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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

And for that, I am beginning to think there's a case to made that right-leaning, Trump-appointed Judge Eileen Cannon, and the Republican-leaning 6 Supreme Court Justices are actively trying to interfere in the 2024 election, by ensuring that cases do not get anywhere near trial before Trump can be elected and order his AG to squash the lot.

 

[ratiocinator]

"The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices have warned that their conservative colleagues have turned the president into “a king above the law” after they granted Donald Trump some immunity from criminal prosecution.

Monday’s decision radically and dangerously reshapes the presidency and “makes a mockery” of the Constitution and the idea that “no man is above the law,” according to a furious dissenting opinion from Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

“Never in the history of our Republic has a President had reason to believe that he would be immune from criminal prosecution if he used the trappings of his office to violate the criminal law,” she wrote. “Moving forward, however, all former Presidents will be cloaked in such immunity. If the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide will not provide a backstop.”

...

“The court effectively creates a law-free zone around the president, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the founding,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” she wrote, referencing a violent hypothetical that was introduced during an appeals court hearing in the case.

“Organizes a military exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune."

-- ‘A law-free zone around the president’: Supreme Court liberal justices denounce ‘nightmare’ immunity ruling​

 

[Pogo]

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.

Well since he is in charge of enforcing the constitution, sure, why shouldn't he be able to suspend it, at least till any case winds it's way through the courts. Works for me.

 

[Pogo]

And for that, I am beginning to think there's a case to made that right-leaning, Trump-appointed Judge Eileen Cannon, and the Republican-leaning 6 Supreme Court Justices are actively trying to interfere in the 2024 election, by ensuring that cases do not get anywhere near trial before Trump can be elected and order his AG to squash the lot.

Oh definitely agreed, but make a case to who?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Oh definitely agreed, but make a case to who?

Oh, but just think how much fun it would be: "Biden v SCOTUS" which would, eventually, be decided by SCOTUS.

If Biden does manage to scrape out another term, and if the Senate can hold onto a Dem majority, I say it really is time for 13 Justices. (And after all, they just grabbed a lot of regulatory power for themselves, so they're going to need the extra hands!)

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

It works as well now as it ever did,
ie, often not to my liking.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

This, in my view, is the single greatest threat to the U.S. democracy that we have seen. One corrupt President (and it doesn't have to be Trump) and 5 corrupt Justices, and it will result in just as much of an autocracy as an emperor supported by his faithful bishops.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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?

No.

 

[Pogo]

Oh, but just think how much fun it would be: "Biden v SCOTUS" which would, eventually, be decided by SCOTUS.

If Biden does manage to scrape out another term, and if the Senate can hold onto a Dem majority, I say it really is time for 13 Justices. (And after all, they just grabbed a lot of regulatory power for themselves, so they're going to need the extra hands!)

And 13 is a prime number, the next one is 17, important for nerds.

 

[Wirey]

It works as well now as it ever did,
ie, often not to my liking.

I don't think you can get politics out of it. They're people, after all. But it seems pretty bad right now.

 

[Wirey]

Oh, but just think how much fun it would be: "Biden v SCOTUS" which would, eventually, be decided by SCOTUS.

If Biden does manage to scrape out another term, and if the Senate can hold onto a Dem majority, I say it really is time for 13 Justices. (And after all, they just grabbed a lot of regulatory power for themselves, so they're going to need the extra hands!)

And the next time the Republicans win and bump it up to 23?

Maybe instead put an 18 year term limit in place. Every two years a justice is replace, guaranteeing that the mix shows across voter's habits into the future.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think you can get politics out of it. They're people, after all. But it seems pretty bad right now.

Of course it seems bad right now.
Right now is what we remember best.
The past is harder....I don't even recall
what I had for breakfast.

 

[SDavis]

6-3!? What the hell!

https://meidasnews.com/news/united-states-supreme-court-rules-donald-trump-is-immune-for-official-acts-and-is-not-immune-for-unofficial-acts

Link to ruling.

A Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment - DebateUS

This bill calls for repealing the 22nd amendment in order to let Presidents serve more than two teams, something that has been suggested by Donald Trump. Since this limit is now established in an amendment, such a change would require amending the constitution. There were not, however, always...

debateus.org

Trump is already suggested to change the term limitations will he actually do it - Congress is behind him - will this become a communist country?

 

[Viker]

A Bill to Repeal the 22nd Amendment - DebateUS

This bill calls for repealing the 22nd amendment in order to let Presidents serve more than two teams, something that has been suggested by Donald Trump. Since this limit is now established in an amendment, such a change would require amending the constitution. There were not, however, always...

debateus.org

Trump is already suggested to change the term limitations will he actually do it - Congress is behind him - will this become a communist country?

Communism? No.
Fascism? Absolutely yes.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course it seems bad right now.
Right now is what we remember best.
The past is harder....I don't even recall
what I had for breakfast.

Age thing?

Oh, by the way, if you think it "seems bad right now," wait for it. My opinion (worth what you paid for it, so hush up) is that this is bigger than most people think. Along with overturning Chevron, SCOTUS is fundamentally changing the balance of powers of the once-coequal branches of government. This is the most activist court anyone has ever seen.

No longer coequal, they've put POTUS on top, SCOTUS second and legislative, having to become nit-picking word smiths, at the bottom -- at least when it comes to day-to-day running of the nation.

 

[Wandering Monk]

From the ruling:

(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32.

So Hope Hicks' testimony about Trump's actions and words cannot be admitted. Neither can HIS OWN OR HIS ADVOSOR'S TESTIMONIES BE ADMITTED! Any inculpatory information from anyone in his administration or his lawyers is inadmissible.

 

[Watchmen]

Why not?

Absolute immunity only applies to constitutional acts.

Presumptive immunity applies to official acts, meaning the president can potentially be on the hook for criminal actions.

And there is no immunity for unofficial acts.

My idea of a king is someone who suffers no consequences absent a rebellion.

Clearly, the two are in different categories.

 

[Watchmen]

one wonders why you are avoiding answering the question.

I thought it was rhetorical.

 

[Watchmen]

A well respected source to refer people to that are unfamiliar with even the basics, was it inappropriate? Why?

It was ridiculous in this context.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, their job is to interpret, not just function as a robot, that is why we have this structure, the law is not an air hockey table.

And they did interpret. Or did you actually not read the opinion?