Is SCOTUS Going to Create an Unaccountable Presidency?

[Wandering Monk]

God, this could be bad.

 

[Pogo]

God, this could be bad.

Please give a written summary, I am tired of wasting time on videos that often turn out to be opinionated propaganda from either side.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Please give a written summary, I am tired of wasting time on videos that often turn out to be opinionated propaganda from either side.
Thanks in advance.

These aren't just two random guys. Give this a listen. This is legal analysis. I don't think you will be dissapointed.

 

[Pogo]

Please give a written summary, I am tired of wasting time on videos that often turn out to be opinionated propaganda from either side.
Thanks in advance.

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok on the Legal AF podcast debate and discuss: whether the Supreme Court can ever recover historically from the stain of what they are about to do: find immunity for presidential/Trump criminality —including plotting coups and planning assassinations while in office. - 05/05/2024.

even this which I found would be an improvement and arguing over "whether the Supreme Court can ever recover historically" does not look particularly like reasoned legal argument.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Ben Meiselas and Michael Popok on the Legal AF podcast debate and discuss: whether the Supreme Court can ever recover historically from the stain of what they are about to do: find immunity for presidential/Trump criminality —including plotting coups and planning assassinations while in office. - 05/05/2024.

even this which I found would be an improvement and arguing over "whether the Supreme Court can ever recover historically" does not look particularly like reasoned legal argument.

You got to keep in mind the president alone cannot do any such thing without approval.

My impression is there is immunity in office but that immunity is no longer valid upon return to citizenship.

Unfortunately, some citizens are clearly not ones average citizen, which is where things like privileged and elite comes in, which by now I would like to think most people would acknowledge there are two sets of laws in this country. One set for us, and another set for them.

 

[Heyo]

God, this could be bad.

To be fair, SCotUS would only codify what has been practise since forever. No President has ever faced a judge for his despicable or criminal actions. That doesn't mean they didn't commit any, they just haven't been brought to court for them. And often enough, they have been punished with a second term by the voters.
Trump's crimes are neither unique nor are they of another quality, it's just the sheer quantity.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be fair, SCotUS would only codify what has been practise since forever. No President has ever faced a judge for his despicable or criminal actions. That doesn't mean they didn't commit any, they just haven't been brought to court for them. And often enough, they have been punished with a second term by the voters.
Trump's crimes are neither unique nor are they of another quality, it's just the sheer quantity.

No.
Attempted coup is unique here.

 

[Yerda]

To be fair, SCotUS would only codify what has been practise since forever. No President has ever faced a judge for his despicable or criminal actions. That doesn't mean they didn't commit any, they just haven't been brought to court for them. And often enough, they have been punished with a second term by the voters.
Trump's crimes are neither unique nor are they of another quality, it's just the sheer quantity.

I'm a shifty foriegner (from an American perspective) but it doesn't look to me like Trump's crimes come anywhere near what Bush Jr did. Not the same order of magnitude as a guy who launched an international war of aggression and was overseer to more war crimes than we could count. I may be wrong but I think the standard punishment, according to international law, is hanging.

I would rather see that punished before the orange idiot's corruption and meddling.

 

[Heyo]

No.
Attempted coup is unique here.

I give you that. That was a first for a President.

 

[Heyo]

I'm a shifty foriegner (from an American perspective) but it doesn't look to me like Trump's crimes come anywhere near what Bush Jr did. Not the same order of magnitude as a guy who launched an international war of aggression and was overseer to more war crimes than we could count. I may be wrong but I think the standard punishment, according to international law, is hanging.

I would rather see that punished before the orange idiot's corruption and meddling.

I agree that Bush and his cronies belong behind bars (standard punishment by international law), but the US hasn't ratified the Rome statute and starting a war based on lies is not a crime in the US. Treason is, though, and they got away with that.

 

[Colt]

I'm a shifty foriegner (from an American perspective) but it doesn't look to me like Trump's crimes come anywhere near what Bush Jr did. Not the same order of magnitude as a guy who launched an international war of aggression and was overseer to more war crimes than we could count. I may be wrong but I think the standard punishment, according to international law, is hanging.

I would rather see that punished before the orange idiot's corruption and meddling.

True that! Notice that after Trump was elected "suddenly" the (D) party was interested in sexual assault with the #metoo movement! Ironically, it was mainly high profile (D)'s that were outed! Notice that the same people who are concerned about overturning an election, spent 4 years trying to overturn the election of Trump using a fake dossier that was funded by the DNC and used in secret FISA courts as the basis of spying on the Trump campaign!

 

[Pogo]

I'm a shifty foriegner (from an American perspective) but it doesn't look to me like Trump's crimes come anywhere near what Bush Jr did. Not the same order of magnitude as a guy who launched an international war of aggression and was overseer to more war crimes than we could count. I may be wrong but I think the standard punishment, according to international law, is hanging.

I would rather see that punished before the orange idiot's corruption and meddling.

Doing nasty things to shifty foreigners has already been the prerogative of the President for some time since Congress legitimized wars without their say so. This is worse than Shrub because Trump is trying to take away the last pretenses of our Democratic republic.

"shifty foriegner"s can't even spell foreigners. They are probably like the French who made us spell it that way in the first place.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Why US top court is so much more political than UK's

The current partisan split at the US top court is unprecedented and likely to stay, experts say.

www.bbc.co.uk

Under Article 2 of the constitution, the president has the power to make a nomination. "There's no clear view as to why the president was granted this power," said Bruce Ackerman, Sterling Professor of Law at Yale University. The Senate has the task to approve a candidate, in usually tense hearings, a method that enforces the concept of checks and balances between the powers envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Candidates do not have to meet any qualifications and serve lifetime terms - a contentious topic for many. That is why replacing a justice is one of the most consequential decisions of a president. So, unsurprisingly, every nomination is a highly politicised affair.

Apart from loading the dice of course.

 

[F1fan]

True that! Notice that after Trump was elected "suddenly" the (D) party was interested in sexual assault with the #metoo movement! Ironically,

Odd that conservatives don't care about sexual assault, isn't it? So it's good that such a serial criminal inspired women and those who support women's rights to seek justice against those who committed violations against them.

You sound sympathetic to those who rape and commit sexual assault. Is that the case, or are you with the Me Too movement?

it was mainly high profile (D)'s that were outed!

Really? so according to you it was (D)'s going after (D)'s, yet you seem disturbed by rapists being held accountable. Is that because Trump was held accountable, and you prefer to see Trump get away with sexual assault even if it means your "high profile (D)'s" get away with it?

Notice that the same people who are concerned about overturning an election,

Yes, there was a massive conspiracy among Trump and his insiders in numerous states. Some of these states are prosecuting Trump supoprters for crimes. So an actual set of crimes. Trump himself has been indiced for crimes against the USA.

spent 4 years trying to overturn the election of Trump using a fake dossier that was funded by the DNC and used in secret FISA courts as the basis of spying on the Trump campaign!

False, no one tried to overturn the 2016 election. And you seem to forget facts, like the Steele dossier being an RNC funded investigation that Clinton bought once Trump won the nomination. And there was only one major flaw in FISA warrants and that was for Carter page. The trump campaign met with Russians 112 times as he was running for office, and given the intelligence agencies were aware of Russia working to influence the 2016 election there was a security threat and concern about trump and who they were involved with.

 

[F1fan]

God, this could be bad.

Legal analysts have tried gauging where the SCOTUS members are based on the questions they ask, and Alito's questions suggest that he's interested in covering for Trump's actions, mostly by avoiding his acts. It's disturbing that SCOTUS is so divided, mostly with the five right wing hardliners, three of which Trump appointed and were confirmed with only 51 senate votes, all republicans.

The analysis suggests that the four women are inclided to limit immunity, and four right wing justices are in favor of broad immunity, and Roberts is again the wild card. Roberts might be thinking about his legacy, and want to side with the more traditional thinking of presidents not having immunity where it comes to crimes and accountability. But he might agree to send the case back to the lower courts for clarification. The dispute is what contitutes private acts versus presidential acts. It's murky because Trump being president can be interpreted as absolute, that all acts as president are by default presidential. This opens the door for a criminal president to do anything he damn well wants to do, including killing critics and overturning election results. These are third world acts, but could be allowed under the authority of a SCOTUS decision. Let's not forget, it's a SCOTUS that was selected with sympathetic attitudes for right wing policies.

This illustrates how fragile a system is that relies on the honor system, and a voting base that is corrupted with disinformation.

 

[Yerda]

Doing nasty things to shifty foreigners has already been the prerogative of the President for some time since Congress legitimized wars without their say so. This is worse than Shrub because Trump is trying to take away the last pretenses of our Democratic republic.

"shifty foriegner"s can't even spell foreigners. They are probably like the French who made us spell it that way in the first place.

I take your point. And spelling correction (imagine a Brit being corrected on his English by one of our escaped transatlantic cousins - the shame).

 

[We Never Know]

You got to keep in mind the president alone cannot do any such thing without approval.

My impression is there is immunity in office but that immunity is no longer valid upon return to citizenship.

Unfortunately, some citizens are clearly not ones average citizen, which is where things like privileged and elite comes in, which by now I would like to think most people would acknowledge there are two sets of laws in this country. One set for us, and another set for them.

One problem is they work for us(are supposed to anyway) but in reality they don't work for us, they control us.
Most of them have no term limits which means its the same crap and lies year after year after year after year.....
Their employer, the people, need to push hard for term limits on them all. It may or may not change much but it would at least not let the same people set there on their asses getting richer and richer from their BS year after year.
IMO rotating people in and out is the only way change has a chance of happening.

 

[F1fan]

One problem is they work for us(are supposed to anyway) but in reality they don't work for us, they control us.
Most of them have no term limits which means its the same crap and lies year after year after year after year.....
Their employer, the people, need to push hard for term limits on them all. It may or may not change much but it would at least not let the same people set there on their asses getting richer and richer from their BS year after year.
IMO rotating people in and out its the only way change has a chance of happening.

And a better selection, nomination, and approval system that will eliminate any extremism. We need a court of moderates.

 

[We Never Know]

And a better selection, nomination, and approval system that will eliminate any extremism. We need a court of moderates.

IMO We don't need any more courts.

What we do need are term limits even for SCOTUS, not life long appointing.
Both sides have used and still use that life long appointing to favor their party.

 

[Twilight Hue]

One problem is they work for us(are supposed to anyway) but in reality they don't work for us, they control us.
Most of them have no term limits which means its the same crap and lies year after year after year after year.....
Their employer, the people, need to push hard for term limits on them all. It may or may not change much but it would at least not let the same people set there on their asses getting richer and richer from their BS year after year.
IMO rotating people in and out its the only way change has a chance of happening.

I would love to see term limits.