SCOTUS

[p0rtia]

From May 23:

So am I the only one who thinks SCROTUS is going to side with fuckhead on the immunity issue?

I fucking hate being right. The spurt of triumph / I told you so juice is not enough compensation. I fucking hate this.

[raison de arizona]

We are not a nation of laws. Latest Elie Mystal.

The President Can Now Assassinate You, Officially
Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable.

Welp, Donald Trump won. The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.”

Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, and stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office.

https://www.thenation.com/article/socie ... eme-court/

[p0rtia]

I continue to adore Andrew Weissman, who started the day with a verbal battle royal with the human drone (as in bee), Chuck Rosenberg about the level of alarm appropriate to the immunity ruling, and who just told the unstoppable Chatty Cathy, Chris Jansen, in passing, that he doesn't consider the USA a functioning democracy at this point.

[bob]

Just skipping over everything to the end for this Question:

Did SCOTUS define what a official acts is, cause I do not see anything different to before?

They say it's for other courts to decide, then they have the option to review if asked.

And recall, gentle listener, that in the New York prosecution there was some (but not very much) evidence of acts committed after January 20, 2017.

Will this be enough to undo the New York conviction? Probably not. But enough to create delay? Quite possible.

[raison de arizona]

Geez, too bad this guy wasn't around for this ruling.

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in September 2018:

“Under the Constitution, the president is not above the law. No one is above the law…The president remains subject to the law.”

[raison de arizona]

On re-reading the decision, I’m all the more convinced that the blow is a devastating one — a “5-alarm fire that threatens to consume democratic self-government,” to quote Justice Jackson’s powerful dissent.

"This is a devastating blow to our system of government."

WATCH: @tribelaw reacts to today's Supreme Court ruling and how it could derail Trump's cases in DC, GA, FL

[Slim Cognito]

We had a good run.

The Roman Empire lasted longer than we did

[raison de arizona]

https://x.com/RepAdamSchiff/status/1807829849144254856

Today’s Supreme Court decision on Donald Trump’s immunity claim is far worse than anything I imagined...

Effectively giving a president immunity for any crimes committed while in office as long as that president can plausibly claim the action was taken in some form of official capacity.

It must now be presumed that the president, as king, is immune from accountability.

► Show Spoiler

The rule of law applies to everyone except the most powerful person on Earth.

It would be difficult to overstate how much this opinion shifts the balance of power away from Congress and towards the presidency, and how unshackled a corrupt president will now be. The Court gives the president absolute power, and it will corrupt him, absolutely.

As Justice Sotomayor says so powerfully, this new immunity ‘now lies about like a loaded weapon’ for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.’

The Court holds that when a president acts within his ‘core’ authority, he is fully immune.

And when he acts outside his core authority, but in an official capacity, the presumption of immunity is so strong as to be nearly absolute.

Even if he acts in a purely personal capacity, and the Court majority gives no indication of when that would be, his statements while acting officially may not be used as evidence, and his motives may not be questioned.

Having taken up a case they never should have, having waited until the last day to issue the opinion, having known it was the defendant’s strategy to deny justice by delaying it, the Court now remands the case for further proceedings of indeterminate length, ensuring there will be no accountability for Trump’s insurrectionist crimes before the election.

During his abortive coup attempt, Trump told his acting attorney general and other top Justice Department officials to ‘just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.’

Now the Supreme Court says he is immune from ordering his Justice Department to lie, and the evidence of his malice, his very words, may not be used as evidence against him.

Under this ruling, a president can order the assassination or jailing of their political rival, and be immune. They can take a bribe in exchange for an official act, and still be immune. They can organize a military coup to hold onto power, and still be immune. If that sounds mad, that’s because it is.

This is a day that will live in legal infamy.

When justices on the Court that bears Roberts’ name, paid back their appointment by a corrupt president with an opinion that provides immunity to all corrupt presidents, and weakened our democracy and the rule of law for the ages.

Our only remedy is the ballot box, a new congress, and a new Court — that has more reverence for the Constitution than the lust for power.

(Emphasis in original.)

[raison de arizona]

Too bad we didn't have this dude on the court for the latest ruling.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006:

“There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.”

[raison de arizona]

if there is no crime, how can there be an impeachment?
https://x.com/ElieNYC/status/1807823369988936143

Here's a question: Why would any president ever be impeached now? If presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution for "high crimes," then what's the theory of a future impeachment? "The President is allowed to do this, but we don't like it"?

[bob]

Another good point: SCOTUS effectively blessed a self-pardon.

[raison de arizona]

News: [Bernie] Sanders statement, "The Supreme Court is Out of Control"

► Show Spoiler

[bob]

And, "for fun":

[Rolodex]

I'm going to misquote Twain here: I don't advocate killing anyone, but there are some obituaries I wouldn't mind reading about rather soon.

[Frater I*I]

We had a good run.

The Roman Empire lasted longer than we did

Their republic lasted longer than ours...

We have now entered the age of The American Empire, under the benevolent stewardship of Emperors Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and Barrett...

Ave Imperators!!!!!

[Uninformed]

Although the body of the article somewhat more accurately reflects the possible ramifications of the SCOTUS ruling this is how the headline they chose.

“Trump has some immunity from prosecution, Supreme Court rules”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czrrv8yg3nvo

ETA. I’ve always believed that the UK’s way of selecting the judiciary was both anachronistic and somewhat corrupt / biased towards the status quo / establishment and still do, but I do not believe that any court in the UK would issue such a ruling (well not yet anyway).

[John Thomas8]

This is the 2nd time since 2000 I am so sad I'm not the commander of the Old Guard.

Sigh.

[RTH10260]

Follow-up question:

Does this immunity ruling override the impeachment powers of Congress?

[RTH10260]

Follow-up on the follow-up question:

Can an POTUS now sign a illegal Executive Order and have it take effect, eg does immunity carry over to the rules? How can federal judges declare such an EO invalid even though it was an immune action?

[raison de arizona]

Too bad this guy wasn't there with the latest SCOTUS decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” (Sept. 2005)

[bob]

Does this immunity ruling override the impeachment powers of Congress?

Technically, no, as impeachment always have been inherently political. But no president is going to be impeached in light of this ruling.

Can an POTUS now sign a illegal Executive Order and have it take effect, eg does immunity carry over to the rules? How can federal judges declare such an EO invalid even though it was an immune action?

Courts could still invalidate the order while not permitting the president to be prosecuted for issuing such an order. (And no sitting president was going to be prosecuted anyway.)

[chancery]

Immunity from criminal prosecution is separate from the legality of presidential action.

So in theory, if the president issues an executive order that his term was extended to eight years, a court could invalidate the order as unlawful, although the president probably couldn't be prosecuted after his term. I say probably, because no one knows what is and isn't an official presidential act.

[bob]

I say probably, because no one knows what is and isn't an official presidential act.

Or how to prove up a non-official-presidential act, according to the new evidentiary rules SCOTUS just made up.

[p0rtia]

So what y'all are saying without saying, is that the SCOTUS Six have seized power in the former USA. They have the final say in everything; they have no responsibility to remain consistent; they are free to throw out previous laws.

Huh.

[raison de arizona]

Wow, bet this guy feels pretty dumb about now.

Mitch McConnell, Feb. 2021: “Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one”