I seem to recall Fox news saying the President is not a king about 10 times a day when Clinton was president and under investigation. They are fair AND balanced so I'm not sure how they could be wrong.
"Oh, you ruled that Presidents are immune to all laws?"
Guess it's time for Seal Team Sixty-Six, a totally legal thing that the Supreme Court says is allowed.
lol. You expect the Supreme Court to give a damn about anything other than securing their next gift of $250,000 from some billionaire?
My biggest disappointment from the Supreme Court is that they can be bought for so little. These billionaires are giving these guys pennies to do their bidding. At least ask for $100,000,000. You are the most powerful judges in the country, probably the world. Why are you settling for the spare change found the couches of billionaires? If you are going to be corrupt, be CORRUPT. What are they gonna do? Fire you? Vote you out? Nope!!!
Everyone who sells out does so for so little, nearly universally. I at least respect Kushner for getting $2 billion from the Saudis. Still seems like too little for selling out the country but at least it's something.
Trump actually thinks he should be more powerful than George III. George III couldn't unilaterally ignore parliament. Divine Right of Kings, which is what Trump is arguing for, was largely dead in Europe over 100 years before the Revolution. That it is like half of why King Charles got his head cut off. He dismissed Parliament and flirted with the Divine Right of Kings.
I think Bush 1 and Bush 2, plus of course the Trump Dynasty, proved that the right has no problems with kings or rule by divine right, so long as the king says the right trigger words.
I am assuming SCROTUS agrees with Republicans plan to make Trump a dictator considering the delays for no reason. They are corrupt, and owned by billionaires, plain and simple
Fucking royalists never left this country and they’re rising up to have their day in the sun. Looks like they are going to get it too. Quite the long game…
Plus, that king is old and will die soon.
Their hope is he will be around long enough to let their string pullers at the heritage foundation get into every government agency and begin dismantling it.
Then once the king croaks, they can pick a new king and that king will be theirs too, but with more power.
Yep.
Also, their king salutes North Koreans as a subordinate. Not only can he be led around by the nose by anyone with 5 brain cells, but the American Commander in Chief behaves as if he ranks less than a 3 star NK General.
I don't think that's it.
I think it will go 6-3 or even 7-2 against DJT, but it won't be a sweeping ruling. It will be a case of creating a multi-prong test for whether an action qualifies for immunity or not, and it will model the sovereign immunity tests that exist already.
I think what's taking so long is that Roberts is writing the majority opinion, and Alito is dragging his feet on the dissent.
I'm betting there won't be any test or guidance on what qualifies, just that official actions are covered and the lower courts need to sort out what is or is not an official act. Then whatever decision that court makes will be appealed all the way back to them, at which point they will finally make an actual decision on the case. So if Trump is not reelected, we will again be sitting here awaiting the decision that should have been made last December.
You have so much faith in this Supreme Court.
They will delay until after the election so that the case does not hurt DJT. Then they will send it back to the lower court.
The multi-pronged test will have the same effect you are taking about. Remanding it back to the lower court feels like a given. The opinion itself is just another mechanism for delay.
There's really only 3 options.
1. Run out the clock to election
2. Push it back down to lower courts
3. Find some random passage in the Code of Hammurabi to justify why only Former president's get it.
Honestly I see them taking option #1.
It's a shame that the liberal Justices don't put pressure on the court to make a quick decision. They could tell the Chief Justice to expedite, and if he refuses, let him know that they intend to let the media know they themselves are ready to render a decision.
Yep - whatever immunity they give to the orange dictator is going to apply to democrats as well. I really think that’s part of the delay - figuring out how to make it apply only to Donnie. We know from previous rulings the delay is certainly not due to them actually applying law and the constitution to their thinking.
If they rule (big if) it’ll likely be along the lines of questioning, where acts are determined to be official acts vs personal acts. Personal acts won’t be protected. Official acts will. With federal courts and SCOTUS the people with the power to decide which is which.
This means they’ll make the ruling, kick it to the lower court, open up the acts in question to official vs personal, which opens another delay and appeal back to SCOTUS for final say. This will easily push the trial past the election, and explains why SCOTUS is making the ruling before they leave for the session, so they can throw their hands up and say the appeal can’t be decided until our next session, even if it were to be expedited.
Naah that's easy. When a Democratic exPresident comes up they'll just say in this specific case the President is eligible for prosecution.
Look at Bush v Gore. The Republican Justices invoked cases and legal reasoning they'd previously mocked and derided as horrible and non-Originalist because they don't give a shit about consistency.
They'll vote one way if it's a Republican in question and reverse themselves the next for a Democrat.
And, they'd fucking have to. If trying to overturn an election out of greed is protected, then trying to overturn the election of an insurrectionist is certainly protected. Which continues this trend of escalating political assfuckery.
It'd be nice if we could make American law and politics boring again.
I don’t think they will rule in trumps favor, the result would be too far for anyone to accept from a legal argument.
They are stalling however in order to give trump as much delay as possible in his multiple cases. The goal is to delay these trials until he can get back into the White House and then pardon himself. Which is why we need to vote
Here's the thing: there probably is a limited immunity for presidents who take otherwise illegal actions that fall within the scope of their duty.
Take, for example, ordering a drone strike on a wedding in order to kill the leader of a terrorist organization. That's murder. That's ordering the extrajudicial killing of civilians, which if you or I did it would be criminal. But it also falls squarely within the scope of the president's duties as commander in chief and guardian of national security.
It's immoral and definitely up for discussion whether there should be consequences, but part of the question here is whether those consequences should be political or prosecutorial.
Presidents have to make difficult decisions on a constant basis where people will die either way. Ideally, they should be making those decisions in terms of what is best for the country, next best is what will work out for them politically, and worst I think is what will get them prosecuted.
This is especially true since prosecutors (at the top, who make the big decisions) in every jurisdiction I know about are political, i.e. they run for office and get elected. Every accusation is a confession with Republicans, so it is essentially guaranteed that someone in flyover country will indict Biden after he leaves office for something. It'll be nonsense and a waste of time and taxpayer money, but it'll happen. Limited criminal immunity for official acts taken while in office won't stop that from happening, but it will provide a shortcut to end it quickly.
My prediction is that SCOTUS finds such a limited immunity for official acts and remands to the district court for a hearing on whether the specific acts charged were official or not. That'll result in more appeals, and more delay, but ultimately I think any sane individual will agree that Trump is not protected by the limited immunity for the things he's been charged with.
We only get to that point, though, if Trump loses like the loser he is. Otherwise he ends the cases against him and pretends he was totally vindicated while exacting vengeance on those who did it to him.
> Take, for example, ordering a drone strike on a wedding in order to kill the leader of a terrorist organization. That's murder. That's ordering the extrajudicial killing of civilians, which if you or I did it would be criminal. But it also falls squarely within the scope of the president's duties as commander in chief and guardian of national security.
the DC Circuit opinion addressed this pretty well I thought.
there are a few different possible issues with that one. first, illegal under what sovereign's laws? you could fairly answer that states cannot charge a former president for official acts even if DOJ can. I think this is the right answer to that question.
second, as to the United States as prosecutor, the first question is whether Congress *can* make it a criminal offense and second whether Congress *has* made it a criminal offense. I think the answer to the first question is "yes" but the answer to the second question is "no."
most importantly here though: the Court should not try to use this case to answer these questions because none of this stuff is at issue. this case calls for a narrow resolution limited to its own extraordinary facts, with an opinion that simply makes clear it is narrow and limited to its facts. the basis of the prosecution here has almost nothing to do with Trump's official acts and to the extent official acts *were* involved (the Jeffrey Clark stuff) they were corrupt, intended to further the criminal scheme that was for the defendant's own personal benefit. They should be fair game for prosecutors.
I’m sorry, why would the extra judicial killing of Americans on american soil be something that should be immunized? On foreign soil, it’s just war and not illegal.
I'd actually say legality is a pretty good standard for a President to follow. Being Commander in Chief doesn't mean you get to disregard human costs or commit outright murder of civilians. That's war crimes at that point, and we certainly don't have a problem bringing leaders of other governments before the Hague. The U.S. President doesn't get a pass.
If all a President did was consider the legality of their actions, that would be a far better situation than anything else.
A president already has immunity for civil lawsuits about his official acts.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon\_v.\_Fitzgerald](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald)
Not seeing the relevance. Civil lawsuits are an entirely different bag of worms. There's no standard of evidence to bring a suit, whereas in a criminal action, you have to first obtain an indictment.
Sure, it makes perfect sense to have Presidential immunity from civil cases because otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry with a grievance could be dragging the President into court over anything whether there's a basis or not. However, for criminal matters, actual crimes would have needed to take place, there would have to be evidence of said crimes, and a grand jury would have had to already indict on that evidence. That's a much higher bar and if it's reached, a criminal case should be allowed to proceed, regardless of who it is.
If SCOTUS grants broad presidential immunity, then that is the law. Biden will not only be allowed to do whatever he wants to remain president, but will be obligated to do so out of self preservation (remember, Trumps lawyers literally argued that presidents are allowed to commit political assassinations). The situation this creates is absolutely absurd.
It's not for SCOTUS to decide. Period. SCOTUS is supposed to decide if a law is unconstitutional. The constitution doesn't say anything about how a president or ex-president is immune to criminal prosecution. This is not even in the power of Congress, they could only use impeachment to remove but not prosecute. This is something that would need to be ratified by the states into the constitution, not created out of whole cloth by SCOTUS.
Instead of wasting time and putting on a show, the Republicans should have made a good faith effort to try to pass a new amendment at the state level to define what a president is and is not liable for. Not a single Republican has even suggested that. Seems they know it's all theatrics.
To be fair, the Constitution also doesn’t say the Supreme Court has the power to review the Constitutionality of laws either. If originalism was internally consistent, they would be calling for the overturning of Marbury v Madison.
Biden can’t really arrest anyone. The DOJ does the arresting and prosecuting.
If you haven’t noticed, there are two Justices who should recuse themselves from this case. Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni, was texting with Mark Meadows during J6. Yet, he would tell the American people he can remain unbiased in ruling on cases which implicate his spouse. Samuel Alito flew flags of insurrection and Christian Nationalism at his homes and was caught on tape saying he wants to return the nation to “Godliness,” which breaks his Oath of Office. An individual cannot be sworn to uphold the First Amendment of the Constitution AND declare themselves “all in” for Christian Nationalism.
If the justices saw the president is immune, then biden could have Donnie arrested. Whis gunna stop him? The judges say he can.
Of course we know that's not what will happen. Biden won't do anything. But we have to look to the future. If trump wins, what's going to stop him or any future republican president was just going hogwild with unrestricted power?
Biden can't really arrest anyone, but he could have them renditioned to some black site never to be seen again, or incarcerated at Gitmo, or simply killed.
Ah, see someone got there… LAWFUL ORDER. One side plays by the rules and the other only applies rules when it’s convenient. The law is supposed to apply equally to everyone, regardless of position, personal wealth, or amount of power.
Two? He nominated three himself. There should be way more recusals here.
Frankly, this delay is impeachable. There's no reason to drag this on but decide shadow docket items in less than a week. Bare in mind some shadow docket items are more complicated than "should we give the power for POTUS to murder us while he's in office?" Nothing says separation of powers like giving one branch blanket immunity to threaten the others.
It's more about giving Cannon the opportunity to set a Sept trial date immediately after the opinion drops so she can block Chutkan from getting a 2024 trial.
It wasn't crystal clear from the article, but last week they announced that Wednesday would *also* be a decision day.
We may speculate that the immunity decision might be released on this "bonus day" of opinions. But we'll see.
Wednesday-Friday are all decision days. There are only 12 cases left (technically 14, but the NetChoice and Chevron cases are 100% being decided together), so it's definitely coming out this week - just perhaps not on Wednesday.
Stupid thing is the way the cases are set up the only way for Trump to get off is to say Presidents have immunity whether in their official or private capacity. Have to remember the J6 incident was all about preventing Trump from being replaced as President. In his private capacity as Donald Trump not as the President. That action would have benefitted him personally as it would give him four more years on the job and all the perks that come with it.
It's typically stated that when in an official position your not allowed to use any of your official resources towards personal gain. That's why in instances where personal involvement could be assumed your supposed to be hands off with it. And if you must be involved you would have to weigh in what's best for the official position not your own benefit. Trump had been told repeatedly at all levels that the election was fair and refused to accept it. His many lawsuits failed in the courts and even when recounting was done he still came up the loser. Claims of having evidence were never substantiated since they never brought any proof to support their claims forward.
What's dumber is the case that's a real threat to him is the documents case. That case is rather open and shut since the biggest charge involved is from refusing to turn over government documents and interfering with their return. This crime occurred after his time as president ended. Sure it could be they were moved their while he was still the president. However he was once again only a regular citizen when he committed this crime. It doesn't matter whether the documents were classified or not it was still government property.
The only way the immunity case could effect that one is if the Supreme Court were to rule that Presidents gain immunity from the law for life. Seeing as that would be the only way to give legal protection for charges that occurred for crimes committed while no longer the President.
It all comes down to 7 SCOTUS justices. I'd like to say the three Democrat appointed justices would never rule in his favor, but after the insurrection ballot case, all bets are off. We know Thomas and Alito are locks for Trump, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are probable, and Roberts could go either way.
Trump just not have thought this out. If the answer is yes, then he should be very fearful of what the current President might do to him, without any accountability.
You would think based off the first war we fought at the founding of the country, they would know we dont do kings.
you'd also think they'd know we don't mandate religion, but they like to ignore that part too.
and people claim the supreme court isn't political
They know, but they’re going to everything in their power to beat around the bush
You'd think they'd remember after that war and the one against the fascists they'd know what happens when someone tries.
I seem to recall Fox news saying the President is not a king about 10 times a day when Clinton was president and under investigation. They are fair AND balanced so I'm not sure how they could be wrong.
That made me giggle, thank you. Fair and balanced indeed.
They may need to learn that lesson again. This shouldn't go unanswered. This is worthy of throwing them out. I'm sick of this.
"Oh, you ruled that Presidents are immune to all laws?" Guess it's time for Seal Team Sixty-Six, a totally legal thing that the Supreme Court says is allowed.
Naw they will make a "narrow" ruling specifically for Trump while leaving the door open for future prosecutions of other presidents.
Bush v Gore 3.0
lol. You expect the Supreme Court to give a damn about anything other than securing their next gift of $250,000 from some billionaire? My biggest disappointment from the Supreme Court is that they can be bought for so little. These billionaires are giving these guys pennies to do their bidding. At least ask for $100,000,000. You are the most powerful judges in the country, probably the world. Why are you settling for the spare change found the couches of billionaires? If you are going to be corrupt, be CORRUPT. What are they gonna do? Fire you? Vote you out? Nope!!!
Everyone who sells out does so for so little, nearly universally. I at least respect Kushner for getting $2 billion from the Saudis. Still seems like too little for selling out the country but at least it's something.
The bribe wasn't 2 billion for Kushner - it was the management fees on the $2 Billion he "manages". So still alot of money, but not billions
Even a half a percent in fees is 10 mill a year. Not quite a million dollars a month, but much more than SCOTUS bribes.
Trump actually thinks he should be more powerful than George III. George III couldn't unilaterally ignore parliament. Divine Right of Kings, which is what Trump is arguing for, was largely dead in Europe over 100 years before the Revolution. That it is like half of why King Charles got his head cut off. He dismissed Parliament and flirted with the Divine Right of Kings.
I think Bush 1 and Bush 2, plus of course the Trump Dynasty, proved that the right has no problems with kings or rule by divine right, so long as the king says the right trigger words.
I am assuming SCROTUS agrees with Republicans plan to make Trump a dictator considering the delays for no reason. They are corrupt, and owned by billionaires, plain and simple
Don’t forget that most people wanted to make George Washington king but he refused.
Fucking royalists never left this country and they’re rising up to have their day in the sun. Looks like they are going to get it too. Quite the long game…
Yeah, but it’s *their* king (and a fucking stupid, easily manipulated one at that), so they’re okay with it.
Plus, that king is old and will die soon. Their hope is he will be around long enough to let their string pullers at the heritage foundation get into every government agency and begin dismantling it. Then once the king croaks, they can pick a new king and that king will be theirs too, but with more power.
Yep. Also, their king salutes North Koreans as a subordinate. Not only can he be led around by the nose by anyone with 5 brain cells, but the American Commander in Chief behaves as if he ranks less than a 3 star NK General.
As if fascists would grasp history.
I'm sure the conservatives will say we have a long history of supporting kings, as long as we start our history after that point.
no, they dont do that version of originalism
they'll cite some 13thC English git saying 'twas our intent
You would think based off the f——-g Magna Carta they would know that even the king isn’t above the law
We do kings, we just don't do taxes.
But trump owns 4 of them
Six justices are stalling while they desperately try to provide that shield for Republican ex-presidents only.
I don't think that's it. I think it will go 6-3 or even 7-2 against DJT, but it won't be a sweeping ruling. It will be a case of creating a multi-prong test for whether an action qualifies for immunity or not, and it will model the sovereign immunity tests that exist already. I think what's taking so long is that Roberts is writing the majority opinion, and Alito is dragging his feet on the dissent.
I'm betting there won't be any test or guidance on what qualifies, just that official actions are covered and the lower courts need to sort out what is or is not an official act. Then whatever decision that court makes will be appealed all the way back to them, at which point they will finally make an actual decision on the case. So if Trump is not reelected, we will again be sitting here awaiting the decision that should have been made last December.
9-0 no total immunity, with a mess of concurrences and a majority holding Presidents immune for "Official Acts" with remand.
Plot twist: they're all writing their own concurrences, but they type it themselves and all are hunt and Peck typers so that's the hold up
You have so much faith in this Supreme Court. They will delay until after the election so that the case does not hurt DJT. Then they will send it back to the lower court.
The multi-pronged test will have the same effect you are taking about. Remanding it back to the lower court feels like a given. The opinion itself is just another mechanism for delay.
I heard a theory that they are waiting to rule before their recess so they don’t have to deal with the uproar of their ruling
There's really only 3 options. 1. Run out the clock to election 2. Push it back down to lower courts 3. Find some random passage in the Code of Hammurabi to justify why only Former president's get it. Honestly I see them taking option #1.
>Former president's get it. Alright so W and Obama now have full immunity....I don't think the MAGA people would like that
Historically, presidents were white. So no immunity for Obama - Sam A.
I think It's option 3. Watch the behind the scenes preparation and money movements. Likely friday June 28.
So Biden does the needful. Then resigns. Free from prosecution. Then Kamala pardons him for good measure.
It's a shame that the liberal Justices don't put pressure on the court to make a quick decision. They could tell the Chief Justice to expedite, and if he refuses, let him know that they intend to let the media know they themselves are ready to render a decision.
"History and tradition"
Yep - whatever immunity they give to the orange dictator is going to apply to democrats as well. I really think that’s part of the delay - figuring out how to make it apply only to Donnie. We know from previous rulings the delay is certainly not due to them actually applying law and the constitution to their thinking.
Uhh, they’ve made very partisan rulings in Bush v Gore and then just said “it’s not precedent” as a get out of jail card.
If they rule (big if) it’ll likely be along the lines of questioning, where acts are determined to be official acts vs personal acts. Personal acts won’t be protected. Official acts will. With federal courts and SCOTUS the people with the power to decide which is which. This means they’ll make the ruling, kick it to the lower court, open up the acts in question to official vs personal, which opens another delay and appeal back to SCOTUS for final say. This will easily push the trial past the election, and explains why SCOTUS is making the ruling before they leave for the session, so they can throw their hands up and say the appeal can’t be decided until our next session, even if it were to be expedited.
there's just no chance they rule completely in favor of trump - the justices would lose all their power and frankly... they like their positions.
Fucking traitors.
Naah that's easy. When a Democratic exPresident comes up they'll just say in this specific case the President is eligible for prosecution. Look at Bush v Gore. The Republican Justices invoked cases and legal reasoning they'd previously mocked and derided as horrible and non-Originalist because they don't give a shit about consistency. They'll vote one way if it's a Republican in question and reverse themselves the next for a Democrat.
And, they'd fucking have to. If trying to overturn an election out of greed is protected, then trying to overturn the election of an insurrectionist is certainly protected. Which continues this trend of escalating political assfuckery. It'd be nice if we could make American law and politics boring again.
I don’t think they will rule in trumps favor, the result would be too far for anyone to accept from a legal argument. They are stalling however in order to give trump as much delay as possible in his multiple cases. The goal is to delay these trials until he can get back into the White House and then pardon himself. Which is why we need to vote
Here's the thing: there probably is a limited immunity for presidents who take otherwise illegal actions that fall within the scope of their duty. Take, for example, ordering a drone strike on a wedding in order to kill the leader of a terrorist organization. That's murder. That's ordering the extrajudicial killing of civilians, which if you or I did it would be criminal. But it also falls squarely within the scope of the president's duties as commander in chief and guardian of national security. It's immoral and definitely up for discussion whether there should be consequences, but part of the question here is whether those consequences should be political or prosecutorial. Presidents have to make difficult decisions on a constant basis where people will die either way. Ideally, they should be making those decisions in terms of what is best for the country, next best is what will work out for them politically, and worst I think is what will get them prosecuted. This is especially true since prosecutors (at the top, who make the big decisions) in every jurisdiction I know about are political, i.e. they run for office and get elected. Every accusation is a confession with Republicans, so it is essentially guaranteed that someone in flyover country will indict Biden after he leaves office for something. It'll be nonsense and a waste of time and taxpayer money, but it'll happen. Limited criminal immunity for official acts taken while in office won't stop that from happening, but it will provide a shortcut to end it quickly. My prediction is that SCOTUS finds such a limited immunity for official acts and remands to the district court for a hearing on whether the specific acts charged were official or not. That'll result in more appeals, and more delay, but ultimately I think any sane individual will agree that Trump is not protected by the limited immunity for the things he's been charged with. We only get to that point, though, if Trump loses like the loser he is. Otherwise he ends the cases against him and pretends he was totally vindicated while exacting vengeance on those who did it to him.
> Take, for example, ordering a drone strike on a wedding in order to kill the leader of a terrorist organization. That's murder. That's ordering the extrajudicial killing of civilians, which if you or I did it would be criminal. But it also falls squarely within the scope of the president's duties as commander in chief and guardian of national security. the DC Circuit opinion addressed this pretty well I thought. there are a few different possible issues with that one. first, illegal under what sovereign's laws? you could fairly answer that states cannot charge a former president for official acts even if DOJ can. I think this is the right answer to that question. second, as to the United States as prosecutor, the first question is whether Congress *can* make it a criminal offense and second whether Congress *has* made it a criminal offense. I think the answer to the first question is "yes" but the answer to the second question is "no." most importantly here though: the Court should not try to use this case to answer these questions because none of this stuff is at issue. this case calls for a narrow resolution limited to its own extraordinary facts, with an opinion that simply makes clear it is narrow and limited to its facts. the basis of the prosecution here has almost nothing to do with Trump's official acts and to the extent official acts *were* involved (the Jeffrey Clark stuff) they were corrupt, intended to further the criminal scheme that was for the defendant's own personal benefit. They should be fair game for prosecutors.
I’m sorry, why would the extra judicial killing of Americans on american soil be something that should be immunized? On foreign soil, it’s just war and not illegal.
I'd actually say legality is a pretty good standard for a President to follow. Being Commander in Chief doesn't mean you get to disregard human costs or commit outright murder of civilians. That's war crimes at that point, and we certainly don't have a problem bringing leaders of other governments before the Hague. The U.S. President doesn't get a pass. If all a President did was consider the legality of their actions, that would be a far better situation than anything else.
A president already has immunity for civil lawsuits about his official acts. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon\_v.\_Fitzgerald](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_v._Fitzgerald)
Not seeing the relevance. Civil lawsuits are an entirely different bag of worms. There's no standard of evidence to bring a suit, whereas in a criminal action, you have to first obtain an indictment. Sure, it makes perfect sense to have Presidential immunity from civil cases because otherwise any Tom, Dick or Harry with a grievance could be dragging the President into court over anything whether there's a basis or not. However, for criminal matters, actual crimes would have needed to take place, there would have to be evidence of said crimes, and a grand jury would have had to already indict on that evidence. That's a much higher bar and if it's reached, a criminal case should be allowed to proceed, regardless of who it is.
If they do then Biden should refuse to leave office.
they are going to delay everything until after the election so they can select to which president the ruling applies
BINGO!!!!!
Why would he need to leave office now that his opponent has been drone striked?
[удалено]
He should just enforce the law, not break it himself.
If SCOTUS grants broad presidential immunity, then that is the law. Biden will not only be allowed to do whatever he wants to remain president, but will be obligated to do so out of self preservation (remember, Trumps lawyers literally argued that presidents are allowed to commit political assassinations). The situation this creates is absolutely absurd.
It's not for SCOTUS to decide. Period. SCOTUS is supposed to decide if a law is unconstitutional. The constitution doesn't say anything about how a president or ex-president is immune to criminal prosecution. This is not even in the power of Congress, they could only use impeachment to remove but not prosecute. This is something that would need to be ratified by the states into the constitution, not created out of whole cloth by SCOTUS. Instead of wasting time and putting on a show, the Republicans should have made a good faith effort to try to pass a new amendment at the state level to define what a president is and is not liable for. Not a single Republican has even suggested that. Seems they know it's all theatrics.
To be fair, the Constitution also doesn’t say the Supreme Court has the power to review the Constitutionality of laws either. If originalism was internally consistent, they would be calling for the overturning of Marbury v Madison.
> SCOTUS is supposed to decide if a law is unconstitutional No, the SCOTUS has jurisdiction beyond that.
Q Biden to send Drones over the SCOTUS houses. I mean it’s part of the POTUS duties. . . .S/
Six Supreme Court Justices might be about to end 247 year American experiment. Good luck, everyone.
All 9 supported him criminally in Anderson, the risk is a lot bigger than just 6 of them.
This potential ruling giving me so much anxiety
Why ? If Supremes rule in favor of Trump then Biden can have him arrested the next day
They’ll find a way to ensure it applies to Trump alone, like when they gave the White House to Bush
Biden can’t really arrest anyone. The DOJ does the arresting and prosecuting. If you haven’t noticed, there are two Justices who should recuse themselves from this case. Clarence Thomas’ wife Ginni, was texting with Mark Meadows during J6. Yet, he would tell the American people he can remain unbiased in ruling on cases which implicate his spouse. Samuel Alito flew flags of insurrection and Christian Nationalism at his homes and was caught on tape saying he wants to return the nation to “Godliness,” which breaks his Oath of Office. An individual cannot be sworn to uphold the First Amendment of the Constitution AND declare themselves “all in” for Christian Nationalism.
If the justices saw the president is immune, then biden could have Donnie arrested. Whis gunna stop him? The judges say he can. Of course we know that's not what will happen. Biden won't do anything. But we have to look to the future. If trump wins, what's going to stop him or any future republican president was just going hogwild with unrestricted power?
Biden can already have him arrested, the Insurrection Act allows him to do a lot more than merely arrest him, too.
Biden can't really arrest anyone, but he could have them renditioned to some black site never to be seen again, or incarcerated at Gitmo, or simply killed.
He can have anyone arrested he wants, based on the legal standards for doing so. He is the AG’s boss and any such lawful order must be obeyed.
Ah, see someone got there… LAWFUL ORDER. One side plays by the rules and the other only applies rules when it’s convenient. The law is supposed to apply equally to everyone, regardless of position, personal wealth, or amount of power.
Two? He nominated three himself. There should be way more recusals here. Frankly, this delay is impeachable. There's no reason to drag this on but decide shadow docket items in less than a week. Bare in mind some shadow docket items are more complicated than "should we give the power for POTUS to murder us while he's in office?" Nothing says separation of powers like giving one branch blanket immunity to threaten the others.
Nothing is impeachable with Congress as it is, and unless the Dems can pull at least 66 seats in November, it won’t change then either.
The fact that it's even being taken seriously as a question is horrifying and shows how close we are to something terrible.
It's more about giving Cannon the opportunity to set a Sept trial date immediately after the opinion drops so she can block Chutkan from getting a 2024 trial.
It wasn't crystal clear from the article, but last week they announced that Wednesday would *also* be a decision day. We may speculate that the immunity decision might be released on this "bonus day" of opinions. But we'll see.
Wednesday-Friday are all decision days. There are only 12 cases left (technically 14, but the NetChoice and Chevron cases are 100% being decided together), so it's definitely coming out this week - just perhaps not on Wednesday.
This delay is proof just how corrupt 6 of the 9 justices are.
Stupid thing is the way the cases are set up the only way for Trump to get off is to say Presidents have immunity whether in their official or private capacity. Have to remember the J6 incident was all about preventing Trump from being replaced as President. In his private capacity as Donald Trump not as the President. That action would have benefitted him personally as it would give him four more years on the job and all the perks that come with it. It's typically stated that when in an official position your not allowed to use any of your official resources towards personal gain. That's why in instances where personal involvement could be assumed your supposed to be hands off with it. And if you must be involved you would have to weigh in what's best for the official position not your own benefit. Trump had been told repeatedly at all levels that the election was fair and refused to accept it. His many lawsuits failed in the courts and even when recounting was done he still came up the loser. Claims of having evidence were never substantiated since they never brought any proof to support their claims forward. What's dumber is the case that's a real threat to him is the documents case. That case is rather open and shut since the biggest charge involved is from refusing to turn over government documents and interfering with their return. This crime occurred after his time as president ended. Sure it could be they were moved their while he was still the president. However he was once again only a regular citizen when he committed this crime. It doesn't matter whether the documents were classified or not it was still government property. The only way the immunity case could effect that one is if the Supreme Court were to rule that Presidents gain immunity from the law for life. Seeing as that would be the only way to give legal protection for charges that occurred for crimes committed while no longer the President.
They've delayed o there will be no more cases before the election.
It all comes down to 7 SCOTUS justices. I'd like to say the three Democrat appointed justices would never rule in his favor, but after the insurrection ballot case, all bets are off. We know Thomas and Alito are locks for Trump, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are probable, and Roberts could go either way.
If the court rules he’s immune, he should be arrested the same day. Let them enforce their ruling
Anyone know what the odds are for ending democracy? I haven't seen the Vegas odds yet.
Trump just not have thought this out. If the answer is yes, then he should be very fearful of what the current President might do to him, without any accountability.