#SCOTUS is supposed to rule this morning on #Trump’s claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges of trying to overturn the 2020 election.
The decision will determine whether & how special counsel #JackSmith’s case against Trump can proceed — although it’s unlikely a trial would happen before #Election Day. But the ruling could also set an important #precedent for how to prosecute presidents for their actions in office.
@Nonilex definitely a need for a new party, democrats just roll with the punches turns into being a punching bag ain't worth consideration. For once historically speaking, get out in front planning the revolt against the kingdom disguised as a democracy, push aside anything the kings courts calls law, they are implementing lawlessness for the privileged
@Nonilex Don't worry; the Roberts Court is certain to hold Don Trump accountable, along with any other future figureheads appointed by our Leaders as their blathering spokespuppets for the demolition of the Public, when they too commit self-serving atrocities. There's precedent!
@Nonilex
It is ridiculous that scotus should have any say at all on something like this. The supreme court has become an illegitamate body. Their legal opinions are worthless and should be ignored.
Some justices suggested during oral arguments that they were taking a sweeping approach to the case. “We are writing a rule for the ages,” Justice #Gorsuch said. #Trump is facing 4 charges stemming from his attempts to overturn #Biden’s victory in the #2020election, the most serious of which carries a max of 20 yrs in #prison. The case has been on hold while #SCOTUSconsiders Trump’s argument that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts they take while in office.
#SCOTUS seems unlikely to side either w/ #Trump or #DOJ, which argued that presidents are not #immune from prosecution. (A 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals DC Circuit ruled unanimously in Feb in favor of the #Justice Dept.)
Instead, the justices will likely split the difference.
They could rule that Trump can be prosecuted for some charges & not others — or they could outline a test to determine what conduct Trump & other former presidents can be prosecuted for & what they can’t.
If #SCOTUS devises a test: Do they apply it themselves? (Doubtful) Or do they return the case to District Court Judge Tanya #Chutkan & instruct her to apply it? (More likely) If the justices apply the test themselves & allow some of the charges against #Trump to stand, the case could proceed. But if the court asks Chutkan to apply a test & she finds Trump is not #immune from prosecution, then Trump would undoubtedly appeal which would further delay a trial.
#JackSmith might also decide to revise the charges against #Trump to move the case forward — a possibility that #SCOTUS Justice #AmyConeyBarrett raised during oral argument.
If the court rules that Trump cannot be prosecuted for official conduct as president but his private conduct is fair game, Barrett asked, “Is another option for the special counsel to just proceed based on the private conduct & drop the official conduct?”
Michael Waldman, a fmr speechwriter in Pres Bill Clinton’s WH who is president & chief exec of the @BrennanCenter for #Justice, said the timing of the ruling might be more important than the decision.
“The court has already given #Trump what he craved, which is de facto #immunity before the #election,” Waldman said. By deciding the case on the final day of the term, the court has made it “very, very, very, very, very unlikely” it will go to trial before Election Day.
If the trial doesn’t start by Election Day, the fate of Smith’s case might depend on the election’s outcome. #Trump could tell his AG to drop the case if he wins. Waldman is watching whether #SCOTUS rules unanimously — as it did in 1974 when it ordered President Richard #Nixon to hand over the #Watergate tapes, another important case on the limits of presidential #power — or the ruling is divided along ideological lines.
“The #credibility of the court is on the line, & they risk looking very #partisan, depending on not just what they do but how they do it,” Waldman said.
“What made the Court’s 1974 ruling in the #Nixon …case so profound was not its reasoning, but the fact that it was an 8-0 repudiation of Nixon by a Chief Justice he had appointed. I certainly hope that the Court finds a way to present a united front in whatever it decides in #Trump’s case. But…I’m not optimistic,” Vladeck wrote.
@Nonilex I've come to the conclusion the best path forward is for #SCOTUS to rule presidents have absolute immunity. #Joe can use that to order #SEALTeam6 to arrest #trump and terminate with extreme prejudice. Preferably from a chopper at 6000 feet over a shark feeding frenzy.
there are two boxes of opinions this morning holding the final three decisions of the term.
The first of three final rulings to be released is about the statute of limitations to challenge fees that retailers can be charged by banks for debit card transactions. The case is Corner Post v. Federal Reserve.
The court has issued its ruling in #NetChoice v. #Paxton & #Moody V. NetChoice, blocking both the Florida and Texas social media laws while litigation continues in lower courts. Here is the ruling.
“entitled to presumptive immunity for official acts”
“A former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his ‘conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,’ the ruling says. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”
@Nonilex Neal Katyal says on MSNBC that Trump's therefore immune for pressuring the Justice Department but kicked the question of leaning on Mike Pence, state Secretaries of State and other non-federal officials back to the lower courts.
The #SCOTUS has remanded the case to the Federal District Court judge overseeing the matter, Tanya #Chutkan, to determine the nature of the acts for which Trump has been charged — which are unofficial ones he undertook in his personal capacity & which are official ones he undertook as president.
“The president is not above the #law, but Congress may not criminalize the president’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the Constitution. And the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent executive. The president therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, & he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his ofcl acts.”
“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. 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. With fear for our #democracy, I dissent."
#SCOTUS Chief Justice #JohnRoberts says #Trump’s pressuring of #MikePence was certainly official conduct, but leaves open the question of whether it counts as the core kind that Trump is absolutely #immune for, or a lessor kind where he has only a presumption of #immunity that can be overcome.
This decision is "one for the ages" alright. A supreme lesson in carving a decision designed to protect Trump yet smother the democracy in bullsh!t..
Given Chump is a clear and present danger to the USA, Biden may have to "destroy the village to save it" and put Chump (& his conspirators) in prison, now.
#SCOTUS grants fmr presidents an expansive amount of protection against #criminal prosecution by ruling that there is “presumption of #immunity” for acts that fall within “the outer perimeter” of a president’s official duties. That’s the same broad standard that protects presidents & fmr presidents against #civil lawsuits. Whether the “outer perimeter” test holds up in #Trump’s case remains to be seen.
#SCOTUS’ decision finds not only that a president can’t be charged for any official acts, but also that evidence involving officials can’t be introduced to bolster accusations made about unofficial acts. If I’m reading this right, Chief #JusticeRoberts has reversed himself from his position during oral arguments.
Chief #JusticeRoberts's ruling expresses skepticism that #Trump could be prosecuted for the speech he gave on #Jan6 or any of his tweets that day. Roberts notes that “most of a president’s public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities.” But he leaves open the possibility that Trump could face charges for his words if they were delivered as “a candidate for office.”
@Nonilex Yup. “We love you” to the insurrectionists was just “comforting the country” as Head of State. So can’t even bring it up to offer context or show intent.
Totally different than any other prosecution of a public official. And totally insane.
More from #Sotomayor's dissent, this ruling dramatically expands presidential #power — not just for #Trump but for all presidents.
“The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts #immunity now 'lies about like a loaded weapon' for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation.”
@Nonilex I would say it would be prudent for PResident Biden to exercise his core power to defend and protect the Constitution by removing, by any means necessary, 6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices, as well as Donald Trump.
“The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, & possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”
In a footnote to its #immunity decision, #SCOTUS appeared to say that the federal cases against #Trump cannot continue if he returns to the White House.
“In the criminal context … the Justice Department ‘has long recognized’ that ‘the separation of powers precludes the criminal prosecution of a sitting President,’” Chief Justice #JohnRoberts wrote.
@Nonilex Yes well, if the SCOTUS can ignore literally decades of precedent and settled law, I am pretty sure the DOJ can too.
Because clearly none of it matters anymore.
#SCOTUS’ majority said #Trump could not be prosecuted over ANY conversations w/ #DOJ leaders. This would include #JeffreyClark & the almost #SaturdayNightMassacre mass DOJ resignations over Trump’s pressure on #Justice Dept to overturn the election results.
#SCOTUS’ #immunity ruling will also reverberate in #FultonCounty, #Georgia where #Trump & 14 of his allies have been criminally charged in a sprawling #racketeering [#RICO] indictment. In Jan, Trump’s GA lawyers filed a motion arguing that the case should be dismissed on immunity grounds. But prosecutors have been waiting on the #SupremeCourt, & have said they will file a response to Trump within 2 weeks of the issuance of the immunity ruling.
@Nonilex IMHO, I'm not a lawyer but Trump asking them to find votes for him to win is still a crime. Fake electors is still a crime. You can't break the law and overturn an election that you lost. He filed 60+ lawsuits and lost all but one. He committed crimes to try to stay in office illegally. Jack Smith and the Georgia prosecutors need to stay on the case and prosecute Trump.
#SCOTUS held not only that #Trump could not be prosecuted for official acts but that those acts could not be used as #evidence of a #crime. “That proposal threatens to eviscerate the #immunity we have recognized,” Chief Justice #JohnRoberts wrote. “It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.”
#JohnRoberts added that getting into ofcl acts at all in the trial of a fmr president would “raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies & performance while in office.”
Justice #AmyConeyBarrett dissented from that part of the majority opinion, saying it would make it impossible to prosecute a fmr president for bribery, for example, because a prosecutor couldn’t explain what ofcl act was taken in exchange for the bribe.
In his opinion, #JohnRoberts said that “the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act” & “admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return.” But a prosecutor can’t “admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself” or allow the jury to “inspect the motivations” behind the act.
In dissent, Justice #Sotomayor said that rule effectively makes any prosecution of a fmr president impossible bc w/so much #evidence off-limits, #intent would be extremely difficult to prove. “The majority’s extraordinary rule has no basis in #law,” she said. She noted that other acts protected by the #Constitution can still be used in a #criminal prosecution — e.g., most speech. Jurors are often instructed that speech alone can’t be the basis for conviction but can be used to establish #motive.
“The Court has now declared for the first time in history that the most powerful ofcl in the #UnitedStates can … become a #law unto himself. As we enter this uncharted territory, the People, in their wisdom, will need to remain ever attentive, consistently fulfilling their established role in our constitutional #democracy, & thus collectively serving as the ultimate safeguard against any chaos spawned by this Court's decision.”
@Nonilex after their rule on bump stocks, homeless being a crime, the chevron ruling, others, and now this, I think the only option is to fix the SC somehow either by impeaching, flat out removing and convicting them of treason, or filling it. Sad it's come to this and also very sad we have to consider we may need to wait possibly till after the election to try any one of those bc it might hurt Biden's chances somehow. Curious your thoughts on the best course of action on SCOTUS.
Article I §8 of the Constitution, clause 18, the “Necessary & Proper Clause” authorizes Congress “to make all Laws which shall be necessary & proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, & all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Govt of the United States”
It implicitly grants Congress the authority to enact a wide range of legislation to facilitate judicial power, including the authority to impeach & remove justices.
So, we need a Democrat majority in the House & Senate to get anything done. Which cannot happen until after the November election. Once we have that, we should do it all, term limits, ethics rules, recusal rules, etc.
Which means ALL Democrats including Biden, should be running on this.
@Nonilex@Evan_L
As of today, it seems that the President could have 6 justices arrested because they represent a clear and present danger, and hold them indefinitely.
Then the remaining justices could reconsider precedents.
While it would not be legal, it would be immune from prosecution, which is effectively the same thing.
Biden now has immunity according the Supreme Court so it means Biden should immediately arrest those Supreme Court members and put them in front of the firing squad including Trump 🤷🏻♀️
These people have proven to be a extreme danger to democracy
If Biden does not take action now the floodgates will open if Trump wins 🤦🏻♀️
@Nonilex With this verdict, Biden should send the National Guard to SCOTUS and replace the six Putschists with real judges in order to save the constitution - immunity was granted today.
America is fucked, a president was crowned as the new king.
George Washington dreht sich gerade im Grab um und schreit - WHAT THE FUCK?!
@Nonilex Honestly, I wasn't expecting to see her pop off that bluntly. I dunno how useful it is, but I'm glad there's not some idea that "collegiality" within the court still matters more than speaking plainly about attacking democracy.
@Nonilex
Biden should have Trump assassinated, along with the majority conservative justices. All in the name of saving democracy and the constitution. The president did take an oath to protect and defend and uphold the constitution. It’s for the good of the United States and its people.
@Nonilex@ChanceyFleet I need to find a summary somewhere on the internet that would demonstrate how the judges argued in favor of immunity. There has to be some logic and/or adherence to the constitution?
@Nonilex the closest thing to a magic wand, IMO, is Pootin’s puppet needs to be defeated in November, in a land slide, and the dems need to take the majority in the house and senate and then expand the court ASAP.
@Nonilex With this verdict, Biden should send the National Guard to SCOTUS and replace the six Putschists with real judges in order to save the constitution - immunity was granted today.
America is fucked, a president was crowned as the new king.
George Washington dreht sich gerade im Grab um und schreit - WHAT THE FUCK?!
@Nonilex isn’t the key question here what constitutes official duty? I understand some level of immunity in the sense that a President may, as part of their responsibilities, have to act in ways that would otherwise be criminal (commanding troops to war, ordering imprisonment). Prosecuting for acts that are part of their duties would seem unfair.
I could see it argued that comms and actions related to an election campaign are not duties of a President, but as a candidate.
@Nonilex So, ‘encouraging’ someone else to break the law (12th Amendment) is somehow within the ‘scope’ of an elected official sworn to uphold and defend the same Constitution?
@Nonilex There's no excuse for Biden not just going absolutely HAM on packing the courts and purging traitors now that his official acts are all 100% legal.
At some point, the existential threat to the USA needs to be answered definitively and patience is no longer a virtue.
@Nonilex ...it simply reads as the opposite of what the standard must be....impossible to understand how they reasoned themselves into such a dire, dangerous position, esp after having watch the past 8 years of trump. If it was done only to protect trump, it is a vile, despicable move that further weakens, cripples actually, a key to the country's foundation...a King & no administrative power to the agencies of governance, pretty clear message. It is unAmerican in the extreme.
@Nonilex ...a must read today...the pact with the Devil by people who should know better. Now they may be called traitors to America, in my view. Simply beyond contenance in any way.
@Nonilex Nonilex, I don't make political predictions, especially for SCOTUS, but I'll make an exception right now: however the Trump immunity decision reads, it will NOT be unanimous.
@Nonilex
I guess I’m just not smart enough to understand how inciting a violent insurrection to prevent the transfer of power could EVER be considered an official act, when insurrection itself is criminal.