United States Supreme Court Rules Donald Trump Is Immune For Official Acts And Is Not Immune For Unofficial Acts

[Secret Chief]

Term limits on them and all voted offices.

Maybe the justices should be voted in too instead of hand picked.

Just checking... the highest court consists of people put there by a president and it's a job for life?

If so, that was always dangerously idiotic imo.

 

[Wirey]

Just checking... the highest court consists of people put there by a president and it's a job for life?

If so, that was always dangerously idiotic imo.

The idea was that judges beholden to a politician or an electorate would decide cases based on that instead of the law. A completely independent judiciary was not supposed to be influenced by politics. Until now, it pretty much worked.

 

[Wandering Monk]

Seems Thomas was sending a signal in this ruling to Aileen Cannon on the classified documents case that she should rule that Jack Smith was improperly appointed. This is what Trump's lawyer have argued there.

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course. As the Court forcefully explains, the Framers “deemed an energetic executive essential to . . . the security of liberty,” and our “system of separated powers” accordingly insulates the President from prosecution for his official acts. Ante, at 10, 42 (internal quotation marks omitted). To conclude otherwise would hamstring the vigorous Executive that our Constitution envisions. “While the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 710–711 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.​

​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf​

​

Thomas seems to care less that SCOTUS has upheld the legitimacy of Independent and Special Counsels in the past. THIS WAS NOT EVEN A SUBJECT OF THE CASE! Impeach this Fascist!​

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's obvious to you that Presidents should be treated like kings? Wasn't there a revolution or something about that?

Actually, it is obvious to him.

 

[We Never Know]

Does this mean that the USA is now ruled by a term limited King?

Kings and queens are outdated. Born to be in charge is outdated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It is sad to think that we might be on the cusp of the last reasonably free and honest U.S. presidential election for some time, and sadder still that this opportunity might well be squandered by an alliance of bigots and fools.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It is sad to think that we might be on the cusp of the last reasonably free and honest U.S. presidential election for some time, and sadder still that this opportunity might well be squandered by an alliance of bigots and fools.

"Sad" is such a weak word for how I would evaluate the importance of this.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Thomas seems to care less that SCOTUS has upheld the legitimacy of Independent and Special Counsels in the past.

They've been being appointed since 1875! And appear in the 1983 reauthorization of the Ethics in Government Act.

 

[Pogo]

Well, it seems to me like you are confused.

Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Have you ever known any government agency to move quickly? I haven't.

It happens from time to time , but yeah. One exception would be the Apollo program; just eight years after Kennedy said he wanted us to go there, Armstrong was walking around in the regolith.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know if you recall, but let’s take a real example. In December of 2020, Trump had a conversation with his acting Attorney General Richard Donaghue and his acting Deputy Attorney General. He told them to just say that the election was corrupt, and “let me and the GOP Congressmen take care of the rest.”

This is after Bill Barr, his AG, had left the department. You recall, perhaps, that Barr, on December 7, 2020, told the Associated Press that there was not enough fraud to change the outcome of the election. And just weeks later, Trump is trying to pressure his own Justice Department to ignore those facts and work around the law.

Work around the law!

And because this was the President, speaking to members of his cabinet, by this ruling he would immune. The President, ordering his own government to break the law – and he’s immune.

That is what it is going to look like in real life.

I assure you, this is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

In reality, even the 6 know this, but if they can put the decision off, they win in their political sense.
They are scumbags and they know it.

 

[Pogo]

Okay, it's more clear to me now that the Supreme Court didn't really try to define if Trump's actions were illegal for the insurrection. They left that to lower courts. The lower court has to decide when he acted in his "official" duties as President. The Supreme Court could have done that. They had ample time to do that in deciding this case. This delays any decisions about that, and ensures that there will no trial before Trump is elected, and it appears he will be, because Biden was already behind and he is losing ground since the debate. It would be hard to find an alternative candidate that would defeat Trump, according to polling, and Biden and those closest to hm don't want him to quit.

Yup, delay was their object, the decision did not require months of deliberation.

 

[Pogo]

Kings and queens are outdated. Born to be in charge is outdated.

And your answer to the question is?

 

[We Never Know]

And your answer to the question is?

The answer is obvious. If you don't know the answer to that question, my obvious answer won't help you.

 

[Truthseeker]

Yup, delay was their object, the decision did not require months of deliberation.

Well, not sure now delay was their object, but obviously, if delay was not their object they don't care if a would-be dictator becomes President. No, now that I've said that, I take the latter thought back. Why wouldn't they care if they were not in his pocket in some way?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In reality, even the 6 know this, but if they can put the decision off, they win in their political sense.
They are scumbags and they know it.

On continuing to read the opinion of the Court, I've also discovered something makes that scenario (Trump to to subborn his own Justice Department) even safer for Trump: the court states in the opinion that "official duties" holds even at the "outmost perimeter" of how that may be interpreted -- and also that the government may not inquire into the President's motive for any such action!

So no prosecutor could even suggest that the President was trying to overturn an election -- they're not allowed to bring his motive into it.

 

[We Never Know]

Seems Thomas was sending a signal in this ruling to Aileen Cannon on the classified documents case that she should rule that Jack Smith was improperly appointed. This is what Trump's lawyer have argued there.

JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. Few things would threaten our constitutional order more than criminally prosecuting a former President for his official acts. Fortunately, the Constitution does not permit us to chart such a dangerous course. As the Court forcefully explains, the Framers “deemed an energetic executive essential to . . . the security of liberty,” and our “system of separated powers” accordingly insulates the President from prosecution for his official acts. Ante, at 10, 42 (internal quotation marks omitted). To conclude otherwise would hamstring the vigorous Executive that our Constitution envisions. “While the separation of powers may prevent us from righting every wrong, it does so in order to ensure that we do not lose liberty.” Morrison v. Olson, 487 U. S. 654, 710–711 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a private citizen as Special Counsel to prosecute a former President on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Special Counsel has been “established by Law,” as the Constitution requires. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. By requiring that Congress create federal offices “by Law,” the Constitution imposes an important check against the President—he cannot create offices at his pleasure. No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country. And, that is so despite numerous past Presidents taking actions that many would argue constitute crimes. If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people. The lower courts should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding.​

​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf​

​

Thomas seems to care less that SCOTUS has upheld the legitimacy of Independent and Special Counsels in the past.​

Doesn't the issue stem from that he is a private citizen that was not approved/confirmed by the senate?

 

[ratiocinator]

On continuing to read the opinion of the Court, I've also discovered something makes that scenario (Trump to to subborn his own Justice Department) even safer for Trump: the court states in the opinion that "official duties" holds even at the "outmost perimeter" of how that may be interpreted -- and also that the government may not inquire into the President's motive for any such action!

So no prosecutor could even suggest that the President was trying to overturn an election -- they're not allowed to bring his motive into it.

So it basically turns the US president into an absolute dictator as long as they can somehow claim they were acting 'officially'.

I was half joking before, but shouldn't Biden now do something completely outrageous (since he is currently the absolute dictator of the US), like disqualifying Trump, declaring a state of emergency and suspending elections, or something, just to make the point? The existence of US democracy seems to be on the line here. You can't have anybody who is above the law in any functioning democracy.

 

[Pogo]

Well, not sure now delay was their object, but obviously, if delay was not their object they don't care if a would-be dictator becomes President. No, now that I've said that, I take the latter thought back. Why wouldn't they care if they were not in his pocket in some way?

My point, delay was the easy way to reward the person who had influence.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't the issue stem from that he is a private citizen that was not approved/confirmed by the senate?

Just like the last several special prosecutors back to Nixon.