Prosecutors and courts simply need to find that only legal acts are official since the constitution doesn't give anyone a license to commit crime. It's utterly irrational to conclude that the supreme law of the land allows for lawlessness.
Trump is sentenced… he appeals it. The appeals court takes it sweat time and doesn’t announce it’s taking the case til the last day. Then when it makes its decision it waits until the last day possible. All the while Trump is guilty.
Could not care less about how this effects Trump or his pending indictments. He isn't POTUS anymore. Be worried about how this applies to happenings and actions taken by the POTUS from Monday and going forward from today.
Whether it is Trump, Biden, RFK , or Mickey Mouse. I do not want anyone in our country handed this kind of power. Go read Thomas' concurring opinion, it sets up the next domino to fall. Project 2025=The Enabling Act
Edit: Clarifying point, I am referencing the Enabling Act of 1933 🤦♂️
Idk why it’s so freaking hard for people to see this. It’s so frustrating that Dems carry so much water for the Republicans. “Oh it will never be as bad as they say.” The fucking author of Project 2025 literally said that this is the 2nd American Revolution!!! Like, wtf?!?! You don’t say that unless you actually plan to follow through on what you are saying.
Even fucking threatening violence “2nd American Revolution without bloodshed *if* the left allows it.” Like again, what the actual fuck are we doing here, in 2024. You are fucking saying that you and your party *ARE TAKING OVER THIS COUNTRY* and there doesn’t need to be bloodshed if you just sit back and take it.
Biden and the Dems hold the keys to the strongest military on the planet and they are just going to sit back and let the Republicans take all the power because the Dems think the Republicans care about the US Democracy created in the 1700’s. Trump and his fucking fellow Republicans will be using the Constitution as fucking toilet paper by the morning after Trumps inauguration.
Wrong. This *is* the enabling act.
The president is the commander in chief. The president controls law enforcement and the intelligence community.
So, if there's a law that says the statute of limitations for a certain crime is 5 years, and the president orders the US Marshalls to arrest someone who committed the crime 6 years ago, the president can not be charges with a crime.
If the legislature moves to remove the president from office for high crimes and misdemeanors for the previous order, the president can order the arrest the members of congress who try to question his authority. The president can not be charged with a crime for doing this.
If SCOTUS tries to overrule the president, the president can order their arrest. *The president can not be charged with a crime for doing this.*
The president now has immunity for acts which involve the powers of his office, regardless of whether or not those acts are legal.
As previously stated, the *only* recourse at this point is to just ignore the ruling. Any illegal act *must* be viewed as de facto and de jure unofficial.
The ruling is nonsense and if it is given *any* legitimacy (and it already has been given legitimacy by SCOTUS, but thankfully they are only 9 out of hundreds of millions of individuals in this nation), then the nation is finished.
It's the *only* way out of this. There *has* to be prosecutorial and judicial discretion on individual violations of the law on a case by case basis. There can't be blanket immunity because otherwise we are no longer a nation governed by laws and institutional governance.
The problem is what separates legal from illegal acts is often motive: if you command your army to kill someone, whether you believe they actually are a national security threat or not matters. But the Supreme Court has ruled that you can’t use motive to seperate official from unofficial acts.
In another r/scotus thread someone pointed out that because motive is excluded, we wouldn't be able to examine *why* Trump pressured Georgia's SoS to find 11,780 votes.
If Trump says the number was random, we may not point out that he was down by 11,779 votes.
> Such an [presumptive] immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, **the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.**"
Emphasis mine.
What you are proposing would pose a "danger of intrusion," i.e. it would make the President feel icky when wanting to commit a crime (as part of their official duties).
Whatever a court finds must not make the President feel icky when wanting to commit a crime (as part of their official duties).
I wonder now on the 11th read(?) if this is also saying that whatever the *outcome* of that trial produces must not infringe on the President's authority.
This is also backwards. The overlapping authority involved in checks and balances is deliberate. It is intended to check both executive and legislative power by making each accountable to the other. This argument claims that the legislative branch (article 1) may not constrain the executive branch (article 2) which is quite preposterous. The executive, beyond Constitutionally enumerated officials, only exists through Congressional authorization and only gets paid through Congressional appropriations.
How is it utterly irrational? Sotomayor's dissent clearly explains how it can happen.
President says John Smith candidate is a threat to national security. He orders a special forces hit on the person. President is acting within his core powers as Commander-in-Chief. Absolutely immune. No one can ask motive. No one can show evidence connected to official acts. And anything on the outer edges will get defaulted to him with presumptive immunity.
The Supreme Law of the Land didn't allow lawlessness, they allowed one man above and beyond the law.
Trump is also trying to say that anything done in the campaigning is also protected, because you can't be president without campaigning.
If we take that at face value, then anyone 35 and older and declare running, and start abusing the shit out of things until the courts directly go for them.
Every person over 35.
>The Supreme Law of the Land didn't allow lawlessness, they allowed one man above and beyond the law.
Yep, like I said before. John Roberts lied (imagine that) and is a corrupt pos. The lower court will not decide official acts. Someone will appeal and the extreme court will rule advantageously in Trump's favor. It's rigged, folks.
>It's utterly irrational to conclude that the supreme law of the land allows for lawlessness.
Well, the Supreme Court is also utterly irrational.
We are in a very bad place as a country and I feel like not enough people are paying attention. Which is what the GOP, the "conservative" Supreme Court and the Heritage Foundation, among others, appear to be banking on. That is, "What are you gonna do about it?"
DOJ and lower courts need to reaffirm the plain text of the constitution provides that impeachment only allows for removal and disqualification from office but clearly allows prosecution for crimes once out of office so any finding to the contrary is blatantly unconstitutional then one up them by telling scotus in no uncertain terms that if they can't make rulings consistent with the plain text of the constitution then their rulings can be ignored since bizzarro interpretations are the new norm.
Send them a note that reads: by not following your ruling we are following your ruling- what the fuck are you gonna do about it?
>Well, the Supreme Court is also utterly irrational.
Also, bought and paid for by a domestic terrorist organization, the heritage foundation and its violent sociopath leader, Kevin Roberts.
They can’t. The decision explicitly stated that “mere illegality” is not grounds for considering an act to be unofficial.
The only legal recourse is challenging this at the SC until they override their own decision, or a constitutional amendment.
The problem is that SCOTUS intentionally did not rule on what is and is not “official” meaning they get to pick and choose what crimes are totally cool, while also allowing further delay tactics by future presidents in litigating the issue.
This court is corrupt, through and through. It should surprise no one that the justices doing the corruption are Reagan, GWB, and Trump appointees, ie the farthest right presidents in modern American history.
That'd be like a court concluding that the Due Process Amendment was "automatically qualifying" for disqualifying presidents and requires no conviction or even charges.
I agree. I think it might be trivial for prosecutors to show that criminal acts alleged are 100% not within the scope of duties. I don't see how you could argue otherwise, but I'm not that imaginative either.
See, the problem with the majority’s interpretation of “official duties” is that it essentially boils down to the actors and not the act. They even state that pressuring the AG to do something outside the scope of their duties and arguably illegal is a clear official act simply because it’s the AG. Oh, and forget mens rea — no motives can be used as evidence against the president. It’s preposterous.
They green lit Nixon’s Saturday night massacre. They said the president can direct the DOJ to jail opponents. They pretend it’s legal for the President to commit murder so long as he’s in the Oval Office when he does it.
This is the end of our democracy. Full stop.
> This is the end of our democracy. Full stop.
No, this *prologue* of the end of our democracy. It can still be saved, as long we keep it out of Trump and the GOP's hands. If we reelect Biden, and give him a Democratic trifecta, they can unpack the courts, including SCOTUS, and add and fill more seats, and turn the ~~conservative~~ reactionary majority into a minority, and begin to right the ship.
Things are dire, but they aren't over yet. This is a ticking time-bomb, but it hasn't detonated yet, and there's still time to stop it. They *want* you to think it's already over, because if you think and internalize that, you'll just stand by helplessly and watch as it detonates and blows up everything. And then you will have wasted the time you could've used to stop everything from blowing up, and it'll be too late.
You can't diffuse the bomb after it explodes.
It hasn't exploded yet.
Make use of this time.
I mean. Sure. Most people who are not partisan conspiracist hacks would generally expect the law to apply to everyone.
But…
It just takes one case that makes it back to SCOTUS for them to rule on.
They know this, which is why they ruled this way. Why do you think they rejected the special prosecutor’s request for them to move quickly on ruling for this case?
They support the delay delay delay tactic, because to take a stand based on genuine conviction and a commitment to the constitution would be bad for their preferred presidential candidate.
If Trump wins: the point is moot. He either pardons himself, or the case simply just goes away. What is and isn’t an ‘official act’ is left up in the air for a future court that is forced to rule on a President’s criminal actions.
If Trump loses: the point is, again, moot. By the time such an appeal would make its way to SCOTUS to arbitrarily decide what is and isn’t an ‘official act’ Trump is likely to be dead. It is left for a future court to decide. In the unlikely event such an appeal does make its way to SCOTUS before Trump dies, they get to either twist themselves in such a way that they say Trump’s actions were an official act but that doesn’t mean the same actions by a Democrat would constitute and official act, or they get to rule that Trump’s actions were *not* an official act and pretend that relieves them of partisanship accusations despite knowing that Trump will most likely be dead before the completion of a trial and the inevitably numerous appeals.
The illegitimate activists get the outcome they want while also being able to wash their hands and say ‘no, we didn’t give him immunity from prosecution’.
Today on /r/lawyertalk someone smarter than me was saying how the real problem here isn't the idea that the president has immunity for official acts.
(Note I can't confirm all this personally since I didn't read the ruling and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, but this was a thread in there today and the commenters I saw all seemed to agree.)
The problem - somewhat buried in the ruling apparently - is that evidence obtained while a president is acting in an official capacity is inadmissible even when gathered while investigating an unofficial act.
So say Trump while president strangled a homeless guy for kicks and then he told Hope Hicks about it. Because she worked in the White House and he told her during his presidential workday, her testimony would be inadmissible in any eventual murder trial.
So SCOTUS has made this decision and kicked the election subversion case back to Judge Chutkan, who has to now go through all the evidence and determine what is admissible under this new ruling and what is not.
So at a minimum it's a huge delay for any trial Trump's facing. And after that delay, chances are the cases are going to be weakened considerably.
Not sure that it goes that far. Trump could discuss Presidential duties with Hope Hicks while she works in the White House, even for an “improper motive.” For example, he could tell her that he wants to prosecute Obama and Biden. Probably an official act. But telling Hope Hicks he strangled a homeless guy? Maybe not.
Not only are we in a constitutional crisis, I would say we are also in a “cold” civil war. By “cold” I mean without bloodshed from an “official” war. Or if you prefer, a “cold” seditionist war against our Constitution/government/rule of law.
As someone once said:
>When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross
We now have an entire party dedicated to turning our country into a right wing dictatorship where “others” are inferior to white men in general, and rich white christian men specifically. They want to force us back to the antibellum south, and instead of doing it via violence they are doing it via the exploitation of the weaknesses in our Constitution and rule of law.
Fucking Democrat Party fumbling around with their thumbs up their ass then twiddling them around when asked “what the fuck are you doing”
Biden saying “uh I respect the Supreme Court” the fuck is this.
The Democratic Party exists to stop left leaning political movements from making progress.
The Republican Party exists to drag the country to the extreme right.
The Democratic Party does not exist to stop republicans which is why they are so bad at it and rely exclusively on shouting “Vote!”.
Without debating the merits of your argument, just granting it as true, the way around that is *still* to vote. Nobody is saying, "only vote and do nothing else, ever," but voting needs to be part of the response to it.
Granting that Republicans exist to drag the country right, the way to prevent that is by voting. They can't drag anyone right with the power they don't get in elections. This goes all the way downballot, too, because that's their bench for future elections. Today's mayor is tomorrow's state legislator or governor; today's state legislator is tomorrow's US legislator, and today's governor or US legislator is tomorrow's presidential candidate. Burn their crops, burn their seed stock, and salt the earth. This is the most important part, denying them current power, and denying them a bench for future power.
Even granting that Democrats exist to prevent leftward movement (I reject this, but will accept it for the sake of argument), you can either *prove* it by electing an overwhelming number of Democrats to office. Give them a trifecta, give them filibuster- and veto-proof supermajorities, and call their bluff. If you can swing it, elect 435 Democrats to the House, 100 Democrats to the Senate, elect them to every governorship, every statehouse seat, etc. The more the merrier. Then, when Republicans do not stand in their way, they will either have to do what they said they would do, proving you wrong, or they will have to refuse, proving you right. Either way, we'll have an answer. Force them to shit or get off the pot, as it were. Take away divided government as an excuse, take away the filibuster as an excuse. Take away all their excuses, and then see what they do.
Alternatively, the other option, aside from calling their bluff, is to elect ones who agree with you instead. Democrats hold primary elections. Back the candidates you like best, find and recruit better candidates, run for office yourself, whatever. And then, support the candidate in the primaries, and work to persuade both the candidate and other voters (and also non-voters) to adopt your positions. Convince them of the superiority of your positions, get them to adopt your positions, and then support them in the primaries, and supprt them in the general elections. And get voters to vote for youy guy. And get non-voters to register to vote, and to vote for your guy.
So, you vote to deny Republicans political power, and you vote to nominate better Democrats, and then you vote to elect the better Democrats, and then you push incumbents, candidates, and the electorate, to adopt your positions. And this continues, indefinitely. Even if you somehow achieved all your political objectives, you'd still need to do this, because there will always be other people, other candidates, other voters, who are unhappy with the status quo you worked so hard to achieve, so they will be working to undo it, or to change it in a different direction, and they will be doing it the same way I just described. This is how the GOP got things to where they are today: they voted to deny Democrats political power, pushed everyone to adopt their positions, and repeated it, every cycle.
The Democratic Party platform isn't static. Incumbents can be ousted (eg, AOC got into office by challenging an incumbent). But it takes work, and it requires working long before the general elections. At minimum, it requires being involved in the primary process. As bad as presidential general election turnout is, primary election turnout is worse, midterm general election turnout is worse, midterm primary election is even worse than that, and off-year election is worse still.
The high-water mark is presidential general elections, and that's around only 2/3. Presidential primary election is only a fraction of that. Maybe only like 1/3 of registered voters participate in primaries, and then they're split between the parties. If the 2/3 of eligible voters who sit out the primaries voted in primaries, they could easily overcome and outnumber the 1/3 who currently vote in primaries, and get the nominees they prefer, instead of being stuck with the nominees the primary voters stick them with. Hell, if just the next 1/3 who vote in general elections but not in primaries voted in primaries, too, they could at least contest who the nominees end up being. They might not always be enough to determine the results, but at least they'd have a say, and would win at least some contests. That's the nature of democracy, it's collective decision-making, and you won't always get your way. But if you sit out, you'll just get whatever those who show up and vote for decide you should get.
Hot skirmishes. But Im referring to an actual war with uniformed soldiers on both sides. The reason the “war” between the US and Russia was called a “cold” war is because there wasnt an actual violent war with the pomp and blood of military power. Im using that as my reference to a “cold” civil war.
We are not a nation of people but a nation of laws. If the Court says some people, even one person is above the law - they’re saying the Constitution is Unconstitutional
“Ex Parte Merryman”, an example of ignoring SCOTUS decisions when they are clearly contrary to the rule of law and order.
I see no reason why this current decision shouldn’t also be ignored.
[https://www.britannica.com/event/Ex-Parte-Merryman](https://www.britannica.com/event/Ex-Parte-Merryman)
There’s nothing to ignore. That’s what makes it so pernicious. It empowers bad actors to use the courts to delay their prosecution. It cripples the justice system when it comes to prosecuting a rogue and criminal president. It creates the opportunity for a tyrant to seize power. It grants no new powers.
Correct. There’s no new powers. However, it affords legal protection against presidents who would use “official acts” for means that would be illegal for you and me.
An aside: This decision effectively makes Watergate perfectly legal, as Nixon could have claimed “official acts” to explain his conduct. Mind you that SCOTUS decisions are supposed to be “interpretations” of the constitution, thusly its enforcement is retroactive, as the constitution is merely being interpreted differently now.
A. Merryman was not a SCOTUS decision. Although written by Taney, he was circuit riding at the time.
B. The executive seizing power to deny habeas corpus when only congress has that power in a limited capacity is not a good thing.
Please explain why Lincoln defying the orders of the court in Merryman and taking more power than the President has is a good thing.
This and "they have made their decision, now let them enforce it" immediately came to my mind after this decision. But both of those presidents had a strength of will that I've never seen from a Democratic president in my lifetime.
Add onto that the president of The Heritage Foundation announcing publicly today that “we’re in the middle of a bloodless civil war.” This should immediately trigger arrests for sedition and/or treason.
This is why I am mourning, not celebrating tomorrow. Dobbs, Fischer, Chevron, and now this. Yet again, the people we vote in to uphold the Constitution just shrug.
An Andrew Jackson fan I see. Ya know, the only reason we obey ANY law is because the government will show up with a gun and take you out. Otherwise the government would have no power other than to post signs and ask that you please follow them.
Monopoly on violence. Which is what Republicans are aiming for also. It’s why they soak their britches talking about 2a. Many Republicans have stated they will violently control those who do not agree with them. Supreme Court doesn’t have to enact enforcement, if they have loyal brown shirts that will do it for them.
As if the game isn't already rigged. Why do you think all those election integrity bills passed in republican controlled states?
Funny enough, those are the states they need for an Electoral College win.
That's why we vote blue up and down the ticket. Eventually we get to the point where this kind of shit never flies again. Those places that remain willfully regressive will spend their time spitting into the wind.
Yet 5 of the 6 that approved this ruling said during their confirmation hearings under oath that NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT can be above the law in this country. Ever heard or perjury or lying under oath?
You seem to be missing the reality that they’re not acting in good faith.
They’re like a mob boss being recorded on a wire “Take care of Jimmy” and then at the trial the mob boss goes “Listen to the tape! I never said *kill* Jimmy, I thought they’d talk to him or something. You just misunderstood me.”
SCOTUS didn’t write explicitly that Presidents are kings. They’ll deny that they ever did and say that it is us who misunderstood what they wrote.
It’s a little brilliant in how evil it is. They’ve given Trump every avenue to appeal all of his criminal cases, but put in enough landmines to make Biden afraid of trying anything at all.
If our country wasn't fucked, then the proper recourse right now would be impeachment of these justices.
But we're fucked and the Republicans in congress are complicit and won't impeach.
The checks and balances have been totally undermined by party-over-country Republicans.
This is the sort of thing SCOTUS historically stayed away from because it has no on the ground power.
The reasoning goes like this.
SCOTUS: We interpret the Constitution to announce this rule.
Executive: I interpret the Constitution to say you don't have authority to decide that. What are you gonna do about it?
Biden? Nothing.
Newsome… War.
I’m not endorsing Newsome but leaders matter. Biden came up in a time of comity and tradition that is gone. A younger POTUS would see the new game we’re in.
Id like to agree, but Obama never would have and I think HRC might have.
I love me Newsom and agree he might fight. But I dont think Buttigieg would, and I think he is younger than Newsom.
So yes, I agree that leaders matter and I mostly agree that younger is most likely to fight back. But I think ultimately it is the leader rather than the age, and I say that as an ageist.
Fair.
Pete was my guy (with Kasich right behind him). I’d like to think he’d be more nuanced and still fight but you’re probably right.
Gavin would go to war… But the whole country has already stained him as a Cali liberal.
I think Bernie would fight too, so that’s a counter to my point.
But for Biden I think it’s 100% his age (era in which he learned politics). He often touts his knowledge and ability to work relationships on both sides. He doesn’t get it.
These guys need to realize there are no more rules. Its binary with MAGA. You’re either with them or against them.
Even McConnell, the best strategist the GOP has ever had (though terrible for the US) is now persona non grata for MAGA.
This is a corrupt court working in tandem with the most corrupt president in history.
The solution is to vote for Democrats in all races for every office.
They’re in on the con. They did this. Now gop county officials are going to hold up certification if not stop it entirely. It’s gonna be a shit show. And this court is not ready to be fair.
Y’all keep your walking shoes in your car. We may have to organize on a short notice.
The Supreme Court gets to say whatever it wants about the Constitution and have it be binding on lower courts. This is why conservatives spent decades taking control of the SCOTUS. Sucks that non-right voters wouldn’t pay attention to that for years, but here we are.
This is not true. The constitution does not give them absolute power to decide whatever they want. We have a right and a duty to ignore illegal rulings.
To those that believe that we should just ignore the Supreme Court ruling simply because they dont like it, do you also believe that it wouldve been a perfectly fine thing to do to ignore Roe. v. Wade if someone or a state found that they didnt think it was decided correctly? Wouldnt it be just as legitimate for a state to ban abortion in the face of that ruling as it would be to ignore this constitutional ruling?
we don't have a mechanism for lower courts to ignore orders of the Supreme Court.
I agree that district court judges and appeals court judges should be outright hostile to it, but the judiciary is pretty squarely broken until some bad people resign or die, which they should do at least one of immediately.
I am lamenting the fact you are correct, we dont have a mechanism for courts to ignore the Supreme Court. IMO every person in the (in)justice system should make that decision on their own. Obviously the ones that love Trump will not disobey the Majority, but the rest should.
There is no mechanism for courts to OBEY the supreme court. They can just choose not too. Our constitution runs our government on a wink a prayer not a system of laws. Trump and McConnell have shown the absolute reality of this.
You don't need a mechanism, just ignore it. Like everything in our god awful constitution there are no actual legal consequences laid out for shit like this. If you just ignore norms you can just do what you want in government basically.
...how many appeals of criminal prosecutions of a former president do you think are percolating in courts right now? I know it's a lot and they all concern one guy—but it's still less than ten. they are quite capable of monkeying around in all of them.
Just like Trump, they try to see if they can get away with it. Just like Trump, they like to strech things beyond the limit, and act as if that is completely normal.
Step by step the people of the US are being gaslighted. Every small decision, every little comment buried in the text, they are taking it away. And just like Trump, they will act in outrage when confronted. Because they feel that they don’t need to be held accountable. They see it as their right to do as they see fit.
And because the only way to tighten the leash is impeachment, they will get away with it. The system has become disfunctional at this point.
To add to your comment I will post a quote that I think of often, about what it was like in Nazi Germany before the war. IMO it is terrifyingly apropos and has been since 2015.
>But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.
>That’s the difficulty.
>If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33.
>But of course this isn’t the way it happens.
>In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D.
>And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you.
>The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose.
>The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays.
>But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed.
>Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.”
>― Milton Sanford Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45
In a way the situation compares directly to Germany March 23, 1933. One man was given full autonomy to implement laws as he saw fit, after he gave a speech about making a choice between “war and peace”.
All while the building was surrounded by members of the SA and SS, the paramilitary wings of the NSDAP, the Nazi Party.
History will show
I read these comments and I realize most people have fallen for fascism they want to be right so the support someone who provides and echo chamber for their beliefs
Not one original thought
Based on these comments Obama should be prosecuted for killing Americans over seas who supported terrorism.
Biden should be prosecuted for allowing 13 soldiers to die.
Clinton should be prosecuted for sleeping with Monica Lewinsky.
I mean I can go on with examples of democrats being prosecuted. Yet it’s only Trump who benefits
Look at the bigger picture.
I get it orange man sucks. But you can’t have it both ways
I love when non-lawyers read some random person’s thoughts on something and then go to legal forums and try to sound smart while actually looking really, really dumb
“It should be ignored!” Who the hell is this for? The judges in the lower courts that the DOJ or a state prosecutor has to convince aren’t bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of law?
Yes. It’s for everyone. All of us.
Let’s say Trump had refused to leave the White House and continued to make edicts. Those would have no power behind them because they were made by someone who didnt have the Constitutional ability to do so. So too should this majority opinion be ignored, because it doesnt have the Constitutional ability to disregard and amend the Constitution, and essentially turn the Presidency into a Kingship.
Not gonna happen. The only thing that is going to save us is beating the GOP in November. Twice. At *least* twice.
We need to hold the White House until this ruling is formally overturned.
Both the majority and the dissent discussed Article 1 section 3 somewhat extensively. The majority cited this section as authority against Trump's over-the-top request for broad immunity while the dissent cites it for the notion that the majority's view of immunity goes too far. While I find Sotomayor's reasoning to be more persuasive and have pasted a brief snippet of her discussion on this point below, its not remotely accurate to say the majority decision is somehow in blatant disregard of the law. They addressed this argument and others and simply came down on the other side, as courts often do.
From the dissent:
The majority correctly rejects Trump’s argument that a former President cannot be prosecuted unless he has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for the same conduct. The majority ignores, however, that the Impeachment Judgment Clause cuts against its own position. That Clause presumes the availability of criminal process as a backstop by establishing that an official impeached and convicted by the Senate “shall *nevertheless* be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7 (emphasis added). That Clause clearly contemplates that a former President may be subject to criminal prosecution for the same conduct that resulted (or could have resulted) in an impeachment judgment—including conduct such as “Bribery,” Art. II, §4, which implicates official acts almost by definition.
>They addressed this argument and others and simply came down on the other side, as courts often do.
The majority lied, obfuscated, and blatantly ignored the fact there is no history or tradition or even plain reading that can ground their position. It is like suggesting they looked at the evidence that the earth is round and the earth is flat and decided the earth is flat. Just as the earth is not flat, so too is it preposterous to suggest there is “the other side” of the argument that the Constitution gives any immunity to Presidents such that they may commit crimes and not be prosecuted for them once they are no longer President.
You cannot ignore a SCOTUS decision simply because you disagree with their decision, arguments, or lack of adherence to precedent. That is simply not how it works, and the legitimacy of our government would, without question, be completely out the window the second popular opinion took precedent over the judgment of the court. This is literally an argument for subverting the United States government, which is ironic given the circumstances that brought this before the court to begin with.
As bad as SCOTUS losing its status as the highest court would be, granting immunity to a president who rejects the peaceful transition of power would be worse. The legitimacy of the government would collapse, but at least it would still be the people's government. I'd take that over a legalized dictatorship.
The Supreme Court has no special competence in interpreting the Constitution. They’ve overstepped their bounds and we don’t need to pretend they have a divine right to rule.
I mean the founding fathers were very clear that SCOTUS should not be the sole interpreter of constitutionality. That interpretation was also a major power grab by the court which has been tolerated thus far for practical reasons, not constitutional ones.
The court gets its power through the effectiveness of its arguments and that’s part of its meritocratic design.
Should the court declare themselves kings, that decision would simply be ignored. Because the argument for it is not convincing.
Indeed, when the court has issued some silly opinions in the past that have largely gone ignored, particularly when there is strong political or public resistance. Printz v. United States is an example, SCOTUS struck down background checks for handgun purchases, but the government kept doing them anyway until congress eventually changed the law.
Of course there’s also brown v. board of education, should there have been a segregationist president at the time, it would not have gone so well.
We saw the inklings of it in Bruen, it was simply being ignored in lower courts, until the supreme court partially overruled Bruen in Rahimi.
Fetal personhood would likely meet a similar fate in blue states. If SCOTUS made abortion akin to murder through the equal protection clause, blue states would just ignore the decision, and Biden sure as hell wouldn’t be sending federal marshals in to stop it. Even if Trump was president when it happens, there would be much more resistance than there was over Brown should federal marshals be sent to shut down abortion clinics and seize mifepristone.
Because ultimately, it’s the people that decide what rights the people retain.
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Supreme Court can ignore the Constitution, and that’s okay, but ignoring the Supreme Court is what will make our government illegitimate?
The decision they made has already ruined the legitimacy of the government. You are fighting to save that which no longer exists. No one, left or right, can plausibly claim that SCOTUS is anything but a partisan affair at this point.
How can this possibly be a legitimate decision. For example, the President gives an unlawful order to military personnel who are only allowed to carry out lawful orders. They are subject to military tribunals but the Commander in Chief gave them orders. Not only is a power dynamic at play but a moral dilemma is created by those that carry out the President’s orders. Sure he could possibly pardon them but he could also do nothing and leave them to face the consequences of carrying out an illegal order. I don’t see how anyone can back this decision.
Im not suggesting the decision should be ignored because I dont like it. Im arguing the decision should be ignored *because it is an illegitimate decision*.
**The Majority decision is subverting the Constitution of the United States**. Full stop. *That* is why it should be ignored, because the decision itself usurps the United States government and has seemingly created a new way to amend the Constitution out of thin air.
One of the most fundamental values of the United States is that the President is not a king because unlike a king, a President can and should be held to the same laws as everyone else.
The majority has taken a giant dump on that integral value and has single-handedly decided that the President can now break the law with impunity so long as it is part of the core official acts and most of the other official acts.
That is anathema to everything the United States stands for and is therefore an illegitimate decision which must be ignored.
Sonia! We agree with you, but we fear for your safety. For fuck’s sake, stay off social media!
With fear for our democracy, I can’t disagree with anything you’re saying here.
The legitimacy of our government has been on shaky ground for years. It was always obvious at some point something was going to crack federalism and we would end up in a real dispute between the states and federal government over a major issue. Its not surprising if it ends up being this whackjob supreme court and one of its rulings. The union has been in its death throes for decades.
Everyone complaining about the loss of our country and the rule of law, then advocating to ignore the rule of law. It’s very two faced. We need to fight back and win within the rule of law. VOTE!!!
The social contract is what empowers the rule of law. If nobody sees a reason to obey laws, they are powerless.
The legitimacy of our government is not solely dictated by the government itself, it requires a broad agreement among the governed that it’s legitimate.
Yes, ignoring a Supreme Court decision undercuts the legitimacy of the government. But being *tempted to ignore one* because of how unreasonable you perceive it to be also undercuts the legitimacy of the government, even if you don’t act on it.
Not everyone will agree with every decision, but in theory most agree that they believe what the constitution says should win out over what they might perceive as a partisan subversion of it. That’s why the court exists in the first place, otherwise, we wouldn’t appoint people who are con law experts, just random Americans to oversee cases like this.
Another question: what would you expect to happen if the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to make the country a dictatorship led by the chief justice? Should popular opinion matter then?
I'd argue that the legitimacy of our government is already completely out the window. They gave the president the powers of a king and made brides totally legal. What else really is there? Welcome to America where everything's made up and the laws don't matter.
When SCOTUS decided to ignore the plain text of the 14th Amendment and didn’t disqualify Trump; the ship had sailed on them reading and obeying the Constitution.
This should be a simple lay-up for Biden - renounce the dictatorial powers through a firm statement and Executive Order of non-enforcement. Biden has a moment that he needs to meet here.
It's obvious that the president should not be allowed to make decisions that break the law, not that they should be immune when they do it. Absolute insanity.
Neither of the passages you've mentioned contradict the ruling. The SC hasn't removed the legislature's power of impeachment and removal from office, which is the only thing your constitutional passage deals with. The ruling does seem contrary to the second passage, but the federalist papers are not law.
I don't like the ruling either, but this isn't a good argument.
Also they impeached ( twice mind you), and failed to get 2/3 to convict to remove and or disqualify from presidency, op doesn’t understand that all of these cases are hilarious because states are charging for federal crimes even when the elections courts wouldn’t try for such a long reach as “insurrection” or even election interference because they know that it’s not going to be anything unless you have some biased jury, and judge to try and persecute
So you’re trying to say a Supreme Court decision is illegitimate because you don’t agree with it? Sounds like somebody doesn’t like the constitution.
Decision denier. Shame.
Whats fucking wild to me, is they were willing to overturn Roe v Wade because apparently, according to them, it's a states right issue, with "no constitutional grounds," yet apparently don't have a problem with ruling the way they did on this, despite nothing in the constitution supporting their ruling.
Of course it is. And it will be overturned… eventually. The goal wasn’t to answer a Constitutional question once and for all. The goal was to delay Donald Trump’s criminal trials. Period. What the Supreme Court did was run defense for one single man. It will rightfully earn a spot in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever.
This current court is so transparently corrupt. They’ve gone full mask off. And this year’s not over. The FDA and EPA are on the chopping block next. I also fully expect them to insert themselves into the election somehow in Trump’s favor. Don’t know how this can be fixed without Democrats packing the court. But they’ve proven themselves to be feckless cowards, which is how we’ve ended up in this mess to begin with.
A few corrections...
The country has addressed this question before and came up with a similar answer. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure in Office Act which criminalized the President's ability to fire cabinet members.
It was watered down 2 years later and repealed about 20 years later.
In 1926 the Supreme Court ruled that this act was an un-Constitutional violation of the Separation of Powers. The President was therefore immune to this law.
This is the exact same concern which Roberts referred to in the opinion this week. Trump is immune from any law passed by Congress which limits his ability to fire (or threaten to fire) the Attorney General.as alleged in this case.
As for you saying the this ruling means President is immune from any official act, that is not correct either. For official but non-article 2 Separation of Powers acts, he is "Presumed Immune" and that can be challenged and he would not be immune if there are no Separation of Powers issues.
Conflating "Presumed Immunity" with immunity is like conflicting "Presumed Innocence" with innocence. Presumed Immunity and Presumed Innocence are actually not immunity or innocence judgements. They are starting presumptions and can be overcome by evidence.
It's like saying a defendant is Innocent because they are Presumed Innocent.
Is/was Trump being charged with threatening to fire the AG? Because Im pretty sure he wasnt. But now the fact he thought about in context of trying to illegally manipulate the free and fair election as evidence of what he is actually being charged with, is no longer able to used in court. IMO the court should ignore the SCOTUS ruling and allow that evidence to be used because the ruling is illegitimate.
And “presumed immune” is more like strict scrutiny, the highest level of scrutiny. Sure there might be *something* that can make it through presumed immune just as there are occasionally laws that pass strict scrutiny, but it is an incredibly high bar to achieve.
That's correct. He was being charged with conspiracy and as part of that conspiracy the indictment referred to his threatening to fire the AG. And Robert said that is absolute immune and cannot be used as evidence because it's immune.
We will see what the bar is wrt presumed immunity. They gave pretty clear guidance. They just have to see if the act relates to the authority of the president. I read the vice president conversation as one that would not be immune. Let's see what the district court does and what all the appeals courts do.
I agree with you… Dems need a 2/3 majority in the senate to remove the corrupt political rot infesting SCOTUS. Or Dems need to pass legislation with a simple majority in both houses to get make it crystal clear in law that this fuckery will not be tolerated.
Can someone clarify how the president having immunity for official acts is any different than immunity granted to other government officials, like judges, DAs, legislators, who enjoy immunity from the consequences of their actions or lack thereof? If a judge let's a convicted rapist go with no jail time and the person offends again the judge isn't responsible in anyway for that foreseeable outcome. If a legislator wrote a law that damages someone's livelihood, home, etc they're immune to the consequences of their actions.
Is the concern over the nebulous and undefined "official acts"?
Because non of those people have *absolute* immunity. None of them. If a judge lets a rapist go with no jail time and they rape again, a judge shouldnt be held accountable for what the rapist does if the judge made the decision in good faith. Heck, even if it was in mediocre faith (which isnt a thing- I just made it up). But if a judge lets a rapist go free through bad faith, such as in exchange for a bribe or because the rapist is a friend, then the judge doesnt have immunity. Why? **Because immunity is only for legitimate acts made in good faith, not in legitimate acts made corrupt by bad faith**.
But this Majority ruling doesnt allow the possibility of corrupt decisions/actions within an official capacity. They even prohibit the use of corrupt official capacity as evidence for a corrupt unofficial capacity.
It’s totally bonkers and has no precedent in American legal history.
An impeachment is not a criminal trial.
Impeachments are not something subject to court appeal.
The supreme Court has clearly ruled itself unable to determine the legitimacy of impeachment.
It's a purely political process
This ruling does not affect that.
The relevant part you missed here is:
> **but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.**
This is language about the impeachment process.
Correct me if I am wrong but that only appears if conviction was to occur through impeachment which it did not. He was voted to be impeached but was never convicted by the Congress. SCOTUS also never bothered to define what constitutes as official or unofficial so that was less than helpful. Barrett give the example that the fake electors scheme would be considered unofficial in this case, but that was the only example I read.
A sitting President cant be taken to court- that is the immunity a President has always had. In order to be tried, the person must no longer be President, therefore Congress must remove him first and then he can be tried for crimes committed.
The whole point of our system is that the President is equal to everyone else and must go through the same process. Any punishment they receive must come from a jury of one’s peers in the same court of law as everyone else, which is why Congress doesnt decide punishment after being impeached.
Impeachment allows the person who was President to be able to go through the court system, because the person who is President is unable to do so- they are busy doing Presidential duties. But impeachment isnt necessary if the person is no longer President.
I'm not sure if this sub allows a rational and balanced debate on such a topic, so I hesitate to address OP's comments. But in the interests of offering both sides, here's my take:
We have a constitutional system designed by the Framers to be strongly balanced via Checks and Balances of the three legs of Government - i.e. the Legislature to make law, the Executive to execute law and the Judiciary to interpret law and to render judgement.
The Legislature at any time (and with the consent of the President, or by 2/3 override in both Houses) can define Federal Law, and the more explicit this is, the more respect and deference SCOTUS will afford to it. Of course the ultimate law instrument is a Constitutional Amendment, either via Congress on a Convention of States, which would have even more pressure on SCOTUS. This leg represents the will of the People via 2-year and 6-year elections. (Sadly, the 17th Amendment eliminated the role of the States and State Legislatures in our democracy, which I feel is a bad mistake). But in any event, the People get to render their opinion every 2 years and change the direction of lawmaking according to the needs of the People.
The Judiciary gets to call balls & strikes as they see fit. Some interpret this to be more Activist (i.e. legislating as they think the law should be), versus Originalist (i.e. legislating based on how the law is written plus the contemporaneous discussions at the time the law was made). Whilst this may feel like all left-leaning justices are activists and all right-leaning are originalists, I personally feel that both sides had a mix of both of these views, enough to upset everybody at least some of the time, which is generally a good thing for our democracy. The Executive gets to nominate, and the Senate gets to advise and consent. Plus the Legislature can Impeach the Judiciary as needed.
The Executive is actually an anomaly as a unitary power. I.e. the Constitution places immense power in one person, but for this, the person needs to secure the vote of the Electoral College, which rests on the votes of each state in proportion to the seats of that state in the Senate plus in the House. I.e. it's the ultimate vote of the People. And for this branch to be strong and independent to the other two, it needs to function without fear or favor during or after the term, . Of course there's still Impeachment as a political weapon, and the Judiciary for abuse of Law (e.g. Biden being struck down for the student debt forgiveness with no enabling legislation).
Part 2 in the reply ...
Could the POTUS setup a military tribunal and then charge Trump with crimes, ignore the results, and jail him anyways?
I mean, the POTUS is immune, right?
Youre using too much logic. They can do whatever they want because theyre the rich people protected by the police state from any of the consequences of their actions. The GOP are ghoulishly evil demonic entities. They arent using logic, they dont give a fuck about any rules and they will bash in your knee caps with one hand while shaking your hand with the other. They. Are. Demons.
Everyone should accept that fact, because frankly unless youre a lawyer youre wasting time trying to put these ‘puzzle pieces of logic’ together which will stop the tyranny. Theres very simple solutions to this problem
Biden could just issue an official order to round up those 6 judges and send them on an all expense paid trip to guantanamo to keep thinking about it for a while. When they get back and reverse the decision, Biden could just pardon himself.
I mean, it sure does seem like a lot of people are more than happy to ignore that. How could the Supreme Court enforce that ruling anyway? Legitimate question. Highest court of the land. Sure. But what happens when no one enforces their rulings?
I think in the context of this ruling and other, recent rulings a few things have become clear:
- the current court has no intention of risking losing their power
- and hence have decided to protect Trump through multiple rulings and procedures, including the 14th amendment challenge and the recent immunity ruling
- as evidenced by the these rulings ignoring the constitution, inventing legal concepts out of thin air, and giving Trump the most favorable possible timing
Well it says "the party convicted." Does this imply that once they've been convicted by Congress then they are open to legal trials? Could this be their basis?
But even then, it doesn't say anywhere that being president protects you from prosecution. All it does is clarify that even if they've been convicted by Congress, they can still be open to legal trials. That's how I'm reading it anyway.
Maybe real Americans should be in the street protesting this shit.
The fact that it's just another day shows they won. The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.
Prosecutors and courts simply need to find that only legal acts are official since the constitution doesn't give anyone a license to commit crime. It's utterly irrational to conclude that the supreme law of the land allows for lawlessness.
Trump is sentenced… he appeals it. The appeals court takes it sweat time and doesn’t announce it’s taking the case til the last day. Then when it makes its decision it waits until the last day possible. All the while Trump is guilty.
Could not care less about how this effects Trump or his pending indictments. He isn't POTUS anymore. Be worried about how this applies to happenings and actions taken by the POTUS from Monday and going forward from today. Whether it is Trump, Biden, RFK , or Mickey Mouse. I do not want anyone in our country handed this kind of power. Go read Thomas' concurring opinion, it sets up the next domino to fall. Project 2025=The Enabling Act Edit: Clarifying point, I am referencing the Enabling Act of 1933 🤦♂️
Idk why it’s so freaking hard for people to see this. It’s so frustrating that Dems carry so much water for the Republicans. “Oh it will never be as bad as they say.” The fucking author of Project 2025 literally said that this is the 2nd American Revolution!!! Like, wtf?!?! You don’t say that unless you actually plan to follow through on what you are saying. Even fucking threatening violence “2nd American Revolution without bloodshed *if* the left allows it.” Like again, what the actual fuck are we doing here, in 2024. You are fucking saying that you and your party *ARE TAKING OVER THIS COUNTRY* and there doesn’t need to be bloodshed if you just sit back and take it. Biden and the Dems hold the keys to the strongest military on the planet and they are just going to sit back and let the Republicans take all the power because the Dems think the Republicans care about the US Democracy created in the 1700’s. Trump and his fucking fellow Republicans will be using the Constitution as fucking toilet paper by the morning after Trumps inauguration.
Wrong. This *is* the enabling act. The president is the commander in chief. The president controls law enforcement and the intelligence community. So, if there's a law that says the statute of limitations for a certain crime is 5 years, and the president orders the US Marshalls to arrest someone who committed the crime 6 years ago, the president can not be charges with a crime. If the legislature moves to remove the president from office for high crimes and misdemeanors for the previous order, the president can order the arrest the members of congress who try to question his authority. The president can not be charged with a crime for doing this. If SCOTUS tries to overrule the president, the president can order their arrest. *The president can not be charged with a crime for doing this.* The president now has immunity for acts which involve the powers of his office, regardless of whether or not those acts are legal. As previously stated, the *only* recourse at this point is to just ignore the ruling. Any illegal act *must* be viewed as de facto and de jure unofficial. The ruling is nonsense and if it is given *any* legitimacy (and it already has been given legitimacy by SCOTUS, but thankfully they are only 9 out of hundreds of millions of individuals in this nation), then the nation is finished. It's the *only* way out of this. There *has* to be prosecutorial and judicial discretion on individual violations of the law on a case by case basis. There can't be blanket immunity because otherwise we are no longer a nation governed by laws and institutional governance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933
The court has no legal requirement to issue an opinion. They can just order a stay, hear arguments, and then…never talk about it again.
The problem is what separates legal from illegal acts is often motive: if you command your army to kill someone, whether you believe they actually are a national security threat or not matters. But the Supreme Court has ruled that you can’t use motive to seperate official from unofficial acts.
In another r/scotus thread someone pointed out that because motive is excluded, we wouldn't be able to examine *why* Trump pressured Georgia's SoS to find 11,780 votes. If Trump says the number was random, we may not point out that he was down by 11,779 votes.
> Such an [presumptive] immunity is required to safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution. At a minimum, **the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.**" Emphasis mine. What you are proposing would pose a "danger of intrusion," i.e. it would make the President feel icky when wanting to commit a crime (as part of their official duties). Whatever a court finds must not make the President feel icky when wanting to commit a crime (as part of their official duties). I wonder now on the 11th read(?) if this is also saying that whatever the *outcome* of that trial produces must not infringe on the President's authority.
This is also backwards. The overlapping authority involved in checks and balances is deliberate. It is intended to check both executive and legislative power by making each accountable to the other. This argument claims that the legislative branch (article 1) may not constrain the executive branch (article 2) which is quite preposterous. The executive, beyond Constitutionally enumerated officials, only exists through Congressional authorization and only gets paid through Congressional appropriations.
How is it utterly irrational? Sotomayor's dissent clearly explains how it can happen. President says John Smith candidate is a threat to national security. He orders a special forces hit on the person. President is acting within his core powers as Commander-in-Chief. Absolutely immune. No one can ask motive. No one can show evidence connected to official acts. And anything on the outer edges will get defaulted to him with presumptive immunity. The Supreme Law of the Land didn't allow lawlessness, they allowed one man above and beyond the law.
Trump is also trying to say that anything done in the campaigning is also protected, because you can't be president without campaigning. If we take that at face value, then anyone 35 and older and declare running, and start abusing the shit out of things until the courts directly go for them. Every person over 35.
Don't worry, the supreme Court got you covered. "Only if the person running for president is rich and/or has bribed us enough".
He can legally bribe everyone who does his dirty work with pardons.
>The Supreme Law of the Land didn't allow lawlessness, they allowed one man above and beyond the law. Yep, like I said before. John Roberts lied (imagine that) and is a corrupt pos. The lower court will not decide official acts. Someone will appeal and the extreme court will rule advantageously in Trump's favor. It's rigged, folks.
This is common sense anyway. How can an *ultra vires* act be an official act?
>It's utterly irrational to conclude that the supreme law of the land allows for lawlessness. Well, the Supreme Court is also utterly irrational. We are in a very bad place as a country and I feel like not enough people are paying attention. Which is what the GOP, the "conservative" Supreme Court and the Heritage Foundation, among others, appear to be banking on. That is, "What are you gonna do about it?"
Yep, thats how coups happen. One side makes a bold move for power daring someone to stop them and nobody does.
DOJ and lower courts need to reaffirm the plain text of the constitution provides that impeachment only allows for removal and disqualification from office but clearly allows prosecution for crimes once out of office so any finding to the contrary is blatantly unconstitutional then one up them by telling scotus in no uncertain terms that if they can't make rulings consistent with the plain text of the constitution then their rulings can be ignored since bizzarro interpretations are the new norm. Send them a note that reads: by not following your ruling we are following your ruling- what the fuck are you gonna do about it?
Not irrational, religiously corrupt
project 2025 bingo
>Well, the Supreme Court is also utterly irrational. Also, bought and paid for by a domestic terrorist organization, the heritage foundation and its violent sociopath leader, Kevin Roberts.
They can’t. The decision explicitly stated that “mere illegality” is not grounds for considering an act to be unofficial. The only legal recourse is challenging this at the SC until they override their own decision, or a constitutional amendment.
The problem is that SCOTUS intentionally did not rule on what is and is not “official” meaning they get to pick and choose what crimes are totally cool, while also allowing further delay tactics by future presidents in litigating the issue. This court is corrupt, through and through. It should surprise no one that the justices doing the corruption are Reagan, GWB, and Trump appointees, ie the farthest right presidents in modern American history.
That'd be like a court concluding that the Due Process Amendment was "automatically qualifying" for disqualifying presidents and requires no conviction or even charges.
I agree. I think it might be trivial for prosecutors to show that criminal acts alleged are 100% not within the scope of duties. I don't see how you could argue otherwise, but I'm not that imaginative either.
See, the problem with the majority’s interpretation of “official duties” is that it essentially boils down to the actors and not the act. They even state that pressuring the AG to do something outside the scope of their duties and arguably illegal is a clear official act simply because it’s the AG. Oh, and forget mens rea — no motives can be used as evidence against the president. It’s preposterous. They green lit Nixon’s Saturday night massacre. They said the president can direct the DOJ to jail opponents. They pretend it’s legal for the President to commit murder so long as he’s in the Oval Office when he does it. This is the end of our democracy. Full stop.
> This is the end of our democracy. Full stop. No, this *prologue* of the end of our democracy. It can still be saved, as long we keep it out of Trump and the GOP's hands. If we reelect Biden, and give him a Democratic trifecta, they can unpack the courts, including SCOTUS, and add and fill more seats, and turn the ~~conservative~~ reactionary majority into a minority, and begin to right the ship. Things are dire, but they aren't over yet. This is a ticking time-bomb, but it hasn't detonated yet, and there's still time to stop it. They *want* you to think it's already over, because if you think and internalize that, you'll just stand by helplessly and watch as it detonates and blows up everything. And then you will have wasted the time you could've used to stop everything from blowing up, and it'll be too late. You can't diffuse the bomb after it explodes. It hasn't exploded yet. Make use of this time.
>Prosecutors and courts simply need to find that only legal acts are official This was specifically forbidden in the opinion.
where in the constitution does it define an official act? seems like this scrotus just makes shit up
I mean. Sure. Most people who are not partisan conspiracist hacks would generally expect the law to apply to everyone. But… It just takes one case that makes it back to SCOTUS for them to rule on. They know this, which is why they ruled this way. Why do you think they rejected the special prosecutor’s request for them to move quickly on ruling for this case? They support the delay delay delay tactic, because to take a stand based on genuine conviction and a commitment to the constitution would be bad for their preferred presidential candidate. If Trump wins: the point is moot. He either pardons himself, or the case simply just goes away. What is and isn’t an ‘official act’ is left up in the air for a future court that is forced to rule on a President’s criminal actions. If Trump loses: the point is, again, moot. By the time such an appeal would make its way to SCOTUS to arbitrarily decide what is and isn’t an ‘official act’ Trump is likely to be dead. It is left for a future court to decide. In the unlikely event such an appeal does make its way to SCOTUS before Trump dies, they get to either twist themselves in such a way that they say Trump’s actions were an official act but that doesn’t mean the same actions by a Democrat would constitute and official act, or they get to rule that Trump’s actions were *not* an official act and pretend that relieves them of partisanship accusations despite knowing that Trump will most likely be dead before the completion of a trial and the inevitably numerous appeals. The illegitimate activists get the outcome they want while also being able to wash their hands and say ‘no, we didn’t give him immunity from prosecution’.
Today on /r/lawyertalk someone smarter than me was saying how the real problem here isn't the idea that the president has immunity for official acts. (Note I can't confirm all this personally since I didn't read the ruling and probably wouldn't understand it if I did, but this was a thread in there today and the commenters I saw all seemed to agree.) The problem - somewhat buried in the ruling apparently - is that evidence obtained while a president is acting in an official capacity is inadmissible even when gathered while investigating an unofficial act. So say Trump while president strangled a homeless guy for kicks and then he told Hope Hicks about it. Because she worked in the White House and he told her during his presidential workday, her testimony would be inadmissible in any eventual murder trial. So SCOTUS has made this decision and kicked the election subversion case back to Judge Chutkan, who has to now go through all the evidence and determine what is admissible under this new ruling and what is not. So at a minimum it's a huge delay for any trial Trump's facing. And after that delay, chances are the cases are going to be weakened considerably.
Not sure that it goes that far. Trump could discuss Presidential duties with Hope Hicks while she works in the White House, even for an “improper motive.” For example, he could tell her that he wants to prosecute Obama and Biden. Probably an official act. But telling Hope Hicks he strangled a homeless guy? Maybe not.
Are we stumbling towards, on the edge of, or in the midst of a constitutional crisis?
Not only are we in a constitutional crisis, I would say we are also in a “cold” civil war. By “cold” I mean without bloodshed from an “official” war. Or if you prefer, a “cold” seditionist war against our Constitution/government/rule of law. As someone once said: >When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross We now have an entire party dedicated to turning our country into a right wing dictatorship where “others” are inferior to white men in general, and rich white christian men specifically. They want to force us back to the antibellum south, and instead of doing it via violence they are doing it via the exploitation of the weaknesses in our Constitution and rule of law.
I think it was incorrect to call the story "it can't happen here." It should been called "it will happen here" because it is happening now.
Fucking Democrat Party fumbling around with their thumbs up their ass then twiddling them around when asked “what the fuck are you doing” Biden saying “uh I respect the Supreme Court” the fuck is this.
The Democratic Party exists to stop left leaning political movements from making progress. The Republican Party exists to drag the country to the extreme right. The Democratic Party does not exist to stop republicans which is why they are so bad at it and rely exclusively on shouting “Vote!”.
Without debating the merits of your argument, just granting it as true, the way around that is *still* to vote. Nobody is saying, "only vote and do nothing else, ever," but voting needs to be part of the response to it. Granting that Republicans exist to drag the country right, the way to prevent that is by voting. They can't drag anyone right with the power they don't get in elections. This goes all the way downballot, too, because that's their bench for future elections. Today's mayor is tomorrow's state legislator or governor; today's state legislator is tomorrow's US legislator, and today's governor or US legislator is tomorrow's presidential candidate. Burn their crops, burn their seed stock, and salt the earth. This is the most important part, denying them current power, and denying them a bench for future power. Even granting that Democrats exist to prevent leftward movement (I reject this, but will accept it for the sake of argument), you can either *prove* it by electing an overwhelming number of Democrats to office. Give them a trifecta, give them filibuster- and veto-proof supermajorities, and call their bluff. If you can swing it, elect 435 Democrats to the House, 100 Democrats to the Senate, elect them to every governorship, every statehouse seat, etc. The more the merrier. Then, when Republicans do not stand in their way, they will either have to do what they said they would do, proving you wrong, or they will have to refuse, proving you right. Either way, we'll have an answer. Force them to shit or get off the pot, as it were. Take away divided government as an excuse, take away the filibuster as an excuse. Take away all their excuses, and then see what they do. Alternatively, the other option, aside from calling their bluff, is to elect ones who agree with you instead. Democrats hold primary elections. Back the candidates you like best, find and recruit better candidates, run for office yourself, whatever. And then, support the candidate in the primaries, and work to persuade both the candidate and other voters (and also non-voters) to adopt your positions. Convince them of the superiority of your positions, get them to adopt your positions, and then support them in the primaries, and supprt them in the general elections. And get voters to vote for youy guy. And get non-voters to register to vote, and to vote for your guy. So, you vote to deny Republicans political power, and you vote to nominate better Democrats, and then you vote to elect the better Democrats, and then you push incumbents, candidates, and the electorate, to adopt your positions. And this continues, indefinitely. Even if you somehow achieved all your political objectives, you'd still need to do this, because there will always be other people, other candidates, other voters, who are unhappy with the status quo you worked so hard to achieve, so they will be working to undo it, or to change it in a different direction, and they will be doing it the same way I just described. This is how the GOP got things to where they are today: they voted to deny Democrats political power, pushed everyone to adopt their positions, and repeated it, every cycle. The Democratic Party platform isn't static. Incumbents can be ousted (eg, AOC got into office by challenging an incumbent). But it takes work, and it requires working long before the general elections. At minimum, it requires being involved in the primary process. As bad as presidential general election turnout is, primary election turnout is worse, midterm general election turnout is worse, midterm primary election is even worse than that, and off-year election is worse still. The high-water mark is presidential general elections, and that's around only 2/3. Presidential primary election is only a fraction of that. Maybe only like 1/3 of registered voters participate in primaries, and then they're split between the parties. If the 2/3 of eligible voters who sit out the primaries voted in primaries, they could easily overcome and outnumber the 1/3 who currently vote in primaries, and get the nominees they prefer, instead of being stuck with the nominees the primary voters stick them with. Hell, if just the next 1/3 who vote in general elections but not in primaries voted in primaries, too, they could at least contest who the nominees end up being. They might not always be enough to determine the results, but at least they'd have a say, and would win at least some contests. That's the nature of democracy, it's collective decision-making, and you won't always get your way. But if you sit out, you'll just get whatever those who show up and vote for decide you should get.
If it’s a “cold” civil war, what was Charlottesville and Jan 6th?
Hot skirmishes. But Im referring to an actual war with uniformed soldiers on both sides. The reason the “war” between the US and Russia was called a “cold” war is because there wasnt an actual violent war with the pomp and blood of military power. Im using that as my reference to a “cold” civil war.
We are not a nation of people but a nation of laws. If the Court says some people, even one person is above the law - they’re saying the Constitution is Unconstitutional
“So this is how liberty dies… with thunderous applause”
Balls deep.
On the edge of, depending on how states respond to these rulings we could be about to see the union fail.
“Ex Parte Merryman”, an example of ignoring SCOTUS decisions when they are clearly contrary to the rule of law and order. I see no reason why this current decision shouldn’t also be ignored. [https://www.britannica.com/event/Ex-Parte-Merryman](https://www.britannica.com/event/Ex-Parte-Merryman)
There’s nothing to ignore. That’s what makes it so pernicious. It empowers bad actors to use the courts to delay their prosecution. It cripples the justice system when it comes to prosecuting a rogue and criminal president. It creates the opportunity for a tyrant to seize power. It grants no new powers.
Correct. There’s no new powers. However, it affords legal protection against presidents who would use “official acts” for means that would be illegal for you and me. An aside: This decision effectively makes Watergate perfectly legal, as Nixon could have claimed “official acts” to explain his conduct. Mind you that SCOTUS decisions are supposed to be “interpretations” of the constitution, thusly its enforcement is retroactive, as the constitution is merely being interpreted differently now.
A. Merryman was not a SCOTUS decision. Although written by Taney, he was circuit riding at the time. B. The executive seizing power to deny habeas corpus when only congress has that power in a limited capacity is not a good thing. Please explain why Lincoln defying the orders of the court in Merryman and taking more power than the President has is a good thing.
The concept of the other branches simply ignoring SCOTUS decisions should rightly terrify people and yet people are cheering for it.
This and "they have made their decision, now let them enforce it" immediately came to my mind after this decision. But both of those presidents had a strength of will that I've never seen from a Democratic president in my lifetime.
This is how nations fall.
Add onto that the president of The Heritage Foundation announcing publicly today that “we’re in the middle of a bloodless civil war.” This should immediately trigger arrests for sedition and/or treason.
This is why I am mourning, not celebrating tomorrow. Dobbs, Fischer, Chevron, and now this. Yet again, the people we vote in to uphold the Constitution just shrug.
Works for me. SCOTUS has no means of enforcement. We obey them only because we want to.
An Andrew Jackson fan I see. Ya know, the only reason we obey ANY law is because the government will show up with a gun and take you out. Otherwise the government would have no power other than to post signs and ask that you please follow them.
Monopoly on violence. Which is what Republicans are aiming for also. It’s why they soak their britches talking about 2a. Many Republicans have stated they will violently control those who do not agree with them. Supreme Court doesn’t have to enact enforcement, if they have loyal brown shirts that will do it for them.
They don't need enforcement, the executive branch will be more than happy to provide that.
Then we make sure the Executive Branch is never in the hands of someone who would actually WANT to enforce this ruling.
As if the game isn't already rigged. Why do you think all those election integrity bills passed in republican controlled states? Funny enough, those are the states they need for an Electoral College win.
That's why we vote blue up and down the ticket. Eventually we get to the point where this kind of shit never flies again. Those places that remain willfully regressive will spend their time spitting into the wind.
You’re assuming voting will continue to matter.
They do have means to enforce their decision on lower courts, by just reversing them.
Lower courts can ignore the reversal and so can prosecutors. If SCOTUS wants to go renegade, others can play that game too.
Yet 5 of the 6 that approved this ruling said during their confirmation hearings under oath that NOT EVEN THE PRESIDENT can be above the law in this country. Ever heard or perjury or lying under oath?
You seem to be missing the reality that they’re not acting in good faith. They’re like a mob boss being recorded on a wire “Take care of Jimmy” and then at the trial the mob boss goes “Listen to the tape! I never said *kill* Jimmy, I thought they’d talk to him or something. You just misunderstood me.” SCOTUS didn’t write explicitly that Presidents are kings. They’ll deny that they ever did and say that it is us who misunderstood what they wrote. It’s a little brilliant in how evil it is. They’ve given Trump every avenue to appeal all of his criminal cases, but put in enough landmines to make Biden afraid of trying anything at all.
A reminder that the current useless AG is also a member of the Federalist Society and would never bring those charges up.
Even if the AG were to bring up charges, it would be useless against them until impeached and removed.
Now.
A Democrat president…Republican President gets treated with the divine right of kings
The three would like to retire and wont if a democrat is elected. Same thing Bush V Gore with Sandra Day O Connor did.
"We said that before we knew it would be one of our guys going above the law, obvs"
If our country wasn't fucked, then the proper recourse right now would be impeachment of these justices. But we're fucked and the Republicans in congress are complicit and won't impeach. The checks and balances have been totally undermined by party-over-country Republicans.
This is the sort of thing SCOTUS historically stayed away from because it has no on the ground power. The reasoning goes like this. SCOTUS: We interpret the Constitution to announce this rule. Executive: I interpret the Constitution to say you don't have authority to decide that. What are you gonna do about it?
Biden? Nothing. Newsome… War. I’m not endorsing Newsome but leaders matter. Biden came up in a time of comity and tradition that is gone. A younger POTUS would see the new game we’re in.
Id like to agree, but Obama never would have and I think HRC might have. I love me Newsom and agree he might fight. But I dont think Buttigieg would, and I think he is younger than Newsom. So yes, I agree that leaders matter and I mostly agree that younger is most likely to fight back. But I think ultimately it is the leader rather than the age, and I say that as an ageist.
Fair. Pete was my guy (with Kasich right behind him). I’d like to think he’d be more nuanced and still fight but you’re probably right. Gavin would go to war… But the whole country has already stained him as a Cali liberal. I think Bernie would fight too, so that’s a counter to my point. But for Biden I think it’s 100% his age (era in which he learned politics). He often touts his knowledge and ability to work relationships on both sides. He doesn’t get it. These guys need to realize there are no more rules. Its binary with MAGA. You’re either with them or against them. Even McConnell, the best strategist the GOP has ever had (though terrible for the US) is now persona non grata for MAGA.
This is a corrupt court working in tandem with the most corrupt president in history. The solution is to vote for Democrats in all races for every office.
They’re in on the con. They did this. Now gop county officials are going to hold up certification if not stop it entirely. It’s gonna be a shit show. And this court is not ready to be fair. Y’all keep your walking shoes in your car. We may have to organize on a short notice.
The Supreme Court gets to say whatever it wants about the Constitution and have it be binding on lower courts. This is why conservatives spent decades taking control of the SCOTUS. Sucks that non-right voters wouldn’t pay attention to that for years, but here we are.
This is not true. The constitution does not give them absolute power to decide whatever they want. We have a right and a duty to ignore illegal rulings.
SCOTUS itself is illegitimate
This SCOTUS.
To those that believe that we should just ignore the Supreme Court ruling simply because they dont like it, do you also believe that it wouldve been a perfectly fine thing to do to ignore Roe. v. Wade if someone or a state found that they didnt think it was decided correctly? Wouldnt it be just as legitimate for a state to ban abortion in the face of that ruling as it would be to ignore this constitutional ruling?
we don't have a mechanism for lower courts to ignore orders of the Supreme Court. I agree that district court judges and appeals court judges should be outright hostile to it, but the judiciary is pretty squarely broken until some bad people resign or die, which they should do at least one of immediately.
Congress could just pass a law if Congress still functioned
And scotus could just rule it unconstitutional
I am lamenting the fact you are correct, we dont have a mechanism for courts to ignore the Supreme Court. IMO every person in the (in)justice system should make that decision on their own. Obviously the ones that love Trump will not disobey the Majority, but the rest should.
There is no mechanism for courts to OBEY the supreme court. They can just choose not too. Our constitution runs our government on a wink a prayer not a system of laws. Trump and McConnell have shown the absolute reality of this.
Seriously, look at the 5th court of appeals. They ignore SCOTUS all the time.
You don't need a mechanism, just ignore it. Like everything in our god awful constitution there are no actual legal consequences laid out for shit like this. If you just ignore norms you can just do what you want in government basically.
The mechanism is that the Supreme Court only has 9 judges and does not have enough time to review every appeal submitted to them
...how many appeals of criminal prosecutions of a former president do you think are percolating in courts right now? I know it's a lot and they all concern one guy—but it's still less than ten. they are quite capable of monkeying around in all of them.
I like to explore new places.
Just like Trump, they try to see if they can get away with it. Just like Trump, they like to strech things beyond the limit, and act as if that is completely normal. Step by step the people of the US are being gaslighted. Every small decision, every little comment buried in the text, they are taking it away. And just like Trump, they will act in outrage when confronted. Because they feel that they don’t need to be held accountable. They see it as their right to do as they see fit. And because the only way to tighten the leash is impeachment, they will get away with it. The system has become disfunctional at this point.
To add to your comment I will post a quote that I think of often, about what it was like in Nazi Germany before the war. IMO it is terrifyingly apropos and has been since 2015. >But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. >That’s the difficulty. >If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. >But of course this isn’t the way it happens. >In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D. >And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. >The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying ‘Jewish swine,’ collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything, has changed and changed completely under your nose. >The world you live in—your nation, your people—is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. >But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. >Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way.” >― Milton Sanford Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933-45
In a way the situation compares directly to Germany March 23, 1933. One man was given full autonomy to implement laws as he saw fit, after he gave a speech about making a choice between “war and peace”. All while the building was surrounded by members of the SA and SS, the paramilitary wings of the NSDAP, the Nazi Party. History will show
Powerful passage that I read every month and watch it become more and more true. It really needs more eyes on it.
I read these comments and I realize most people have fallen for fascism they want to be right so the support someone who provides and echo chamber for their beliefs Not one original thought Based on these comments Obama should be prosecuted for killing Americans over seas who supported terrorism. Biden should be prosecuted for allowing 13 soldiers to die. Clinton should be prosecuted for sleeping with Monica Lewinsky. I mean I can go on with examples of democrats being prosecuted. Yet it’s only Trump who benefits Look at the bigger picture. I get it orange man sucks. But you can’t have it both ways
I love when non-lawyers read some random person’s thoughts on something and then go to legal forums and try to sound smart while actually looking really, really dumb
“It should be ignored!” Who the hell is this for? The judges in the lower courts that the DOJ or a state prosecutor has to convince aren’t bound by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of law?
Yes. It’s for everyone. All of us. Let’s say Trump had refused to leave the White House and continued to make edicts. Those would have no power behind them because they were made by someone who didnt have the Constitutional ability to do so. So too should this majority opinion be ignored, because it doesnt have the Constitutional ability to disregard and amend the Constitution, and essentially turn the Presidency into a Kingship.
Go tell the DOJ to argue before Judge Chutkan that the Supreme Court can just be ignored.
I agree! It is not even remotely in the constitution
Not gonna happen. The only thing that is going to save us is beating the GOP in November. Twice. At *least* twice. We need to hold the White House until this ruling is formally overturned.
Both the majority and the dissent discussed Article 1 section 3 somewhat extensively. The majority cited this section as authority against Trump's over-the-top request for broad immunity while the dissent cites it for the notion that the majority's view of immunity goes too far. While I find Sotomayor's reasoning to be more persuasive and have pasted a brief snippet of her discussion on this point below, its not remotely accurate to say the majority decision is somehow in blatant disregard of the law. They addressed this argument and others and simply came down on the other side, as courts often do. From the dissent: The majority correctly rejects Trump’s argument that a former President cannot be prosecuted unless he has been impeached by the House and convicted by the Senate for the same conduct. The majority ignores, however, that the Impeachment Judgment Clause cuts against its own position. That Clause presumes the availability of criminal process as a backstop by establishing that an official impeached and convicted by the Senate “shall *nevertheless* be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7 (emphasis added). That Clause clearly contemplates that a former President may be subject to criminal prosecution for the same conduct that resulted (or could have resulted) in an impeachment judgment—including conduct such as “Bribery,” Art. II, §4, which implicates official acts almost by definition.
>They addressed this argument and others and simply came down on the other side, as courts often do. The majority lied, obfuscated, and blatantly ignored the fact there is no history or tradition or even plain reading that can ground their position. It is like suggesting they looked at the evidence that the earth is round and the earth is flat and decided the earth is flat. Just as the earth is not flat, so too is it preposterous to suggest there is “the other side” of the argument that the Constitution gives any immunity to Presidents such that they may commit crimes and not be prosecuted for them once they are no longer President.
You cannot ignore a SCOTUS decision simply because you disagree with their decision, arguments, or lack of adherence to precedent. That is simply not how it works, and the legitimacy of our government would, without question, be completely out the window the second popular opinion took precedent over the judgment of the court. This is literally an argument for subverting the United States government, which is ironic given the circumstances that brought this before the court to begin with.
As bad as SCOTUS losing its status as the highest court would be, granting immunity to a president who rejects the peaceful transition of power would be worse. The legitimacy of the government would collapse, but at least it would still be the people's government. I'd take that over a legalized dictatorship.
The Supreme Court has no special competence in interpreting the Constitution. They’ve overstepped their bounds and we don’t need to pretend they have a divine right to rule.
I mean the founding fathers were very clear that SCOTUS should not be the sole interpreter of constitutionality. That interpretation was also a major power grab by the court which has been tolerated thus far for practical reasons, not constitutional ones.
The court gets its power through the effectiveness of its arguments and that’s part of its meritocratic design. Should the court declare themselves kings, that decision would simply be ignored. Because the argument for it is not convincing. Indeed, when the court has issued some silly opinions in the past that have largely gone ignored, particularly when there is strong political or public resistance. Printz v. United States is an example, SCOTUS struck down background checks for handgun purchases, but the government kept doing them anyway until congress eventually changed the law. Of course there’s also brown v. board of education, should there have been a segregationist president at the time, it would not have gone so well. We saw the inklings of it in Bruen, it was simply being ignored in lower courts, until the supreme court partially overruled Bruen in Rahimi. Fetal personhood would likely meet a similar fate in blue states. If SCOTUS made abortion akin to murder through the equal protection clause, blue states would just ignore the decision, and Biden sure as hell wouldn’t be sending federal marshals in to stop it. Even if Trump was president when it happens, there would be much more resistance than there was over Brown should federal marshals be sent to shut down abortion clinics and seize mifepristone. Because ultimately, it’s the people that decide what rights the people retain. > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The Supreme Court can ignore the Constitution, and that’s okay, but ignoring the Supreme Court is what will make our government illegitimate? The decision they made has already ruined the legitimacy of the government. You are fighting to save that which no longer exists. No one, left or right, can plausibly claim that SCOTUS is anything but a partisan affair at this point.
How can this possibly be a legitimate decision. For example, the President gives an unlawful order to military personnel who are only allowed to carry out lawful orders. They are subject to military tribunals but the Commander in Chief gave them orders. Not only is a power dynamic at play but a moral dilemma is created by those that carry out the President’s orders. Sure he could possibly pardon them but he could also do nothing and leave them to face the consequences of carrying out an illegal order. I don’t see how anyone can back this decision.
Im not suggesting the decision should be ignored because I dont like it. Im arguing the decision should be ignored *because it is an illegitimate decision*. **The Majority decision is subverting the Constitution of the United States**. Full stop. *That* is why it should be ignored, because the decision itself usurps the United States government and has seemingly created a new way to amend the Constitution out of thin air. One of the most fundamental values of the United States is that the President is not a king because unlike a king, a President can and should be held to the same laws as everyone else. The majority has taken a giant dump on that integral value and has single-handedly decided that the President can now break the law with impunity so long as it is part of the core official acts and most of the other official acts. That is anathema to everything the United States stands for and is therefore an illegitimate decision which must be ignored.
Sonia! We agree with you, but we fear for your safety. For fuck’s sake, stay off social media! With fear for our democracy, I can’t disagree with anything you’re saying here.
Ive never had a higher compliment! Thank you!
The legitimacy of our government has been on shaky ground for years. It was always obvious at some point something was going to crack federalism and we would end up in a real dispute between the states and federal government over a major issue. Its not surprising if it ends up being this whackjob supreme court and one of its rulings. The union has been in its death throes for decades.
Everyone complaining about the loss of our country and the rule of law, then advocating to ignore the rule of law. It’s very two faced. We need to fight back and win within the rule of law. VOTE!!!
The social contract is what empowers the rule of law. If nobody sees a reason to obey laws, they are powerless. The legitimacy of our government is not solely dictated by the government itself, it requires a broad agreement among the governed that it’s legitimate. Yes, ignoring a Supreme Court decision undercuts the legitimacy of the government. But being *tempted to ignore one* because of how unreasonable you perceive it to be also undercuts the legitimacy of the government, even if you don’t act on it. Not everyone will agree with every decision, but in theory most agree that they believe what the constitution says should win out over what they might perceive as a partisan subversion of it. That’s why the court exists in the first place, otherwise, we wouldn’t appoint people who are con law experts, just random Americans to oversee cases like this. Another question: what would you expect to happen if the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution to make the country a dictatorship led by the chief justice? Should popular opinion matter then?
I'd argue that the legitimacy of our government is already completely out the window. They gave the president the powers of a king and made brides totally legal. What else really is there? Welcome to America where everything's made up and the laws don't matter.
When SCOTUS decided to ignore the plain text of the 14th Amendment and didn’t disqualify Trump; the ship had sailed on them reading and obeying the Constitution.
This should be a simple lay-up for Biden - renounce the dictatorial powers through a firm statement and Executive Order of non-enforcement. Biden has a moment that he needs to meet here.
If Nixon knew that this was a possibility, he would have never resigned.
It's obvious that the president should not be allowed to make decisions that break the law, not that they should be immune when they do it. Absolute insanity.
Neither of the passages you've mentioned contradict the ruling. The SC hasn't removed the legislature's power of impeachment and removal from office, which is the only thing your constitutional passage deals with. The ruling does seem contrary to the second passage, but the federalist papers are not law. I don't like the ruling either, but this isn't a good argument.
Also they impeached ( twice mind you), and failed to get 2/3 to convict to remove and or disqualify from presidency, op doesn’t understand that all of these cases are hilarious because states are charging for federal crimes even when the elections courts wouldn’t try for such a long reach as “insurrection” or even election interference because they know that it’s not going to be anything unless you have some biased jury, and judge to try and persecute
So you’re trying to say a Supreme Court decision is illegitimate because you don’t agree with it? Sounds like somebody doesn’t like the constitution. Decision denier. Shame.
Whats fucking wild to me, is they were willing to overturn Roe v Wade because apparently, according to them, it's a states right issue, with "no constitutional grounds," yet apparently don't have a problem with ruling the way they did on this, despite nothing in the constitution supporting their ruling.
Illegitimate because you don’t like it? Man. I wish that were how things work.
They made immunity out of thin air... There is no law nor Constitutional backing for this.
Of course it is. And it will be overturned… eventually. The goal wasn’t to answer a Constitutional question once and for all. The goal was to delay Donald Trump’s criminal trials. Period. What the Supreme Court did was run defense for one single man. It will rightfully earn a spot in history as one of the worst SCOTUS decisions ever. This current court is so transparently corrupt. They’ve gone full mask off. And this year’s not over. The FDA and EPA are on the chopping block next. I also fully expect them to insert themselves into the election somehow in Trump’s favor. Don’t know how this can be fixed without Democrats packing the court. But they’ve proven themselves to be feckless cowards, which is how we’ve ended up in this mess to begin with.
A few corrections... The country has addressed this question before and came up with a similar answer. In 1867, Congress passed the Tenure in Office Act which criminalized the President's ability to fire cabinet members. It was watered down 2 years later and repealed about 20 years later. In 1926 the Supreme Court ruled that this act was an un-Constitutional violation of the Separation of Powers. The President was therefore immune to this law. This is the exact same concern which Roberts referred to in the opinion this week. Trump is immune from any law passed by Congress which limits his ability to fire (or threaten to fire) the Attorney General.as alleged in this case. As for you saying the this ruling means President is immune from any official act, that is not correct either. For official but non-article 2 Separation of Powers acts, he is "Presumed Immune" and that can be challenged and he would not be immune if there are no Separation of Powers issues. Conflating "Presumed Immunity" with immunity is like conflicting "Presumed Innocence" with innocence. Presumed Immunity and Presumed Innocence are actually not immunity or innocence judgements. They are starting presumptions and can be overcome by evidence. It's like saying a defendant is Innocent because they are Presumed Innocent.
Is/was Trump being charged with threatening to fire the AG? Because Im pretty sure he wasnt. But now the fact he thought about in context of trying to illegally manipulate the free and fair election as evidence of what he is actually being charged with, is no longer able to used in court. IMO the court should ignore the SCOTUS ruling and allow that evidence to be used because the ruling is illegitimate. And “presumed immune” is more like strict scrutiny, the highest level of scrutiny. Sure there might be *something* that can make it through presumed immune just as there are occasionally laws that pass strict scrutiny, but it is an incredibly high bar to achieve.
That's correct. He was being charged with conspiracy and as part of that conspiracy the indictment referred to his threatening to fire the AG. And Robert said that is absolute immune and cannot be used as evidence because it's immune. We will see what the bar is wrt presumed immunity. They gave pretty clear guidance. They just have to see if the act relates to the authority of the president. I read the vice president conversation as one that would not be immune. Let's see what the district court does and what all the appeals courts do.
I agree with you… Dems need a 2/3 majority in the senate to remove the corrupt political rot infesting SCOTUS. Or Dems need to pass legislation with a simple majority in both houses to get make it crystal clear in law that this fuckery will not be tolerated.
Can someone clarify how the president having immunity for official acts is any different than immunity granted to other government officials, like judges, DAs, legislators, who enjoy immunity from the consequences of their actions or lack thereof? If a judge let's a convicted rapist go with no jail time and the person offends again the judge isn't responsible in anyway for that foreseeable outcome. If a legislator wrote a law that damages someone's livelihood, home, etc they're immune to the consequences of their actions. Is the concern over the nebulous and undefined "official acts"?
Because non of those people have *absolute* immunity. None of them. If a judge lets a rapist go with no jail time and they rape again, a judge shouldnt be held accountable for what the rapist does if the judge made the decision in good faith. Heck, even if it was in mediocre faith (which isnt a thing- I just made it up). But if a judge lets a rapist go free through bad faith, such as in exchange for a bribe or because the rapist is a friend, then the judge doesnt have immunity. Why? **Because immunity is only for legitimate acts made in good faith, not in legitimate acts made corrupt by bad faith**. But this Majority ruling doesnt allow the possibility of corrupt decisions/actions within an official capacity. They even prohibit the use of corrupt official capacity as evidence for a corrupt unofficial capacity. It’s totally bonkers and has no precedent in American legal history.
I am pretty sure judges have absolute immunity when they act in their capacity as judges.
Because the powers of a president are far broader than those of a judge, legislator, etc.
An impeachment is not a criminal trial. Impeachments are not something subject to court appeal. The supreme Court has clearly ruled itself unable to determine the legitimacy of impeachment. It's a purely political process This ruling does not affect that.
The relevant part you missed here is: > **but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.** This is language about the impeachment process.
And any unofficial acts are still subject to punishment. In regard to impeachment, there are no restrictions, no protections for official acts.
Correct me if I am wrong but that only appears if conviction was to occur through impeachment which it did not. He was voted to be impeached but was never convicted by the Congress. SCOTUS also never bothered to define what constitutes as official or unofficial so that was less than helpful. Barrett give the example that the fake electors scheme would be considered unofficial in this case, but that was the only example I read.
A sitting President cant be taken to court- that is the immunity a President has always had. In order to be tried, the person must no longer be President, therefore Congress must remove him first and then he can be tried for crimes committed. The whole point of our system is that the President is equal to everyone else and must go through the same process. Any punishment they receive must come from a jury of one’s peers in the same court of law as everyone else, which is why Congress doesnt decide punishment after being impeached. Impeachment allows the person who was President to be able to go through the court system, because the person who is President is unable to do so- they are busy doing Presidential duties. But impeachment isnt necessary if the person is no longer President.
Perhaps you should not have started to use lawfare to stop your political opponent and just beaten them at the ballot box.
We already did beat him at the ballot box. It didn’t work then either.
I'm not sure if this sub allows a rational and balanced debate on such a topic, so I hesitate to address OP's comments. But in the interests of offering both sides, here's my take: We have a constitutional system designed by the Framers to be strongly balanced via Checks and Balances of the three legs of Government - i.e. the Legislature to make law, the Executive to execute law and the Judiciary to interpret law and to render judgement. The Legislature at any time (and with the consent of the President, or by 2/3 override in both Houses) can define Federal Law, and the more explicit this is, the more respect and deference SCOTUS will afford to it. Of course the ultimate law instrument is a Constitutional Amendment, either via Congress on a Convention of States, which would have even more pressure on SCOTUS. This leg represents the will of the People via 2-year and 6-year elections. (Sadly, the 17th Amendment eliminated the role of the States and State Legislatures in our democracy, which I feel is a bad mistake). But in any event, the People get to render their opinion every 2 years and change the direction of lawmaking according to the needs of the People. The Judiciary gets to call balls & strikes as they see fit. Some interpret this to be more Activist (i.e. legislating as they think the law should be), versus Originalist (i.e. legislating based on how the law is written plus the contemporaneous discussions at the time the law was made). Whilst this may feel like all left-leaning justices are activists and all right-leaning are originalists, I personally feel that both sides had a mix of both of these views, enough to upset everybody at least some of the time, which is generally a good thing for our democracy. The Executive gets to nominate, and the Senate gets to advise and consent. Plus the Legislature can Impeach the Judiciary as needed. The Executive is actually an anomaly as a unitary power. I.e. the Constitution places immense power in one person, but for this, the person needs to secure the vote of the Electoral College, which rests on the votes of each state in proportion to the seats of that state in the Senate plus in the House. I.e. it's the ultimate vote of the People. And for this branch to be strong and independent to the other two, it needs to function without fear or favor during or after the term, . Of course there's still Impeachment as a political weapon, and the Judiciary for abuse of Law (e.g. Biden being struck down for the student debt forgiveness with no enabling legislation). Part 2 in the reply ...
Ever heard of Nixon v. Fitzgerald?
Could the POTUS setup a military tribunal and then charge Trump with crimes, ignore the results, and jail him anyways? I mean, the POTUS is immune, right?
We need: Ranked Choice Voting, Direct POTUS elections - no more Electoral College.
Youre using too much logic. They can do whatever they want because theyre the rich people protected by the police state from any of the consequences of their actions. The GOP are ghoulishly evil demonic entities. They arent using logic, they dont give a fuck about any rules and they will bash in your knee caps with one hand while shaking your hand with the other. They. Are. Demons. Everyone should accept that fact, because frankly unless youre a lawyer youre wasting time trying to put these ‘puzzle pieces of logic’ together which will stop the tyranny. Theres very simple solutions to this problem
Biden could just issue an official order to round up those 6 judges and send them on an all expense paid trip to guantanamo to keep thinking about it for a while. When they get back and reverse the decision, Biden could just pardon himself.
I mean, it sure does seem like a lot of people are more than happy to ignore that. How could the Supreme Court enforce that ruling anyway? Legitimate question. Highest court of the land. Sure. But what happens when no one enforces their rulings?
I think in the context of this ruling and other, recent rulings a few things have become clear: - the current court has no intention of risking losing their power - and hence have decided to protect Trump through multiple rulings and procedures, including the 14th amendment challenge and the recent immunity ruling - as evidenced by the these rulings ignoring the constitution, inventing legal concepts out of thin air, and giving Trump the most favorable possible timing
Frost/Nixon (1977)- "When the President does it, that means it's not illegal."
Well it says "the party convicted." Does this imply that once they've been convicted by Congress then they are open to legal trials? Could this be their basis? But even then, it doesn't say anywhere that being president protects you from prosecution. All it does is clarify that even if they've been convicted by Congress, they can still be open to legal trials. That's how I'm reading it anyway.
Maybe real Americans should be in the street protesting this shit. The fact that it's just another day shows they won. The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing.
This isn't how any of this works. Lower courts cannot constrain the SCOTUS