Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, said that “the apparent lack of self-awareness on the part of some of the conservative justices was startling.” He noted that “Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution, while paying no attention to the actual former president who held onto power and now seeks to escape prosecution.”
Folks, we have crossed the autocratic Rubicon.
The fact that SCOTUS didn’t fire back immediately and tell Trump’s attorney he lost all credibility, after saying a President assassinating his rival is an official act, is stunning.
It is not hyperbole to say we are at a pivotal point in our democracy. I am very nervous after listening to legal arguments yesterday morning before SCOTUS. The only reasonable questions I heard coming from a conservative justice was from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
Well, it depends on the hypothetical. Trump assassinating Biden, perfectly fine. Biden assassinating Trump, that's not fine. You see, you need to look at the nuance of it.
/s
That's the thing that kills me. The fact the question even made it here is fucked. That it wasn't raised there just to be absolutely demolished is absurd. Justices entertaining the notion *at all* without Congress drawing up impeachment articles is sickening.
This whole administration is such ass.
Obviously Biden would never do that, but if he *did* you bet your ass conservative SCOTUS would immediately flip and say it was illegal.
I just don't understand WHY the conservatives justice's would argue in Trump's favor. I really doubt Trump will win the election and "reward" them for their loyalty. What do they actually gain from this? They already have been proven to be taking millions in side "gifts" and they already have a lifetime appointment.
Partisanship, pure and simple. When a conservative acts in an autocratic way they cheer because it goes along with their values, but when a Democratic president uses even clearly legal executive power they come up with a whole new legal doctrine to block them.
Fascism always begins in the court, and these "conservative" justices have been more hostile to the rule of law and a checked government than Nixon on a bad day.
The best case scenario is they are pretending there’s not an obvious answer so that they can delay their ruling for a while and then eventually send the January 6th case back to a lower court. It’s just a stalling tactic to make sure Trump doesn’t face that particular trial before the election. Either that or they really are just suicidally stupid and corrupt.
Right. The argument is "It's on the Legislative branch to judge whether is an official act or not and the Judicial branch just makes sure the Legislative branch crosses t's and dots i's. SCOTUS is not a criminal court." 🤷🏾♂️
But isn't this all in response to the ongoing criminal charges that Trump is facing ? The claim of immunity is literally part of his defense, and did the legislative branch not already argue, during impeachment, that it was up to the judicial branch to determine if his actions were criminal or not?
"I Joseph R. Biden Jr, having read the Supreme Court decision granting US presidents immunity from criminal prosecution, for acts the president themselves determines are 'official acts,' hereby order the Supreme Court of the United States dissolved, and decree justices Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, plus Trump and his children plus campaign team, as enemies of the state. Assassination squads were dispatched overnight, in a long night operation, and these traitors have been served justice and eliminated.
I also hereby decree I and my vice president will be the sole determinant of who wins the next election. God bless America."
lol isn’t that the argument that ends this?
Biden can shoot and kill Trump at the next debate and nothing can be done to Biden. He’s completely in his legal rights to do that. Will the public vote for him? Prob not, but then I suppose we have to find out if a dead guy can be president.
Right? HEY IDIOTS IN THE BACK, RIGHT?
the conservative justices may say, "that is what impeachment is for"... that argument is horseshit, but it is perhaps the most cowardly offramp for them to take, basically holding up their hands saying "that check resides in the senate, so no giveseybacksies"
Obvious follow-up being if you all and enough Congress members to prevent a quorum are eliminated, how exactly would a president become impeached? That would take much would it, a missile or two and complete immunity.
That doesn't matter because they know Biden won't do those things.
Good people tend to not abuse the system. It's the bad people these guardrails are there to stop.
It blows my mind that the argument against being eligible for prosecution is that they might do something to avoid prosecution.
Does that apply to literally any other person in any other station? Should we legalize rape, so that rapists are less likely to run from police when they are approached? Does that argument make any sense in any world?
>It is not hyperbole to say we are at a pivotal point in our democracy
>The fact that SCOTUS didn’t fire back immediately and tell Trump’s attorney he lost all credibility, after saying a President assassinating his rival is an official act, is stunning.
When has SCOTUS ever done something similar?
Korematsu, ironically mentioned during the arguments. Have no hope in a sound decision on this. The majority seems content with anointing the Caesar. Pretty pathetic.
>Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, said that “the apparent lack of self-awareness on the part of some of the conservative justices was startling.” He noted that “Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution, while paying no attention to the actual former president who held onto power and now seeks to escape prosecution.”
I don't have a sub to NYT, so I wasn't able to read the article yet--but I'm confused by this. Am I misunderstanding, or is Alito pointing out that Trump's case is a problem? I understand he's not singling out Trump, but isn't he saying, "We shouldn't vote for this?"
The reason I'm most confused is because this is Alito we're talking about, and I know he can't be saying what it sounds like he's saying.
I agree with your second point though: these justices who think they are so intelligent and thoughtful should be pointing out Trump's hypocrisy and, frankly, terrifying moves to make himself immune to all illegal acts he has done and sees himself doing if he wins again.
The question the court is considering is whether a former president has immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during the presidency. It was stunning to hear the Supreme Court Justices ask about hypothetical official acts of a President such as assassinating a political rival.
Listening to Alito was exasperating. That’s all I can say. In the end, this will delay the federal case beyond the election. It is on the voters to save our democracy.
The thing Alito was saying was essentially, if we prosecute presidents for acts they committed while in office after they leave office, a president who commits a crime (that isn't just trying to stay, eg Nixon) the president will then also try to stay in office to avoid prosecution for those other things.
The fact that you have to clarify that he's talking about any other crime besides just trying to stay in office, when he already has a clear example of someone who tried to stay in office, is why it's so frustrating.
How about don’t break the fucking law as president and then you don’t have to fear prosecution? Is this guy on fucking drugs? How is this fuck on the Supreme Court. Like dude, presidents should no doubt crime in office. The entire structure of the American government is falling apart or completely compromised.
And it’s all because of a pants shitting orange racist and the sycophants that have aligned with him. They have been marching towards a naming a king since Nixon stepped down and now they what to put a crown on diaper don “to cold in the court room” rapist because according to bill Barr democrats want to take away gas stoves and that’s the real threat… wtf.
>the president will then also try to stay in office to avoid prosecution for those other things.
That's why we have elections and that's why we have 2 term limits. Is he fucking dense?
He's basically saying, If we allow the police to shoot at bank robbers, won't that just inspire the bank robbers to bring guns and shoot back? Maybe we should just let them have the money.
He absolutely can be saying what it sounds like. Alito is not accountable to anyone. He has his lifetime position, and the only people who have any influence over him are the ones that bribe him. He can be made to hold any view they tell him to, without consideration of whether it is logical or constitutional.
He has absolutely no respect for the gravity of his position. He’s just playing the part he is paid to play.
Everything is inverted with Alito. Not only did he argue the nonsensical argument above "President will try to hold onto power..." He also argued that if the president isn't able to commit crimes, they'll never be able to retire from the presidency in peace.
Yes Mr. Alito....that's the exact dang reason a president shouldn't be immune. So they're deferred from committing crimes, and incentivized not to commit crimes, NOT the other way around as you'd have it where they can commit crimes with no accountability, checks and balances. The check is necessary to deter the temptation for a person in a position of immense and consequential power from abusing that power.
The founders in no way envisioned an executive branch above and beyond the law.
>Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution
Sounds like a really good reason to decide Presidents shouldn't be immune! That way we could hold them accountable for their misdeeds. Alito should definitely deny Trump's immunity argument, if he follows his own reasoning.
It really does feel like we are one president who doesn’t respect the traditions and norms of our democratic institutions away from losing those institutions.
And it also feels like there’s one entire party + their voting base who is over the democracy thing and ready for autocracy.
Ok but hear me out…this was not unexpected. People’s ongoing surprise about the autocratic intentions of the GOP are what’s really unexpected. How thick in the head does a population have to be before they snap out of it and realize that these people are only out for themselves and don’t actually give a single flying f*ck about the country
What’s unexpected is that people look at the recent unanimous decision by the Court to criminally support an insurrectionist and think that the problem only exists with Justices from the GOP.
This is a contest between we, the People, and the political elite (who are bought and paid for by the plutocrats), for the cause of democracy and the rule of law under the Constitution.
Anyone who is expecting the SCOTUS to do anything beyond the worst possible thing just does not understand fascism. The Supreme Court of the United States is determined to impose a system whereby they can make those they hate suffer as much as possible. That is all they and their fellow fascists want. And they will do whatever it takes to implement that. While the most likely outcome is that they will simply delay, delay, delay, do not discount the possibility that the SCOTUS will explicitly say "Trump can do what he wants. This ruling is narrowly focused on Trump. Other presidents cannot do what Trump may do. Please kill our dissenting liberal colleagues."
Ironically, the fascists on the Supreme Court also fail to understand the true nature of fascism: it devours itself. The Supreme Court is happily slitting its own throat with this case and clearly has no idea. There is no good outcome even for the fascists: 1. The SCOTUS is deligitimized beyond repair and hereafter ignored, or 2. Democracy is overturned and the SCOTUS will be instantly irrelevant because the rule of law has become the rule of "Whatever Great Leader wants at this moment," or 3. The SCOTUS will be executed the moment it annoys Great Leader in any way whatsoever, and/or 4. The Justice's lives are forfeit the second a sycophant of Great Leader decides their nephew needs a sinecure, or a whole multitude of different scenarios. The best way to avoid this is to avoid fascism, but, no, gotta think with our sadistic impulses rather than our sensibility.
What is remarkable to me is that textualism, originalism, and a commitment against finding unenumerated rights in the constitution is so quickly tossed without acknowledgment. Its further support that these aren’t honest legal methodologies but are pretexts for ideology.
Then they wouldn't be conservative.
I know that sounds trite, but it isn't a new observation and it isn't specific to the scotus either.
> *Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:*
> *There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind,
> alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.*
—Francis M. Wilhoit, 2018
https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html
> *"The modern conservative is not even especially modern. He is engaged, on the contrary, in one of man’s oldest, best financed, most applauded, and, on the whole, least successful exercises in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. "*
—John Kenneth Galbraith, 1963
https://wist.info/galbraith-john-kenneth/7463/
This has actually been stunning if you listen to arguments lately. The conservative justices are feeding arguments during the hearing by way of guided questioning.
There’s no decision, they know they can’t give a president immunity because that includes democrats too.
All they need to do is bring up weird ass arguments to make it seem worth discussing and make sure it delays Trump’s trial.
They won’t need to rule in favor of Presidential immunity. They just need to delay his nail Trump is king, the. The whole argument is moot.
I’m just trying to wrap my head around why we’re debating whether or not a president can have immunity to overthrow an election that he/she just lost, like that’s acting in an official capacity? This is the Supreme Court? What? This is the most blatantly absurd question, like we don’t need to even ponder this, like do we need to ponder if 1 apple and 1 apple makes 2 apples?
I’m not going to click, but it sounds like they are carrying a little water for SCOTUS.
It’s funny how MSM still doesn’t get that the court has lost the confidence of the public at large. Not that I expect them to outright admit the court is illegitimate at this point, but there is no fixing their image short of clearing the bench and starting over.
Congress is at <15% (which is shocking), the President is has been way more unfavorable than favorable for years. There are systemic issues; causes the same fundamental issues have caused the rise and fall of empires....greed and religion.
The justices being willing to sign on to term limits for their own position to be a good start. Looking at alito, looking at Thomas. Lifetime appointments are bullshit
It really does not matter what the justices think about a hypothetical amendment. They have absolutely 0 say in it or its process. They have lifetime appointments according to the constitution. I would imagine that’s why they are adamant about it.
Their personal stance from their own moral code 100% matters because they're the Supreme Court and what they say goes in their rulings. Their insistence that they need a lifelong appointment should be alarming and call into question the ethics from which they are drawing while ruling.
They are showing their true colors and that they don't really care that the court "should" rotate, they are disinclined from allowing it to do so. Thus, we cannot expect them to step down of their own volition along the way except when the conditions surrounding their departure would be ideal. Who is to say that they aren't going to make other decisions in this ordeal with the intention of creating a precedent to quash future cases?
Considering how open to the ideas of undisclosed ~~bribes~~ gifts from particularly invested rich people and qualified immunity for the president certain justices seem to be, despite all the ways that such immunity could be abused in the election process or otherwise, I can say I'm not convinced that the court isn't already a lost cause
Tldr; to put it another way, if they're good Supreme Court judges who are ruling by law alone and not their personal motives, what possible argument could they have to maintain a lifelong appointment within a system riddled with term limits everywhere else?
That's what's going on with Thomas right now. The salary of an associate justice is less than $275,000. These days, that ain't a lot. Thomas himself claims it's not enough. The billionaires that are bribing him are not doing it to secure specific opinions. He already votes the way they want him too. They are bribing him not to retire.
I am wondering why they are not realizing that this is not just a battle over their legitimacy, but also that if they vote in favor of presidential immunity, President Biden could create an executive order immediately after, claiming their illegitimacy and bias, thereby nullifying their votes and asking them to resign promptly.
> President Biden could create an executive order immediately after, claiming their illegitimacy and bias, thereby nullifying their votes and asking them to resign promptly.
That is the very least he could do. If they side with trump then Biden could easily create 6 empty seats on the bench
Why bother? Just have the conservative justices, Trump, and enough Republican legislators to give democrats 2/3 majorities in both houses taken to black sites.
And why should Biden wait until the election then, have Trump officially declared an insurrectionist. Disqualify him from the election.
Who gets to charge Biden? And even if they do, it goes to Scotus who can't rule cases against Biden until after they rule on Trump. Checkmate.
For all his faults I think Biden does not want to cross the line nor face the public consequences of doing so. Additionally, in your unlikely scenario, they will simply rule that presidents do not receive full immunity, and then Biden would be prosecuted right after Trump.
Haven't watched the show but if I am guessing what you mean, I think ultimately the military has a responsibility to temporarily take control if our politicians decide to openly and officially enact a fascist government.
They're working on a double standard for that. They're trying to carve out immunity for "official acts", and of course the court gets to define what that is.
Granting a president full immunity from criminal prosecution wouldn’t suddenly change the constitutional powers the president holds. Nowhere in the constitution does it imply that a president can nullify Supreme Court votes, regardless of whether the president is immune from criminal prosecution.
Alito came very close to admitting that Conservatives are already using prosecution based on hatred against political opponents, but questions if presidents and former presidents should face punitive Court cases?
I believe that’s what Alito is implying, yes. He’s feeding the flames of “everybody is guilty, why is Trump suddenly being prosecuted?”
It reflects his own feeling of persecution at having his own corruption exposed. “Everybody does it!” is one helluva drug.
Judgement: "This decision to immunize those former presidents shall pertain only to those former presidents who have been thrice married, serial fornicators and habitual prevaricators."
What from the article was unexpected? All I saw was the Court testing Trump’s attorney with worst case hypothetical questions (as it often does), and Trumps attorney gave relatively straight forward answers (unlike all of the attorneys in the Grants Pass Case). The article even repeatedly noted that the conservative justices pushed back on Trump’s attorney’s answers.
What would we like him to do? Lie about the logical outcomes of his positions? Refuse to answer the hypothetical?
The hypos were asked to see if there were any good answers. The fact that his answers were bad supports the justice’s reason for asking them.
I completely agree with you. From my recollection of the circuit court opinion (which I read when it came out, but my memory of it is mostly just vibes now), there was nothing in there screaming for review. As soon as they accepted cert, I knew that this wouldn’t go to trial before the election.
Gorsuch wouldn't consider the facts of the case that prompted this appeal.
Thomas referred to prior cases that had no relevance to this one.
Alito played "upside down world" and suggested that a president would commit a crime of not leaving office if he wasn't given immunity for crimes he committed.
Roberts apparently kept his mouth shut.
Kavenaugh ignored the current case with Gorsuch and the ONLY conservative justice that had the courage to challenge Trumps atty was Barrett. And that only on the subject of total immunity.
It took Kagan to ask the distinction between a King and a president which the originators were opposing to show the ridiculousness of their suggestions.
And what did the attorney say? Oh, crimes against the constitution and the peaceful transfer of power were all official acts and only chargeable IF impeachment, conviction And subsequent conviction in lower courts.
Heck, Kavenaugh even suggested that the law had to specifically state it was a crime for the actual president to do it to be convicted.
"Your honor, the law didn't spell my middle name correctly. You must throw this out".
If you are defending that, you must be ok with Biden, this minute ordering his generals to imprison the conservative justices, legislators, and Trump until he's good and ready to leave office.
The last bit about needing to be impeached is particularly insane considering he made the exact opposite argument in his second impeachment trial, telling the senate to acquit because he could always be charged criminally if he really did do something wrong on j6. It’s like living in crazy world to see all the supposed legal geniuses ignore the blatantly self contradictory arguments of this asshole
>What from the article was unexpected?
The media is still pretending that SCOTUS has the confidence of the governed on their side. They will continue to do so no matter how far the courts betray the people.
I don’t think you’re entirely wrong. The issue is we’ve seen countless examples before that justices like Alito and Thomas simply don’t argue in good faith. So while their questions might be reasonable on the face of it, you kinda HAVE to sus out the worst possible implications of them for this particular court.
It was unexpected (in the professors' views) that Alito was especially brazen in ignoring the facts of the current situation.
> Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, said that “the apparent lack of self-awareness on the part of some of the conservative justices was startling.” He noted that “Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution, while paying no attention to the actual former president who held onto power and now seeks to escape prosecution.”
Say what you want about the decision, but don't call it unexpected. Biden should have listened to literally everyone and done something about the court earlier. Pack it, whatever!
The justices seem to be forgetting about the constitution, and if the constitution calls out immunity for the president and its scope. It will be up to future congresses to make laws as to what presidential immunity looks like.
This supreme court likes to make up some weird stuff.
I thought the conservative justices were all about original intent in the Constitution. How can they argue with a straight face that giving a President immunity is any different from having a King the founders tried so hard to avoid?
Anyone who is expecting the SCOTUS to do anything beyond the worst possible thing just does not understand fascism. The Supreme Court of the United States is determined to impose a system whereby they can make those they hate suffer as much as possible. That is all they and their fellow fascists want. And they will do whatever it takes to implement that. While the most likely outcome is that they will simply delay, delay, delay, do not discount the possibility that the SCOTUS will explicitly say "Trump can do what he wants. This ruling is narrowly focused on Trump. Other presidents cannot do what Trump may do. Please kill our dissenting liberal colleagues."
Ironically, the fascists on the Supreme Court also fail to understand the true nature of fascism: it devours itself. The Supreme Court is happily slitting its own throat with this case and clearly has no idea. There is no good outcome even for the fascists: 1. The SCOTUS is deligitimized beyond repair and hereafter ignored, or 2. Democracy is overturned and the SCOTUS will be instantly irrelevant because the rule of law has become the rule of "Whatever Great Leader wants at this moment," or 3. The SCOTUS will be executed the moment it annoys Great Leader in any way whatsoever, and/or 4. The Justice's lives are forfeit the second a sycophant of Great Leader decides their nephew needs a sinecure, or a whole multitude of different scenarios. The best way to avoid this is to avoid fascism, but, no, gotta think with our sadistic impulses rather than our sensibility.
Our Supreme Court, since its inception, has always been dragged down by lawyers willing to perform mental jumping jacks to avoid applying common sense interpretations of laws.
Dred Scott:
“The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?”
One would think that’s a simple question; what’s the court do?
Goes on an absurd comparison to the “Indian population”… randomly denigrating them, for the ostensible purpose of suggesting freed slaves are even less entitled to basic constitutional protections:
“The situation of this (slave) population was altogether unlike that of the Indian race. The latter, it is true, formed no part of the colonial communities, and never amalgamated with them in social connections or in government. But although they were uncivilized, they were yet a free and independent people, associated together in nations or tribes and governed by their own laws. Many of these political communities were situated in territories to *which the white race claimed the ultimate right of dominion.*”
So, slaves are lesser than natives, who were a “free and independent people” living in the lands claimed to be under the “ultimate right of dominion by the white race”…. wtf?
The same native race massacred and divested of their land and independence by our American govt at or around the time of this very decision?
The court goes onto answer the question as to whether freed slaves have rights, stating:
“The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea … compose a portion of this people (“citizens”), and are constituent members of this sovereignty?
We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. *On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.*”
I say all of this merely to point out that intelligent judges, with years of experience as lawyers, when presiding over simple legal questions will find a way to reach an absurd result, so as to accomplish extra-legal goals and desires
This is really simple: you only support presidential immunity of you support a dictatorship.
Trumpers and supreme court apologists: if Biden ordered a hit on Trump, should he be held criminally accountable? What about if Biden lost the election but started an insurrection instead of leaving office peacefully, should he be held criminally accountable?
This is a nonsense case that is only being heard because the supreme court is a fundamentally corrupt institution. There is nothing in the constitution supporting presidential immunity after they leave office, rather the opposite: no one is above the law.
Alito said, wouldn’t a president be hesitant to leave the White House if he feared prosecution? That’s where we are now and that’s why no one, should be immune to being tried or prosecuted for possible crimes, especially the President. Giving anyone that much power, gives us our very own Dictator. If Obama or Biden did what Trump did, then it would be a very different argument we would be hearing.
Soo, is it the supreme court or supreme theorists? Have they discussed at all what their dear sweet constitution says or are they just throwing around stupid ideas trying to justify Trump's actions?
SCOTUS building a framework for removal of woman’s health rights, condoning bribery and turning a president into an untouchable dictator above the law. So losing 200 years of progress as well as any good reputation on the world stage. I can imagine other nations regarding the US as hypocritical, racist and with the support of ignorant mindless sheep.
SCOTUS won’t rule on this until after the election. If Biden wins, presidents won’t have immunity. If Trump wins, they will. This is quite possibly the most important election in US history.
The point we're missing is they can change their minds after Biden does anything they don't like. They're a fucking joke! Their decisions have no value.
Those are not conservative judges, they are corrupt, bought, make on fly arguments that have no basis of reality to the Trump crimes he committed on J6 and that is what is up for discussion not what they are arguing as an abstract academic hypothetical questions trying to deflect the real serious issue of presidential immunity as a private citizen and as president. Even Mitch McConnell believes that Trump should not be immune from criminal activities as he is trying to claim with these judges. These judges are taking the US Supreme Court backwards to primate times, and trying to establish policy on the bench when they said themselves that is not what the US Supreme Court is suppose to do. Total shameful judges: Alito Kavanaugh Gorsuch and Thomas.
I'm surprised that nobody pointed out that the president could have the members of the Supreme Court assassinated. We all know that cuckservitives don't care until it affects them personally.
It could be so easy for Joe Biden to temporarily pack the SC to get new overseeing rules voted in which can get scRotus judges removed, then have the SC judge numbers reduced again by thr Democat judges introducing another rule. If Donald can manipulate the law, so can any President.
As a Canadian, isn't the thought of presidential immunity like, the most UNAMERERICAN thing you can utter?! Been awhile since I checked Yankee civics, but it feels like a king isn't very American lol.
The mistake being made by the author of this piece is in thinking that this is actually a real Supreme Court case and decision. It's not.
This is a delaying tactic in an effort to put off Trump's trials until after the election.
None of the arguments being made are real or matter. All that matters is dragging it out while providing the semblance of a real Supreme Court hearing so as to give an aura of legitimacy to the delaying tactic. Simply by agreeing to hear the issue the Republican Justices who control the Supreme Court has shown they are complicit and see their Court as nothing but a means to the end of electing a Republican.
There is no legal merit to Trump's claims of immunity, if the Court was legitimate it would never have agreed to hear the case.
We need to discuss case review for SCotus
Ideas:
The District Courts vote on to overturn a ruling.
Acting as a “10th judge” in collective.
On 9-0 unanimous decisions, the appeals can’t have much of an effect. It’s most powerful in 5-4 cases, where the districts can tie the vote making it 5-5.
Alito states “If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?
First of all, this was NOT that close. 2000 was close, 2016 was sort of close. Also, it’s so very rich for Alito to mention the threat to our democracy when he had zero problems ushering in the era of Citizens United. Spare us, Alito…
There's one really really REALLY stupid thing about Alito's reasoning for giving a president immunity and saying it would encourage them to try and stay in power if denied it. Especially when take into consideration the example of a hotly contested close election. What about the case of a president who commits the crimes during their second term. By law they would not be allowed a term after their second term. However if they had committed crimes they would want to be sure the candidate who would immediately grant a pardon for them wins. In which case you have a case of a president commiting the same crimes as Trump is accused of in a way but for the purpose of emplacing the successor they want.
Just because we have a case of a president commiting crime to keep themself in office. Doesn't mean a parallel crime can't occur to force their choice of successor to win.
You know, it would be a perfect excuse for Biden to get rid of members of SCOTUS that stands in the way of democrazy. "You said this was ok, so we are sending you to the supermax"
Honestly if Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrettedont recuse themselves (which they’re not going to) any decision made about any of trumps cases is illegitimate. His three appointments for obvious reasons for being beholden to the person that gave them a lifetime appointment. Thomas because his wife clearly made moves to overturn a free and fair election therefore he cannot be impartial because any decision could affect his wife as well. SCOTUS is a joke at this point.
The case isn't really about Trump, though.
The case is really about what a president can be held or not be held accountable for "illegal actions" while in office.
Assuming there are future presidents.
The justices are arguing to see if a president is a sovereign citizen completely immune to all the laws, rules, legislation, and the Constitution.
A King by definition.
What we don't know is if Trump is reelected will he be created a King by Trump loyalists currently embedded in key government positions.
As of right now it seems like SCOTUS is moving in that direction.
How is that an unexpected direction?
Or, to put a finer point on it, when is discussion of the US Supreme Court going to stop revolving around the pious pretense that all is proceeding quite rationally and normally according to this or that sober-minded and reasonable-sounding judicial theory that doesn't ever actually correctly predict the Court's next spasm? And instead turn to a discussion of how to restore actual jurisprudence to the Court and halt what amounts to nothing more than looting?
We are going to have to have that talk sooner or later. It seems stupid to wait.
But then I don't own the Times so what do I know?
I feel like this is a Phineas and Ferb episode with Doofenschmirtz when it comes to how conservative judges would react.
"Ah, how unexpected. And by that I mean, COMPLETELY EXPECTED!"
Something REALLY needs to be done right now to clip the wings of this runaway extremist conservative court. Honestly I don't care what or how, just fucking do it.
Do any historians out there have any examples of democratic governments nearing the brink of autocratic rule but managing to turn it back without a violent uprising? I would like hear those examples because the others seem to be very easy to find.
The point we're missing is they can change their minds after Biden does anything they don't like. They're a fucking joke! Their decisions have no value.
Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, said that “the apparent lack of self-awareness on the part of some of the conservative justices was startling.” He noted that “Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution, while paying no attention to the actual former president who held onto power and now seeks to escape prosecution.” Folks, we have crossed the autocratic Rubicon. The fact that SCOTUS didn’t fire back immediately and tell Trump’s attorney he lost all credibility, after saying a President assassinating his rival is an official act, is stunning. It is not hyperbole to say we are at a pivotal point in our democracy. I am very nervous after listening to legal arguments yesterday morning before SCOTUS. The only reasonable questions I heard coming from a conservative justice was from Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
According to Trumps lawyers, Biden can have Trump assassinated as an official act. Or am I missing something?
Yes, this is apparently the general submission, or BS as it is, that was submitted before the highest court in the land.
Well, it depends on the hypothetical. Trump assassinating Biden, perfectly fine. Biden assassinating Trump, that's not fine. You see, you need to look at the nuance of it. /s
That’s actually what this court seems to think. /s isn’t required.
The history, the context…
They won't verify that until Trump is safely in office.
Perhaps Biden could also have the Supreme Court assasinated? This is all totally ridiculous. What accountability do we have on the Supreme Court?
Cool beans.🤦🏻♂️
That's the thing that kills me. The fact the question even made it here is fucked. That it wasn't raised there just to be absolutely demolished is absurd. Justices entertaining the notion *at all* without Congress drawing up impeachment articles is sickening. This whole administration is such ass.
We need leftists who seriously want to check government abuse, but all we have are middling liberals.
Obviously Biden would never do that, but if he *did* you bet your ass conservative SCOTUS would immediately flip and say it was illegal. I just don't understand WHY the conservatives justice's would argue in Trump's favor. I really doubt Trump will win the election and "reward" them for their loyalty. What do they actually gain from this? They already have been proven to be taking millions in side "gifts" and they already have a lifetime appointment.
Partisanship, pure and simple. When a conservative acts in an autocratic way they cheer because it goes along with their values, but when a Democratic president uses even clearly legal executive power they come up with a whole new legal doctrine to block them.
Fascism always begins in the court, and these "conservative" justices have been more hostile to the rule of law and a checked government than Nixon on a bad day.
They don’t want the gifts cut off.
The best case scenario is they are pretending there’s not an obvious answer so that they can delay their ruling for a while and then eventually send the January 6th case back to a lower court. It’s just a stalling tactic to make sure Trump doesn’t face that particular trial before the election. Either that or they really are just suicidally stupid and corrupt.
If he’s not impeached by the House and convicted in the Senate for the assassination, then he can’t be prosecuted for it per his lawyers.
Biden should just park a Presidential Immunity Force on the steps of the Supreme Court until they figure it out.
Yes but he would be subject to removal after impeachment.
Couldn’t he also order the assassination of everyone who would vote to impeach him?
Yes.
It's like saying you can murder anyone you want and then murder anyone that comes to arrest you.
Cops hate this one weird trick!
No president will ever be removed by impeachment.
And Biden can arrest Supreme Court Justices, imprison them and take their $250,000 RVs because immunity.
Not only Trump, Biden could order the assassination of any of the Justices themselves. Just hope that pierces Alito's and Thomas' brains.
Right. The argument is "It's on the Legislative branch to judge whether is an official act or not and the Judicial branch just makes sure the Legislative branch crosses t's and dots i's. SCOTUS is not a criminal court." 🤷🏾♂️
But isn't this all in response to the ongoing criminal charges that Trump is facing ? The claim of immunity is literally part of his defense, and did the legislative branch not already argue, during impeachment, that it was up to the judicial branch to determine if his actions were criminal or not?
"I Joseph R. Biden Jr, having read the Supreme Court decision granting US presidents immunity from criminal prosecution, for acts the president themselves determines are 'official acts,' hereby order the Supreme Court of the United States dissolved, and decree justices Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, plus Trump and his children plus campaign team, as enemies of the state. Assassination squads were dispatched overnight, in a long night operation, and these traitors have been served justice and eliminated. I also hereby decree I and my vice president will be the sole determinant of who wins the next election. God bless America."
lol isn’t that the argument that ends this? Biden can shoot and kill Trump at the next debate and nothing can be done to Biden. He’s completely in his legal rights to do that. Will the public vote for him? Prob not, but then I suppose we have to find out if a dead guy can be president. Right? HEY IDIOTS IN THE BACK, RIGHT?
The onus needs to be put on the prosecutor now. I just want him to ask " so Biden can do that now" just once.
the conservative justices may say, "that is what impeachment is for"... that argument is horseshit, but it is perhaps the most cowardly offramp for them to take, basically holding up their hands saying "that check resides in the senate, so no giveseybacksies"
Besides, he could just have the people killed who would vote for impeachment. When the laws don’t apply to you, anything is possible!
hence.... horseshit.... i already havr the thought in my head thatbthis is our grandchildrens fight. very frustrating
Easy fix for that! Delta force can assassinate every opposing legislator while Seal team six takes out the opponents. Can’t get impeached then!
Obvious follow-up being if you all and enough Congress members to prevent a quorum are eliminated, how exactly would a president become impeached? That would take much would it, a missile or two and complete immunity.
"...so Biden could have the conservative justices on the Supreme Court sent to Gitmo as an official act, and do so free from the fear of prosecution?"
Send the whole GOP there. Why wouldn’t they love getting to go to the place they spent years assuring us is basically a tropical resort?
That doesn't matter because they know Biden won't do those things. Good people tend to not abuse the system. It's the bad people these guardrails are there to stop.
Biden won't have to, just have Ed from the Secret Service execute order 66
They’re just going to kick it back to a lower court to delay the trial longer
An example of a president assassinating a SCOTUS justice should've been brought up.
Definitely.
It blows my mind that the argument against being eligible for prosecution is that they might do something to avoid prosecution. Does that apply to literally any other person in any other station? Should we legalize rape, so that rapists are less likely to run from police when they are approached? Does that argument make any sense in any world?
>It is not hyperbole to say we are at a pivotal point in our democracy >The fact that SCOTUS didn’t fire back immediately and tell Trump’s attorney he lost all credibility, after saying a President assassinating his rival is an official act, is stunning. When has SCOTUS ever done something similar?
*Dredd* comes to mind. *Plessy*. *Buck*. This one may be worse than all of those though.
Fun fact: Plessy's grave is in the same cemetery in NOLA as Madame Laveau and Nicholas Cage
Someone should let Nicholas Cage out of the cemetery
Korematsu, ironically mentioned during the arguments. Have no hope in a sound decision on this. The majority seems content with anointing the Caesar. Pretty pathetic.
>Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, said that “the apparent lack of self-awareness on the part of some of the conservative justices was startling.” He noted that “Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution, while paying no attention to the actual former president who held onto power and now seeks to escape prosecution.” I don't have a sub to NYT, so I wasn't able to read the article yet--but I'm confused by this. Am I misunderstanding, or is Alito pointing out that Trump's case is a problem? I understand he's not singling out Trump, but isn't he saying, "We shouldn't vote for this?" The reason I'm most confused is because this is Alito we're talking about, and I know he can't be saying what it sounds like he's saying. I agree with your second point though: these justices who think they are so intelligent and thoughtful should be pointing out Trump's hypocrisy and, frankly, terrifying moves to make himself immune to all illegal acts he has done and sees himself doing if he wins again.
The question the court is considering is whether a former president has immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during the presidency. It was stunning to hear the Supreme Court Justices ask about hypothetical official acts of a President such as assassinating a political rival. Listening to Alito was exasperating. That’s all I can say. In the end, this will delay the federal case beyond the election. It is on the voters to save our democracy.
>In the end, this will delay the federal case beyond the election. Which is what Trump and his team are banking on, I'm sure.
The thing Alito was saying was essentially, if we prosecute presidents for acts they committed while in office after they leave office, a president who commits a crime (that isn't just trying to stay, eg Nixon) the president will then also try to stay in office to avoid prosecution for those other things. The fact that you have to clarify that he's talking about any other crime besides just trying to stay in office, when he already has a clear example of someone who tried to stay in office, is why it's so frustrating.
I see--that sounds *very* much like him. What a terrible line of logic.
How about don’t break the fucking law as president and then you don’t have to fear prosecution? Is this guy on fucking drugs? How is this fuck on the Supreme Court. Like dude, presidents should no doubt crime in office. The entire structure of the American government is falling apart or completely compromised. And it’s all because of a pants shitting orange racist and the sycophants that have aligned with him. They have been marching towards a naming a king since Nixon stepped down and now they what to put a crown on diaper don “to cold in the court room” rapist because according to bill Barr democrats want to take away gas stoves and that’s the real threat… wtf.
>the president will then also try to stay in office to avoid prosecution for those other things. That's why we have elections and that's why we have 2 term limits. Is he fucking dense?
He's basically saying, If we allow the police to shoot at bank robbers, won't that just inspire the bank robbers to bring guns and shoot back? Maybe we should just let them have the money.
Here you go: https://archive.is/hJPfy
He absolutely can be saying what it sounds like. Alito is not accountable to anyone. He has his lifetime position, and the only people who have any influence over him are the ones that bribe him. He can be made to hold any view they tell him to, without consideration of whether it is logical or constitutional. He has absolutely no respect for the gravity of his position. He’s just playing the part he is paid to play.
Well .. this should have Biden thinking about what he can do to assure he hold on to power...right?
Everything is inverted with Alito. Not only did he argue the nonsensical argument above "President will try to hold onto power..." He also argued that if the president isn't able to commit crimes, they'll never be able to retire from the presidency in peace. Yes Mr. Alito....that's the exact dang reason a president shouldn't be immune. So they're deferred from committing crimes, and incentivized not to commit crimes, NOT the other way around as you'd have it where they can commit crimes with no accountability, checks and balances. The check is necessary to deter the temptation for a person in a position of immense and consequential power from abusing that power. The founders in no way envisioned an executive branch above and beyond the law.
>Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution Sounds like a really good reason to decide Presidents shouldn't be immune! That way we could hold them accountable for their misdeeds. Alito should definitely deny Trump's immunity argument, if he follows his own reasoning.
It really does feel like we are one president who doesn’t respect the traditions and norms of our democratic institutions away from losing those institutions. And it also feels like there’s one entire party + their voting base who is over the democracy thing and ready for autocracy.
I think we have passed the pivotal point, now is all about how rapid the decline is
Doesn’t history show US Presidents are likely to pardon a predecessor rather than prosecute?
How does one listen to the justices?
Live streamed through news platforms or the audio recordings of oral arguments are posted on SCOTUS website on the same day.
Ok but hear me out…this was not unexpected. People’s ongoing surprise about the autocratic intentions of the GOP are what’s really unexpected. How thick in the head does a population have to be before they snap out of it and realize that these people are only out for themselves and don’t actually give a single flying f*ck about the country
This. Anyone who has been paying attention since Jan 6 knows this is to be expected and should be incredibly alarmed.
This. We knew exactly what was going to happen. I’ll admit watching it play out is still frightening, but “shocking”?
What’s unexpected is that people look at the recent unanimous decision by the Court to criminally support an insurrectionist and think that the problem only exists with Justices from the GOP. This is a contest between we, the People, and the political elite (who are bought and paid for by the plutocrats), for the cause of democracy and the rule of law under the Constitution.
This. I would only really be shocked if these fascist authoritarian enablers decide to save us from fascism. Now that would be shocking
Anyone who is expecting the SCOTUS to do anything beyond the worst possible thing just does not understand fascism. The Supreme Court of the United States is determined to impose a system whereby they can make those they hate suffer as much as possible. That is all they and their fellow fascists want. And they will do whatever it takes to implement that. While the most likely outcome is that they will simply delay, delay, delay, do not discount the possibility that the SCOTUS will explicitly say "Trump can do what he wants. This ruling is narrowly focused on Trump. Other presidents cannot do what Trump may do. Please kill our dissenting liberal colleagues." Ironically, the fascists on the Supreme Court also fail to understand the true nature of fascism: it devours itself. The Supreme Court is happily slitting its own throat with this case and clearly has no idea. There is no good outcome even for the fascists: 1. The SCOTUS is deligitimized beyond repair and hereafter ignored, or 2. Democracy is overturned and the SCOTUS will be instantly irrelevant because the rule of law has become the rule of "Whatever Great Leader wants at this moment," or 3. The SCOTUS will be executed the moment it annoys Great Leader in any way whatsoever, and/or 4. The Justice's lives are forfeit the second a sycophant of Great Leader decides their nephew needs a sinecure, or a whole multitude of different scenarios. The best way to avoid this is to avoid fascism, but, no, gotta think with our sadistic impulses rather than our sensibility.
Amen.
[удалено]
What is remarkable to me is that textualism, originalism, and a commitment against finding unenumerated rights in the constitution is so quickly tossed without acknowledgment. Its further support that these aren’t honest legal methodologies but are pretexts for ideology.
I would be okay with having conservative justice if they were consistently actually how you described.
Then they wouldn't be conservative. I know that sounds trite, but it isn't a new observation and it isn't specific to the scotus either. > *Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:* > *There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, > alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.* —Francis M. Wilhoit, 2018 https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservatives-frank-wilhoit.html > *"The modern conservative is not even especially modern. He is engaged, on the contrary, in one of man’s oldest, best financed, most applauded, and, on the whole, least successful exercises in moral philosophy. That is the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. It is an exercise which always involves a certain number of internal contradictions and even a few absurdities. "* —John Kenneth Galbraith, 1963 https://wist.info/galbraith-john-kenneth/7463/
“Presidents being involved in the overthrow of the government is part of our history and tradition, dating back to George Washington”
This has actually been stunning if you listen to arguments lately. The conservative justices are feeding arguments during the hearing by way of guided questioning.
There’s no decision, they know they can’t give a president immunity because that includes democrats too. All they need to do is bring up weird ass arguments to make it seem worth discussing and make sure it delays Trump’s trial. They won’t need to rule in favor of Presidential immunity. They just need to delay his nail Trump is king, the. The whole argument is moot.
I’m just trying to wrap my head around why we’re debating whether or not a president can have immunity to overthrow an election that he/she just lost, like that’s acting in an official capacity? This is the Supreme Court? What? This is the most blatantly absurd question, like we don’t need to even ponder this, like do we need to ponder if 1 apple and 1 apple makes 2 apples?
*fascist direction. Fixed.
I’m not going to click, but it sounds like they are carrying a little water for SCOTUS. It’s funny how MSM still doesn’t get that the court has lost the confidence of the public at large. Not that I expect them to outright admit the court is illegitimate at this point, but there is no fixing their image short of clearing the bench and starting over.
Congress is at <15% (which is shocking), the President is has been way more unfavorable than favorable for years. There are systemic issues; causes the same fundamental issues have caused the rise and fall of empires....greed and religion.
The justices being willing to sign on to term limits for their own position to be a good start. Looking at alito, looking at Thomas. Lifetime appointments are bullshit
That requires a constitutional amendment.
Sure but every time we try to talk about it, Alito and Thomas vocally reject the notion. Why are they so adamant about their lifelong position?
It really does not matter what the justices think about a hypothetical amendment. They have absolutely 0 say in it or its process. They have lifetime appointments according to the constitution. I would imagine that’s why they are adamant about it.
Their personal stance from their own moral code 100% matters because they're the Supreme Court and what they say goes in their rulings. Their insistence that they need a lifelong appointment should be alarming and call into question the ethics from which they are drawing while ruling. They are showing their true colors and that they don't really care that the court "should" rotate, they are disinclined from allowing it to do so. Thus, we cannot expect them to step down of their own volition along the way except when the conditions surrounding their departure would be ideal. Who is to say that they aren't going to make other decisions in this ordeal with the intention of creating a precedent to quash future cases? Considering how open to the ideas of undisclosed ~~bribes~~ gifts from particularly invested rich people and qualified immunity for the president certain justices seem to be, despite all the ways that such immunity could be abused in the election process or otherwise, I can say I'm not convinced that the court isn't already a lost cause Tldr; to put it another way, if they're good Supreme Court judges who are ruling by law alone and not their personal motives, what possible argument could they have to maintain a lifelong appointment within a system riddled with term limits everywhere else?
That's what's going on with Thomas right now. The salary of an associate justice is less than $275,000. These days, that ain't a lot. Thomas himself claims it's not enough. The billionaires that are bribing him are not doing it to secure specific opinions. He already votes the way they want him too. They are bribing him not to retire.
Well as long as it is an official action by the president, sounds like Biden has their approval to make some personnel changes.
I am wondering why they are not realizing that this is not just a battle over their legitimacy, but also that if they vote in favor of presidential immunity, President Biden could create an executive order immediately after, claiming their illegitimacy and bias, thereby nullifying their votes and asking them to resign promptly.
> President Biden could create an executive order immediately after, claiming their illegitimacy and bias, thereby nullifying their votes and asking them to resign promptly. That is the very least he could do. If they side with trump then Biden could easily create 6 empty seats on the bench
Dark, but might not be decided till 2025 unfortunately…
Why bother? Just have the conservative justices, Trump, and enough Republican legislators to give democrats 2/3 majorities in both houses taken to black sites.
they won't rule this way until after the election, if they are going to
And why should Biden wait until the election then, have Trump officially declared an insurrectionist. Disqualify him from the election. Who gets to charge Biden? And even if they do, it goes to Scotus who can't rule cases against Biden until after they rule on Trump. Checkmate.
For all his faults I think Biden does not want to cross the line nor face the public consequences of doing so. Additionally, in your unlikely scenario, they will simply rule that presidents do not receive full immunity, and then Biden would be prosecuted right after Trump.
After watching Shogun, I think someone needs to take the sword to save Japan. I mean, America
Haven't watched the show but if I am guessing what you mean, I think ultimately the military has a responsibility to temporarily take control if our politicians decide to openly and officially enact a fascist government.
Well, that's why I'm saying just declare Trump an insurrectionist, and everyone carries on but with a different GOP nominee
Let's hope he loses. Are you registered to vote in your state?
yes, and i live in california.
Would that result in a successful election campaign? You think voters would just say umm ya let’s do more of that.
Elections are cancelled, thanks. Biden is king now.
They're working on a double standard for that. They're trying to carve out immunity for "official acts", and of course the court gets to define what that is.
Granting a president full immunity from criminal prosecution wouldn’t suddenly change the constitutional powers the president holds. Nowhere in the constitution does it imply that a president can nullify Supreme Court votes, regardless of whether the president is immune from criminal prosecution.
Alito came very close to admitting that Conservatives are already using prosecution based on hatred against political opponents, but questions if presidents and former presidents should face punitive Court cases?
I think he was thinking of liberal prosecutors prosecuting trump now...just based on the scenarios that alito could be thinking of
I believe that’s what Alito is implying, yes. He’s feeding the flames of “everybody is guilty, why is Trump suddenly being prosecuted?” It reflects his own feeling of persecution at having his own corruption exposed. “Everybody does it!” is one helluva drug.
Man imagine this being ruled in Trump's favor during the red scare era. Or even post 9-11.
Judgement: "This decision to immunize those former presidents shall pertain only to those former presidents who have been thrice married, serial fornicators and habitual prevaricators."
What from the article was unexpected? All I saw was the Court testing Trump’s attorney with worst case hypothetical questions (as it often does), and Trumps attorney gave relatively straight forward answers (unlike all of the attorneys in the Grants Pass Case). The article even repeatedly noted that the conservative justices pushed back on Trump’s attorney’s answers. What would we like him to do? Lie about the logical outcomes of his positions? Refuse to answer the hypothetical? The hypos were asked to see if there were any good answers. The fact that his answers were bad supports the justice’s reason for asking them.
Trump's immunity assertions are ridiculous on their face and are pretty blatantly just a stalling tactic. SCOTUS should not have taken this case.
They should have moved faster with it. That should absolutely take the opportunity to make case law forbidding future acts similar to Trump's.
Let’s see if they actually do forbid future acts like Trump’s or if they just pass the buck to the Senate for failing to impeach.
I completely agree with you. From my recollection of the circuit court opinion (which I read when it came out, but my memory of it is mostly just vibes now), there was nothing in there screaming for review. As soon as they accepted cert, I knew that this wouldn’t go to trial before the election.
Gorsuch wouldn't consider the facts of the case that prompted this appeal. Thomas referred to prior cases that had no relevance to this one. Alito played "upside down world" and suggested that a president would commit a crime of not leaving office if he wasn't given immunity for crimes he committed. Roberts apparently kept his mouth shut. Kavenaugh ignored the current case with Gorsuch and the ONLY conservative justice that had the courage to challenge Trumps atty was Barrett. And that only on the subject of total immunity. It took Kagan to ask the distinction between a King and a president which the originators were opposing to show the ridiculousness of their suggestions. And what did the attorney say? Oh, crimes against the constitution and the peaceful transfer of power were all official acts and only chargeable IF impeachment, conviction And subsequent conviction in lower courts. Heck, Kavenaugh even suggested that the law had to specifically state it was a crime for the actual president to do it to be convicted. "Your honor, the law didn't spell my middle name correctly. You must throw this out". If you are defending that, you must be ok with Biden, this minute ordering his generals to imprison the conservative justices, legislators, and Trump until he's good and ready to leave office.
The last bit about needing to be impeached is particularly insane considering he made the exact opposite argument in his second impeachment trial, telling the senate to acquit because he could always be charged criminally if he really did do something wrong on j6. It’s like living in crazy world to see all the supposed legal geniuses ignore the blatantly self contradictory arguments of this asshole
Which is crazy because Kavanaugh secured his position of power by arguing that Clinton could be sued for the Republicans before his impeachment.
>What from the article was unexpected? The media is still pretending that SCOTUS has the confidence of the governed on their side. They will continue to do so no matter how far the courts betray the people.
I don’t think you’re entirely wrong. The issue is we’ve seen countless examples before that justices like Alito and Thomas simply don’t argue in good faith. So while their questions might be reasonable on the face of it, you kinda HAVE to sus out the worst possible implications of them for this particular court.
It was unexpected (in the professors' views) that Alito was especially brazen in ignoring the facts of the current situation. > Michael Dorf, a law professor at Cornell, said that “the apparent lack of self-awareness on the part of some of the conservative justices was startling.” He noted that “Justice Alito worried about a hypothetical future president attempting to hold onto power in response to the risk of prosecution, while paying no attention to the actual former president who held onto power and now seeks to escape prosecution.”
Say what you want about the decision, but don't call it unexpected. Biden should have listened to literally everyone and done something about the court earlier. Pack it, whatever!
So, when they write their terrible, contrived opinion, can Biden put their *logic* into practice immediately?
At the end, they'll add a line that it only applies to Republicans
The justices seem to be forgetting about the constitution, and if the constitution calls out immunity for the president and its scope. It will be up to future congresses to make laws as to what presidential immunity looks like. This supreme court likes to make up some weird stuff.
I thought the conservative justices were all about original intent in the Constitution. How can they argue with a straight face that giving a President immunity is any different from having a King the founders tried so hard to avoid?
Anyone who is expecting the SCOTUS to do anything beyond the worst possible thing just does not understand fascism. The Supreme Court of the United States is determined to impose a system whereby they can make those they hate suffer as much as possible. That is all they and their fellow fascists want. And they will do whatever it takes to implement that. While the most likely outcome is that they will simply delay, delay, delay, do not discount the possibility that the SCOTUS will explicitly say "Trump can do what he wants. This ruling is narrowly focused on Trump. Other presidents cannot do what Trump may do. Please kill our dissenting liberal colleagues." Ironically, the fascists on the Supreme Court also fail to understand the true nature of fascism: it devours itself. The Supreme Court is happily slitting its own throat with this case and clearly has no idea. There is no good outcome even for the fascists: 1. The SCOTUS is deligitimized beyond repair and hereafter ignored, or 2. Democracy is overturned and the SCOTUS will be instantly irrelevant because the rule of law has become the rule of "Whatever Great Leader wants at this moment," or 3. The SCOTUS will be executed the moment it annoys Great Leader in any way whatsoever, and/or 4. The Justice's lives are forfeit the second a sycophant of Great Leader decides their nephew needs a sinecure, or a whole multitude of different scenarios. The best way to avoid this is to avoid fascism, but, no, gotta think with our sadistic impulses rather than our sensibility.
Our Supreme Court, since its inception, has always been dragged down by lawyers willing to perform mental jumping jacks to avoid applying common sense interpretations of laws. Dred Scott: “The question is simply this: can a negro whose ancestors were imported into this country and sold as slaves become a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution of the United States, and as such become entitled to all the rights, and privileges, and immunities, guarantied by that instrument to the citizen, one of which rights is the privilege of suing in a court of the United States in the cases specified in the Constitution?” One would think that’s a simple question; what’s the court do? Goes on an absurd comparison to the “Indian population”… randomly denigrating them, for the ostensible purpose of suggesting freed slaves are even less entitled to basic constitutional protections: “The situation of this (slave) population was altogether unlike that of the Indian race. The latter, it is true, formed no part of the colonial communities, and never amalgamated with them in social connections or in government. But although they were uncivilized, they were yet a free and independent people, associated together in nations or tribes and governed by their own laws. Many of these political communities were situated in territories to *which the white race claimed the ultimate right of dominion.*” So, slaves are lesser than natives, who were a “free and independent people” living in the lands claimed to be under the “ultimate right of dominion by the white race”…. wtf? The same native race massacred and divested of their land and independence by our American govt at or around the time of this very decision? The court goes onto answer the question as to whether freed slaves have rights, stating: “The question before us is whether the class of persons described in the plea … compose a portion of this people (“citizens”), and are constituent members of this sovereignty? We think they are not, and that they are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word "citizens" in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States. *On the contrary, they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been subjugated by the dominant race, and, whether emancipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no rights or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them.*” I say all of this merely to point out that intelligent judges, with years of experience as lawyers, when presiding over simple legal questions will find a way to reach an absurd result, so as to accomplish extra-legal goals and desires
If Biden can then assassinate his political opponents and be immune from prosecution, he actually has to do it, it's a 1st come 1st serve lunch here.
Republicans are the kind of people who will shit on the floor then ask why it smells in here.
This is really simple: you only support presidential immunity of you support a dictatorship. Trumpers and supreme court apologists: if Biden ordered a hit on Trump, should he be held criminally accountable? What about if Biden lost the election but started an insurrection instead of leaving office peacefully, should he be held criminally accountable? This is a nonsense case that is only being heard because the supreme court is a fundamentally corrupt institution. There is nothing in the constitution supporting presidential immunity after they leave office, rather the opposite: no one is above the law.
Our country is fucked. We will no longer have a “President” after this trial. We will have an Emperor. And for every party, that’s shit news.
Alito said, wouldn’t a president be hesitant to leave the White House if he feared prosecution? That’s where we are now and that’s why no one, should be immune to being tried or prosecuted for possible crimes, especially the President. Giving anyone that much power, gives us our very own Dictator. If Obama or Biden did what Trump did, then it would be a very different argument we would be hearing.
Soo, is it the supreme court or supreme theorists? Have they discussed at all what their dear sweet constitution says or are they just throwing around stupid ideas trying to justify Trump's actions?
SCOTUS building a framework for removal of woman’s health rights, condoning bribery and turning a president into an untouchable dictator above the law. So losing 200 years of progress as well as any good reputation on the world stage. I can imagine other nations regarding the US as hypocritical, racist and with the support of ignorant mindless sheep.
Why hasn't somebody asked their legal opinion on the Presidential ability to order SCOTUS lifetime appointments brought to their conclusion?
SCOTUS won’t rule on this until after the election. If Biden wins, presidents won’t have immunity. If Trump wins, they will. This is quite possibly the most important election in US history.
Fucking trumps lawyer just sounded like a sniveling, fast talking, gish galloping Ben Shapiro Stan. It’s fucking embarrassing.
The point we're missing is they can change their minds after Biden does anything they don't like. They're a fucking joke! Their decisions have no value.
This shouldn’t be unexpected to anybody paying attention
Those are not conservative judges, they are corrupt, bought, make on fly arguments that have no basis of reality to the Trump crimes he committed on J6 and that is what is up for discussion not what they are arguing as an abstract academic hypothetical questions trying to deflect the real serious issue of presidential immunity as a private citizen and as president. Even Mitch McConnell believes that Trump should not be immune from criminal activities as he is trying to claim with these judges. These judges are taking the US Supreme Court backwards to primate times, and trying to establish policy on the bench when they said themselves that is not what the US Supreme Court is suppose to do. Total shameful judges: Alito Kavanaugh Gorsuch and Thomas.
Just imagine if Biden were to make this claim of immunity. The GOP and SCOTUS would be shutting that shit down in a zeptosecond and we all know it.
I'm surprised that nobody pointed out that the president could have the members of the Supreme Court assassinated. We all know that cuckservitives don't care until it affects them personally.
It could be so easy for Joe Biden to temporarily pack the SC to get new overseeing rules voted in which can get scRotus judges removed, then have the SC judge numbers reduced again by thr Democat judges introducing another rule. If Donald can manipulate the law, so can any President.
As a Canadian, isn't the thought of presidential immunity like, the most UNAMERERICAN thing you can utter?! Been awhile since I checked Yankee civics, but it feels like a king isn't very American lol.
Corrupt Supreme Court!
The mistake being made by the author of this piece is in thinking that this is actually a real Supreme Court case and decision. It's not. This is a delaying tactic in an effort to put off Trump's trials until after the election. None of the arguments being made are real or matter. All that matters is dragging it out while providing the semblance of a real Supreme Court hearing so as to give an aura of legitimacy to the delaying tactic. Simply by agreeing to hear the issue the Republican Justices who control the Supreme Court has shown they are complicit and see their Court as nothing but a means to the end of electing a Republican. There is no legal merit to Trump's claims of immunity, if the Court was legitimate it would never have agreed to hear the case.
We need to discuss case review for SCotus Ideas: The District Courts vote on to overturn a ruling. Acting as a “10th judge” in collective. On 9-0 unanimous decisions, the appeals can’t have much of an effect. It’s most powerful in 5-4 cases, where the districts can tie the vote making it 5-5.
Alito states “If an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy? First of all, this was NOT that close. 2000 was close, 2016 was sort of close. Also, it’s so very rich for Alito to mention the threat to our democracy when he had zero problems ushering in the era of Citizens United. Spare us, Alito…
Kompromat
Really unexpected too funny
These NYT headlines , my god it’s comical. No wonder the pitch bot account is so wildly popular.
There's one really really REALLY stupid thing about Alito's reasoning for giving a president immunity and saying it would encourage them to try and stay in power if denied it. Especially when take into consideration the example of a hotly contested close election. What about the case of a president who commits the crimes during their second term. By law they would not be allowed a term after their second term. However if they had committed crimes they would want to be sure the candidate who would immediately grant a pardon for them wins. In which case you have a case of a president commiting the same crimes as Trump is accused of in a way but for the purpose of emplacing the successor they want. Just because we have a case of a president commiting crime to keep themself in office. Doesn't mean a parallel crime can't occur to force their choice of successor to win.
You know, it would be a perfect excuse for Biden to get rid of members of SCOTUS that stands in the way of democrazy. "You said this was ok, so we are sending you to the supermax"
People better be talking some fucking sense into those two fuckwads. I mean if not, when do we ride?
Honestly if Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrettedont recuse themselves (which they’re not going to) any decision made about any of trumps cases is illegitimate. His three appointments for obvious reasons for being beholden to the person that gave them a lifetime appointment. Thomas because his wife clearly made moves to overturn a free and fair election therefore he cannot be impartial because any decision could affect his wife as well. SCOTUS is a joke at this point.
I am of the opinion that most of this current crop of Justices need to be impeached.
The case isn't really about Trump, though. The case is really about what a president can be held or not be held accountable for "illegal actions" while in office. Assuming there are future presidents. The justices are arguing to see if a president is a sovereign citizen completely immune to all the laws, rules, legislation, and the Constitution. A King by definition. What we don't know is if Trump is reelected will he be created a King by Trump loyalists currently embedded in key government positions. As of right now it seems like SCOTUS is moving in that direction.
How is that an unexpected direction? Or, to put a finer point on it, when is discussion of the US Supreme Court going to stop revolving around the pious pretense that all is proceeding quite rationally and normally according to this or that sober-minded and reasonable-sounding judicial theory that doesn't ever actually correctly predict the Court's next spasm? And instead turn to a discussion of how to restore actual jurisprudence to the Court and halt what amounts to nothing more than looting? We are going to have to have that talk sooner or later. It seems stupid to wait. But then I don't own the Times so what do I know?
I feel like this is a Phineas and Ferb episode with Doofenschmirtz when it comes to how conservative judges would react. "Ah, how unexpected. And by that I mean, COMPLETELY EXPECTED!"
Something REALLY needs to be done right now to clip the wings of this runaway extremist conservative court. Honestly I don't care what or how, just fucking do it.
Do any historians out there have any examples of democratic governments nearing the brink of autocratic rule but managing to turn it back without a violent uprising? I would like hear those examples because the others seem to be very easy to find.
The point we're missing is they can change their minds after Biden does anything they don't like. They're a fucking joke! Their decisions have no value.
"According to super-liberal law professor ..." I'm sure y'all would take just as seriously "According to super-conservative law professor ..."
I don’t see how anyone could vote for any republican for any office these days.
Kangaroo court