The Supreme Court Wrecking Ball (and state balls too)

[GrantDawg]

The Presidential Immunity case decision will be announced today. Predictions?


My guess: They will grant partial immunity with some kind of litmus test that will have lots of room for judges discretion and kick it back to the presiding judge for a new hearing. They will create an avenue that delays any kind of trial of criminal acts dealing with President for years and numerous appeals all at the discretion of the court.

[BYU 14]

Not sure how it may go, but I promise Clarence Thomas will rule in Trumps favor. He doesn't even try and disguise his political bias behind law anymore.

Quite honestly Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett have both been pleasant surprises at times, putting politics aside, as Brown-Jackson has on the liberal side. Gonna be a lot of pressure to tow the political line on this one though, so we will see.

[Edward64]

CNBC says the ruling has been released. We'll know soon enough. Exciting times ...

[Jas_lov]

Looked like they said 6-3 that he's immune from official acts but not unofficial. Didn't we already know that? Now it will go back to the lower court who will rule J6 was an unofficial act and it'll get appealed back up and delayed for years.

[Lathum]

Right wing media going to scream he’s immune when he isn’t. This court is so crooked.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Looked like they said 6-3 that he's immune from official acts but not unofficial. Didn't we already know that? Now it will go back to the lower court who will rule J6 was an unofficial act and it'll get appealed back up and delayed for years.

Isn't an official act writing a presidential order to lock up your rivals?

[cuervo72]

“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

Richard Nixon, 1974

Affirmed, US Supreme Court, 2024

— John W. Dean (@JohnWDean) July 1, 2024

[larrymcg421]

Not just immune from core constitutional power actions, but given a presumption of immunity for actions that fall within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.

[Atocep]

This likely doesn't change either case against him. Definitely not the documents case. The issue is the delays for this helped him immensely.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Saul Goode

Isn't an official act writing a presidential order to lock up your rivals?

Depends. If he uses his own private goons to lock up his rivals, it would not be an officiial act. If he uses law enforcement, it's an official act.

[Toddzilla]

Biden needs to start getting into some shit ASAP

[Toddzilla]

Say, as a matter of national security, he rounds up and jails the 6 conservative supreme court justices. it's legal now, right?

[RainMaker]

What is stopping him from paying off every single federal student loan?

[Thomkal]

So here's a legal look at what's available in the jan 6 and false electors cases now that the Supreme Court has ruled. it's in flow charts for 'easy' understanding:


x.com

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Say, as a matter of national security, he rounds up and jails the 6 conservative supreme court justices. it's legal now, right?

Yeah he can just march right up to the Supreme Court and citizen arrest on all 6. They are clearly treasonous now right? It's the President's duty to protect the Constitution right?

[Toddzilla]

If it's the realm of official conduct - as protecting national security is - presumptive immunity means he could basically execute all of them and not have to worry about anything.

That's part of what makes this decision so mind-blowing and counter to basically everything the founding fathers put in place from step one. SCOTUS didn't define what "official conduct" is and leaves it wide open for a president to do whatever the are inclined to do in the name of "official conduct".

That's why Biden needs to really fuck shit up from now until January, show everyone what the decision really means.

[Thomkal]

See lots of people posting on twitter that as an 'official act" President Biden can now announce an executive order that no convicted felons can become President. There the Trump problem handled nicely by the Supreme Court

[Ksyrup]

I'm not sure I'm understanding all these examples people keep throwing out. The case was about immunity from prosecution, not legality of action. If the President acts unlawfully in his official capacity, the act will likely not stand. He just can't be prosecuted for taking the action.

[RainMaker]

If you can't be prosecuted for something, how is it illegal?

[Brian Swartz]

Yep. I'm with RainMaker on this one. The idea of Biden just going nuts is destructive, it's kind of like hitting the accelerator when you are heading towards a cliff. But it's now officially the law of the land that the person responsible for enforcing the law (among many other things) is above the law.

It's banana-republic territory. 100% in 'makes me ashamed to be an American' zone.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you can't be prosecuted for something, how is it illegal?

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.

Adding on to that, wouldn't an illegal command, while not allowing the President to be legally liable, open up anyone following it to possible persecution?

[cuervo72]

Prosecuted by an executive-led DOJ? Of someone I assume the president could pardon?

[JPhillips]

That Trump two days ago posted that Liz Cheney should be arrested and face a military tribunal and yesterday SCOTUS said it was totally cool for a President to tell the AG who to investigate and prosecute should be getting more coverage.

All of the legal framework is there and this time Trump will appoint the right people to make shit happen.

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.

Trump is a monster. He would have unfettered power. The way cops love authoritarian monsters, he 100% would find some that would do his bidding. Why do you think when Hitler gained a little bit of power, he just wanted control of the police and military?

[Saul Goode]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That Trump two days ago posted that Liz Cheney should be arrested and face a military tribunal and yesterday SCOTUS said it was totally cool for a President to tell the AG who to investigate and prosecute should be getting more coverage.

All of the legal framework is there and this time Trump will appoint the right people to make shit happen.

You should believe the fascists when they tell you who they actually are.

[larrymcg421]

The majority focuses so much on Federalist 70 where Hamilton talks about an "energetic executive" like they're an AP Gov student who crammed before the exam and learned the bare minimum about each document.

However, Sotomayor rightly points out this excerpt from Federalist 69...

"The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."

This decision is worse and worse than the more you look at it.

[JPhillips]

Just reading how this decision will almost certainly toss out the NY convictions. Some of the evidence came from Trump's time as President and that's now been determined to be unusable. Since there's no way to know what evidence the jury relied upon the convictions probably get tossed. NY could try again, but not before the election.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

The majority focuses so much on Federalist 70 where Hamilton talks about an "energetic executive" like they're an AP Gov student who crammed before the exam and learned the bare minimum about each document.

However, Sotomayor rightly points out this excerpt from Federalist 69...

"The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law."

This decision is worse and worse than the more you look at it.

Of course he wasn't convicted and wasn't removed from office due to the impeachment. (I mean, I get it, but at the same time, that's going to come up as an argument.)

[Lathum]

Trump sentencing postponed in NY because of the immunity ruling. What an absolute disaster our courts have become.

[Ksyrup]

That's because the SC ruling might invalidate the conviction. As I understand it, some of the evidence used at trial involved acts taken while he was President. As ridiculous as it is, now everything becomes a question of official or not.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.

Why not? The President is Commander in Chief and commands the military. Why would he not be able to hold Fauci in a military prison indefinitely? Someone would have to defy his orders as Commander in Chief to release Fauci.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why not? The President is Commander in Chief and commands the military. Why would he not be able to hold Fauci in a military prison indefinitely? Someone would have to defy his orders as Commander in Chief to release Fauci.

Exactly. People need to stop acting like there is any semblance of normalcy with Trump and his sycophants.

I have heard a lot of "he can't or won't do that" being said about this when Trump has shown us over and over he is more than willing to defy what the office should entail.

[JPhillips]

There will be legal opinions from Trump folks that say it's legal.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

There will be legal opinions from Trump folks that say it's legal.

But they don't need to make it legal. If you can't be prosecuted or held accountable for committing a crime, it's legal. There is nothing that can stop you.

[JPhillips]

The opinions will get the feet on the ground to do the dirty work. Just like with the Abu-Ghraib torture.

[cartman]

so basically the Supreme Court turned the presidency into the one ring, but there is no Mount Doom to drop it into. So the choice comes down to picking who will do the least damage holding it.

[RainMaker]

I know this goes back a ways but I think the al-Awlaki killing will be a flashpoint for what happens in the future. It was an extreme example, but once you allow for a President to commit extrajudicial killings of American citizens, it's tough to go back.

[PilotMan]

Don't worry guys. The blacks and browns will still go to jail. Nothing to worry about. /s

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I'm not sure I'm understanding all these examples people keep throwing out. The case was about immunity from prosecution, not legality of action. If the President acts unlawfully in his official capacity, the act will likely not stand. He just can't be prosecuted for taking the action.

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

There are certain acts that can't be undone, of course - like murder - but there is absolutely a difference between being immune from prosecution and the act itself not being proper. Immunity just means someone is free from the consequences of the action. So if he ordered the military to jail Fauci on Day 1 of Term 2, that doesn't means Fauci stays in jail. But it does mean Trump can't be prosecuted for any criminal act he committed in ordering Fauci jailed.

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Adding on to that, wouldn't an illegal command, while not allowing the President to be legally liable, open up anyone following it to possible persecution?

This article mines some of the territory I was trying to get at. It doesn't mean we're in a good place, of course, and the SC could absolutely affirm or deny conduct on a purely political basis, but there's definitely something to the idea that this doesn't just allow the underlying action to be considered legal (although, again, a death is a death and can't be undone).

Just a moment...

Richard Fallon, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School, argued the ruling does not leave presidential power completely unchecked. Lawless presidential conduct can still be prevented or unraveled by other parts of the Constitution — for instance, if a president illegally imprisoned a political enemy, that person would be entitled to a court order to go free.

President Joe Biden “is fettered in just the way the presidents were fettered the day before yesterday,” he said.

But the extraordinary scenario of an assassination ordered by the president would be different, Fallon acknowledged. It couldn’t be undone after the fact.

“The only thing that the law can do is impose criminal punishment,” he said — but the president would be immune.

The biggest challenge for a president ordering an assassination would be finding military personnel willing to carry out the order, legal experts explained. While the president himself would have the protection of immunity, others involved would remain vulnerable to prosecution because the Supreme Court’s decision doesn’t make the underlying act legal.

“If they are given an illegal order by the president or by someone who is directly answering the president, they may be in a position that they are subject to court martial in either direction,” said Claire Finkelstein, a professor of national security law at the University of Pennsylvania.

A lawless president, however, could get around that problem by promising to pardon anyone who carried out his orders.

Finkelstein, who submitted an amicus brief in Trump’s case alongside 14 other national security professionals, warned that such a Catch-22 would create dangerous confusion within the military’s chain of command, undermining its necessary discipline and order.

Current and former military officials appeared to agree.

“Every situation has to be assessed on its own merit,” Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder said. “If you are a military leader, you are going to have the benefit of consulting counsel or policy makers in terms of whether an order or decision is legal, ethical or moral. That won’t change.”

A former senior Department of Defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters, said the military won’t obey illegal orders. “It doesn’t matter where it comes from.”

[cuervo72]

Right Mr. former DoD official. Never mind that Trump has specifically said he wants "his Generals" in place. Wonder why that is...

[Ksyrup]

Yep, that's definitely a further guardrail down if they put enough "true believers" in key places.

Hopefully these people begin to pay attention to how many people doing Trump's bidding go down, while he stands tall. Of course, in this case, it may be people willing to be martyrs for the cause and it won't make a difference to them. A new kind of kamikaze or terrorist.

[Ghost Econ]

But if anything the President does while acting as President is legal, then any act requested by the President would have to be considered legal... so there is no act they're prevented from carrying out.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

But if anything the President does while acting as President is legal, then any act requested by the President would have to be considered legal... so there is no act they're prevented from carrying out.

It creates an issue for commanders. UCMJ still prohibits murder and it would be seen as an unlawful order by anyone other than the absolute Trumpiest of the Trumpers.

Trump would require punishment to through congress but a military officer would still be court martialed if it is determined it was an unlawful order.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Ghost Econ

But if anything the President does while acting as President is legal, then any act requested by the President would have to be considered legal... so there is no act they're prevented from carrying out.

That's what I'm talking about - that's not what the court held. There's a difference between immunity from prosecution and whether the act is legal or illegal. His being immune does not make the act legal.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Atocep

It creates an issue for commanders. UCMJ still prohibits murder and it would be seen as an unlawful order by anyone other than the absolute Trumpiest of the Trumpers.

Trump would require punishment to through congress but a military officer would still be court martialed if it is determined it was an unlawful order.

And then there are also state and local laws that a Presidential pardon would not cover.

[JPhillips]

How do you determine whether or not an act is illegal if motive and evidence from the President or advisers is not permitted to be brought to trial? Not that I'm worried this will happen a lot, but couldn't the President say national security, classified, and be done with it?

And I'm not sure that prohibition on evidence won't end up covering those acting on orders of the President. I can definitely see this SCOTUS making that decision.

[PilotMan]

I read a right leaning article this morning that took the immunity opinion that Roberts wrote and used it to deflower the Mueller investigation. The final point being that the opinion basically proved that everything the dems were doing was just an attack on trump because they didn't like him, because the entire opinion basically legalized every single thing that trump did that got him impeached the first time, and further, would have nullified almost all of the points that Mueller made in the furtherance of the investigation.


So there's one totally expected outcome of the decision. That sort of presidential blackmail will now be full legal, and totally beyond investigation. It also basically nailed down that barring something incredible, there's almost no way for a future president to be impeached.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

I read a right leaning article this morning that took the immunity opinion that Roberts wrote and used it to deflower the Mueller investigation. The final point being that the opinion basically proved that everything the dems were doing was just an attack on trump because they didn't like him, because the entire opinion basically legalized every single thing that trump did that got him impeached the first time, and further, would have nullified almost all of the points that Mueller made in the furtherance of the investigation.


So there's one totally expected outcome of the decision. That sort of presidential blackmail will now be full legal, and totally beyond investigation. It also basically nailed down that barring something incredible, there's almost no way for a future president to be impeached.

Yes, but no. Yes, any impeachment investigation or trial is going to use the decision as justification to say basically that a President is above the law. But no, because Congress decides what are "crimes and misdemeanors" in regards to impeachment, not the courts. Impeachment is a political act, not a judicial act. The Supreme Court has no power to overturn an impeachment, though they can road-block the congress from being able to investigate. That is an interesting legal question to me. Congress by the Constitution has an over-sight power. Does the decision saying anything a President says to another federal officer in his official capacity is unusable in court mean that is also beyond a congressional committee can ask? Is the Supreme Court completely neutering the Congress in their oversight capacity?

[Brian Swartz]

That question seems fairly clear to me, unless there's something I'm not informed about.

A legal prosecution is one thing. An impeachment is another thing. I don't see this as stopping Congressional authority to impeach.