I don't get the supreme court decision. It's confusing. Unclear.
I don't understand the principle behind any immunity at all for presidents. My little anarchist heart just can't find the thread of what they are seeing in any of this.
We need to replace most of these justices, we need a better court. What a failure.
I mean I guess a confusing "mixed decision" will waste a lot of time in the lower courts. So, there is that. How base and political if that's the motive.
But, it's OK ... even if it takes years the justice system will keep grinding along. And as Mr. Bannon has found out today there are consequences at the end.
Others will continue to find out. Because when you describe what they did it was obviously wrong.
@futurebird Did the court really say anything different? The question that they didn't answer was the January 6th Stop The Steal rally was an official act.
All presidents always had the presumption of immunity for official acts. Trump said the rally was as an official act and I don't see where they SCOTUS agreed.
So, now the case should be tried under the same logic. The rally wasn't an official act and the defense will have to show that it was.
Exactly and that's so transparent it's a huge mark of shame for them to have interfered at all. So openly playing day to day politics like mobbed up used car-salesmen running for dogcatcher.
Couldn't even be brave enough to say "No, Harlan, that would disgrace the court too much and make us less useful to you in the future."
They had nothing to say, nothing to add, and should have stayed quiet.
A defense attorney is supposed to try to generate such delays, that's part of their responsibility to their client. So why is "The Highest Court in the Land" acting like the defense attorney of the former president?
"Highest Court in the Land" ... alright... high on something. Probably RVs and fishing trips ... like grubby little periwinkles in tide pool.
@futurebird I totally agree. They are acting like his defense attorneys.
Now if the US would give the Dems (can't believe I'm writing that) Congress and the Executive control maybe we can impeach them for their huge Ethic violations and get them off the bench.
@futurebird@jasonb the end game is here, there is now no justification for biden to carry on playing by the rules, as soon as trump gets in that's the US done, he should fix the SCOTUS right now
As many have pointed out, they could have said this in December. This was obviously a delaying operation to ensure the trial is after the election, and if Trump wins the election, the case goes away.
And the Supreme Court majority is standing back and standing by to do whatever they can — which will be a lot — to ensure Trump wins the election.
@futurebird
This reads like an attempt for them to have it both ways and ultimately it is muddy, which is maybe the one thing the are supposed not to do
“The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.”
They won’t even provide an answer in THIS case, where they have access to particulars.
“You deal with it, then we’ll tell you how wrong you were a year from now, possibly.”
I guess I do have a soft spot for institutions that have honor and people who take that responsibility seriously. And it hurts to discover that it's just more desperate scrambling, crabs in a barrel personal favor seeking...
I will reserve my quiet awe for Librarians and maybe the occasional scientist, or foodbank organizer.
Your robes mean nothing and our only task is to manipulate you so that you do less harm from here on out.
It ought to be humiliating for the Supreme Court to be so obviously entangled in political details like that. For them to be so moved by the petty needs of political seasons.
But, I really need to stop expecting them to care at all.
@futurebird@michaelgemar@danblondell I don't know. This is the Federalist Society Supreme Court (I should get a trade mark on that) and it was designed to be politically involved.
@futurebird The real bad move was accepting the case but not ruling quickly. If they’d ruled as quickly as Smith asked for, the remaining charges would be at trial now. Instead we’ve had months of delay and will see more as lower courts sort through the details.
@futurebird "Never believe they are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since they believe in words.
"They have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past." - Sartre, 1944
@futurebird AGREED. As it is I see it as more proof this country is beyond repair and any future for it lies in IMMEDIATE revolution, including disbanding itself.
It does not even serve its alleged purpose of being a nation of laws rather than a king (of course as a leftist I don't believe that's a thing, but liberals/normies do), there's actual fucking monarchies that aren't presidential dictatorships like this decision would make us
@futurebird it goes back to Jefferson because he kept getting sued over shady land deals he entered into as a private citizen and it became increasingly distracting from his work at the White House. It wasn’t a grand ambition for him to be an untouchable god king
@futurebird They gave trump a partial win for the campaign, and preserved a next president's ability to misuse the DOJ, but then punted the rest as a delaying tactic.