ALL NORMAL RULES APPLY. A link to the decision will be added once released.
Top-Level Comments Open to All
TRUMP IMMUNITY DECISION MEGATHREAD
MegathreadAt least the magas can't call Biden a criminal anymore
True!! Haha I thought about posting this. It's wild to me that we heard so much about the "Biden Crime Family" only for this to happen. I don't really understand how conservatives are gonna justify this.
Moderator removed comment
5d
Moderator removed comment
5d
Moderator removed comment
5d
He never was, but that didn't stop them.
If I were Biden, I’d sell a lifetime blanket pardon to El Chapo for $5 billion.
I'd decree that convicted felons can't run for president just for the meme
Official Act #1
If consistency and honesty were something that would stop the MAGAs from spewing their vitriol, they would've stopped many many years ago.
This changes nothing.
It also prevents people from calling Obama a criminal for his actions in Yemen
Don’t think the magas give a fuck about that, they just see this as a victory for Trump and project 2025.
you're correct. I haven't heard a peep about Obama and Yemen from conservatives in a loooong time until yesterday. It's just a talking point. It was always only a problem for progressives.
Moderator removed comment
3d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
1d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
The take care clause:
he [the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed
Now someone like you or me or my neighbor or the authors of the Constitution would interpret that as meaning "the president needs to be careful to follow the law." That's just because we're not as smart as John Roberts who has realized that, far from constraining the president, the take care clause actually enables the president to not follow the law and prevents anyone else from stopping him.
This is a shit opinion. It's wrong. It also resolves nothing (kicking the can down the road on what counts as "official" so that the Supreme Court will get to weigh in on this case a couple more times).
They can dress it up as much as they want in rhetoric about future presidents, but this case is just about ensuring Trump doesn't go to trial before the election.
Do you think that the SC decision will be so off-putting to some more moderate folks who might have been planning to hold their nose while voting Trump this November to maybe switch their vote (reluctantly) to Biden/Dem Nominee (or RFK Jr)?
It's unlikely the moderates will get more info on this decision than Sinclair media allows them.
No.
Yeah, that’s what I was assuming I suppose.
I just peaked over a conservative sub, made the mistake of asking a question. I wish most were as rational as you on how this is a terrible precedent. This seems so far and above qualified immunity.
Was hoping to see some conservatives comment in your post, either in agreement or disagreement.
The decision basically makes the Supreme Court the final arbiter over whether a President's actions were "official". This wouldn't be so bad if the court weren't so politically polarized, but that's not where we're at now.
A Democrat did it? 6-3 opinion that what he did wasn't legal.
A Republican did it? 6-3 opinion that what he did was, in fact, legal.
And as much as Redditors like to say that Biden could just imprison or kill any member of SCOTUS would rein him in, this is just a fast track to Civil War part deux. Republicans- as long as they keep a majority on the court- don't have to resort to extreme measures, since they'll have a rubber stamp giving them authority to do whatever they want. Couple that with Project 2025, and... well, I'm just glad I live in Canada now.
This decision was a huge power grab by SCOTUS.
Thank you.
Besides helping Trump, what other benefits does this ruling have? To me it seems like it just expands the power the Executive Branch has.
Presidents are now basically kings, happy fourth of july
It's not just that. This gives the Supreme Court power over the President.
Unless the president abuses his power to remove them from office or replace them with loyalists. He has the ability to enforce what he wants by using federal agencies (such as the military) where SCOTUS has zero power to enforce anything.
We are at peak insanity.
And then the average voter sees Biden doing the kind of stuff they've only seen despots in banana republics do, and then we're suddenly in Civil War 2.
Don't get me wrong- I WANT Biden to take drastic action. But the GOP has been playing chess all this time, and they're two moves ahead because they've been planning it for years.
Moderator removed comment
1d
Personally I think it is a terrible idea because many living former presidents have crimes they did during their presidency that now can't be brought to justice
Richard Nixon was right when he said when a president does it, it’s not illegal.
That’s not a good thing.
You would've thought the small government types would be vehemently against 'pres can do whatever they want'
Moderator removed comment
5d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Even if you're good faith and believe that there is still room for punishment for obviously egregious official actions, it'd motivate less informed presidents to be more reckless, which is a great benefit for their peace of mind since it removes a variable from most calculations. Wouldn't make much difference for well informed presidents though, as they'd know they could still be punished if they step too far out of line, so they still need to weigh the necessity for violating laws.
User deleted comment
6d
I don't know if this counts as a victory for Trump.
It is, because if elected again, he will push the envelope and presume everything is an "official act" and challenge anyone who thinks otherwise.
Of course it will get tied up in litigation and motions for long beyond the time it matters, since the damage will be done long before it gets ruled on, either way. This is modus operandi for Trump, anyway. He's probably the most vexatious litigant in history, with a record of over 4000 lawsuits and now 4 criminal indictments and 34 convictions. It's insane this person is the Republican front runner.
Not only that, but he has allegedly asked for monies in order to enact policy that benefits large oil companies and in this holding in Part III-C (with which Barett dissents and agrees with Sotomayor) bribery (among other crimes) is de-facto legal since the courts may not examine official acts and in Barett's words,
The federal bribery statute for- bids any public official to seek or accept a thing of value “for or because of any official act.” 18 U. S. C. §201(c). The Con- stitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. See Art. II, §4 (listing “Bribery” as an impeach- able offense); see also Memorandum from L. Silberman, Deputy Atty. Gen., to R. Burress, Office of the President, Re: Conflict of Interest Problems Arising Out of the Presi- dent’s Nomination of Nelson A. Rockefeller To Be Vice Pres- ident Under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the Constitu- tion 5 (Aug. 28, 1974) (suggesting that the federal bribery statute applies to the President). Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleg- ing a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability.
It's insane this person is the Republican front runner.
First, I fully agree with this statement. For many reasons.
But, I don’t think this is a win for Trump.
SCOTUS remanded the majority of the allegations for further review, and there are several that fall well outside his official duties. I expect those issues will be resolved quickly and cases will move forward.
I would also (looking into my magic 8-ball) expect, depending on the makeup of Congress, that if Trump is elected he’ll be impeached almost immediately.
A point which circles back to my original statement… WTF is the GOP thinking?
I expect those issues will be resolved quickly
Why? What reason do you have to believe that anything Trump will move forward quickly? His whole game is delay, the GOP's been in on it and now the SC is.
The SCOTUS taking this case at all was delay, or as some have put it, obstruction of justice. That, on top of the fact that they actually granted immunity in any form that wasn't obvious in all of our 250+ years of existence. It broke for this one guy, who's a convicted felon.
depending on the makeup of Congress, that if Trump is elected he’ll be impeached almost immediately
The Republicans are favored to contorl the Senate once again. The House they'll likely lose, but we'd be back to the state of affairs for impeachment 1 and 2, where they defer to the DOJ, which now says he's immune.
If he wins in November, we have a king as none of this will matter, as he will either throw his own cases out, or he pushes lines to find out what was "remanded" and who has the balls to challenge it, and that's if it matters. If he shoots someone on fifth ave., and calls it an official act, it could be challenged at lightning speed, but somene would be fucking dead already, even if they deem it unofficial in the end.
All this for this mother fucker? You asked the right question...
WTF is the GOP thinking?
The GOP knows exactly what they are doing.
Only a conservative would think this isn’t a win for Trump. The odd thing is maga calls Biden crooked and doesn’t see the irony in supporting trumps immunity claims.
Conservatives wanted a king and they got it.
A point which circles back to my original statement… WTF is the GOP thinking?
My thoughts exactly. This is the most I've seen conservatives unanimously disagree with a (conservative) decision since I've been on the sub. Hard to argue you distrust government, then turn around and give government more power, and it's even harder to say Biden is a criminal when you give him ambiguous immunity for crimes.
I'm sure this is good for Trump on a personal level, but it feels like they traded a lot of legitimacy of their party platform for this. I understand why the average low-info voter would not see an issue, but how is this good for republicans as a whole?
What is the delineating line there?
That's the point. They don't say; they're sending it back down for the lower courts to work out. Which means that it will come back to the Supreme Court and they get a second crack at this case (and quite likely a third eventually). They've resolved nothing.
I don't know if this counts as a victory for Trump.
It ensures that no trial can occur before the election. That's a victory, and really the only victory that matters for him.
If he wins the election, then he just orders the Justice Department to dismiss the case (and game over). If he loses the election, there are going to be many years of further litigation on this question before it all gets worked out. He will be dead of natural causes before it ever goes to a jury.
Hoping it gets mooted by Trump winning the election. We make fun of congress not doing their jobs because it’s hard sometimes but this is SCOTUS punting for the same reason
Gotta love conservatives in this thread celebrating the end of the rule of law in America. Does this not bother you?
The long and short of it is the Supreme Court- or, more specifically, the conservatives on the Supreme Court- punted it back to the lower courts, resulting in delays which will put the decision well after the next election.
Actually, no. The fake electors scheme is actually something Smith can go ahead with…the Court ruled last week that the charges in counts 2 & 3 related to documents tampering are valid under the statute, and during oral arguments for immunity, Trump’s lawyer (Sauer), flat-out admitted under questioning that the electors bit was not an official act.
Now, Smith is the kind of guy who is very much known for trying to use legal overkill, but if he sticks with the fake electors scheme? He might well have the whole trial wrapped up and a jury decision by October 1st.
In what world do you believe that will happen, and are you willing to bet on it? Because I'd take that action. Edit: Exactly as I predicted, https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fake-electors-scheme-supreme-court-1919928
That’s kind of my point. I don’t think it would happen, because Smith is very much an all-or-nothing type of prosecutor (and is likely to get his ass handed to him as a result). I’m saying if he genuinely just wanted to get a decent charge in before the election that Trump can’t appeal, he has the ability do it; the sense to recognize that is something else.
Except even if he did exactly as you said, Trump would argue it was an official act, a lower court would say it wasn't, Trump would appeal it to SCOTUS which wouldn't hear it before election. So...wanna take the bet? President's are now functionally immune from any prosecution ever, they just have to say they see it as an official act, then it has to go thru the year-two year process of appeal, during that time maybe he orders that person removed under threat of death, also what he deems an official act...do you legitimately not see the issue? edit: Shocker, Trump did exactly as I predicted https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-fake-electors-scheme-supreme-court-1919928
Yah you forgot Thomas opinion
They did so while also increasing presidential power exponentially by shielding “official” actions from prosecution.
Mississippi v Johnson already shielded the President from civil suits when in pursuit of official acts.
This isn’t exactly a radical departure from long standing precedent.
Surely you see the difference between shielding a president from civil suits vs criminal charges, right?
Like there’s a difference between saying, “No ma’am, you can’t sue the president for defamatory rhetoric directed towards you,” and “The president can order his rival to be assassinated and there’s nothing anyone can do about it”
Did you read the opinion?
And the dissents. Somehow a bigger decision than overruling Chevron. I’m not sure how many people actually “won” over the last four days
Yes. People were freaking out over Chevron, not realizing that the courts are falling back to Skidmore. Essentially charging “must defer” to “must defer if there’s a reasonable basis in the law”.
The dissents opinion is somewhat reliant on fear mongering. Jackson (paraphrasing), “The President can remove Executive officers as a function of their core duty, but what if they do so by poisoning them!!!!!
As if we don’t have a long established understanding of how a removal operates and that murdering someone would fall far outside any possible understanding of the President’s official duties.
Edit: to be clear, Trump didn’t “win” with this ruling as most of the allegations have been remanded to lower courts to determine if they were official or unofficially acts.
And, most of them (I.e. contacting State officials) are going to fall into the unofficial category.
The dissents opinion is somewhat reliant on fear mongering.
What a pathetic cowardly sycophantic reading of the dissent.
My point, exactly.
They sided with precedent, not a president.
So if a president holds up a bank, is that official? There’s got to be a line.
What would constitutional requirement or duty would he be fulfilling by robbing a bank?
This ruling is consistent with Mississippi v Johnson
I was responding to this:
Wouldn't all actions while in office be deemed "official"? After-all, a President is constantly President when in office. He doesn't stop being President on his off time for example.
Which if true would make robbing a bank in their free time an official act of the President. Or maybe campaign finance fraud. Or sedition.
I don’t think the ruling agreed with the commenter I was responding to.
User deleted comment
5d
Ok. So setting up fake electors, or campaign finance fraud, or inciting a riot should all be unofficial acts, even if done while President?
You used words like “all” and “even in his off time.” I didn’t have to do anything extreme to make that preposterous.
"This is my official, presidential first-degree murder."
"This is my official, presidential private laundering scheme."
"This is my official, presidential underage prostitution ring."
That's why. Sorry if you feel "brigaded".
A President has immunity for official acts when in office but not unofficial acts. What is the delineating line there?
SCOTUS remanded it to the lower Courts to start figuring that out. We don't have an answer to that question right now. Well, there is no formal jurisprudential answer - obviously we all have thoughts/opinions etc...
Yes basically. Most things a president does is “official”. Meaning speeches (Jan 6 speech in particular) is considered an official act, since it was planned , on the calendar, as official as could be. So that takes care of one element of Trumps criminal proceedings
Ehhh.... I would think his speeches as a candidate would not fall under official acts, but still be covered by the 1st amendment. His alternate electors scheme should definitely not be covered since the feds aren't in control of how the states handle elections
Good thing he was President during January 6. Am i right?
No I agree with you. I know a candidate should not have immunity- And Neither should previous VICE presidents
it is not nearly that clear cut.
because of the laws against using federal money and staff for elections an incumbent candidate is forced into an awkward dance.
in fact it's possible, likely actually, a candidate is more restrained than an incumbent not running for reelection due to the fact no one will be looking so closely at misclassification fraud.
Good thing he was President during January 6. Am i right?
Right, but being President and being candidate are two separate things.
Why shouldn't President Biden send Seal Team 6 to move Donald closer to heaven?
As this would be an official act President Biden has full criminal immunity for this action and it's unlikely any surviving house members will vote to impeach. So what's the downside for Biden?
This is an awful decision.
FOR THE RECORD I AM NOT ADVOCATING FOR ANY ACTION.
“Official” is yet to be defined and will be handed back to lower courts which can define it however they see fit.
The speech didn't matter already. Jack Smith made a point in the indictment that Trump's speech was 1st amendment protected, and he wasn't charged for that specific act. It was everything else behind the scenes and in advance of that speech, in conjunction with that speech, that was alleged to be illegal. The speech, if anything, is evidence.
So what stops Biden from conducting an official speech officially calling for the military to assassinate Donald Trump?
Nothing currently.
And this is a good thing to conservatives?
For some Trump people, yes.
Not all speeches are official, though the line is fuzzy. Even if it’s on the schedule, a campaign speech is not an official act of the office. Neither is any campaign event. The difficulty arises is when he illegally blends the two, like his Mt Rushmore speech. (Illegal here means it violates the law, but there’s not an applicable criminal statute. Hatch act violations of his staff are another example.)
So the Jan 6 didn’t actually pertain to any of his Presidential duties, so it can’t be an official act.
But will a sympathetic court, say, a judge appointed by Trump, agree?
Was Trump indicted for the January 6th speech? Or was Trump indicted for attempting to certify fake electoral votes under false pretenses?
Yet another area where the Court has usurped substantial powers, I am afraid. They will decide.
I know the term conservative has lost its original meaning but I don't know how someone can consider themselves conservative and also be ok with this. This is big government at its worst.
I am no judge, so I can provided only a few good examples for now. If you are president and commit tax fraud, personal or through a family business, you would not be immune from prosecution.
More generally, if you are acting “from the chair” which is an old way of saying “through the office”, then it’s official business. One’s personal affairs do not go through this office, and are thus prosecutable.
So calling a state governor to discuss governance, immune. Discussing with the VP what you think he should do in his official capacity, immune. Putting a hit on your cheating spouse, prosecutable.
PS: This is based on my reading of the first 5ish pages.
Genuinely asking, do any conservatives think this is good? If so, why?
So the question is what happens when an official act clearly violates the law? Take an extreme example. Let's say the president orders the military to be deployed to arrest dissident protesters on the streets and maybe even open fire on them. Is that an official act? Should the president not be subject to prosecution for that?
Technically this is illegal and the military could refuse the order as it is not allowed to operate in an official capacity on US soil.
Also, impeachment would be the pathway and if the president is impeached, and removed, then they could be criminally prosecuted according to this Supreme Court ruling.
Technically this is illegal and the military could refuse the order as it is not allowed to operate in an official capacity on US soil.
It seems pretty obvious that operating on US soil is a necessary requirement of the military otherwise we'd be unable to have a defensive or deterrent role in war. For example, in the Civil War and the War of 1812, the military operated on US soil and it was necessary to do so.
The question is just... how bad does a "protest" have to be to justify military use rather than the police? And I'd argue that if you take a good faith read of today's supreme court ruling, such a situation (president deciding is this a "civil war" that deserves the military and lethal force or is it a "protest" that deserves police) is exactly why they give the president immunity. It's specifically so that in that scenario, the president could be free to use their best judgement and pay political consequences, rather than fearing how to react because of potential criminal consequences.
Also, impeachment would be the pathway and if the president is impeached, and removed, then they could be criminally prosecuted according to this Supreme Court ruling.
The ruling says he cannot be criminally prosecuted for an official act. So, it doesn't matter if he is impeached, if the crime was committed as part of an "official act" he still cannot be prosecuted. Again, "responding to unrest/protests" is an official act. The poor choice of solution doesn't make that solution not official.
Ok but with Schedule F in Project 2025, whose to say they will say no? The Military should say no, but who fuckin knows at this point.
Also the National Guard can operate on U.S. soil, and martial law could theoretical be enacted right? I'm just saying, this seems to open the floodgates.
The national guard can operate on US soil under state authority nor federal. They can be federalized, but then they are subject to Posse Comitatus or the insurrection act depending on why they are being federalized. That’s why states have to send NG troops to the boarder and not the feds. It’s also why the feds have to declare an emergency in certain areas of the boarder before they can federalize the troops and use them there.
Also, 2025 as an excuse for everything is so tiring… it’s not a governing document or a law that will be passed. It’s a guideline document that would still have to run against the full force and weight of the US government to become effective and I have faith in the governments ability to restrict it…. The document also requires laws to be passed for massive amounts of the document to work and I highly doubt a lot of those laws make it through.
Well but I'm saying that if Trump orders anyone to do anything now - and I guess this is my overall point - it could be construed as an official act tho right? Maybe using the NG to make the point was regarded and I'm sorry for that.
The military tho, that still stands.
2025 is very dangerous when conjoined with this new ruling tho right? Again, Schedule F is totally in his power to do and would gut the federal government and instill lackies in their place. This could be used to force the hand of the military. It's a really dangerous precedent.
As for everything else, we'll, I personally hope Republicans don't win a single congressional seat in November because then 2025 would become law. This is the dissolution of democracy in this country. At least that's how it all reads to me.
2025 can be instilled and Trump will be immune from the fallout of it and that's how we'll end up with a king.
The military can’t operate on US soil in a law enforcement manner under the Posse Comitatus act. This also controls other aspects of what they can and cannot do on US soil.
There are also military laws in place that members of the military have to follow that cannot simply be overturned because someone says so.
All you are doing is pandering to fear not based in actual reality.
What happens when Congress refuses to impeach a President who is flagrantly violating all sorts of laws?
You mean impeach or remove? Because Congress has been willing to impeach a president when they were of the opposite political party (see Clinton and Trumps impeachments)
Removal though is a serious thing and it would have to be provable beyond a reasonable doubt that the president committed a crime.
What this ruling actually does is take away the BS excuse that members of Congress used to not remove Trump after Jan 6 saying that he wasn’t criminally charged. This ruling clearly shows that congress must impeach and remove a president for criminal charges to be brought against a president for official acts.
Personally, I think SCOTUS has been doing a good job making decisions forcing Congress to actually do their jobs for the first time in almost 40 years.
Essentially half of them don’t even believe in their jobs though, being basically anti-government and anti-legislation. They think their job is to keep the other people who are there trying to do their job from doing their job.
So how is SCOTUS forcing Congress to do their job?
Yeah, what happens when Congress refuses to impeach and remove a President thats going on a crime spree?
Then people should look at their congresspeople and determine if those people have the best interest of America at heart and vote accordingly.
You don’t see any problem with the recourse to fatal violence between citizens and government in the street to be voting, in up to four years?
What happens when the illegal thing the president did makes it impossible to vote out your congressperson?
Technically this is illegal and the military could refuse the order as it is not allowed to operate in an official capacity on US soil.
Is it illegal if it's not? I discussed this with my father (who served in the Army for 21 years) just now and he didn't know how to answer this.
Also, impeachment would be the pathway and if the president is impeached, and removed, then they could be criminally prosecuted according to this Supreme Court ruling.
Unless we're listening to very different legal scholars on the results of this decision, they absolutely could not be criminally prosecuted, even after impeachment. How many times has the comparison to Watergate been mentioned today? Nixon, even after impeachment, could have gotten away scot-free. Here's Nixon's Watergate attorney on today's ruling:
Well, there’s actually two rulings in this decision. There’s a 6-3 for presumptive immunity, but there’s also a 5-4 on you can’t even have the evidence of official conduct come to play,. This is very…this to me, appears to certainly influence the existing law on presidential conduct [and] what’s available…evidentiary speaking. Amy Coney Barrett said she didn’t think that it should be so restricted as the decision of the court itself was, so I think that Nixon would have survived. I think he would have walked under this ruling.
John Dean says Nixon ‘would have survived’ Watergate under immunity ruling
I'm asking this a lot, but I've not received an answer yet. Can you break down this part and explain how, if the president exercises some authority, even if against americans, how he can be impeached for it? I'm sure smarter people than me will be able to find a loophole to execute Americans using legal means.
Because all that needs to be met for impeachment is for the president to have committed, “high crimes and misdemeanors”… Congress gets to determine what that is. Congress is a co-equal branch of government, even though they don’t act like it right now, they can impeach the president for anything they determine is an impeachable offense. The removal is harder, but I’m willing to be if the president had someone assassinated on US soil, they would be removed from office, then tried as a murdered after they were removed.
Can you verify if you saw my quoted section? As I'm receiving the responses, my quoted section is blank. Based off of the below quote, I find it hard to rationalize congress being able to determine a high-crime or misdemeanor, since they can be forbidden from acting on, or examining.
I'll try not quote it a different way here. but it's on page 2 of the ruling.
"When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."
I just read that as Congress can’t criminalize or take away his powers defined within the constitution. But that doesn’t mean they can’t impeach him for perceived violations of his office, even if he is acting within his constitutional authority.
Remember Congress is a coequal branch of government, like the courts, not subservient. They can pass laws or amendments or act within their own designated power. The court can’t strip power from congress and give it to the executive or vise versa. They can only make these claims in a vacuum where no law currently exists (because congress refuses to do their job for the last 40 years).
And so any action taken as Commander in Chief is by definition immune from prosecution. And let's remember Jose Padilla - the court said the President can declare an US Citizen to be an enemy combatant and remove them from US territory and then hold them without charge or trial.
Moderator removed comment
5d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
4d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
1d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
6d
Prosecution? No. Impeachment is the tool for that.
Let’s say they try to do an impeachment and actually remove the president, then the president orders members of congress who voted yes to be executed.
If your scenario is essentially ‘What if the President just kills anybody who tries to enforce the law against him?’ then this ruling is irrelevant anyway.
Then the president would be subject to severe federal prosecution after his 4 ~ 8 years of tyranny ended.
Now, there is no punishment.
So in our current partisan environment, that effectively means Trump could do something like that without any risk of consequence. What's to stop him? Republicans would not remove him from office even if he did something like this.
Sorry, is this not the "tyrannical government" situation we're always told about?
We impeached Trump twice for abusing his power and look where that got us. Hard to impeach someone when the entire Republican senate is compromised.
Making a king as long as that President is in control of all 3 branches of government. Still maintains representational government, as it takes the people to vote them in, but weakens the rule of law from an objective standpoint, to a subjective one.
Can’t you see how easily with that type of power you can ensure your continued hold on the presidency and Congress, and therefore the Supreme Court? You can literally have your rivals jailed or assassinated as an official act. . .
I don't remember the scotus ruling that said an official act was "anything you want it to be as long as you declare it", but that courts would have to rule on if specific acts are official acts or not, or legal.
You should read the decision. It's 119 pages, but is exceedingly deferential to the presidency in it's guidance to the lower courts in determining what is "official."
President under Article II is more powerful than a King
Moderator removed comment
1d
Which will never happen with the GOP, so tyranny…
In page 2 it states:
This to me implies that congress can't impeach. I'm admittedly not a lawyer but this doesn't seem like a path we can take.
The president may have immunity, but members of the military do not. Members of the milotary are trained to refuse inlawful orders. So if I understand correctly Trump would have to arrest the dissident personally.
But it also seems to beg the question: "how can the chief executive break the law as an official act, if his primary official duty is to enforce the law?"
Assassinating a political rival, if couched in terms of national security, would be a lawful order.
He pardons all the people who take part, it’s not very hard to find corrupt parts of old institutions, coups happen for a reason.
This is the other important part:
(iii) The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. In particular, the indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to convince certain state officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their States, and thus electoral votes for Trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for Trump. After Trump failed to convince those officials to alter their state processes, he and his co-conspirators allegedly developed and effectuated a plan to submit fraudulent slates of Presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. 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. Pp. 24–28.
i.e., IF Trump's behavior was within the scope of his official duties, then it would receive immunity. But the Court is not actually ruling on whether Trump's behavior counts as "official" or not. They're handing that back to the lower court to decide.
Moderator removed comment
5d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
If I read the decision correctly, this prevents prosecution of actions falling within official acts of the office, without the ability to question motive of the individual in the office, to determine whether they were acting in a personal or official capacity.
If I read that right this is wild, falling into “when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal" territory.
I both sort of like and really hate this decision, at the same time.
Yes, the President needs to be able to take action decisively and without fear of political retribution in the form of prosecution. But that doesn’t require either absolute or presumptive immunity.
The motives of a moral President will rarely, if ever, be questioned. The actions of a President in a less polarized society will not be met with prosecution unless facially illegal.
These protections seem above and beyond what is necessary and more a sign of our deeply ill body politic than a sincerely Constitutionally-grounded decision.
I strongly dislike the ‘absolute immunity regardless of motive’ portion of this decision. It should, at most, be presumptive immunity pending fact-finding on the motive.
I agree with everything you said.
Largely the protections are justified, but they seem to have taken an extra step that was unnecessary and has potential to allow for egregious acts by future presidents with no consequences.
I don't think there are great constitutional answers for immoral and corrupt Presidents. I think the system has some reliance on earnest people occupying these offices.
This is a good take.
If I read the decision correctly, this prevents prosecution of actions falling within official acts of the office, without the ability to question motive of the individual in the office, to determine whether they were acting in a personal or official capacity.
Not quite.
The decision creates three categories:
Prescribed Power actions: nominations, appointments, vetoes, etc. Clearly delineated presidential powers. I have not finished reading the opinion to see whether that is just Constitutional prescriptions, or also legislated ones. These are immune.
Unofficial acts: personal actions, campaign actions, etx. These are not immune.
Official acts: execution of presidential powers in manners outside the explicitly authorized. This is the tricky one. This category carries a presumption of immunity but isn't guaranteed.
Do you see Trump trying to overthrow the votes of 81million Americans as an official act, or an unofficial act?
Just to clarify, I was pointing directly to the “official acts” and in particular the “outer perimeter” acts.
It’s my understanding from skimming the decision, good on you for taking the time to read the whole document, that as long as it is within official acts it is unreviewable.
As a hypothetical, it reads as if a president made say an ambassador appointment, for some corrupt reason, that the intent of that appointment cannot be reviewed to determine if it were made as a personal or official act.
The appointment cannot, but if there was an underlying criminal act, that could.
So, we can't prosecute POTUS for the nomination, but we could for taking the bribe.
But under the ruling communication and intent for the office action can't be submitted as evidence. So while it is known it is a bribe, evidence proving it is can't be used in court.
He could also supposedly still be impeached for either even after his term.
I am no judge, so I can provided only a few good examples for now. If you are president and commit tax fraud, personal or through a family business, you would not be immune from prosecution.
More generally, if you are acting “from the chair” which is an old way of saying “through the office”, then it’s official business. One’s personal affairs do not go through this office, and are thus prosecutable.
So calling a state governor to discuss governance, immune. Discussing with the VP what you think he should do in his official capacity, immune. Putting a hit on your cheating spouse, prosecutable.
PS: This is based on my reading of the first 5ish pages.
Your last two examples are kind of the crux of my concern with this ruling.
The call to Georgia to find votes has potential to fall under an “official act”; however, I think the from the context of that call it is clear the call was made in furtherance of a personal desire to hold onto power rather than being some actual concern of voter fraud.
Same could be said of the conversations with pence about his duties during the certification. He was asking pence to reject electors within pences official role, obviously some push back that it is nothing more than ceremonial, and again this is something that could be framed as “official” while seeming to be a personal ask.
In my view, there are a multitude of “official” acts that can be taken by a president for personal reasons. If the motivations of the “official” acts cannot be questioned it seems to let the executive run with a large degree of latitude to commit crimes under immunity.
Personally I don’t see how the Georgia call could be seen as official is its benefit would be purely personal.
If instead of asking for votes he had said. “This is a contentious election. I want you to be absolutely confident that the results you are returning are correct whether they are for me or for my opponent. We will accept whatever those are.” Then you might accept it as official. However what possible offical role does a president have in State run elections?
Can Biden order military action on Trump now as an official act to protect the country from a would-be dictator/insurrectionist? What would stop him and how long would it take?
In a purely theoretical/hypothetical sense, Biden could do that and be immune from criminal prosecution, but not impeachment.
In a more practical sense, no he can't do that. If Biden ordered the military to move against Trump, its most likely the orders would simply be refused, somewhat possible they'd respond by taking action against Biden instead, and extremely unlikely the orders actually get followed.
I don’t know about the AI stuff, but I don’t think it would be hard to find 4 guys in the military who agree that Trump should be locked in a basement. I can probably call 4 right now who would agree to it so long as it was under the orders of the Commander In Chief as an offical act necessary to uphold the Constitution. We are in grey territory for them.
It would be super easy for Biden to form a group of soldiers who would obey any command. Using AI, it would be elementary to select and weed out candidates. The President could even use AI to mobilize countermeasures after he takes action against his political rival. Rapidly arresting soldiers who wouldn't obey an "official" order from the President of the United States.
The Supreme Court has opened Pandora's box.
So the only consequence would be impeachment, right? If he does it on the last day of his presidency then he there would be no downside for him if he wanted to do it.
Pretty much.
So I guess we just need to trust and hope that every president will be a good person?
I'm not so sure about this. The orders to overthrow Ayende in Chile or to invade Cuba at the Bay of PIgs were followed. So were the orders to break into the Watergate Hotel. So were the orders to illegally wiretap millions of US mobile lines. We simply cannot depend on the military to suddenly decide not to follow orders or to step in and stop the CIA or whatever paramilitary group an abusive president forms. because of ethics or rules. The president is the commander in chief. They will follow the order to imprison Trump if Biden declares him Public Enemy #1, "a clear and present danger", etc.
Let's not forget the every General (besides Flynn) that has worked with Trump has called him a threat to the nation.
The orders to overthrow Ayende in Chile
I mean those orders came from the Chilean legislature, so that's a very different animal.
or to invade Cuba at the Bay of PIgs
With an army comprised of Cuban refugees with an axe to grind against Castro.
So were the orders to break into the Watergate Hotel. So were the orders to illegally wiretap millions of US mobile lines.
These were done by spooks not the military.
And broadly, all of these examples are far less extreme than telling the military to go kill the leader of the political opposition. I can assure you that any President that tries giving that order is far more likely to see the military turn around and move against them, rather than those orders being obeyed. This is just doubly true in the specific case of Biden making that order regarding Trump.
Multiple Generals have come out and called Trump a danger to the nation. It has made zero difference in the MAGA world
If the military fails to follow illegal orders and they "turn around and move against" him............that's a coup.
If it's Trump, it'll be labeled a deep state coup attempt, followed by a crackdown and a purge, followed by the original orders being carried out by loyalists and lower-ranked personnel too afraid to dissent.
This sort of situation is not unprecedented in recent world history. It's not even rare. In fact, a non-violent version of everything I've described has already happened in the GOP. It's now a party based on loyalty above all else. Dissenters are purged, regardless of where they fall on political issues.
Moderator removed comment
1d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
I'm looking to have a non-panicked convo about this, which is all I'm seeing around Reddit.
So my understanding has been that this SCOTUS wants to give the states back their power and has basically said they can't create laws but that Congress should instead. So this decision isn't super surprising to me.
However, SCOTUS knowingly left us in legal limbo which is messed up.
Is a logical next step to have Congress pass legislation defining what an official and unofficial presidential action is?
Im guessing its because scotus didnt want to make two rulings at once. They basically said "yes, official acts grant the president immunity, but unnoficial ones do not. change your charges accordingly."
They may be hoping that the lower courts simply come to the right conclusions, which admittedly is hard because our broken congress has not actually fucking coded what officially a president can do.
What it does not do is let presidents do whatever they want. All it does is say "there are official actions and unofficial actions a president can make, based on their duty as president. You can absolutely try a president for breaking the law while performing unofficial actions."
It also importantly does not define those action, instead leaving that work to be done by the lower courts and then hopefully congress. Official actions are not like what politics says of "anything I want to do". If you have ever had a job you can get an idea of what it means to act in your job and to act for personal reasons.
Agreed, but the issue at hand is the definition of “official act A” in a red state and “official act A” in a blue state are likely to have very different meanings.
Same with work, per your example. If I say something inappropriate to someone who doesn’t like me, I’m likely to get fired. Someone who does like me would likely go to bat and say I didn’t mean it in an inappropriate way. We need some consistency.
Yes, and that is why the supreme court ruled the way it did. It wants other courts/cases and hopefully actual congress to define what official acts are. We are in this mess mostly because congress is broken and we have been relying on the judicial and executive branches to do anything as a country for a long time.
To help against the fear mongering, even official acts do not protect a president from impeachment; and no military would follow clearly corrupt orders like "kill the supreme court" or "imprison congress". And even if the military would, then no ruling matters at all because we are in a coup/revolution system and no law matters.
My initial knee-jerk reaction to how this SCOTUS has been ruling the last couple of years was frustration. Once that emotion faded, I see that (while I truly think we need better checks and balances within SCOTUS), Congress has been and will continue to be put on the spot to do their actual job which I'm fully here for.
Its silly that they've been peacocking for like decades and care more about their position than their job, but somehow its the corrupt other branches ruining this country. The branches that for better or worse, have been at least trying to do their jobs.
Should 3 Justices have recused themselves? Could they be any more biased than having him give them their positions?
They should have, but Thomas and Alito has already set the precedent. The SC does not care about optics any longer, as the most powerful court in our country.
Also Thomas, “I ride coach on crow’s private jet to bohemian grove each summer to dress up in drag for 3 weeks and shmooz with known arms dealers so totally not a benefit cuz coach” “So hah!” “Get off me beeotch” “Uhhh whoops…. Look over their” “Is that an insurrection flag pin on my wife’s cape dress?”
This looks like part 1 of a 6 part series to determine what exactly is an “official act”.
Got removed as a post, so I'll ask here:
What do you think is an official act of the president?
Richard Nixon: if the president does it, it’s not illegal.
Perhaps the "separation of church and state is not in the Constitution" crowd will learn something given that separation of powers isn't either but is apparently a thing.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of presidential immunity for official actions. Given this, what is to stop Biden from labeling Trump and anyone he doesn't like as domestic terrorists, and instructing the CIA or another organisation to assassinate them, and be protected from the consequences?
A Trump lawyer, D John Sauer, who was pushing for the presidential immunity clearly agrees (without outright saying it, as it's political suicide) that this is possible. Source. Based on his own testimony, a president can kill whoever they want and face no legal repercussions as long as they can hold on to at least 35 seats to prevent impeachment.
Questions for you:
- Do you agree that Biden can do this? Why/why not.
- Is this the outcome you wanted, which results in Biden legally being allowed to have Trump murdered?
- Are you concerned by this outcome?
- Why do you feel that Trump is the first president in the history of the US who seemingly can't do his job without allegedly committing crimes and thus needs immunity in advance?
- Do you think this ruling will cause presidents to commit more crimes as they have presidential immunity?
Late to the party but I gotta ask: what's with the faith I've seen among conservatives that Trump would not abuse this new precedent? Like, a very lengthy post on NRO boiled down to "there's tons of guardrails, and you'd have to find lackeys at every level to obey Trump, and besides Trump would never do any of these things."
We know Trump has made utter loyalty to him the prime qualification for his administration, that he plans on purging the civil service and stacking it with MAGA loyalists, etc. We have seen him behave in unprecedented ways throughout his political career. And yet there's this confidence among conservatives that any of the bad implications of this ruling are impossible. Why? What's with this optimism, this faith in the system?
So basically the president can't be charged for official acts and realistically every single thing the president does is in their official capacity of being the president so the president functionally can't be charged for anytime they do as president. If you don't have 60 senators to convict a president can take any criminal action they like and can't even be charged for it later once their term is up.
Won’t help him one bit in regards to the classified documents scandal. Looks like that’s picking up steam.
But it won’t help because he will likely be elected before it goes to court and then he will just have his JD drop the case and lose the evidence
Please use Good Faith and the Principle of Charity when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict .
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
5d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
5d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
5d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
5d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
4d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Moderator removed comment
2d
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. How-do-I-get-user-flair
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Immunity is 6-3, Roberts with decision.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Probably the most important bit:
Breakdown: