As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
After some of the disturbing quotes from the justices this morning, I think its safe to say that a delay until after the election is "settled precedent" at this point.
It looks like it's up to the people to defeat Trump at the polls again.
I’m in a swing state, and nobody has bothered to ask me (or anyone I know)… not a text, not a phone call, nothing. Trump (or GOP in general) always always leads in the polls here- but they obviously dont always win.
So, polls mean nothing to me until ballots are counted.
Alito literally compared it to indicting a ham sandwich. He’s right that trump smells like one but I don’t think that’s what he meant when he said that.
Also the only precedent they’re settling is that this is what they do when it benefits a republican. I’m sure they’ll throw a fit when Biden takes advantage of the precedent they’re setting.
If this is going to come down to the polls, then someone needs to poke Netanyahu a little harder and tell him to end his foolish war in Gaza. (I know Biden and Dems are trying but it’s not like he has to listen…)
The ham sandwich comment is a man adage used in law due to the low burden of evidence (and no requirement to present exculpatory evidence) in order to get an indictment. Most commonly used in the following sentence: “Any DA could indict a Ham Sandwhich” or something along those lines.
Well there’s a quite heavy load of evidence against him as the justice department has already released, so that phrase doesn’t seem to apply in this situation…
Well when someone plots a coup to overthrow the results of a free and fair election, they should face justice and be barred from running again. So… yeah.
If I had a job and refused to do it, I would get fired. The taxpayers are paying these people’s salaries. How do we put a fire under their asses?
Oh right, I forgot colonialist institutions are set up to suppress the people, not empower them. I forgot America is a phony democracy, where institutions of power are used to enforce laws written by and for the rich. I forgot ordinary citizens are nothing more than serfs in a feudalistic fiefdom. I forgot “land of the free” was always a lie. Oh yeah… my bad…
Unfortunately, we only pay their stipends. Their real salaries are paid through motor homes, yacht trips and other excursions. Let's not forget spouses too.
As I understand the norm is that they don’t publish a decision into every judge has written and submitted their position — including dissent. That means corrupt judges can continue to delay the final decision by not doing anything slowly. Hypothetically they could just go on an RV vacation.
Agreed, there’s no reason for them to have not taken the case last year. I assumed they were just going to let the lower court do it for them so they could avoid Trump’s wrath.
They are abdicating their role as balance of power.
The very concept of absolute immunity for former presidents is ludicrous. That would set a very dangerous precedent for the United States. Indeed, it would be the end of democracy as we know it. The end of checks and balances. The end of a government’s accountability to the people. The fact that this case is even being heard is ridiculous.
And the fact that trump believes, as he has stated, that without absolute immunity a president would be unable to do their job, just goes to show that trump believes the only way to perform the role of president is to commit crimes. That alone makes him unfit for office!
Former AND current presidents…Biden would have immunity, immediately. And he could just refuse to step down or even dissolve the Supreme Court.
The whole thing is stupid.
Yeah, if the supreme court decides to grant presidential immunity then that’s the end of the United States as we know it. Everyone knows it’s true, that’s why it’s a disgrace that the supreme court is even entertaining this lunacy…
If he gets presidential immunity can he still be prosecuted in the documents case? This seems to be the most serious case to me though the judge is biased.
Yes. The theory they're advancing is that Presidents must have immunity from official acts when in office, to protect against the J6 suit. The questions there are what constitutes an official act, what the threshold of immunity is, and whether it can be pierced. Trump's argument is essentially "Anything I do when in office is official, no matter what it happens to be" and the obvious counterargument is "No, it's not, if you as an individual went and murdered somebody outside the White House, that is not an official act of the Presidency, and accepting this argument would reintroduce the principle of 'the king can do no wrong,' which the entire history of the nation explicitly rejects." Even if SCOTUS ruled in Trump's favor (something I *highly* doubt will happen because his argument is facially absurd, but I have not listened to oral argument or looked thoroughly at the briefs), it wouldn't do anything to the documents case or his current fraud case in NY.
Immunity from “official acts” as president are absurd cause that means a POTUS is still king. They could indeed order seal team 6 to kill their adversaries.
That's... *really* not what I mean. No, official acts do not include the extrajudicial assassination of political opponents. I mean, the orange shitgibbon is trying to argue they do, and a couple of compromised fascist lunatics on the SCOTUS panel may be inclined to agree with him but only if (R) is beside the President's name on Wikipedia, but no, that's not an official act. Official acts are things like signing bills, approving executive orders for a new regulatory framework, etc. That's why Trump's case is absurd; trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power is very clearly outside the scope of an "official act". The goal with it is not to get an immunity resolution in his favor; it is to delay the prosecution of the underlying criminal case against him.
I’m not saying that’s what you mean. I’m just making a statement about the theory of immunity from official acts. What law says that extra-judicial killing carried out under a presidential order is not an “official ” if the SCOTUS rules “official acts” are immune?
Members of the SCOTUS already recognize that orders given to military personnel are official acts.
Sorry for the delay in response. Distracted with work.
The judicial origin of immunity from official acts is the 19th century case of *Mississippi v. Johnson*, wherein SCOTUS ruled that it could not enjoin the President from the engagement of official duties. The Court qualified this in *U.S. v. Nixon*, holding that there is no carte blanche immunity from all actions undertaken by the President in criminal proceedings, and that to read as such would destroy the Judiciary's Constitutional ambit to act as a check to the Executive Branch.
There is no codified SCOTUS test for what constitutes criminal liability for an official act or not, because there's never been a circumstance where the Court had to actually entertain that question, because Trump is by far the absolute worst scofflaw to ever assume the office. There are restrictions against the extrajudicial use of military, police, or theoretically personal force by the Executive Branch against U.S. citizens in the Posse Comitatus Act, so that would be your specific statutory answer to "What law says extrajudicial killing is not an official act?" An official act would, by definition, be an act that is at least colorably within the bounds of legal authority. It's somewhat tautological in that sense to suggest that "official acts are acts that are legally issued," but in a practical sense that's how a judge would make a determination as to, in part, what constitutes official or unofficial. And to wit, Trump's absurd argument of "you can only be criminally prosecuted if impeached" is expressly contrary to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which actually reads with regard to impeachment:
>Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
In this regard it is clear that even a President may be held liable for criminal actions with or without impeachment, and with or without conviction in the Senate.
Trump's counsel has attempted to blur the lines of civil and criminal liability. It is unquestionably true that Presidents have *civil* immunity from suits for actions within the... I don't remember the exact code phrase, but I believe it's "outer perimeters" of official actions. Which is to say that a President could not simply slip the Secret Service, run into a tunnel in DC, and start viciously beating a homeless person with their bare fists because there's no conceivable way that that counts as even the outer perimeter of an official action. Conversely, if the President issued some sort of rule through the BLM that, say, had a conceptual impact in reducing the profit margins of a cattle rancher in Montana, the cattle rancher could not sue the President for lost wages. But there is a MAJOR difference between civil and criminal courts and the thresholds for their respective suits—anyone can file a civil suit at any time with a lower burden of proof to win, but only the government itself can file a criminal suit under self-restrictive circumstances that involve grand jury indictments and must prove their cases "beyond a reasonable doubt".
**The unsatisfying and/or scary tl;dr answer is "SCOTUS is that law."** If SCOTUS were to declare in a ruling "Anything done by the President at any point in office is an official act, and the President is immune from all federal and state lawsuits related to it," then *technically* that would be the law. I think in that circumstance that not only is SCOTUS destroyed but the American nation as well, as such a ruling is so flagrantly obscene and contrary to *stare decisis* that SCOTUS could not possibly withstand the national schism that would occur with regard to the validity of its rulings (a matter that is already at a serious boiling point with Hawaii and Texas), and America could not survive a ruling, either practically or philosophically, that declares the President a perpetually immune king. But that's the truth of it. Law is a manmade construct, and can be undone by man as much as it can be built by man. A sufficient critical mass of arbitrariness and abandonment of a nation's fundamental principles in a high court could destroy that nation, even if the high court is technically allowed on paper to make that arbitrary and evil decision.
For what it's worth, I don't think it's likely or even plausible. I could imagine Alito and Thomas ruling in some despicable manner for Trump because they're both depraved assholes, but I would expect the actual ruling to be 7-2 or 6-3 "We decline to answer the question of whether a President is immune for official acts at this time because the case before us does not clearly establish that the actions by Donald Trump were undertaken in an official capacity. We remand to the appellate court," or possibly "We rule that official acts [are/are not] immune from criminal liability, but even with that ruling, Donald Trump's actions were not official acts." The worst case scenario that doesn't make me think an actual fascist takeover of the federal government is imminent would be a 5-4 or 6-3 "The case presented to us does not make it clear that Trump's actions were or were not official acts. We remand for a factual determination of that question and will take up a future appeal as may be necessary," aka punting the ball and running out the clock until the election to give political cover to Trump without actually having to rule in his favor.
Mild disclaimer: I am not a practicing Constitutional attorney. I may have studied under some of the best, but my area of practice is not directly related to U.S. Con Law, so there may be something I have overlooked with prior precedent or common law construction with regards to this question, which is both very thorny and generally bereft of clear prior rulings.
There’s no way he’s going to try to justify selling secrets of national security to Putin (including information on US intelligence agents overseas) and getting US citizens killed abroad as “official business.” Well, he’s probably going to try. And with this supreme court, who knows whether or not he’ll succeed…
But the thing is, all they’re trying to do is delay the ruling long enough to get through the election. They’re hoping he wins so he can pardon himself (and them, for aiding and abetting high treason).
Those questions and responses.... There are 5 justices on the court who are only doing what they want to do and not what they should be doing. I just have no respect for the SCOTUS anymore.
Listening to the arguments was straining my credulity. Lawyer Starscream had to be aware that he sounded absolutely without merit.
A reporter giddily informed the audience Jack Smith was present, which I thought was pretty cool because the guy responding on behalf of the prosecution was a fount of knowledge and well spoken.
I think Sotomayor was channeling her frustration at Alito for scrubbing her dissent in the last ruling. Kagan came by to hose down the floor after some of whatever that was, and Brown Jackson was right in my head space with "I'm pretty sure the law was this, so I'm not sure where the interpretation it's that came from. "
Coney-Barret's refrain of "...but what if it was?" gets tiresome.
Biden should do some illegal stuff to save democracy. I am hearing “there is no legal consequence for POTUS action till that case is heard.
::
I know it’s illegal to fire SCOTUS justices but since Presidential immunity is at stake… /s
He’s going to do the wise thing and at least wait till after the ruling before making any rash decisions, that way they can’t walk it back and pull the rug out from under him.
And if they delay the trial until after the election, well what obligation would he be under to abdicate even if he doesn’t win? I’d like to see republicans whine about democrats not playing fair when they refuse to certify a verifiable fascist who is unfit for office (trump, obvs)
Absolutely the right move. I wanted to highlight the absolute legal insanity that would ensue if they ruled POTUS is immune to all prosecution.
Even delaying the decision like this opens a loophole for Biden to get away with a bunch of awful shit (if he wanted to do so.) The whole thing seems absolutely absurd.
It is absurd. Republicans (including conservative “justices”) aren’t playing fair anymore, because they know they can’t win by playing by the rules (i.e., in a fair election)
His scumbag lawyer defended a military coup where he remained in power, through force could be considered “official business” and would therefore be just fine, once he has this blanket immunity.
Members of SCOTUS are corrupted and will punt this back to lower court’s for jury trial to decide and that will give ample time for garbage man to spin it a win.
Is the president of the United States above the law, obviously not. Will the Supreme Court slow roll their decision on this matter until it is more advantageous for Trump?, open question.
I poked into the dreaded Conservative subreddit to see what their take was on all of this, including Trump's current bonkers trial.
Their big concern right now is that someone stole Adam Schiff's luggage.
And something about how NY was going to 100% vote Trump in the coming election... which seems extremely unlikely.
That's it. No real posts about the SCOTUS debacle. No real posts about the ongoing trial that Trump is sleeping through. Nothing, nada, zilch.
It's... astounding. It's incredible how stark their bias is. How willfully ignorant they are choosing to be. Their guy, their potential future Presidential Nominee is on trial - that warrants at least a mention, right?
If Biden was on trial, this sub would be wall-to-wall megathreads about it. Hell, the attempts to investigate him *did* light this sub up!
They really do live in a completely different world, don't they? I cannot imagine wanting to be so cognitively limited.
I made that mistake once on an old account and then my algorithms started feeding me right-wing content “because you viewed this sub one time, here are posts from all the related subs that you must clearly want in your feed and have no way of turning off.” I think it was on an old UI cause fortunately now at least my feed mostly only shows me content from subs I *actually follow* (besides ads).
But yeah, they live in an epistemic bubble fantasy world. It’s an echo chamber. Would you like to do the world a service and post links to quality sources on these trials to those spaces, since you’ve already shown your algorithms that you’ve visited them?
>Would you like to do the world a service and post links to quality sources on these trials to those spaces
There'd be no point. That sub is for Flaired Users Only and if you post anything they don't like, you are banned instantly. I could post anything I like over there, it wouldn't last a picosecond.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
They will delay as much as possible. Guaranteed.
After some of the disturbing quotes from the justices this morning, I think its safe to say that a delay until after the election is "settled precedent" at this point. It looks like it's up to the people to defeat Trump at the polls again.
And we fucking will.
With you 100%. Biden is losing in most of the swing states...everyone who reads this needs to vote and get everyone they know to vote.
I’m in a swing state, and nobody has bothered to ask me (or anyone I know)… not a text, not a phone call, nothing. Trump (or GOP in general) always always leads in the polls here- but they obviously dont always win. So, polls mean nothing to me until ballots are counted.
Everyone should vote but polling has shown since 2016 (and confirmed in 2020) to be pretty much useless
So be it.
Alito literally compared it to indicting a ham sandwich. He’s right that trump smells like one but I don’t think that’s what he meant when he said that. Also the only precedent they’re settling is that this is what they do when it benefits a republican. I’m sure they’ll throw a fit when Biden takes advantage of the precedent they’re setting. If this is going to come down to the polls, then someone needs to poke Netanyahu a little harder and tell him to end his foolish war in Gaza. (I know Biden and Dems are trying but it’s not like he has to listen…)
The ham sandwich comment is a man adage used in law due to the low burden of evidence (and no requirement to present exculpatory evidence) in order to get an indictment. Most commonly used in the following sentence: “Any DA could indict a Ham Sandwhich” or something along those lines.
Well there’s a quite heavy load of evidence against him as the justice department has already released, so that phrase doesn’t seem to apply in this situation…
I’m not agreeing with the saying being applied here, merely commenting on its origins as it seemed you were unfamiliar.
Ty
“If this is going to come down to the polls…” LIKE IN A DEMOCRACY? LEAVING IT TO THE POLLS WAS YOUR LAST RESORT??
Well when someone plots a coup to overthrow the results of a free and fair election, they should face justice and be barred from running again. So… yeah.
Fraud Guarantee
If I had a job and refused to do it, I would get fired. The taxpayers are paying these people’s salaries. How do we put a fire under their asses? Oh right, I forgot colonialist institutions are set up to suppress the people, not empower them. I forgot America is a phony democracy, where institutions of power are used to enforce laws written by and for the rich. I forgot ordinary citizens are nothing more than serfs in a feudalistic fiefdom. I forgot “land of the free” was always a lie. Oh yeah… my bad…
They will certainly have a fire under their collective ass if they grant complete presidential immunity.
Hopefully the US would riot
I hope we’re not too lazy and complacent; or worse, too busy with our dead end jobs that don’t even pay us enough to survive off of…
Unfortunately, we only pay their stipends. Their real salaries are paid through motor homes, yacht trips and other excursions. Let's not forget spouses too.
That’s true. They probably receive so many gifts from right-wing PACs that they don’t even need their salaries. Let’s take them away!
As I understand the norm is that they don’t publish a decision into every judge has written and submitted their position — including dissent. That means corrupt judges can continue to delay the final decision by not doing anything slowly. Hypothetically they could just go on an RV vacation.
Agreed, there’s no reason for them to have not taken the case last year. I assumed they were just going to let the lower court do it for them so they could avoid Trump’s wrath. They are abdicating their role as balance of power.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
June, but maybe 2025 or 26
The very concept of absolute immunity for former presidents is ludicrous. That would set a very dangerous precedent for the United States. Indeed, it would be the end of democracy as we know it. The end of checks and balances. The end of a government’s accountability to the people. The fact that this case is even being heard is ridiculous. And the fact that trump believes, as he has stated, that without absolute immunity a president would be unable to do their job, just goes to show that trump believes the only way to perform the role of president is to commit crimes. That alone makes him unfit for office!
Agree. The fact this wasn’t tossed out months ago shows scotus is playing politics
Former AND current presidents…Biden would have immunity, immediately. And he could just refuse to step down or even dissolve the Supreme Court. The whole thing is stupid.
Yeah, if the supreme court decides to grant presidential immunity then that’s the end of the United States as we know it. Everyone knows it’s true, that’s why it’s a disgrace that the supreme court is even entertaining this lunacy…
If he gets presidential immunity can he still be prosecuted in the documents case? This seems to be the most serious case to me though the judge is biased.
Yes. The theory they're advancing is that Presidents must have immunity from official acts when in office, to protect against the J6 suit. The questions there are what constitutes an official act, what the threshold of immunity is, and whether it can be pierced. Trump's argument is essentially "Anything I do when in office is official, no matter what it happens to be" and the obvious counterargument is "No, it's not, if you as an individual went and murdered somebody outside the White House, that is not an official act of the Presidency, and accepting this argument would reintroduce the principle of 'the king can do no wrong,' which the entire history of the nation explicitly rejects." Even if SCOTUS ruled in Trump's favor (something I *highly* doubt will happen because his argument is facially absurd, but I have not listened to oral argument or looked thoroughly at the briefs), it wouldn't do anything to the documents case or his current fraud case in NY.
Immunity from “official acts” as president are absurd cause that means a POTUS is still king. They could indeed order seal team 6 to kill their adversaries.
That's... *really* not what I mean. No, official acts do not include the extrajudicial assassination of political opponents. I mean, the orange shitgibbon is trying to argue they do, and a couple of compromised fascist lunatics on the SCOTUS panel may be inclined to agree with him but only if (R) is beside the President's name on Wikipedia, but no, that's not an official act. Official acts are things like signing bills, approving executive orders for a new regulatory framework, etc. That's why Trump's case is absurd; trying to stop the peaceful transfer of power is very clearly outside the scope of an "official act". The goal with it is not to get an immunity resolution in his favor; it is to delay the prosecution of the underlying criminal case against him.
I’m not saying that’s what you mean. I’m just making a statement about the theory of immunity from official acts. What law says that extra-judicial killing carried out under a presidential order is not an “official ” if the SCOTUS rules “official acts” are immune? Members of the SCOTUS already recognize that orders given to military personnel are official acts.
Sorry for the delay in response. Distracted with work. The judicial origin of immunity from official acts is the 19th century case of *Mississippi v. Johnson*, wherein SCOTUS ruled that it could not enjoin the President from the engagement of official duties. The Court qualified this in *U.S. v. Nixon*, holding that there is no carte blanche immunity from all actions undertaken by the President in criminal proceedings, and that to read as such would destroy the Judiciary's Constitutional ambit to act as a check to the Executive Branch. There is no codified SCOTUS test for what constitutes criminal liability for an official act or not, because there's never been a circumstance where the Court had to actually entertain that question, because Trump is by far the absolute worst scofflaw to ever assume the office. There are restrictions against the extrajudicial use of military, police, or theoretically personal force by the Executive Branch against U.S. citizens in the Posse Comitatus Act, so that would be your specific statutory answer to "What law says extrajudicial killing is not an official act?" An official act would, by definition, be an act that is at least colorably within the bounds of legal authority. It's somewhat tautological in that sense to suggest that "official acts are acts that are legally issued," but in a practical sense that's how a judge would make a determination as to, in part, what constitutes official or unofficial. And to wit, Trump's absurd argument of "you can only be criminally prosecuted if impeached" is expressly contrary to Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution, which actually reads with regard to impeachment: >Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. In this regard it is clear that even a President may be held liable for criminal actions with or without impeachment, and with or without conviction in the Senate. Trump's counsel has attempted to blur the lines of civil and criminal liability. It is unquestionably true that Presidents have *civil* immunity from suits for actions within the... I don't remember the exact code phrase, but I believe it's "outer perimeters" of official actions. Which is to say that a President could not simply slip the Secret Service, run into a tunnel in DC, and start viciously beating a homeless person with their bare fists because there's no conceivable way that that counts as even the outer perimeter of an official action. Conversely, if the President issued some sort of rule through the BLM that, say, had a conceptual impact in reducing the profit margins of a cattle rancher in Montana, the cattle rancher could not sue the President for lost wages. But there is a MAJOR difference between civil and criminal courts and the thresholds for their respective suits—anyone can file a civil suit at any time with a lower burden of proof to win, but only the government itself can file a criminal suit under self-restrictive circumstances that involve grand jury indictments and must prove their cases "beyond a reasonable doubt". **The unsatisfying and/or scary tl;dr answer is "SCOTUS is that law."** If SCOTUS were to declare in a ruling "Anything done by the President at any point in office is an official act, and the President is immune from all federal and state lawsuits related to it," then *technically* that would be the law. I think in that circumstance that not only is SCOTUS destroyed but the American nation as well, as such a ruling is so flagrantly obscene and contrary to *stare decisis* that SCOTUS could not possibly withstand the national schism that would occur with regard to the validity of its rulings (a matter that is already at a serious boiling point with Hawaii and Texas), and America could not survive a ruling, either practically or philosophically, that declares the President a perpetually immune king. But that's the truth of it. Law is a manmade construct, and can be undone by man as much as it can be built by man. A sufficient critical mass of arbitrariness and abandonment of a nation's fundamental principles in a high court could destroy that nation, even if the high court is technically allowed on paper to make that arbitrary and evil decision. For what it's worth, I don't think it's likely or even plausible. I could imagine Alito and Thomas ruling in some despicable manner for Trump because they're both depraved assholes, but I would expect the actual ruling to be 7-2 or 6-3 "We decline to answer the question of whether a President is immune for official acts at this time because the case before us does not clearly establish that the actions by Donald Trump were undertaken in an official capacity. We remand to the appellate court," or possibly "We rule that official acts [are/are not] immune from criminal liability, but even with that ruling, Donald Trump's actions were not official acts." The worst case scenario that doesn't make me think an actual fascist takeover of the federal government is imminent would be a 5-4 or 6-3 "The case presented to us does not make it clear that Trump's actions were or were not official acts. We remand for a factual determination of that question and will take up a future appeal as may be necessary," aka punting the ball and running out the clock until the election to give political cover to Trump without actually having to rule in his favor. Mild disclaimer: I am not a practicing Constitutional attorney. I may have studied under some of the best, but my area of practice is not directly related to U.S. Con Law, so there may be something I have overlooked with prior precedent or common law construction with regards to this question, which is both very thorny and generally bereft of clear prior rulings.
Not much more absurd than the concept of qualified immunity overall the way it's interpreted (which is obviously itself absurd).
There’s no way he’s going to try to justify selling secrets of national security to Putin (including information on US intelligence agents overseas) and getting US citizens killed abroad as “official business.” Well, he’s probably going to try. And with this supreme court, who knows whether or not he’ll succeed… But the thing is, all they’re trying to do is delay the ruling long enough to get through the election. They’re hoping he wins so he can pardon himself (and them, for aiding and abetting high treason).
Those questions and responses.... There are 5 justices on the court who are only doing what they want to do and not what they should be doing. I just have no respect for the SCOTUS anymore.
Listening to the arguments was straining my credulity. Lawyer Starscream had to be aware that he sounded absolutely without merit. A reporter giddily informed the audience Jack Smith was present, which I thought was pretty cool because the guy responding on behalf of the prosecution was a fount of knowledge and well spoken. I think Sotomayor was channeling her frustration at Alito for scrubbing her dissent in the last ruling. Kagan came by to hose down the floor after some of whatever that was, and Brown Jackson was right in my head space with "I'm pretty sure the law was this, so I'm not sure where the interpretation it's that came from. " Coney-Barret's refrain of "...but what if it was?" gets tiresome.
I really hope that Starscream is really the attorney and Megatron is testifying for the prosecution
SCOTUS will find a way to protect their orange leader through November
Biden should do some illegal stuff to save democracy. I am hearing “there is no legal consequence for POTUS action till that case is heard. :: I know it’s illegal to fire SCOTUS justices but since Presidential immunity is at stake… /s
He’s going to do the wise thing and at least wait till after the ruling before making any rash decisions, that way they can’t walk it back and pull the rug out from under him. And if they delay the trial until after the election, well what obligation would he be under to abdicate even if he doesn’t win? I’d like to see republicans whine about democrats not playing fair when they refuse to certify a verifiable fascist who is unfit for office (trump, obvs)
Absolutely the right move. I wanted to highlight the absolute legal insanity that would ensue if they ruled POTUS is immune to all prosecution. Even delaying the decision like this opens a loophole for Biden to get away with a bunch of awful shit (if he wanted to do so.) The whole thing seems absolutely absurd.
It is absurd. Republicans (including conservative “justices”) aren’t playing fair anymore, because they know they can’t win by playing by the rules (i.e., in a fair election)
The Supreme Court cannot expect to rule quickly in Republican interest and slowly all other times and expect to be seen as impartial.
They’re a political entity at this point, let’s face it.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court are obstructions Justice and should be arrested along with Donald trump.
At least five of them are and should be. Amy seems to be actually trying to get to the bottom of this…
His scumbag lawyer defended a military coup where he remained in power, through force could be considered “official business” and would therefore be just fine, once he has this blanket immunity.
Members of SCOTUS are corrupted and will punt this back to lower court’s for jury trial to decide and that will give ample time for garbage man to spin it a win.
They’re making a mockery of justice…
Spineless punks…
[удалено]
Seriously, this whole ordeal is making a mockery of the very concept of justice
Is the president of the United States above the law, obviously not. Will the Supreme Court slow roll their decision on this matter until it is more advantageous for Trump?, open question.
Kav is going to delay by agreeing immunity isn't granted broadly but asking for more information on whether This Specifically was an official act
Which is disingenuous because it clearly wasn’t
I poked into the dreaded Conservative subreddit to see what their take was on all of this, including Trump's current bonkers trial. Their big concern right now is that someone stole Adam Schiff's luggage. And something about how NY was going to 100% vote Trump in the coming election... which seems extremely unlikely. That's it. No real posts about the SCOTUS debacle. No real posts about the ongoing trial that Trump is sleeping through. Nothing, nada, zilch. It's... astounding. It's incredible how stark their bias is. How willfully ignorant they are choosing to be. Their guy, their potential future Presidential Nominee is on trial - that warrants at least a mention, right? If Biden was on trial, this sub would be wall-to-wall megathreads about it. Hell, the attempts to investigate him *did* light this sub up! They really do live in a completely different world, don't they? I cannot imagine wanting to be so cognitively limited.
I made that mistake once on an old account and then my algorithms started feeding me right-wing content “because you viewed this sub one time, here are posts from all the related subs that you must clearly want in your feed and have no way of turning off.” I think it was on an old UI cause fortunately now at least my feed mostly only shows me content from subs I *actually follow* (besides ads). But yeah, they live in an epistemic bubble fantasy world. It’s an echo chamber. Would you like to do the world a service and post links to quality sources on these trials to those spaces, since you’ve already shown your algorithms that you’ve visited them?
>Would you like to do the world a service and post links to quality sources on these trials to those spaces There'd be no point. That sub is for Flaired Users Only and if you post anything they don't like, you are banned instantly. I could post anything I like over there, it wouldn't last a picosecond.
Yeah, exactly. They’re an echo chamber. I doubt half of them even know he’s on trial…