IMMUNITY and SCOTUS

[Ford]

THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS A MUCH MORE POWERFUL ONE THAN SOME HAD EXPECTED IT TO BE. IT IS BRILLIANTLY WRITTEN AND WISE, AND CLEARS THE STENCH FROM THE BIDEN TRIALS AND HOAXES, ALL OF THEM, THAT HAVE BEEN USED AS AN UNFAIR ATTACK ON CROOKED JOE BIDEN’S POLITICAL OPPONENT, ME. MANY OF THESE FAKE CASES WILL NOW DISAPPEAR, OR WITHER INTO OBSCURITY. GOD BLESS AMERICA!

Donald Trump Truth Social 03:50 PM EST 07/01/24

The thing that keeps me awake at night is thinking about who he picks to be his VP. If Biden wins and falls off the podium on inauguration day, I have no doubt that President Harris will carry out her duties to the best of her ability. She will be given the most powerful job in the world - with added immunity granted by the court - and will probably not abuse that unspeakable authority.

I can't say the same for the other side. I would not be the least bit surprised if Trump's VP met with an "unfortunate accident" some time after being sworn in.

 

[Elixir]

What people aren't noticing is, the Supreme Court will just decide whether or not that constitutes an official act or not. They would not decide in Biden's favor.

It would be difficult, even for the current Supreme Court, to argue that the Commander in Chief is not engaging in an "official act" when giving a direct order to the armed forces.

It might not be legal for Biden to order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate Trump, or to order the USAF to napalm Mar-a-Lago; But that's OK, because the Supreme Court just ruled that he has immunity for any illegalities that are "official acts".

That would certainly be the (an) argument Biden could make, and create a case that would long outlive him, so ... immune immune immune ...

 

[Shadowy Man]

I can't say the same for the other side. I would not be the least bit surprised if Trump's VP met with an "unfortunate accident" some time after being sworn in.

And by “unfortunate accident” do you mean “official act”?

 

[Elixir]

What people aren't noticing is, the Supreme Court will just decide whether or not that constitutes an official act or not

Well theoretically, they are just as subject to the President's will as anyone else. It might be risky business to try to tell a guy with a gun to your head what he is not permitted to do.

 

[Angry Floof]

Kaitlan Collins is a fantastic interviewer. Always calm and polite, but she doesn't let up on the liars. CNN is throwing journalism to the wind, since a right wing zealot took it over, though, so I wouldn't be surprised if she's not there for long.

 

[ideologyhunter]

You who have read the decision...how do they claim it is found in the Constitution?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What people aren't noticing is, the Supreme Court will just decide whether or not that constitutes an official act or not. They would not decide in Biden's favor.

It would be difficult, even for the current Supreme Court, to argue that the Commander in Chief is not engaging in an "official act" when giving a direct order to the armed forces.

As I understand it, he would have to go through the Department of Justice for it to be an official act.

Why? If anyone, wouldn't it be through the department of defense?

 

[Patooka]

Unfortunately, it’s MAGAts who stockpile most of the guns.

You can do more with a kitchen and a rewards card from Home Depot than you ever could with an AR-15

 

[zorq]

You who have read the decision...how do they claim it is found in the Constitution?

I read all of it. There is no real constitutional basis for the majority decision. (The dissent's opinion is also weak when it comes to direct constitutional quotes, but I found their references to be stronger than the majority's)

To answer your question more specifically: An out of context quote from Alexander Hamilton that he wrote in one of his Federalist papers does most of the heavy lifting for the majority. Hamilton insists that the President should be "bold" when making decisions and the majority thinks that it is too much of an encumbrance for a president to think about obeying the law when acting in their official capacity.

To get here they also lean (inappropriately) on a precident case in which Nixon was sued in civil court for illegally firing a guy for having the audacity to show up for a congressional suppoena and tell congress the truth about Nixon.(Nixon v Fitzgerald) In that case the USSC ruled that presidents have limited immunity to civil suits. But the very reasoning in that case doesn't apply in criminal cases and the court that authored this decision make some mentions of these limitations in that decision.

The majority also sort of leans on the very concept of separation of powers insisting that there are certain powers that the President has that can't be meddled with by congress or the courts ... At all. They take this absolute and translate it as an total immunity from criminal prosecution. Nevermind that none of the president's core powers has ever been even questioned as a criminal act ,even in the current case.

Anyway, up above I mentioned the Hamilton quote was out of context, that is because while Hamilton's ideal president was "bold", they were also meant to be "safe" in contrast to the king's he was familiar with who were unaccountable to the people or the rule of law.

P.s. I don't have spell check on this device and I don't have my glasses right now. Sorry for any typos.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Indeed. This case is troubling for many reasons, but the following one is my biggest problem.

Finally, the principal dissent finds it “troubling” that the Court does not “designate any course of conduct alleged in the indictment as private.” Post, at 27. Despite the unprecedented nature of this case, the significant constitutional questions that it raises, its expedited treatment in the lower courts and in this Court, the lack of factual analysis in the lower courts, and the lack of briefing on how to categorize the conduct alleged, the principal dissent would go ahead and declare all of it unofficial. The other dissent, meanwhile, analyzes the case under comprehensive models and paradigms of its own concoction and accuses the Court of providing “no meaningful guidance about how to apply [the]new paradigm or how to categorize a President’s conduct. ”Post, at 13 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). It would have us exhaustively define every application of Presidential immunity. See post, at 13–14. Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. While their confidence may be inspiring, the Court adheres to time-tested practices instead—deciding what is required to dispose of this case and remanding after “revers[ing] on a threshold question,” Zivotofsky, 566 U. S., at 201, to obtain “guidance from the litigants [and] the court below,” Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. 286,328 (2024) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment).

This court is notorious! They will dig up the bodies of the Founding Fathers to find any shred of evidence to support their outlandishly ridiculous claims. And then in a moment, swap it to an arbitrary "our hands are tied", can't do nuthin'.

And they are doing that when they are the ones who tied their hands together needlessly. SCOTUS needed to rule whether Trump's actions are protected by the Constitution. Their ruling was effectively some of Trump's actions (in general, not specific to the case) are immune and some aren't, but we ain't going into details... it'd take too long. Lower court, you figure it out.

Are you kidding me?!

Then they go all dickish with that part saying:
"Our dissenting colleagues exude an impressive infallibility. While their confidence may be inspiring..."

I expected better from Roberts. This reads like Alito... but apparently Roberts isn't notably better than Alito.

While Sotomayor didn't pen the perfect dissent, her point is valid... why in the heck did SCOTUS need to go the distance they went. The case was asking whether the vase was authentically from the Ming Dynasty. They took the vase and smashed it into the ground, shattering it into countless pieces. Then they said some vases are from the Ming Dynasty, some aren't. Get someone else to figure it out. We don't have all the time in the world to judge every vase.

 

[ZiprHead]

What people aren't noticing is, the Supreme Court will just decide whether or not that constitutes an official act or not. They would not decide in Biden's favor.

It would be difficult, even for the current Supreme Court, to argue that the Commander in Chief is not engaging in an "official act" when giving a direct order to the armed forces.

As I understand it, he would have to go through the Department of Justice for it to be an official act.

Why? If anyone, wouldn't it be through the department of defense?

I read it is unconstitutional for the military to operate in the US in that manner. Maybe the National Guard would be okay to use. But definitely the DOJ and the FBI would be all that is needed.

 

[bilby]

What people aren't noticing is, the Supreme Court will just decide whether or not that constitutes an official act or not. They would not decide in Biden's favor.

It would be difficult, even for the current Supreme Court, to argue that the Commander in Chief is not engaging in an "official act" when giving a direct order to the armed forces.

As I understand it, he would have to go through the Department of Justice for it to be an official act.

Why? If anyone, wouldn't it be through the department of defense?

I read it is unconstitutional for the military to operate in the US in that manner.

Sure it is. But that's OK, because it's an Official Act, so the President can command it if he wants.

Maybe the National Guard would be okay to use. But definitely the DOJ and the FBI would be all that is needed.

Well, Biden needs to select a force that is able to overwhelm the Secret Service protection detail. The FBI could do it, but probably not without taking casualties themselves. A USAF or Navy strike from the air would be much harder to defend against. A Reaper drone could do it, while involving only a handful of military personnel under the direct orders of thrir Commander in Chief, who (we must not forget) can do literally anything, without fear of legal repercussions of any kind, as long as he is acting in his official capacity.

 

[ZiprHead]

What people aren't noticing is, the Supreme Court will just decide whether or not that constitutes an official act or not. They would not decide in Biden's favor.

It would be difficult, even for the current Supreme Court, to argue that the Commander in Chief is not engaging in an "official act" when giving a direct order to the armed forces.

As I understand it, he would have to go through the Department of Justice for it to be an official act.

Why? If anyone, wouldn't it be through the department of defense?

I read it is unconstitutional for the military to operate in the US in that manner.

Sure it is. But that's OK, because it's an Official Act, so the President can command it if he wants.

If he can get a general to agree to it.

Maybe the National Guard would be okay to use. But definitely the DOJ and the FBI would be all that is needed.

Well, Biden needs to select a force that is able to overwhelm the Secret Service protection detail. The FBI could do it, but probably not without taking casualties themselves. A USAF or Navy strike from the air would be much harder to defend against. A Reaper drone could do it, while involving only a handful of military personnel under the direct orders of thrir Commander in Chief, who (we must not forget) can do literally anything, without fear of legal repercussions of any kind, as long as he is acting in his official capacity.

Okay, I think we need to pull back on this sort of talk. Don't want to put the board at risk.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

What people aren't noticing is, the Supreme Court will just decide whether or not that constitutes an official act or not. They would not decide in Biden's favor.

It would be difficult, even for the current Supreme Court, to argue that the Commander in Chief is not engaging in an "official act" when giving a direct order to the armed forces.

As I understand it, he would have to go through the Department of Justice for it to be an official act.

Why? If anyone, wouldn't it be through the department of defense?

I read it is unconstitutional for the military to operate in the US in that manner.

Sure it is. But that's OK, because it's an Official Act, so the President can command it if he wants.

If he can get a general to agree to it.

Maybe the National Guard would be okay to use. But definitely the DOJ and the FBI would be all that is needed.

Well, Biden needs to select a force that is able to overwhelm the Secret Service protection detail. The FBI could do it, but probably not without taking casualties themselves. A USAF or Navy strike from the air would be much harder to defend against. A Reaper drone could do it, while involving only a handful of military personnel under the direct orders of thrir Commander in Chief, who (we must not forget) can do literally anything, without fear of legal repercussions of any kind, as long as he is acting in his official capacity.

Okay, I think we need to pull back on this sort of talk. Don't want to put the board at risk.

We will be anyway if Trump wins.

 

[ZiprHead]

FACT FOCUS: Trump wasn’t exonerated by the presidential immunity ruling, even though he says he was

Former President Donald Trump is turning to his social media platform to declare “total exoneration” after the Supreme Court ruled presidents have broad immunity when it comes to their actions while in office.

apnews.com

Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday misrepresented in a social media post what the U.S. Supreme Court’s Monday ruling on presidential immunity means for his civil and criminal cases.

“TOTAL EXONERATION!” he wrote in the post on his Truth Social platform. “It is clear that the Supreme Court’s Brilliantly Written and Historic Decision ENDS all of Crooked Joe Biden’s Witch Hunts against me, including the WHITE HOUSE AND DOJ INSPIRED CIVIL HOAXES in New York.”

But none of Trump’s pending cases have been dismissed as a result of the ruling, nor have the verdicts already reached against him been overturned. The ruling does amount to a major victory for the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, whose legal strategy has focused on delaying court proceedings until after the 2024 election.

Here’s a closer look at the facts.

Read on...

 

[Shadowy Man]

I’m not a lawyer, but it would seem likely that the NY case could need to be retired if the jury saw evidence that is now considered unallowed.

 

[LoAmmo]

Now that they Supremes have spoken, one little detail seems neglected:
in the giddiness the Right is expressing on their victory lap, they may be overlooking the fact that…wait for it…Joe Biden has just been granted kingly powers. There is literally no end to the fuckery he could commit…were he so inclined. In the real world, of course, he isn’t so inclined. Nor would be any president in our history—save maybe Nixon, whose ghost is probably kicking itself—except Trump.
The Supremes clearly meant to bestow this wholly invented shield of immunity on Trump, not Biden, knowing full well that Biden wouldn’t exploit it in the waning days of his administration (or, come to that, a second term were he to win one.)
Their ruling was a gift hand-addressed to Donald J. Trump, and they’re counting on it not being “opened” til Trump’s Inauguration Day.

I’d love to see Biden open the present early, start using it, and tell outraged critics, “Law of the Land, baby. See also: Supreme Court ruling.”

But he won’t. Which Roberts and his corrupt colleagues knew.

 

[Elixir]

I’d love to see Biden open the present early, start using it, and tell outraged critics, “Law of the Land, baby. See also: Supreme Court ruling.”

+1
Some "official actions" are definitely called for, Biden's obliviousness notwithstanding.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The problem is that only the President is immune for commanded illegal official acts. Everyone executing those commands would remain criminally exposed.

 

[ZiprHead]

The problem is that only the President is immune for commanded illegal official acts. Everyone executing those commands would remain criminally exposed.

"Go kill for me. Here is your pardon."