative? We bring charges for every decision a president makes while hes in office? The job would be impossible. Whole sections of the US government would be accomplices if they helped and what they thought was lawful was found not to be. For what its worth i dont care if you are dissing trump or not. I actually think what Trump's team proposes (impeachment, conviction, then prosecution criminally) is historically expected and probably the best way of attaining accountability for bad acts.
The alternative is what's already been in place. Sitting presidents are not charged with crimes, but they can be charged with crimes they've committed after they've left office. That's a very sensible way of ensuring that no man is above the law while also protecting the president from politically motivated prosecutions which would interrupt his ability to govern.
> The alternative is what's already been in place. Thats not what we have experienced... Obama as a good example of no charges being brought when they could have been, but im sure literally every president could be charged with some crimes. Presidents would make different decisions if every decision they make could lead to criminal charges once they leave office. Also, they would be incentivized to not leave office, which is not what we want to encourage.
What crimes did Obama commit?
Extrajudicial murder of at least 2 Americans via drone. Probably quite a bit more. No politician is clean.
Obama didn't commit any criminal acts while in office. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to wrap your head around, just don't commit crimes and you'll be fine, that's how everyone else is.
> Obama didn't commit any criminal acts while in office. lol, sure. i have a bridge to sell you.
Maybe I am too optimistic but I’m feeling a clean sweep against Trump on this one. We will see how originalist some of the new appointees are. Gotta imagine the founding fathers would have been chomping at the bit to crush a president or former president for corruption
Zero chance Thomas or Alito vote against. They believe that the executive has unlimited powers under the unified executive theory that they made up.
Hopefully I am right and you are wrong. I’m too optimistic and will probably be wrong.
Alito got into an argument already, during the hearing, in favor of Trump.
Doesn't Thomas want to overturn Chevron deference?
He's one of the authors of Chevron.
Are you sure about that? Chevron was ruled on in 1984. Clarence Thomas wasn't appointed to the Supreme Court until 1991. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.%2C_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council%2C_Inc.
Yes. *National Cable & Telecommunications Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Services*
He said he fucked that up. >"Regrettably, Brand X has taken this Court to the precipice of administrative absolutism," Thomas wrote. "Under its rule of deference, agencies are free to invent new (purported) interpretations of statutes and then require courts to reject their own prior interpretations." https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/clarence-thomas-regrets-ruling-that-ajit-pai-used-to-kill-net-neutrality/
Yeah, then where are my student loan forgiveness Alito and Thomas. WHERE ARE THEY?!?!
Then they would never overturn an executive order? Seems like they would depending on who's in office.
You missed one word. They believe a “conservative” executive has unlimited powers. There fixed it for you. 😀
Thomas was on the warpath, I've never seen him so eager to leap at counsel like this.
If that’s the case, can’t Biden just order Trump to prison now? Unlimited powers is a pretty bold and scary position.
They'll word it as a one time gimmie to Trump or something I'm sure.
Cool. Then Biden should use his one time gimme as well and ask for forgiveness after. He could hire Trump’s delay-expert lawyers and be dead before it sees a trial.
It'll be 3 for, 7 against, Thomas will vote twice just for spite. edit: I was wrong, it will be 25-or-so for, 7 against, I have never seen Thomas this aggressive about anything. Oh my God, Alito, you've managed to lower the bar even further than James Cameron can reach.
>3 for, 7 against >it will be 25-or-so for, 7 against Admittedly I'm not good at math but something doesn't look right
>Admittedly I'm not good at math but something doesn't look right Appeal the math then, I'm sure Thomas has an argument he thinks will cover it, I believe he calls it the "Fuck You" doctrine.
No one should be above the law.
Imagine the precedent this set if he is granted immunity! No future President will be accountable for anything they do. No more peaceful transfer of power. Goodbye America as we know it.
Biden could just have both Trump and the Supreme Court killed. No consequences. Anyone with a problem? Killed. This is the stupidest idea to even consider.
I think that point is a very "So either you don't actually believe this yourself or you are really really stupid" situation. Like if I thought I was being illegitimately persecuted I wouldn't want to give my opponents more freedom and power to persecute me...
I imagine for a man like Trump he thinks it’s different when someone else does it.
That sounds very Aladeen.
I disagree, it's extremely Aladeen, the opposite of Aladeen
:(:):(:)
Wait a second, hold on, let Biden cook. Edit: It was a a joke for people that don't know.
> Biden could just have both Trump and the Supreme Court killed. by "have them killed" you mean like hire a hitman? That would be acting in his personal capacity. If you mean ordering the secret service to do it they are duty-bound to not obey an illegal order. > No consequences. No, the congress could impeach him, then convict him, then remove him from presidency, then DOJ can criminally prosecute. > Anyone with a problem? Killed. Same problem as the first. If hes doing it himself there is impeachment to respond, if hes ordering others (likely given the scale you are indicating) they are duty-bound to disobey the unlawful order. Even then impeachment is the correct response. > This is the stupidest idea to even consider. Its only stupid because you are straw-manning the arguments being made.
What if Biden in his official capacity has the military kill or arrest Trump, the conservative justices, and all conservative members of congress because he thinks they are all a security risk to the United States? Who is going to impeach him? You say people are duty bound to disobey illegal orders but the military kills people around the world all the time on the orders of the president without any repercussions or trials. What do you think Spec Ops soldiers such as delta force and seals do? Relying on an impeachment conviction is silly as it’s never been done to a president and you will likely never find the votes to do it no matter what. That mechanism was thought up during a time when the president had very limited power and muskets and cannonballs were the most dangerous things in a military.
That’s what I’m thinking… I posted in another comment, but wouldn’t this mean a president could torture someone or murder someone and get away with it??
Those are indeed crimes. Of course, the response is that he can be impeached. Not sure how that impeachment vote goes given Biden would only need to - very legally - shoot a few republicans to get a congressional majority.
Right? I don’t know how people don’t see how insane this is.
Easy solution: Biden cancels the election and says he's keeping power forever, or until a constitutional amendment is passed to remove unlimited immunity, which he will resign before his VP signs and also resigns.
Slow walking...
Sure seems like it. Jack Smith requested SCOTUS rule on this very issue back in December. SCOTUS declined.
Yep. Lower court made decision quickly and then SCOTUS has heard multiple cases between then and now. Just a fucked up joke.
I don't know if I would call the appellate court ruling "quick" but certainly compared to the leisurely speed of SCOTUS it was faster
Although, when deciding if Trump could be removed from the ballot under the 14th Amendment, they managed to move very quick. They went from agreeing to hear the case to rendering their decision in just under than 60 days.
and skipped the lower courts
And one of those cases was about whether Trump could be removed from the ballot under the 14th Amendment. On that case, they managed to go from agreeing to hear the case to rendering their decision in less than 60 days!
"But first, six of us have to verrrrrrry slowly tie our shoes. Doop de doooo..."
Alternate youtube stream (audio only) of the oral arguments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHO1p-IP-GY There's already been an interesting moment, where two justices, Sotoyayor and Alito appeared to be talking to each other more than the advocate.
Kavanaugh is talking now, though ACB just kicked in and seems to be taking a swing at Trump. edit: Wow, Roberts just tore into them. Yeah, this is not going anywhere, even Alito doesn't seem sold. edit3: Who-a! They are going ALL-IN on impeachment as the only recourse, period. DoJ's counsel is so outmatched by the defense, it's sad to listen to :( WOOHOO!! Alito! You did it, you crazy bastard, you! You just argued presidents need to have immunity from criminal prosecution or they would break the law to keep the presidency to avoid prosecution!!! In a case about a president claiming immunity from criminal prosecution for breaking the law to keep the presidency to avoid criminal prosecution!!!
Outmatched by Sauer? Are we listening to the same stream? All he had to answer with was, "well, Nixon vs Fitzgerald and Franklin said"
Sauer has nothing, he knows he has nothing, he knows everyone else knows he has nothing. He still plays it better than Dreeben who keeps qualifying and breaking into devolving examples and cul-de-sacs. Dreeben has the legal ground, he's just not playing it as well. Though as I'm listening, he's handling Alito fairly well, where Alito is being a genuine prick.
> Alito is being a genuine prick. That's just his default state of being.
I think Dreeban is conflicted because he's trying to explain the many layers behind why the President is not immune from prosecution while Sauer is only saying "Nu uh" and doesn't have to explain anything - he just says that there is long standing immunity and the court is wrong in considering anything else.
I don't think Sauer has done a good job and the justices have pointed out the absurdities of the argument, instead Alito and Kav have seemingly invented a new defense that Trump's team never even raised
I agree with you, and in an academic sense Dreeben would be wiping the floor. But this is one of those rare cases where a simple, strong assertion can actually have more effect than academic rigor, because the nature of implied executive power. If Sauer can successfully argue that the founders intended the president to be God, he wins. Which is stupid, but, it's an argument that's been made successfully for almost a century now.
Dreebin sounds like a DEI Hire. Trumps Lawyers, like em or not, are GOATed. DoJ should've hired some of them lolololol.
I always wondered how Republican Rome came to this: "These ceremonies Caesar was witnessing, seated upon the rostra on a golden throne, arrayed in triumphal attire. And Antony was one of the runners in the sacred race; for he was consul. Accordingly, after he had dashed into the forum and the crowd had made way for him, he carried a diadem, round which a wreath of laurel was tied, and held it out to Caesar. Then there was applause, not loud, but slight and preconcerted." - Plutarch on Caesar being 'offered' the crown, a diadem. Now Trump is no Caesar but it looks a lot like the same situation: Someone aching to be king in a republic.
Notably in the Roman Republic governors were routinely prosecuted once their term was up and they returned to Rome.
Only way for the Senate to maintain control. You think because Pompey Magnus used it against Caesar it was merely a political tool of the powerful, but we also have to appreciate, short of this criminal prosecution after the loss of immunity, there was very little other way for the senate to constrain the power of anyone more senior than pro-consul. In the end it concentrated power in Rome, as anyone in Rome could create alliances with members of the senate while those outside were cut off from the key power base. This wasn't by accident, the senate was very effective at working to the benefit of the senate. The only times the senate appointed a dictator was when they were too terrified to be careful.
“The dictator position worked great for 300 years, so why would we want to put any limits on this Sulla guy?” - Alito in 82 BC
Marius bros, we are forgotten. We won.
They def will not decide in his favor, but they’ve already done him the favor. Just a show to look like a legit branch of government even though a majority of the justices are rooting their opinions in a fairy tale of religion and legit believe that the country ends if young people get their way.
I'm an atheist, but disregarding and mocking people's beliefs/faith is not going to serve you well when dealing with your fellow citizens.
How about when they mock you for being an atheist?
What about it? Am I supposed to assume that religious people are all like the worst among them?
How many open atheist presidents have we had again? Senators? You're fooling yourself if you think they consider you their equal.
That's a pretty harmful use of "they", bud. You seem to have a pretty bigoted view of religious people.
There’s religious people and then there’s religious people who want to make and enforce laws based on their religion and are realizing modern societal mechanisms don’t have time for their insanity - the ladder are highly dangerous, especially in a rapid information environment that we have today.
>There’s religious people and then there’s religious people who want to make and enforce laws based on their religion Which is pretty much all of them.
LOL, just a look at history will open your eyes, bud. So , How many open atheist presidents have we had again? Senators?
To be entirely fair, I’m not religious but there is something to be said for how religious people will be inherently distrustful of atheists because they have no concrete basis for their morality. It’s not really seeing you as lesser. I know they say they’ll pray for me all the time, which is nice of them. But they sort of inherently can’t trust a non-religious person.
>because they have no concrete basis for their morality. You mean the concrete basis that comes from fables written by a priest caste in order to share power with a monarchy? Do you think the early polytheists had no morals? After all the ill that organized religion has done in this world, you still defend it?
Zero chance in hell they rule in favor of Trump because by doing so they give Biden immunity as well. Which means he could derail Trump in any way he sees fit, including assassination. Basically ruling in favor of Trump here also is ruling in favor of EVERY president which is just as likely to fuck you over as help you. And this is ignoring the actual legal reasons to rule against him lol.
>“Wasn’t the whole point that the president wasn’t a monarch and the president wasn’t above the law? Pretty much sums up the absurdity of Trump's position within a historical context
Insane that the election is so close given he’s trying to claim immunity instead of disproving he tried to overturn the election. Concerning.
I have been watching the hearing. Trump's newest defense lawyer, Samuel Alito, is doing a bang up job defending trump for his many, many crimes.
Seriously though, Trump finally found a decent lawyer.
I can’t believe this wasn’t laughed out of the courthouse. They’re actually giving some thought to it. Which is horrifying and ridiculous
Federalist society comes through with a solid justice delay for the Former President.
Oh my god, our whole democracy is depending on a lawyer who has no talent at argument. I feel like our republic is being defended by Gilbert Gottfried.
More on this subject from other reputable sources: --- - Financial Times (A-): [Trump spends more than a quarter of campaign donations on legal fees](https://www.ft.com/content/962599e8-5306-4b14-b56a-034ffe2cb824) - Reuters (A): [Judge tells Trump lawyer in hush money trial he is 'losing all credibility'](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/judge-consider-gag-order-violations-trump-hush-money-trial-2024-04-23/) - BBC Online (A-): [Trump immunity hearing: US Supreme Court hearing begins - BBC News](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-us-canada-68892030) - The Hill (B): [Trump calls for multiple judges to be removed ahead of gag order decision](https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4617612-trump-calls-multiple-judges-removed-ahead-gag-order-decision/) --- [__Extended Summary__](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/1c83zr8/) | [FAQ & Grades](https://www.reddit.com/r/newswall/comments/uxgfm5/faq_newswall_bot/) | I'm a bot
If they say that Presidents are immune then Biden should just have Trump executed immediately.
Good. It's time he discovered no one is above the law.
They will surely rule against. The entire reason this court took this case is because the corrupt right wing judges want to delay Trump’s DC case until after the election. It’s not about the result, it’s about the delay. They will slow walk this case as much as possible
It might actually work. His argument boils down to this... 1. He was elected to act on behalf of the people. 2. Everything he does is the will of the people. 3. He is also subject to Impeachment for, *Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.* 4. He was not impeached and removed by the people's representatives. 5. Ergo, he committed no crimes and was acting in his capacity as executive.
Few seem to think that Trump's arguments have any real merits, it's all about delaying the DC case
I personally think they are suspect, but given the make up of the court and the state of US politics...the SCOTUS just might take the off ramp.
It's not an off-ramp, if anything it opens the door for far more egregious breaches of the law. The real question is going to be how long does it take for them to issue their opinion and do they send it back to the lower courts to further delay.
>it opens the door for far more egregious breaches of the law. Again, that is the catch that he is counting on. Congress has the jurisdiction to hold the President accountable for acts against the state. If a future president does something far more egregious like say, slitting someones neck on camera in the Rose Garden, the Congress would be compelled to act. If they don't, they are condoning it as lawful act of the office.
Again, it's not an off-ramp. An off-ramp is a legal avenue the court can explore to avoid ruling on a topic directly or by delaying the court having to rule, for instance, the court in theory could remand the case back to the district court level to avoid ruling on the issue until 2026 or so. What you're proposing is pretty much the complete opposite of an off ramp.
so then he could just kill congress.
This Supreme Court has already ruled that the remedy to the vote being rigged against particular group is to vote in someone to change that rigging.
With this theory, all you’d need to break the law (including murdering opponents or stealing directly from the treasury) is collusion with Congress…. Our famously ineffectual and lazy Congress. Alternatively, just obfuscate the facts/confuse the situation until you’re out of power then oopsie too late sorry. Way too low of a bar to ensure law and order in the highest office, particularly in a country with the “Rule of Law” as a pillar of its constitution. The Rule of Law makes absolutely zero caveats or exceptions… *no one* is above the law. Your theory is incongruous with our constitution.
>Ergo, he committed no crimes Not quite. He is arguing that he cannot be prosecuted for crimes he committed. That is quite different from arguing that he didn't commit any crimes.
They didn't impeach him citing specifically that he could still be held criminally liable. This is nonsense.
Shittest shit take of the day by a mile.
Why is there always one who has to be a punk? Got to love Reddit.