The Supreme Court

[Bi_3]

Nominating independent Justices that the Senate votes on?

Expanding the court to create a political rubber stamp in the judiciary

You mean like the rubber stamp that the Court just handed to the President?

That's not remotely what happened. The Court affirmed the existing precedent that the President has immunity in the course of Constitutionally authorized "official" actions. That has always been the case (see the Obama drone strike on US citizen case for a recent example) and is to crucial stop swarms of lawsuits from paralyzing the executive branch. Unofficial actions, like inciting a riot during a campaign rally on Jan 6th or illegal payments a porn star are not covered. Assassinating a political rival is not covered as illegal orders remain illegal. It's really not that confusing.

[B]

You are the only lawyer on earth stating ANY of that as fact.

[Bi_3]

You are the only lawyer on earth stating ANY of that as fact.

Trying reading non hysterical harpy news sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/p ... ights.html

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/donald- ... ce6415bVia

[Higgs]

How is this not fascism?

ask yourself how its not a dictator ship when you wont bring to vote a democrats nominations, then brag about blocking his choice and then ushering through 3 conservative judges to run your gameplan

Unfortunately I don't really believe that was the action of a dictatorship, but instead, exactly as the cartoon states, the ineffectual, lack of action on the part of the at the time sitting (Democratic) president. RBG really ballsed things up and then Obama kinda allowed it too.

From where I am sitting the Democrats lack of balls (for want of a better term) has played an enormous part in allowing the once great USA to get to where it is now.

And even now with all that has occurred it seems to be continuing.

[Peeps]

You are the only lawyer on earth stating ANY of that as fact.

Trying reading non hysterical harpy news sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/p ... ights.html

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/donald- ... ce6415bVia

the problem is the court didnt say what is an official act

so say biden orders trump imprisoned. supreme court could say that was a unofficial act

trump orders hillary to jail and the supreme court could say he was doing that for the benefit of the country

[dimejinky99]

How is this not fascism?

ask yourself how its not a dictator ship when you wont bring to vote a democrats nominations, then brag about blocking his choice and then ushering through 3 conservative judges to run your gameplan

Unfortunately I don't really believe that was the action of a dictatorship, but instead, exactly as the cartoon states, the ineffectual, lack of action on the part of the at the time sitting (Democratic) president. RBG really ballsed things up and then Obama kinda allowed it too.

From where I am sitting the Democrats lack of balls (for want of a better term) has played an enormous part in allowing the once great USA to get to where it is now.

And even now with all that has occurred it seems to be continuing.

if they'd done anything at all the very same people celebrating this ruling, would have been screaming overreach! fascism!

they're not now cos it suits them and their guy

[dimejinky99]

He’d be immune for that right?

[Bi_3]

You are the only lawyer on earth stating ANY of that as fact.

Trying reading non hysterical harpy news sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/us/p ... ights.html

https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/donald- ... ce6415bVia

the problem is the court didnt say what is an official act

so say biden orders trump imprisoned. supreme court could say that was a unofficial act

trump orders hillary to jail and the supreme court could say he was doing that for the benefit of the country

So I am not a lawyer, but my understanding from the articles I've read on this case was that the case was not a question of defining the totality of what a President gets immunity for but only affirming that the President does in fact get immunity if the act is deemed as being performed in the course of them exercising the powers given to them to do their job. The question of what is a core Constitutional act that gets absolute immunity, an official act that gets the presumption of immunity, and an unofficial act that gets no immunity is left for the courts to decide and is why this was kicked back down to a lower court to determine which elements of Jack Smith's case are official and thus Trump cannot be prosecuted for.

[Peeps]

but letting the courts decide what is official is a slippery slope

can biden impeach brett and the other justices who overturned roe v wade on the fact that they lied to congress when they said it is law and will not be touched?

[B]

Yes, so everything in Sotomayor's dissent stands under absolute immunity b/c they're powers granted by the Constitution.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and 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.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

And since communications to his Cabinet are granted absolute immunity, none of that can be considered in trials to determine if immunity stands in official acts (where the onus is on the prosecutor to prove he doesn't have immunity) or if he's guilty in unofficial acts. So, the opinion pretends to create limitations on immunity, but in practice, there are none.

[Bi_3]

Yes, so everything in Sotomayor's dissent stands under absolute immunity b/c they're powers granted by the Constitution.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and 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.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

And since communications to his Cabinet are granted absolute immunity, none of that can be considered in trials to determine if immunity stands in official acts (where the onus is on the prosecutor to prove he doesn't have immunity) or if he's guilty in unofficial acts. So, the opinion pretends to create limitations on immunity, but in practice, there are none.

Nonsense. Sotomayer saying it does not make it so. Barret expresses clear limitations in her concurrence. Here's an excellent breakdown of the decision: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/th ... y-decision

[dimejinky99]

So under Trump, he’ll be on the Supreme Court day one


Breaking News: Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a longtime ally of Donald Trump, has been barred from practicing law in New York, a court ruled. https://nyti.ms/4bqetwR

[B]

Yes, so everything in Sotomayor's dissent stands under absolute immunity b/c they're powers granted by the Constitution.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and 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.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

And since communications to his Cabinet are granted absolute immunity, none of that can be considered in trials to determine if immunity stands in official acts (where the onus is on the prosecutor to prove he doesn't have immunity) or if he's guilty in unofficial acts. So, the opinion pretends to create limitations on immunity, but in practice, there are none.

Nonsense. Sotomayer saying it does not make it so. Barret expresses clear limitations in her concurrence. Here's an excellent breakdown of the decision: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/th ... y-decision

Neither are binding, just ways that things could or should play out. 1/3 of the Court agrees with Sotomayor. Barret is on her own.

[McParadigm]

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... evolution/

The leader of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation argued the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity will reinforce a “second American Revolution,” which he said would “remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.”

Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts told Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast how the Supreme Court ruling on immunity — which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecutions for actions in office — should encourage conservatives.

Robert’s Heritage Foundation is the moving force behind Project 2025, a conservative blueprint for a possible Trump reelection in November. The nearly 1,000-page handbook is aimed at advancing right-wing policies and expanding the powers of the presidency.

Authors describe Project 2025 as a guide of what the next president needs to do to undo the “damage” to America they argue is caused by liberal politicians. Critics of Project 2025 call it authoritarian.

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[simple schoolboy]

I'm not sure there's as much conflict here as indicated.

Re: Chevron, the Court is trying to (in a roundabout way) prevent the Legislature from delegating its rule making powers to the executive. The Executive is properly the enforcement arm of laws passed by Congress.

An aside, this ruling might spur federal agencies to be more aggressive in their enforcement actions. If they can't nudge industries with threatened rule changes/ reinterpretations, they may choose to be more aggressive with enforcement actions where they have unambiguous authority to do so.

Any edge cases (the president might assassinate his political opponents!) are only plausible because of the legislature shirking its responsibilities with things such as the war powers act. The President should be able to execute his political opponents as part of constitutional commander in chief responsibilities... If Congress dutifully declares war on them.

[simple schoolboy]

How big do we imagine the Liberal playbook is, and are we able to count Reddit *updoots?

[Bi_3]

Yes, so everything in Sotomayor's dissent stands under absolute immunity b/c they're powers granted by the Constitution.

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and 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.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

And since communications to his Cabinet are granted absolute immunity, none of that can be considered in trials to determine if immunity stands in official acts (where the onus is on the prosecutor to prove he doesn't have immunity) or if he's guilty in unofficial acts. So, the opinion pretends to create limitations on immunity, but in practice, there are none.

Nonsense. Sotomayer saying it does not make it so. Barret expresses clear limitations in her concurrence. Here's an excellent breakdown of the decision: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/th ... y-decision

Neither are binding, just ways that things could or should play out. 1/3 of the Court agrees with Sotomayor. Barret is on her own.

Barret is on her own in describing specific limitations, but the majority writes in general limitations:

“At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch’”

Which part of organize a military coup falls under intrusion there? Sotomayer is doing the same thing here she did with the Affirmative Action ruling, creating the most absurd strawmen and asserting that is the inevitable result while ignoring the extensive checks balances that exist between her fever dream and reality. But let's play that game for a second. If Biden were to walk out of the white house and shoot dead a reporter asking him an embarrassing question because if he is humiliated he is less likely to command respect in Congress and thus less effective as an executive and commander in chief, do you honestly believe that this ruling somehow absolves him of the crime? Of fucking course not. But as soon as 'Trump' comes into play all rationale thought goes out the window.

[McParadigm]

If Biden were to walk out of the white house and shoot dead a reporter asking him an embarrassing question because if he is humiliated he is less likely to command respect in Congress and thus less effective as an executive and commander in chief, do you honestly believe that this ruling somehow absolves him of the crime?

Let’s try a different one.

Suppose that it is early January, 2020 again. The President of the United States says “All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they're doing,” and then says that he has received briefings as President that lead him to believe the election results are not valid.

Suppose that he had a “yes man“ Attorney General who issued a statement saying “the office of the Attorney General agrees with the President’s summation of the situation, and hopes that the American people will remain calm and continue to support the Office of the President in the swift resolution of this matter in the name of democracy.”

Suppose the President had staffed most department leadership with simpering “yes men” as well, and they were quick to express their support even as he began calling for the arrest of his opponent.

How on earth would you ever prove for a fact that the president was misrepresenting the situation in order to stay in power, in this case, and not executing what they thought was an essential protective measure against election interference.

[B]

Barret is on her own in describing specific limitations, but the majority writes in general limitations:

“At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch’”

How is that ever possible? It's just circular reasoning that keeps looping back onto immunity. That's not a limitation. It's the exact opposite.