SCOTUS

[Frater I*I]

And receive an immediate presidential pardon.

And the acclaim of the free world..

Except I wouldn't be free of state charges for which that pardon would be useless...

More important would be the betrayal of my oath to the Constitution, which I was taught does not expire when my term of service ends, but when I stop breathing...

[Dave from down under]

Just declare him an enemy combatant... there is a world of wriggle room for those unlike you.

[Foggy]

I have to disagree. I took an oath to support the Constitution, too also, and I consider that oath to still be in effect.

As angry and depressed as I am, we can't lower ourselves to the level of the assholes.

I own a gun. I know how to use it. If the circumstances warrant, I will fight. And this ruling cannot stand, regardless who wins in November.

But I need to know I am following the Constitution. Declaring judges as enemy combatants is just wrong. Let's do this right.

[bob]

Off Topic

There's little legal authority that an oath is for life.

And it isn't particularly morally persuasive, either. SCOTUS justices take an oath, and they undoubtedly would say their oaths led them to this conclusion.

Countless RWNJs claim their oaths "require" them to treat Biden as a domestic enemy.

Heck, Terry Lakin wrote a book ("Officer's Oath") about how his oath "required" him to go full birther.

"My oath" is a method to justify one's beliefs, and not an appeal to a universal truth.

[raison de arizona]

This is a really interesting insight from NPR's Nina Totenberg about the personal history of the Supreme Court conservatives and their perspectives on presidential power.

[raison de arizona]

https://x.com/bryanbehar/status/1808198106196201533

Liberal justices: By granting immunity, a president could order citizens be gunned down in the street.

Conservative justices: What an outrageous example.

Former Sec. Def. Mark Esper: “Trump was suggesting that we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.”

[Ben-Prime]

Understood, though fwiw, I was speaking more of the idea that a military officer could still be prosecuted for doing something that is illegal, but for which the order the President could not be prosceuted because while giving the order is not illegal under current SCOTUS theory, actually carrying it out would be. Or am I overthinking this?

I'll defer to our military experts, but my WAG is military personnel could still be prosecuted for fulfilling an illegal order even if the president couldn't be criminally prosecuted for giving it.

And, in many jurisdictions, duress is not a defense to murder. So if the president not-so-hypothetically says, "Murder, or I'll have you murdered," the duress of the murder threat you received wouldn't be a recognized defense at your murder criminal trial.

yeahbut that won't happen, tfg'll fire anyone that disobeys his orders, then pardon anyone who does and is brought up on charges.

Which only works for federal crimes.

[p0rtia]

So none of the talking legal heads I've listened to have given a moment to suggest that the lower courts should rebel against a clearly unconstitutional ruling by a clearly corrupt SCOTUS 6.

A few appellate judges have, in the past, occasionally made rulings based on their interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, hinting (or sometimes expressly saying) "SCOTUS got it wrong." And then explaining they took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, and to not SCOTUS. And that they're doing their duty with their ruling, and they expect SCOTUS to say it would be doing its duty if it later overruled.

But these were usually in high-volume fields, like immigration or criminal law. Where one wouldn't expect SCOTUS to step in every time to overrule.

OTOH, official-acts immunity is such a narrow (but critical) area that the average judge never will be called on to adjudicate this area of law. If, in one of those comparatively few cases this issue is raised, well, we shall see. (I expect the D.C. Cir. would be the court to watch most closely.)

But, yes, the point is well taken: Lower courts dispense justice retail, one case at a time. Lower courts are called on to interpret the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS' rulings, and may interpret them differently than the Framers or SCOTUS would have wanted.

Thanks, Bob. Glad to have you addressing this subject. I've been flipping through my pods and papers trying to find a legal head who is talking about what to do. They're tall talking about how horrible it is, and how horrible it's going to be, and how we're all fucked now. They all take it as a done deal--a magic wand that has cast an un-removable spell on the country. I get that a lot of lawyers are having fun trying to work it out (that's why I love lawyers: the compulsion to parse), but they sound like they're all perfectly happy to live in an authoritarian monarchy as long as they can organize the details.

Anyway, I hope there is a revolution in the judiciary. I hope Merchan doesn't toss the Bragg case because evidence includes convo's between king fuckhead and various underings, which must submit to the presumption* of immunity, etc. I really hope that.

[bob]

I hope Merchan doesn't toss the Bragg case because evidence includes convo's between king fuckhead and various underings, which must submit to the presumption* of immunity, etc. I really hope that.

Mind you, the judges who say, "SCOTUS got it wrong" tend to be life-tenured federal judges.

State judges (especially trial court judges) have many overseers. Having said that, I think Merchan can craft a ruling that says, "Even indulging the application of the official-acts doctrine to the case, the pre-2017-inauguration evidence alone still supports the jury's verdict ("beyond a reasonable doubt")."

In other words, there's a relatively easy road to acknowledge SCOTUS' ruling but concluding it doesn't affect the verdict.

[RTH10260]

Question: can someone formulate a potential "official act" in ths hush money case? Can "protecting a potus" from bad publicity be construed as a "official act"?

[neonzx]

Didn't the hush money occur during the campaign? He wasn't president so not an official act.

[raison de arizona]

Didn't the hush money occur during the campaign? He wasn't president so not an official act.

The reimbursement of Cohen happened while he was President. Hope Hicks testified. There were some tweets that were introduced from his period as President, IIRC. The verdict is in danger.

[p0rtia]

Well I'll be a ring-tailed monkey.

Glen Kirschner, Esq, just brought up the issue of defying the immunity ruling. He is angry. He raised the issue of what we are going to do, and if we are just going to roll over. He ended by saying something like, "this is a delicate question...I'm going to be pondering...but I'm not getting on any god-damned cattle car."

I take that to be a declaration of defiance.

[p0rtia]

I hope Merchan doesn't toss the Bragg case because evidence includes convo's between king fuckhead and various underings, which must submit to the presumption* of immunity, etc. I really hope that.

Mind you, the judges who say, "SCOTUS got it wrong" tend to be life-tenured federal judges.

State judges (especially trial court judges) have many overseers. Having said that, I think Merchan can craft a ruling that says, "Even indulging the application of the official-acts doctrine to the case, the pre-2017-inauguration evidence alone still supports the jury's verdict ("beyond a reasonable doubt")."

In other words, there's a relatively easy road to acknowledge SCOTUS' ruling but concluding it doesn't affect the verdict.

I've been hoping at least for that.

Now do Chutkan. I think she has to rule everything is private and the charges stand. Let them overturn it; they're going to anyway.

[Maybenaut]

Understood, though fwiw, I was speaking more of the idea that a military officer could still be prosecuted for doing something that is illegal, but for which the order the President could not be prosceuted because while giving the order is not illegal under current SCOTUS theory, actually carrying it out would be. Or am I overthinking this?

I'll defer to our military experts, but my WAG is military personnel could still be prosecuted for fulfilling an illegal order even if the president couldn't be criminally prosecuted for giving it.

And, in many jurisdictions, duress is not a defense to murder. So if the president not-so-hypothetically says, "Murder, or I'll have you murdered," the duress of the murder threat you received wouldn't be a recognized defense at your murder criminal trial.

Yes. Military members have a duty to disobey unlawful orders. The President’s immunity doesn’t render the order lawful; it merely renders the President immune from prosecution for having given it.

And while the defense of duress is generally recognized in military law, there is an exception - it doesn’t apply in the case of “the killing of an innocent person.” (Rule for Court-Martial 916(e)).

edited: typo

[bob]

The reimbursement of Cohen happened while he was President. Hope Hicks testified. There were some tweets that were introduced from his period as President, IIRC. The verdict is in danger.

I think it is possible but not probable that the jury's findings will be tossed.

I'm more concerned that the uncertainty will cause the court (or a court above it, which includes SCOTUS) to delay enforcement of the sentence until all appeals are exhausted (which includes SCOTUS).

* * *

Now do Chutkan. I think she has to rule everything is private and the charges stand. Let them overturn it; they're going to anyway.

I think Chutkan will complete the task at hand: allows some charges and evidence while excluding others.

Then there will be another appeal, and the D.C. Cir. will completely (or at least mostly) affirm.

And SCOTUS will say, "No, not like that," and restart the process. Justice delayed, etc.

[RTH10260]

The reimbursement of Cohen happened while he was President. Hope Hicks testified. There were some tweets that were introduced from his period as President, IIRC. The verdict is in danger.

I think it is possible but not probable that the jury's findings will be tossed.

I'm more concerned that the uncertainty will cause the court (or a court above it, which includes SCOTUS) to delay enforcement of the senrence until all appeals are exhausted (which includes SCOTUS).

When Judge Merchan does not find any presidential immunities, or denies immunity for any with some potential, I sincerely would want tp see this taken up to SCOTUS and see if they even will take the case. If they take the case to save Teh Donald then they will need to define what comprises a official act in this specific case.

Did the former guy just ask for a general review in light of this SCOTUS ruling, or did they propose what acts would fall under immunity? Will Merchan ask defendant for a statement?

[bob]

Did the former guy just ask for a general review in light of this SCOTUS ruling, or did they propose what acts would fall under immunity? Will Merchan ask defendant for a statement?

The criminal defendant has moved to vacate due to SCOTUS' ruling. The prosecutor essentially agreed that more briefing is necessary.

So I expect the trial court eventually will deny the motion to vacate. It likely then will announce the sentence. I have doubts it will impose the sentence; my WAG is it rather will stay the sentence pending appeal.

[p0rtia]

Can't we take it as a given that as long as the SCOTUS 6 reign, king fuckhead will never run out of appeals, and never serve any sentence?

[Slim Cognito]

[bob]

Can't we take it as a given that as long as the SCOTUS 6 reign, king fuckhead will never run out of appeals, and never serve any sentence?

I wouldn't say "given," but I'll take the over on that, unfortunately.

The easy path (for him) is to run out the clock until he wins the election (or "wins" the election).

The harder path is if he loses. Then the goal would be to run out the clock until there's no one to sentence (NADT).

"Expand the court!" won't happen without retaking the House, holding the Senate, and the fortitude to kill the filibuster. A trifecta I don't foresee happening.

[raison de arizona]

ISO Deadline WH footage of Figliuzzi, Brennan, et al from today.
https://x.com/DanielleLangWa/status/1808620695259394092

“I view the Supreme Court as a national security issue.”

Frank Figliuzzi, Former Asst Director for Counterintelligence for the FBI

He said this in response to Nicole Wallace’s question (while on the subject of SCOTUS and National Security): “We’re talking about an ex-president who incited a deadly insurrection across the street… who stole classified documents, and refused to give them back. What is your best theory of the case and what happened here?”

Figliuzzi:

“Look, I’m not going to sugarcoat this. I view the Supreme Court as a national security issue…. The reason we’re dissenting so much is they did things they didn’t have to do…. They gave him more than he asked for.

So what do I conclude here? There is an agenda among some of the Supreme Court justices. And quite frankly, when they speak privately to organizations… after a few drinks… we hear the agenda.

Samuel Alito believes that America is going to hell in a hand basket and we need to take a more theocratic approach to running the country. Even Amy Coney Barrett, she had to run off and write her own summary and decision, but she came from what is essentially a cult like background where the cult had to approve who she married. You can’t tell me this is not an agenda.”

[RTH10260]

Analysis

Trump would be free to obstruct justice in second term after immunity ruling
Supreme court decision means Trump could freely abuse “core” presidential functions without accountability

Hugo Lowell in Washington
Thu 4 Jul 2024 12.24 CEST

When the special counsel Robert Mueller testified to Congress in 2019 about the Russia investigation, he said he believed Donald Trump could be charged with obstructing his investigation after he left office. The US supreme court has effectively ruled this week that would no longer be true.

The testimony before the House judiciary committee was to do with whether Trump had committed obstruction of justice in trying to fire Mueller to end the investigation into his contacts with Russia before the 2016 election.

The supreme court ruling on Monday held that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for what it described as “core executive functions” – constitutionally vested powers that, most notably, included discussions between a president and justice department officials.

A special counsel such as Mueller is widely seen to be part of the justice department. As a result, applying the supreme court ruling, it would have been within Trump’s prerogative to fire Mueller and then escape prosecution because he was absolutely immune.

The supreme court’s decision on immunity is notable not just for the immediate ramifications for Trump’s criminal case in Washington, on charges that he sought to subvert the results of the 2020 election, which is now set to have large parts excised.

It also paves the way for Trump to be more unencumbered in a potential second term: Trump and his advisers would be free to capitalize on the expansion of presidential power to foreclose accountability for what might otherwise have been considered criminal acts.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the conservative majority, rejected the notion that presidents were made tantamount to monarchs, adding that presidents require special status because they might otherwise be chilled in decision-making if they feared prosecution after office.

“The president is a branch of government, and the constitution vests in him sweeping powers and duties,” Roberts wrote. “Accounting for that reality … does not place him above the law; it preserves the basic structure of the constitution from which that law derives.”

But the supreme court ruling nonetheless solidifies an increase in executive authority that will be beyond the reach of Congress or the courts.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/art ... g-analysis?

[raison de arizona]

This takes on a new meaning given how th ruling turned out.

LISTEN: “Wasn’t the whole point that the president is not supposed to be a monarch above the law?”

Trump’s lawyer tells Kagan Trump is immune because the fake electors were done in his official capacity and also a president ordering a coup is maybe #4thofJuly

[raison de arizona]

Perfectly legal, as it turns out, not sure why they are hounding him.