I think SCOTUS ruling on Presidential Immunity ends the American Experiment

[Jon]

It wasn't an official act, and it won't hold up as such. An honest reading of the opinion would show that clearly.

and who exactly do you expect to give this an "honest reading"?

 

[AWRTR]

and who exactly do you expect to give this an "honest reading"?

Now we are to the point that no judge on any level will give an honest ruling related to the decision. If that is the case then let's just close down the shop and go our separate ways. The new currency will be bullets and green beans.

 

[Jon]

Now we are to the point that no judge on any level will give an honest ruling related to the decision. If that is the case then let's just close down the shop and go our separate ways. The new currency will be bullets and green beans.

ultimately it ends up a Supreme Court that we know is not impartial. So yeah you summed it up fairly nicely

 

[AWRTR]

The Supreme Court ruled that Trump has immunity for official acts. Here's what happens next.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that former presidents are entitled to immunity from federal prosecution for official acts. Here's what that means for former President Donald Trump.

www.cbsnews.com

This article breaks down the three classifications pretty well, and the process for determining what basket actions will fall into.

 

[AWRTR]

ultimately it ends up a Supreme Court that we know is not impartial. So yeah you summed it up fairly nicely

Here is where we are. SCOTUS has now become a political target just like elected officials. This is all reasonably new. If they make a decision a side likes then it's look at how good this ruling is, and if they make a decision a side doesn't like then look how partisan and awful they are. I'm pro-life, and didn't support Roe v. Wade, but that decision didn't make the court impartial or rogue. It was what they decided. They had to do something to set guidelines for how the process of deciding presidential immunity would work. The cat is out of the bag and we will see presidents charged with crimes going forward. It won't be just Trump. Partisan DA's and AG's will charge presidents. If he's alive when he leaves office there is a decent chance Biden will be charged with something and the same for whoever comes after him. We need a framework to help judges make decisions on what is and isn't an official duty.

 

[Jon]

Here is where we are. SCOTUS has now become a political target just like elected officials. This is all reasonably new. If they make a decision a side likes then it's look at how good this ruling is, and if they make a decision a side doesn't like then look how partisan and awful they are. I'm pro-life, and didn't support Roe v. Wade, but that decision didn't make the court impartial or rogue. It was what they decided. They had to do something to set guidelines for how the process of deciding presidential immunity would work. The cat is out of the bag and we will see presidents charged with crimes going forward. It won't be just Trump. Partisan DA's and AG's will charge presidents. If he's alive when he leaves office there is a decent chance Biden will be charged with something and the same for whoever comes after him. We need a framework to help judges make decisions on what is and isn't an official duty.

I think Biden should, as an official act, lock up Trump and all of the senators and Congress people involved in January 6th. Their acts were treasonous and should be considered as such. It's official and all good. We can have special elections to replace everyone. Have them share a cell with Steve Bannon

 

[dtgreg]

Hell, he could have just ordered the military to kill them or the FBI to arrest them.

He tried to order his Attorney General to fire the Special Prosecutor that was investigating Watergate and the guy resigned. His OWN AG, a Republican, resigned rather than commit an illegal act. So did Nixon's own Deputy AG. All Republicans. Trump's people are now promising to overrule the will of the voters if they have sway in the various States' legislatures. I believe this will be found to be legal by SCOTUS. Russia wins.

Saturday Night Massacre

 

[AWRTR]

I think Biden should, as an official act, lock up Trump and all of the senators and Congress people involved in January 6th. Their acts were treasonous and should be considered as such. It's official and all good. We can have special elections to replace everyone. Have them share a cell with Steve Bannon

Fine, charge them with insurrection get warrants or indictments as needed and throw them all in jail. Heck, don't even get warrants. Just send Seal Team Six and let them arrest all of them. Let's just melt the whole thing down. I'm here for it. Then when a Republican is in office he or she can "officially" throw all of the people that threw those people in jail in jail and pardon the first group. Then we can do it all over again. Let's do it!

 

[Go Bama]

Fine, charge them with insurrection get warrants or indictments as needed and throw them all in jail. Heck, don't even get warrants. Just send Seal Team Six and let them arrest all of them. Let's just melt the whole thing down. I'm here for it. Then when a Republican is in office he or she can "officially" throw all of the people that threw those people in jail in jail and pardon the first group. Then we can do it all over again. Let's do it!

This is what I'm afraid will happen. I give Sotomayor credit for knowing what she's talking about. I hope she is dead wrong, and this will just provide some guardrails for the presidency. However, I fear the worst.

 

[Jon]

Fine, charge them with insurrection get warrants or indictments as needed and throw them all in jail. Heck, don't even get warrants. Just send Seal Team Six and let them arrest all of them. Let's just melt the whole thing down. I'm here for it. Then when a Republican is in office he or she can "officially" throw all of the people that threw those people in jail in jail and pardon the first group. Then we can do it all over again. Let's do it!

glad you are embracing the absurdity that is this ruling

 

[92tide]

However, I fear the worst.

the reality of the past 8 years supports this conclusion

 

[AWRTR]

glad you are embracing the absurdity that is this ruling

I'm embracing some absurdity alright.

 

[Bamaro]

I think Biden should, as an official act, lock up Trump and all of the senators and Congress people involved in January 6th. Their acts were treasonous and should be considered as such. It's official and all good. We can have special elections to replace everyone. Have them share a cell with Steve Bannon

5 of the 9 on the SC should have recused themselves over anything Jan 6 related so since they didn't and wont, Biden couldn't get away with it even if he wanted, which I'm sure he doesn't.

 

[jthomas666]

5 of the 9 on the SC should have recused themselves over anything Jan 6 related so since they didn't and wont, Biden couldn't get away with it even if he wanted, which I'm sure he doesn't.

I wouldn't say that a justice should have recused simply because they were nominated by Trump--even though it's well-established that fealty to the law isn't particularly high on Trump's nominating criteria.

Thomas absolutely should have recused (let's be honest, he should be off the bench at this point), and knowing what we know now, probably Alito as well. That still leaves us with a 4-3 decision, though it is possible that with Alito and Thomas absent from the discussion, the resulting opinion would have been more restrained.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

This is what I'm afraid will happen. I give Sotomayor credit for knowing what she's talking about. I hope she is dead wrong, and this will just provide some guardrails for the presidency. However, I fear the worst.

Roberts acknowledged the dissenters in his opinion. You might find this interesting.

The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of Jackson, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “ ‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws). An enterprising prosecutor in a new administration may assert that a previous President violated that broad statute. Without immunity, such types of prosecutions of ex-Presidents could quickly become routine. The enfeebling of the Presidency and our Government that would result from such a cycle of factional strife is exactly what the Framers intended to avoid. Ignoring those risks, the dissents are instead content to leave the preservation of our system of separated powers up to the good faith of prosecutors.

Finally, the principal dissent finds it “troubling” that the Court does not “designate any course of conduct alleged in the indictment as private.” Post, at 27. Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, the significant constitutional questions that it raises, its expedited treatment in the lower courts and in this Court, the lack of factual analysis in the lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize the conduct alleged, the principal dissent would go ahead and declare all of it unofficial. The other dissent, meanwhile, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and paradigms of its own concoction and accuses the Court of providing “no meaningful guidance about how to apply [the] new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct.” Post, at 13 (opinion of Jackson, J.). It would have us exhaustively define every application of Presidential immunity. See post, at 13–14. Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. While their confidence may be inspiring, the Court adheres to time-tested practices instead—deciding what is required to dispose of this case and remanding after “revers[ing] on a threshold question,” Zivotofsky, 566 U. S., at 201, to obtain “guidance from the litigants [and] the court below,” Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. 286, 328 (2024) (Sotomayor, J., concurring in judgment).

Opinions are in the link.

 

[AWRTR]

Roberts acknowledged the dissenters in his opinion. You might find this interesting.



Opinions are in the link.

I think he was a little miffed when he was writing that.

 

[Go Bama]

Roberts acknowledged the dissenters in his opinion. You might find this interesting.



Opinions are in the link.

Thanks, Jazz, I read it yesterday.

I guess some time will have to pass to see who is right and who is wrong. I agree that we don't need to get into a cycle of every president getting indicted when he leaves office, but there is no history of that happening. My bigger concern is whether or not this ruling gives the president absolute immunity. If it does, we are in a lot of trouble and so is the rest of the world.

 

[Go Bama]

I think he was a little miffed when he was writing that.

Ya think???

 

[92tide]

kind reminder

Donald Trump’s former Sec. Def. Mark Esper:

“[Trump] was suggesting that…we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.”

Q: “The commander-in-chief was suggesting that the U.S. military shoot protesters?”

Esper: “Yes, in the streets of our nation’s capital.”

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I think he was a little miffed when he was writing that.

Yes, I do believe you are correct. Most of us understand that there is a WWE element in D.C. whereas after a show depicting people brutalizing each other in the ring, they all go off to have steak and beers when they are no longer required to be in character. That will not be the case here.