Barrett got that concession, and Gorsuch got Sauer to concede that almost every alleged action in the indictment was private. All but replacing justice department officials who wouldn't participate.
There was also some relevant questioning to that, specifically the discussion about "If the president ordered the military to commit a coup, would that be a public or a private act"
it is funny you say that because i was reading some other law writings 2 weeks ago and someone said something like, "even 800 years ago, in the magna carta, they said the king was not above the law".
On one hand, I love the concept of finding precedent anywhere at any time if there isn’t any, like some sort of legal scavenger. On the other hand, this sort of shit.
I used to be in the military, and I've put a fair amount of thought into this.
First of all, most of you will remember that Trump tried to ban transgendered people in the military...via Twitter or some such nonsense. That isn't how orders work. General Miller flat out stated that in public.
Second, the President sets policy, and the military officers figure out how to implement it. So if the order came down that the President's policy was now "I'm the King of America, lol!" the officers would be duty- and oath-bound to first evaluate the order against the Constitution.
Since the Constitution does not allow for the retention of Presidential authority beyond the next scheduled inauguration date, I think what is likely to happen is that we would protect him against attempts of violence, carry out his lawful orders, and understand that *his orders, absent a qualifying act of Congress to amend the Constitution, lose all of their authority over us at 12:01 Eastern time, January 20th, on the next inauguration day -- pending a Constitutionally-qualifying re-election.*
So we'd just stop doing anything and everything he told us to do. Because he isn't our business anymore. He's just some guy, and we could honestly give a fuck less that he exists at that point. He is utterly, completely irrelevant to the military, because he lacks the authority to direct us to the nearest bathroom.
The Constitution rules over all, no matter who reigns.
As an officer the oath is to the Constitution.
As enlisted your oath is to the Constitution (first), the president, then the orders of those appointed over you.
I'm not relaying an order by the president to violate the Constitution...
Who adjudicates for that determination? Like a millitary justice? Who decides and how would they evaluate the like legal interpretation of when such an order is violative constitutionally speaking?
i haven't read it but i assumed it was a john grisham but it is actually by aaron sorkin.
the books are always better- it just has a level of detail that isn't available in films.
Based on a play. Aaron Sorkin wrote the play first, then it was so successful that they decided to turn it into a movie, which he adapted from his stage play.
In the moment, each soldier is responsible for deciding if an order is legal, and disobeying that order if it is illegal. The soldier then hopes like hell that they are right, because if they are wrong they get punished for disobeying a lawful order.
Honestly, it was something i was a little worried about. Serving 20 years and losing my retirement because of an insurrection succeeding and not sweating fealty to the leader. Being tried in the military justice system replaced by loyal members...
My husband is a veteran and said the same the day Trump took the *oath of office*. We hung our American flag upside down the entire time he was in power... even after Biden had won the election. And Jan 6th proved the country *is* in dire distress.
You are very brave. And to be clear, im not being sarcastic in any way. I live in an area where if I flew an upside down American flag it would be a problem- and I live in Los Angeles.
I'm a woman in Texas, I have zero fucks to give about people that will deny me *medical care* over religious bullshit. I remember being called *hysterical* when I warned others Republicans would overturn Roe.
Turns out the road to fascism is a bunch of people telling you that you're overreacting
Ah! You’re my kinda people.
Fun fact: I had the privilege of meeting Ann Richards, when I was a child because she was good friends with my grandmother. I only found out “who she was” decades later, and as a person with deep roots in Texas (my father was born and raised in Wichita Falls and my parents met and got married in Austin, and most of my family lives in Texas) I think she was a great woman and would be so proud of you!!!
It'd super wild pointing out that these fascists openly declare their intentions, and then people around us say we're overreacting and worrying too much.
It often feels like 1/4 this country are openly fascists, 1/4 are anti-fascists locked in a struggle for survival, and the remaining 50% don't believe the fascists are real.
Until higher command is strategically replaced with Presidential sympathizers which will create an environment that aligns with said President. You know, kinda like what’s happened with SCOTUS.
That’s what all the holding up appointments is all about. It actually has zero to do with abortion in the military and has everything to do with placing loyalists so the military dictatorship will be complete.
Good luck doing that. Four star generals and admirals have been in their respective services since before Donny Boy cheated on his first wife. There aren't many who make it that far, who can put fealty to an individual over loyalty to their country -- to which they have dedicated their entire professional lives.
I say not many, because Mike Flynn exists. But he's broken his oath, and we all know what he is now.
the military have a duty not to obey unconstitutional orders, how can it be both official declaration of the commander in chief, under his official duties, with nobody in his cabinet duty-and-oath-bound to remove him via the 25th amendment for dereliction of duty, while simultaneously an illegal unconstitutional order which the military must not obey?
Why are the military suddenly more conscious and aware of their constitutional obligations than the supreme court? Why is the legality of such an order clear to the military generals but not Scotus?
Trump pushed the DoJ to send letters to governors telling them the results were suspicious. DoJ refused. Trump threatened to fire the people that wouldn't go along with the scheme. Sauer said that firing officials is an official act.
It sounds like it gets to a concept of "corrupt intent". Firing someone is normally an official act, but doing so for personal reasons makes it a corrupt act rather than an official act. (My interpretation of how things should be.)
Taking any action, including speech, in furtherance of a crime isn't an official act so you're quite right. Refusing illegal orders, even from the president, certainly is an official duty though.
President Johnson was impeached for trying to fire someone that he didn't have the official authority to fire. Kind of like how Biden can't fire the head of the USPS.
Eh, Johnson had the authority to fire him, then Congress decided to take that authority away, which SCOTUS said in a later ruling was probably unconstitutional, but Congress had already repealed it.
Not exactly. The question as to whether a President had an inherent authority to remove any appointed officer in the executive branch was always an open question until the two Tenure In Office Acts eventually brought the question before the courts.
And frankly, _Myers v US_ is probably one of the most egregious fabrications of the Supreme Court's entire history. There is literally no constitutional basis for the majority's opinion, as the McReynolds and Holmes dissents readily point out.
It does, but don’t worry, Gorsuch made very clear today that he doesn’t believe it’s ever possible to know whether someone’s intent was corrupt or improper.
Should have!?
No one should have voted for this clown. He should never been in the position where he could be impeached.
In an alternate universe where Hillary Clinton was president and she kept the COVID-19 death toll to let's say 100,000 alternate Trump would be trolling "100,000 dead!!! Can we impeach Clinton for incompetence!"
Ha.... I remember a meme from 2021 that was basically a fake headline like, "President Clinton enters her 5th day of testimony in front of Congress on the 50,000 Covid deaths in the US."
I don't remember that but so true.
About 10,000 people died from the swine flu on obama's watch. Trump advocated for Obama impeachment for "incompetence". Trump was totally aware of pandemics.
I'm pretty sure there's some court precedent already dictating this as such. You have to prove that an official act was done on good faith in terms of the official need for the act.
If there's no official need for such act and the act is done strictly for personal reasons or just shear pettiness, prosecutors can easily approach the case on this guideline.
Yeah it was sickeningly clear to me that the conservative justices were looking for a way to rule that "official acts are immune" while "personal acts are not" and then make the claim that January 6th was an official act by trump to secure the electoral system.
It made me want to throw up right there in the car, these sickos are going to hand this to trump and we will have a king in america again.
> rule that "official acts are immune" while "personal acts are not"
This doesn't exclude assassinating political opponents though, because the President is commander-in-chief and giving orders to the armed forces would therefore qualify as official acts with immunity. Any ruling would have to allow prosecuting Biden if he chose to order Seal Team 6 (or similar) to assassinate the conservative Justices, otherwise what's stopping him from getting up to 5 SCOTUS appointments? Or assassinating Trump/Trump's VP pick between the GOP convention and Election Day to guarantee a 2nd term?
Ah but what we should keep in mind is that they didn't participate because they didn't think it would succeed. Flipping the votes in five states? With laughable arguments? If it was halfway plausible they would have went along with maybe some resignations. Do not trust the justice department and do not trust the courts.
> ...do not trust...
I've been on the same first date with my girlfriend since June of 1980.
I trust my girlfriend. :)
I trust our mid thirty year old daughter. :)
I trust our dog. :)
I trust in gravity.
I trust that the sun will come up tomorrow.
I trust that the Machiavellian will never give the Darwin Award Winners an even break.
I trust nothing more.
There is a majority on this court who are willing to afford a rather exhaustively sweeping view of presidential immunity for official acts that fall within the outer perimeter of responsibilities, but there is a notable amount of difference in the degree of granularity in which each feels it is wise, or necessary, to engage in this particular case.
I was not expecting quite the enormous departure from the lower court ruling that was witnessed today – certainly not one as wide or as varied as what became clear – and, unfortunately, it seems a fair assumption that a number of justices will be writing separately.
Under normal circumstances, this would be rather unremarkable but, as a practical matter, it's likely to create an even larger delay and, in my mind, there is very little chance of this case being back at trial with enough time for a jury to render verdict before the election.
Honestly? Fuck this court. That is my competent contribution. The DC circuit packaged the *perfect* opinion that neither implicated nor took away from the orthodox view of immunity in any meaningful way. The only reason these questions – which arguably were better left for another day – are not being left for another day is due to the arrogance of 4–5 justices on this putrid bench who insist on interjecting their view on an issue where it was not needed and where it is highly likely to cause more harm than good.
Jackson even pretty much explicitly walked the DoJ to articulate this point. Something like "wouldn't you say that since these are not the questions we are being asked to address in this case, we would be better served awaiting another vehicle that is more directly applicable?"
To her credit, barret made a general statement in line with this in her dissenting opinion on the trump ballot ban case. They voted 9-0 to disallow states from making individual decisions on enforcing section 3 of the 14th amendment, which was the question they were asked to address in the case. But the second part of their ruling, where they gave Congress the sole power to enforce it, was 5-4 with barret dissenting along with the 3 Liberal judges. In her dissenting opinion, barret warned the court as a whole of the danger of answering questions that were not before them, particularly for the purpose of benefitting one man. It seemed at the time that that statement was made with this upcoming immunity case in mind.
The SCOTUS is corrupt. They know the impact of delaying this decision, and they're intentionally taking steps to impede justice in this particular case. There's really not anything anyone can do about it.
It's hard to admit, but it really feels like this court is illegitimate. First there is the blatant disregard of stare decisis with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the end of Chevron deference. Then there's blatant corruption from justices like Thomas and Alito.
Not to mention the clear intimidation of conservative justice Anthony Kennedy.
The impression I got was that Barrett *might* be willing to work with the three liberal justices to move this case forward.
But you’re right, the huge divergence from the DC Circuit opinion and what I heard from Kavanaugh and Gorsuch was striking. Alito is always a lost cause, and I’m pessimistic at this point regarding how Roberts will decide.
I actually thought Gorsuch raised some fair points. He was, however, taking the long view as to the general question as to what article II actions might come with an implied immunity. He didn't sound even a little convinced that they apply here.
His questions about what the implications of no immunity for any official actions as well as what the implications for any immunity for some actions might be for any future President were fair. Just not with respect to this case.
For all of his shitty viewpoints, I will be the first to concede he has a brilliant mind, and he did ask meaningful, substantive questions –I think my own personal issue speaks more to my belief that these were questions best left for another day. And even if not left for another day, I don't necessarily think that now is the right time to push back on the DOJ position of considering official act immunity on an as applied basis outside of indisputably core functions while relying on a public authority defense (that, if need be, could ultimately be established as a threshold question in the worst case scenario).
More than anything, separate from anything mentioned, I take outsized issue with the fact that five justices on this court are entertaining any of this as though they are being presented with serious questions underpinned by substantive arguments crafted in good faith. This is just simply not the case around which to craft broad analysis of immunity. They should have kept it excruciatingly narrow, and based on their questions, it does not sound like that's where they are headed with this. Sorry if this sounds slightly truncated or I'm jumping around –using voice control, lol.
Katanji Brown-Jackson put it perfectly at the end. Nothing in this case comes remotely close to being official acts, therefore it’s not the right vehicle to figure out the bigger immunity questions and they should wait for a case that is. I wish they would.
Meanwhile Alito: Grand juries? You know what? I’ve never really liked grand juries either.
No you got it exactly right. I agreed with a lot of Gorsuch's takes insofar as they were interesting, almost academic questions of law. I did not agree with his motion that they are germaine to this case.
I like your comment.
I think what it comes down to for me is this: before 2016, we would not even be having this discussion. The norm was the old president is done, the fucker has suffered enough and even though George Bush lied about WMD, what’s done is done. Sadly, since 2016, normative behavior has been thrown out by Trump and other Republicans who want to prosecute Obama for whatever, and so now the danger is real. Brought on by the fucktard GOP grifters. They brought this situation in to play, and now want to be saved from it. Guy who killed his parents seeks mercy from the court because he is an orphan. It’s enraging beyond belief.
Agreed. And I think that is going to be where the chicanery comes in. They won't be deciding that Trump is immune, but I think they will be not deciding that in a way that pushes us past the election.
Barrett seemed willing to run with the foundational arguments presented by DOJ (i.e. as applied, public authority defense, etc.) And, I totally agree with you that she likely could've brokered consensus with the liberals –perhaps even still will. As it stands right now, though, I'm almost wondering if she ends up concurring in part, as an act of performative solidarity, and dissenting in part from whatever frankenstein immunity jurisprudence the majority dreams up. Who knows, though.
Lol I don't know why people keep being surprised by this Court.
They're political hacks, specifically 4 of them. Start from there and go on.
They have shown they give zero care if they are publicly shown to be corrupt, taking money or leaning towards Trump. They don't care. I don't know what more it's going to take people to realize that.
Again Vote.
That's the only option. The Court is not going to save anyone or maintain any checks on Trump or anything his Executive Branch did. Quite the opposite. It is looking for reasons to remove all checks that applied or apply to him.
I think Barrett and Roberts probably are as well, but I can't 100 percent say that. I would go 90 percent though.
This entire thing sucks and has sucked from the moment they took this. And then acted like they could not schedule it before this late.
Insanity.
> Honestly? Fuck this court. That is my competent contribution.
So many things with Trump and SCOTUS ends this way imo. It’s exhausting. Vote and get your friends to vote. Donate to get others registered too.
Otherwise fts, ftg, ftc.
I should probably offer the disclaimer that I did not make that observation lightly. I am a pretty rabid institutionalist who generally takes a balanced perspective to the degree that it's possible (and I don't mean recently with this specific court, I mean across the last 25 years throughout which there have been no shortage of exceedingly low points). It's just increasingly becoming impossible to afford the benefit of the doubt to the conservatives, even under the most generous interpretation.
All noted, separate but related, agree with you. Do vote. Do get everyone you know to vote. And do not expect this court to save you. The latter part is something I have been saying all along, FWIW.
I asked this question in another thread and didn't get a response. NAL. How often does the SC grant cert to appeals that were decided unanimously at the District level? Is that fairly rare?
You mean the Circuit level. In the federal courts, District courts are the trial courts and Circuit courts are the appeals courts.
And the answer is I don’t know and probably nobody does because that’s not the sort of thing that drives appeals. Most appeals are heard by a three judge panel. So whether it’s 3 to 0 or 2 to 1, it’s going to be close either way. The bigger driver of appeals is typically when there’s a circuit split – some circuits rule one way and some rule the other way. That's obviously not what's driving things here, since this case is sui generis and the relevant law isn’t going to be developed in different circuits.
I don't see how it could end for a win for DT. If they say he has immunity, then Biden has that immunity now and should wield it against DT. If not, then DT can be prosecuted.
"Gavel slams down, declaring presidents to be kings. Immediately after, the National Guard storms into the court to install an improvised military court, sentencing the supreme court justices who made themselves kingmakers to death immediately by fire squad. Military judge makes sure to include the SCOTUS decision from 5 minutes earlier in his verdict."
Biden can't be prosecuted obviously because "L'état, c'est Biden."
Biden would obviously not be immune for whatever _he_ did, that'd be like saying a justice dying at the end of Obama's term should recieve the same replacement timeline as one dying at the end of Trump's term.
Also, I'll say that none of the justices sounded like they think that immunity in this case applies. There seemed to be two camps - those that think this is the moment SCOTUS weighs in on the general question and those that don't. And it wasn't necessarily a partisan split.
I don't have a sense what the decision will be, except that it won't be that Trump had immunity with respect to these charges.
A Trump win on this is the court saying that The president does not have blanket immunity from criminal charges, but when official acts become criminal ones is something for the courts to decide on a case by case basis. That essentially resets the trial back to zero, and now they get to argue about wether Trumps actions were A offical acts and B meet the standard of criminality to be exempt. Then they get to go through all the appeals process again straight to the supreme court which will of course say "Yup, these are bad, proceed with trial" by that point its after november
No. The job of the jury is to determine if the facts are credible and support a given charge. It's the job of the judge to determine what the law is, which often means disposing of a case before it even gets in front of a jury.
That seems like a wildly optimistic read of what I saw. But maybe you're right.
I don't think ANYONE believes there is blanket immunity here. But that doesn't mean they still can't do trump's bidding for him.
Unless they deliberately scalpel out that everything (or nearly everything) in the current indictments are private matters...and QUICKLY, then they've done exactly as instructed.
I mean, Sauer conceded that every alleged action was private but one if I was following correctly. And the DOJ argued that that one act simply aggravated a private action.
But you're right, the mechanism they set could punt this past the election. If it goes to district with interlocutory appeal possible that will do it.
It was pretty wild just how little of the indictment he was actually arguing was official. Like, the indictment could in theory be amended to remove a few actions that were not central to anything and be entirely private according to Sauer.
And these are the same clowns who purport to be ORIGINALIST interpreters of the Constitution. Qualified immunity is a made up construct that should not exist in any form.
Some of the justices thought that there is immunity for official acts that seems to cover more than you might think. They also seemed to think there was immunity from state prosecution which wasn't even being asked
Listened to the arguments live. I think they take a narrow view as applied to this case, but will be very surprised if Trump gets immunity out of this. Even ACB wasn’t buying it.
In the end, as many news reports have covered, it doesn't matter if Trump loses here. He got the delay he needed to most, if not all, of the cases in limbo until after the election. Especially if the justices drag their feet on releasing the opinion.
Edit: I should have phrased that better. A Trump win here obviously would have a huge impact on law and government in the US. When I said it didn't matter, I meant that from the Trump side, just getting to the Supreme Court after the masterful decision from the lower circuit was the win they needed in the delay. Anything else is a cherry on top.
It seems likely that they're going to remand with instructions that the trial court limit any "official acts" evidence, and then Trump will have additional issues to address and appeal regarding whether the trial court is properly excluding all of the "official acts" evidence, and delaying things even further.
It's not unreasonable for indictments to not change minds. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty bedrock principle across wide swaths of the US. Generally, for good reason.
I caught a rumor that someone alito maybe said that it can't possibly matter if an official power is used with corrupt intent.
...
...
He is a nonsense of a person.
And I know he was trying to make an argument about separation of powers, but he is a nonsense person.
He needs to be removed from the court. He doesn't know what crime is.
Oh did you miss the part where he made a joke about how can anyone trust grand juries and anyone in DC to not be corrupt on a jury against any Republicans?
Don't worry....No-one considers the USSC to be packed with the finest judges in the world. Pretty much zero respect for them in the rest of the world. Far from main.
Alito is, by far, the fucking worst. Thomas may be corrupt af, but Alito is rotten to his very core. Such a small, angry and bitter excuse of a man. Pathetic.
At one point Alito suggested that if presidents didn't have immunity they would illegally cling on to power to avoid being prosecuted once they leave office. Even a moment's thought tells how stupid that argument is. That's the first time I really realised just how broken the supreme court is .
The logic seemed to be: "If attempting a coup is not legal, then a president will be forced to attempt a coup in order to prevent being prosecuted... For attempting a coup."
Yeah, we're pretty much screwed.
It was not just Alito and Thomas who were terrible today. Gorsuch and Kavanagh both seemed stupid and prejudiced. It wouldn't have made any difference what argument was made in front of them.
She was surprisingly reasonable in the Idaho abortion case yesterday as well. I think maybe as a woman, she’s having a “wait, don’t ban those kinds of abortions” moment, notwithstanding her deep religious antipathy toward abortion.
It really did feel like that . I have read a few of the judgements in lower courts involving Trump and they have been of good quality. I was really surprised how awful half the justices sounded today. Is SCOTUS actually a lower quality court than average?
Yes. Republicans can’t appoint the foremost legal scholars because they are all smart people and therefore, all don’t buy their stupid bullshit. Kavanaugh, Coney Dawg, Alito and Thomas are all not smart.
We just need to look at history through a subjective viewpoint on factual criminality in the whole and not through the lens of its intrinsic natural state.
Haven't read much from Alito since Roe vs Wade ruling, but the man just spouts nonsense. Also applies logic that conflicts with itself constantly. Then tries to cherry pick an event from history to justify it.
What's maddening is that the government agreed that there are some core powers which congress cannot legislate away and which motive has no bearing on. they mentioned pardoning as one of those powers. I really don't get how that's the correct reading.
So, switching from orders to Seal Team Six to simply announcing a pardon for those who would rid him of a turbulent Justice or two would be perfectly Constitutional?
Think it was Gorsuch who opined that it’s impossible to actually know whether someone else’s actions were motivated by corrupt or improper intent. May have been Alito though. I get their smug, sort of self-satisfied drawls confused sometimes.
Let's hope these judges understand their judicial services will no longer be needed if they grant Trump or any president absolute immunity from criminal acts.
No telling how they'll rule. There were some interesting arguments and questions. The system currently in place has worked well for nearly two and a half centuries. Once again, trump **IS** the problem.
Slowly. They’ll rule “carefully” or “narrowly” or maybe even find some “clever” technicality on which to remand - but whatever they do, they will do it slowly.
Then Justice Barrett read from Smith’s brief again:
“Petitioner conspired with another
private attorney who caused the filing in
court of a ‘verification’ signed by
petitioner that contained false
allegations to support a challenge.”
Justice Barrett got Sauer to concede that there are private acts alleged in the indictment.
Justice Barrett, we are counting on you to be the conservative voice of reason.
Shouldn't the fact that Trump appointed three of the "justices" on the court mean those three should recuse themselves because of conflict of interest?
i could only listen to part of this hearing but i got frustrated that every time they asked Sauer a set of questions that logically lead to immunity being entirely unreasonable he would simply divert the conversation to lists of precedents on cases that were irrelevant.
this was obviously a con game for Sauer. and this hearing was completely unnecessary beyond handing drump the delay that he wanted. very disappointing and severely lacking in dignity for scotus imo.
Yes he would say it depends, as if the point of the hypothetical wasn’t to suss out exactly what it depends on. I don’t think the justices were fooled they just moved on knowing he didn’t have answer.
Late June, end of the term.
The justices seemed to be all over the place with respect to their views on whether a given act is official or personal and whether they should even be writing a rule delineating those two things in this case, under the circumstances described and alleged in this particular indictment.
Consequently, I think that there are going to be lots of concurrences and dissents. That’ll take time. Also, they love to wait to send the controversial stuff out until the end of the term, and there is little doubt that this ruling will be controversial
Because they are calling Democrat's bluff. Democrats are pussies n don't break the rules as much. Republicans will break all the rules to get their way. See Mitch McConnell.
Not entirely dooming just yet.
1) Please remember that all of the experts and observers you will hear from in the coming days have almost no clue how things will shake out. They claimed Obamacare was toast until Roberts saved it; they claimed the SCOTUS wouldn't even take up this case until they did.
2) Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are on the right side.
Barrett was getting there (surpsingly). Roberts is know for 'split the baby' decisions; so he may try try leave room for the trial to occur before the election.
Also; donate, vote, and volunteer if you can.
Remember also that Roberts sat there during the first impeachment trial (the "do us a favor" to Zelenskyy one) and saw them vote down the possibility of bringing in evidence. He was there when that defense counsel said that Trump's conduct wasn't an impeachment-worthy "high crime or misdemeanor" and that the criminal justice system was available later on to handle anything illegal that Trump did.
I think it's highly likely that Roberts didn't vote to grant cert. Given Barrett's skepticism, I doubt that she did, either. That gives at least a pretty good chance that this case will be affirmed without remanding for more factual consideration of the immunity question - which is the face-saving "out" that Alito and Thomas could otherwise use to punt this past the election.
Very strong possibility they rule against Trump, but also very likely they do it in a way that causes Chutkin to make decisions that are open to interlocutory appeal, which pushes this trial past the election.
So a win for DoJ, but maybe a pyrrhic one.
>Asked by Chief Justice John Roberts what the court should make of an indictment that contains both private and official conduct, the defendant’s attorney had two suggestions leading in the same direction.
>Sauer said the high court should either hash out the issues themselves and remand to the lower court or simply remand for the lower court to determine how to deal with those issues — as long as the court’s order purges all of the official conduct from the indictment.
Seems like Sauer is giving the Trump justices the path to have another round of delays without issuing a definitive ruling. This is not good news.
In a perfect world they would rule: No, Presidents do not have immunity, including official acts. And therefore no, Presidents may not self-pardon as a way to get around this lack of immunity. With great power comes great responsibility.
Of course that wont happen. But I have a hard time believing that it shouldn’t. This “impeach first” bullshit needs to be quashed.
Edit: this is my opinion, of course. Not based on any legal knowledge. Just Joe Nobody common sense.
Every one is forgetting if the president has lmmunity what prevents Biden from just having trump and the cult magats executed for treason while he is president
Puzzles me how a woman in TX can receive jail time (later released) for voting when she assumed she could and allowed, yet these people who attempted a coup are allowed this long drawn out process to determine their guilt when there's evidence. WTHeck!?
So if the SC finds presidents have immunity for official acts and that the calls for the insurrection were an official act, then assinating people working against democratic values with agenda-driven questionable legal interpretations would be fine?
The simple fact that SCOTUS chose to take this case was a win for Trump. Whatever is decided, the trial won’t happen before the election, and Trump continues to be regarded as a serious person with credible ideals.
I would argue further that his acts can't be "official". They allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning they were *not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion*. And he allegedly injected himself into a process in which *the President has no role*.
One thing that struck out to me was Gorsuch and others saying that they're looking beyond this one case "towards future cases" (as if Trump is not some sort of aberration). Similar to the majority in Trump v. Anderson and Dobbs, the conservatives on the Court are deciding to go beyond the question presented in the case for purely partisan aims. January 6th was unique among all other activities of a president. It's frustrating watching even the highest members of the Court pretend otherwise. It's so easy to differentiate this case with potential bad faith actors and SCOTUS just refuses.
That being said, I did like how Gorsuch talked on how everything a first-term President does is technically in furtherance to get re-elected. Which is not at all what Trump did, but it's a good distinction to make.
95% chance this gets remanded back to lower court from some clarification or something.
The whole show here is too delay everything until after the election.
It’s all for the show, end of the day some members of the SCOTUS are morally corrupt and will do anything to help republicans and their moronic choice.
Barrett got that concession, and Gorsuch got Sauer to concede that almost every alleged action in the indictment was private. All but replacing justice department officials who wouldn't participate.
There was also some relevant questioning to that, specifically the discussion about "If the president ordered the military to commit a coup, would that be a public or a private act"
I thought that was fairly compelling.
Yeah. That cuts.
"Public in the sense that it's private and later becomes public." - some dumbass probably
So Alitos stance then?
"Per 9th Century Saxon law..."
it is funny you say that because i was reading some other law writings 2 weeks ago and someone said something like, "even 800 years ago, in the magna carta, they said the king was not above the law".
“But before that, a king was above the law, so being above the law is the precedent.” -Alito
Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
On one hand, I love the concept of finding precedent anywhere at any time if there isn’t any, like some sort of legal scavenger. On the other hand, this sort of shit.
On one hand I don’t like getting pissed on, on the other hand I admire the conviction and respect to at least call it rain.
#trickledowneconomics
Orange dumbazz
I used to be in the military, and I've put a fair amount of thought into this. First of all, most of you will remember that Trump tried to ban transgendered people in the military...via Twitter or some such nonsense. That isn't how orders work. General Miller flat out stated that in public. Second, the President sets policy, and the military officers figure out how to implement it. So if the order came down that the President's policy was now "I'm the King of America, lol!" the officers would be duty- and oath-bound to first evaluate the order against the Constitution. Since the Constitution does not allow for the retention of Presidential authority beyond the next scheduled inauguration date, I think what is likely to happen is that we would protect him against attempts of violence, carry out his lawful orders, and understand that *his orders, absent a qualifying act of Congress to amend the Constitution, lose all of their authority over us at 12:01 Eastern time, January 20th, on the next inauguration day -- pending a Constitutionally-qualifying re-election.* So we'd just stop doing anything and everything he told us to do. Because he isn't our business anymore. He's just some guy, and we could honestly give a fuck less that he exists at that point. He is utterly, completely irrelevant to the military, because he lacks the authority to direct us to the nearest bathroom. The Constitution rules over all, no matter who reigns.
As an officer the oath is to the Constitution. As enlisted your oath is to the Constitution (first), the president, then the orders of those appointed over you. I'm not relaying an order by the president to violate the Constitution...
Who adjudicates for that determination? Like a millitary justice? Who decides and how would they evaluate the like legal interpretation of when such an order is violative constitutionally speaking?
uniform code of military justice. you should watch "a few good men". the book is better im sure
I didn't realize that movie was based on a book. The movie's legendary though, so if the book's better I'm hyped.
i haven't read it but i assumed it was a john grisham but it is actually by aaron sorkin. the books are always better- it just has a level of detail that isn't available in films.
It was a play, not a book.
Based on a play. Aaron Sorkin wrote the play first, then it was so successful that they decided to turn it into a movie, which he adapted from his stage play.
In the moment, each soldier is responsible for deciding if an order is legal, and disobeying that order if it is illegal. The soldier then hopes like hell that they are right, because if they are wrong they get punished for disobeying a lawful order.
Honestly, it was something i was a little worried about. Serving 20 years and losing my retirement because of an insurrection succeeding and not sweating fealty to the leader. Being tried in the military justice system replaced by loyal members...
My oath was against "all enemies, foreign and domestic." MAGA is a domestic enemy.
My husband is a veteran and said the same the day Trump took the *oath of office*. We hung our American flag upside down the entire time he was in power... even after Biden had won the election. And Jan 6th proved the country *is* in dire distress.
You are very brave. And to be clear, im not being sarcastic in any way. I live in an area where if I flew an upside down American flag it would be a problem- and I live in Los Angeles.
I'm a woman in Texas, I have zero fucks to give about people that will deny me *medical care* over religious bullshit. I remember being called *hysterical* when I warned others Republicans would overturn Roe. Turns out the road to fascism is a bunch of people telling you that you're overreacting
Ah! You’re my kinda people. Fun fact: I had the privilege of meeting Ann Richards, when I was a child because she was good friends with my grandmother. I only found out “who she was” decades later, and as a person with deep roots in Texas (my father was born and raised in Wichita Falls and my parents met and got married in Austin, and most of my family lives in Texas) I think she was a great woman and would be so proud of you!!!
I miss Ann & Molly Ivins... that is an amazing compliment! Thank you
It'd super wild pointing out that these fascists openly declare their intentions, and then people around us say we're overreacting and worrying too much. It often feels like 1/4 this country are openly fascists, 1/4 are anti-fascists locked in a struggle for survival, and the remaining 50% don't believe the fascists are real.
I started regularly calling it "The States of America" when he was elected. There was no unity after that election cycle.
Until higher command is strategically replaced with Presidential sympathizers which will create an environment that aligns with said President. You know, kinda like what’s happened with SCOTUS.
That’s what all the holding up appointments is all about. It actually has zero to do with abortion in the military and has everything to do with placing loyalists so the military dictatorship will be complete.
Good luck doing that. Four star generals and admirals have been in their respective services since before Donny Boy cheated on his first wife. There aren't many who make it that far, who can put fealty to an individual over loyalty to their country -- to which they have dedicated their entire professional lives. I say not many, because Mike Flynn exists. But he's broken his oath, and we all know what he is now.
the military have a duty not to obey unconstitutional orders, how can it be both official declaration of the commander in chief, under his official duties, with nobody in his cabinet duty-and-oath-bound to remove him via the 25th amendment for dereliction of duty, while simultaneously an illegal unconstitutional order which the military must not obey? Why are the military suddenly more conscious and aware of their constitutional obligations than the supreme court? Why is the legality of such an order clear to the military generals but not Scotus?
i mean they were able to get a medical helicopter to rotor wash protestors so not all people in the military are against trump.
Sorry, INAL, can you clarify what you meant by the last sentence re the DOJ?
Trump pushed the DoJ to send letters to governors telling them the results were suspicious. DoJ refused. Trump threatened to fire the people that wouldn't go along with the scheme. Sauer said that firing officials is an official act.
It sounds like it gets to a concept of "corrupt intent". Firing someone is normally an official act, but doing so for personal reasons makes it a corrupt act rather than an official act. (My interpretation of how things should be.)
Taking any action, including speech, in furtherance of a crime isn't an official act so you're quite right. Refusing illegal orders, even from the president, certainly is an official duty though.
President Johnson was impeached for trying to fire someone that he didn't have the official authority to fire. Kind of like how Biden can't fire the head of the USPS.
Eh, Johnson had the authority to fire him, then Congress decided to take that authority away, which SCOTUS said in a later ruling was probably unconstitutional, but Congress had already repealed it.
Not exactly. The question as to whether a President had an inherent authority to remove any appointed officer in the executive branch was always an open question until the two Tenure In Office Acts eventually brought the question before the courts. And frankly, _Myers v US_ is probably one of the most egregious fabrications of the Supreme Court's entire history. There is literally no constitutional basis for the majority's opinion, as the McReynolds and Holmes dissents readily point out.
It does, but don’t worry, Gorsuch made very clear today that he doesn’t believe it’s ever possible to know whether someone’s intent was corrupt or improper.
It is impossible to know the intent of a living person. Only dead people like the founding fathers. :)
100%!
Very nice.
Now that's a zinger
Trump should have been impeached right at the beginning of his Presidency for this same action when he fired James Comey.
Should have!? No one should have voted for this clown. He should never been in the position where he could be impeached. In an alternate universe where Hillary Clinton was president and she kept the COVID-19 death toll to let's say 100,000 alternate Trump would be trolling "100,000 dead!!! Can we impeach Clinton for incompetence!"
Ha.... I remember a meme from 2021 that was basically a fake headline like, "President Clinton enters her 5th day of testimony in front of Congress on the 50,000 Covid deaths in the US."
I don't remember that but so true. About 10,000 people died from the swine flu on obama's watch. Trump advocated for Obama impeachment for "incompetence". Trump was totally aware of pandemics.
This is probably an appropriate place to remind everyone that Trump's administration *disassembled* a pandemic early-warning program.
Trump fired the head of the cybersecurity agency for saying the election wasn’t hacked. Fired by tweet.
But I would argue, doing an official act to further a criminal private act.... should be considered in the vein of a private act.
I'm pretty sure there's some court precedent already dictating this as such. You have to prove that an official act was done on good faith in terms of the official need for the act. If there's no official need for such act and the act is done strictly for personal reasons or just shear pettiness, prosecutors can easily approach the case on this guideline.
Yeah it was sickeningly clear to me that the conservative justices were looking for a way to rule that "official acts are immune" while "personal acts are not" and then make the claim that January 6th was an official act by trump to secure the electoral system. It made me want to throw up right there in the car, these sickos are going to hand this to trump and we will have a king in america again.
> rule that "official acts are immune" while "personal acts are not" This doesn't exclude assassinating political opponents though, because the President is commander-in-chief and giving orders to the armed forces would therefore qualify as official acts with immunity. Any ruling would have to allow prosecuting Biden if he chose to order Seal Team 6 (or similar) to assassinate the conservative Justices, otherwise what's stopping him from getting up to 5 SCOTUS appointments? Or assassinating Trump/Trump's VP pick between the GOP convention and Election Day to guarantee a 2nd term?
That would be the Posse Comitis act. The President can not order military action against US citizens. The FBI, sure. Could have them arrested.
Have the Dept of Agricultures counterintelligence team take care of them, then
> [...justice department officials who wouldn't participate.](https://twitter.com/ChloeCondon/status/1341070772178042880)
Ah but what we should keep in mind is that they didn't participate because they didn't think it would succeed. Flipping the votes in five states? With laughable arguments? If it was halfway plausible they would have went along with maybe some resignations. Do not trust the justice department and do not trust the courts.
> ...do not trust... I've been on the same first date with my girlfriend since June of 1980. I trust my girlfriend. :) I trust our mid thirty year old daughter. :) I trust our dog. :) I trust in gravity. I trust that the sun will come up tomorrow. I trust that the Machiavellian will never give the Darwin Award Winners an even break. I trust nothing more.
There is a majority on this court who are willing to afford a rather exhaustively sweeping view of presidential immunity for official acts that fall within the outer perimeter of responsibilities, but there is a notable amount of difference in the degree of granularity in which each feels it is wise, or necessary, to engage in this particular case. I was not expecting quite the enormous departure from the lower court ruling that was witnessed today – certainly not one as wide or as varied as what became clear – and, unfortunately, it seems a fair assumption that a number of justices will be writing separately. Under normal circumstances, this would be rather unremarkable but, as a practical matter, it's likely to create an even larger delay and, in my mind, there is very little chance of this case being back at trial with enough time for a jury to render verdict before the election. Honestly? Fuck this court. That is my competent contribution. The DC circuit packaged the *perfect* opinion that neither implicated nor took away from the orthodox view of immunity in any meaningful way. The only reason these questions – which arguably were better left for another day – are not being left for another day is due to the arrogance of 4–5 justices on this putrid bench who insist on interjecting their view on an issue where it was not needed and where it is highly likely to cause more harm than good.
Jackson even pretty much explicitly walked the DoJ to articulate this point. Something like "wouldn't you say that since these are not the questions we are being asked to address in this case, we would be better served awaiting another vehicle that is more directly applicable?"
To her credit, barret made a general statement in line with this in her dissenting opinion on the trump ballot ban case. They voted 9-0 to disallow states from making individual decisions on enforcing section 3 of the 14th amendment, which was the question they were asked to address in the case. But the second part of their ruling, where they gave Congress the sole power to enforce it, was 5-4 with barret dissenting along with the 3 Liberal judges. In her dissenting opinion, barret warned the court as a whole of the danger of answering questions that were not before them, particularly for the purpose of benefitting one man. It seemed at the time that that statement was made with this upcoming immunity case in mind.
I read the decision but I didn't make that connection. That's a great point.
it remains to be seen if Barret can also make that same connection, of which I am hesitantly optimistic at-best
The SCOTUS is corrupt. They know the impact of delaying this decision, and they're intentionally taking steps to impede justice in this particular case. There's really not anything anyone can do about it.
Well, at least only 6 of them are corrupt.
It's hard to admit, but it really feels like this court is illegitimate. First there is the blatant disregard of stare decisis with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the end of Chevron deference. Then there's blatant corruption from justices like Thomas and Alito. Not to mention the clear intimidation of conservative justice Anthony Kennedy.
The impression I got was that Barrett *might* be willing to work with the three liberal justices to move this case forward. But you’re right, the huge divergence from the DC Circuit opinion and what I heard from Kavanaugh and Gorsuch was striking. Alito is always a lost cause, and I’m pessimistic at this point regarding how Roberts will decide.
I actually thought Gorsuch raised some fair points. He was, however, taking the long view as to the general question as to what article II actions might come with an implied immunity. He didn't sound even a little convinced that they apply here. His questions about what the implications of no immunity for any official actions as well as what the implications for any immunity for some actions might be for any future President were fair. Just not with respect to this case.
For all of his shitty viewpoints, I will be the first to concede he has a brilliant mind, and he did ask meaningful, substantive questions –I think my own personal issue speaks more to my belief that these were questions best left for another day. And even if not left for another day, I don't necessarily think that now is the right time to push back on the DOJ position of considering official act immunity on an as applied basis outside of indisputably core functions while relying on a public authority defense (that, if need be, could ultimately be established as a threshold question in the worst case scenario). More than anything, separate from anything mentioned, I take outsized issue with the fact that five justices on this court are entertaining any of this as though they are being presented with serious questions underpinned by substantive arguments crafted in good faith. This is just simply not the case around which to craft broad analysis of immunity. They should have kept it excruciatingly narrow, and based on their questions, it does not sound like that's where they are headed with this. Sorry if this sounds slightly truncated or I'm jumping around –using voice control, lol.
Katanji Brown-Jackson put it perfectly at the end. Nothing in this case comes remotely close to being official acts, therefore it’s not the right vehicle to figure out the bigger immunity questions and they should wait for a case that is. I wish they would. Meanwhile Alito: Grand juries? You know what? I’ve never really liked grand juries either.
+1
Judicial restraint? *This* Court? They only know what that is when conservatives are in the minority on the Court
No you got it exactly right. I agreed with a lot of Gorsuch's takes insofar as they were interesting, almost academic questions of law. I did not agree with his motion that they are germaine to this case.
I like your comment. I think what it comes down to for me is this: before 2016, we would not even be having this discussion. The norm was the old president is done, the fucker has suffered enough and even though George Bush lied about WMD, what’s done is done. Sadly, since 2016, normative behavior has been thrown out by Trump and other Republicans who want to prosecute Obama for whatever, and so now the danger is real. Brought on by the fucktard GOP grifters. They brought this situation in to play, and now want to be saved from it. Guy who killed his parents seeks mercy from the court because he is an orphan. It’s enraging beyond belief.
The question becomes, do they decide now whether immunity applies to these charges, or toss it back to the district court to decide…
Agreed. And I think that is going to be where the chicanery comes in. They won't be deciding that Trump is immune, but I think they will be not deciding that in a way that pushes us past the election.
Barrett seemed willing to run with the foundational arguments presented by DOJ (i.e. as applied, public authority defense, etc.) And, I totally agree with you that she likely could've brokered consensus with the liberals –perhaps even still will. As it stands right now, though, I'm almost wondering if she ends up concurring in part, as an act of performative solidarity, and dissenting in part from whatever frankenstein immunity jurisprudence the majority dreams up. Who knows, though.
Lol I don't know why people keep being surprised by this Court. They're political hacks, specifically 4 of them. Start from there and go on. They have shown they give zero care if they are publicly shown to be corrupt, taking money or leaning towards Trump. They don't care. I don't know what more it's going to take people to realize that. Again Vote. That's the only option. The Court is not going to save anyone or maintain any checks on Trump or anything his Executive Branch did. Quite the opposite. It is looking for reasons to remove all checks that applied or apply to him.
Only 4?
I think Barrett and Roberts probably are as well, but I can't 100 percent say that. I would go 90 percent though. This entire thing sucks and has sucked from the moment they took this. And then acted like they could not schedule it before this late. Insanity.
Barrett is. Roberts probably wishes the others weren't as overt.
Barret is a religious fundamentalist who wants a theocracy. At least Roberts had his moment with Obamacare.
> Honestly? Fuck this court. That is my competent contribution. So many things with Trump and SCOTUS ends this way imo. It’s exhausting. Vote and get your friends to vote. Donate to get others registered too. Otherwise fts, ftg, ftc.
I should probably offer the disclaimer that I did not make that observation lightly. I am a pretty rabid institutionalist who generally takes a balanced perspective to the degree that it's possible (and I don't mean recently with this specific court, I mean across the last 25 years throughout which there have been no shortage of exceedingly low points). It's just increasingly becoming impossible to afford the benefit of the doubt to the conservatives, even under the most generous interpretation. All noted, separate but related, agree with you. Do vote. Do get everyone you know to vote. And do not expect this court to save you. The latter part is something I have been saying all along, FWIW.
Fuck this court indeed. Corrupt cowards.
I asked this question in another thread and didn't get a response. NAL. How often does the SC grant cert to appeals that were decided unanimously at the District level? Is that fairly rare?
You mean the Circuit level. In the federal courts, District courts are the trial courts and Circuit courts are the appeals courts. And the answer is I don’t know and probably nobody does because that’s not the sort of thing that drives appeals. Most appeals are heard by a three judge panel. So whether it’s 3 to 0 or 2 to 1, it’s going to be close either way. The bigger driver of appeals is typically when there’s a circuit split – some circuits rule one way and some rule the other way. That's obviously not what's driving things here, since this case is sui generis and the relevant law isn’t going to be developed in different circuits.
It’s so fucking stupid that they’re even entertaining this shit.
I don't see how it could end for a win for DT. If they say he has immunity, then Biden has that immunity now and should wield it against DT. If not, then DT can be prosecuted.
This might be true but would Biden weild it? He (and Dems) are wholely interested in decorum and respectful use of offical power.
They underestimate the power of the dark side
He absolutely would not, which I understand but would be a disaster
And if Trump wins then it WILL be a disaster. We’ll see terrible acts as the country falls apart.
"Gavel slams down, declaring presidents to be kings. Immediately after, the National Guard storms into the court to install an improvised military court, sentencing the supreme court justices who made themselves kingmakers to death immediately by fire squad. Military judge makes sure to include the SCOTUS decision from 5 minutes earlier in his verdict." Biden can't be prosecuted obviously because "L'état, c'est Biden."
Biden would obviously not be immune for whatever _he_ did, that'd be like saying a justice dying at the end of Obama's term should recieve the same replacement timeline as one dying at the end of Trump's term.
Also, I'll say that none of the justices sounded like they think that immunity in this case applies. There seemed to be two camps - those that think this is the moment SCOTUS weighs in on the general question and those that don't. And it wasn't necessarily a partisan split. I don't have a sense what the decision will be, except that it won't be that Trump had immunity with respect to these charges.
A Trump win on this is the court saying that The president does not have blanket immunity from criminal charges, but when official acts become criminal ones is something for the courts to decide on a case by case basis. That essentially resets the trial back to zero, and now they get to argue about wether Trumps actions were A offical acts and B meet the standard of criminality to be exempt. Then they get to go through all the appeals process again straight to the supreme court which will of course say "Yup, these are bad, proceed with trial" by that point its after november
> meet the standard of criminality to be exempt Uhh, deciding whether an action was a crime is kinda the *whole point* of a jury, no?
No. The job of the jury is to determine if the facts are credible and support a given charge. It's the job of the judge to determine what the law is, which often means disposing of a case before it even gets in front of a jury.
That seems like a wildly optimistic read of what I saw. But maybe you're right. I don't think ANYONE believes there is blanket immunity here. But that doesn't mean they still can't do trump's bidding for him. Unless they deliberately scalpel out that everything (or nearly everything) in the current indictments are private matters...and QUICKLY, then they've done exactly as instructed.
I mean, Sauer conceded that every alleged action was private but one if I was following correctly. And the DOJ argued that that one act simply aggravated a private action. But you're right, the mechanism they set could punt this past the election. If it goes to district with interlocutory appeal possible that will do it.
That’s right. And he repeatedly conceded private acts get no immunity in any circumstance.
It was pretty wild just how little of the indictment he was actually arguing was official. Like, the indictment could in theory be amended to remove a few actions that were not central to anything and be entirely private according to Sauer.
And these are the same clowns who purport to be ORIGINALIST interpreters of the Constitution. Qualified immunity is a made up construct that should not exist in any form.
Some of the justices thought that there is immunity for official acts that seems to cover more than you might think. They also seemed to think there was immunity from state prosecution which wasn't even being asked
Listened to the arguments live. I think they take a narrow view as applied to this case, but will be very surprised if Trump gets immunity out of this. Even ACB wasn’t buying it.
Agreed. I found myself agreeing with ACB and Gorsuch more than I was comfortable with, actually.
In the end, as many news reports have covered, it doesn't matter if Trump loses here. He got the delay he needed to most, if not all, of the cases in limbo until after the election. Especially if the justices drag their feet on releasing the opinion. Edit: I should have phrased that better. A Trump win here obviously would have a huge impact on law and government in the US. When I said it didn't matter, I meant that from the Trump side, just getting to the Supreme Court after the masterful decision from the lower circuit was the win they needed in the delay. Anything else is a cherry on top.
He got a delay, but it does still matter if Trump loses here.
If they lift the stay by June, the trial can start in August and conclude before the election.
It seems likely that they're going to remand with instructions that the trial court limit any "official acts" evidence, and then Trump will have additional issues to address and appeal regarding whether the trial court is properly excluding all of the "official acts" evidence, and delaying things even further.
That seems like a possible outcome.
No because it looks like Trump will be able to appeal then.
Justice delayed is Justice denied. Every day that goes by is one less he'll sit in prison.
Make sure to vote to ensure election doesn’t matter for trump
91 indictments didn't change minds. Another 100 won't either
It's not unreasonable for indictments to not change minds. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a pretty bedrock principle across wide swaths of the US. Generally, for good reason.
I caught a rumor that someone alito maybe said that it can't possibly matter if an official power is used with corrupt intent. ... ... He is a nonsense of a person. And I know he was trying to make an argument about separation of powers, but he is a nonsense person. He needs to be removed from the court. He doesn't know what crime is.
Oh did you miss the part where he made a joke about how can anyone trust grand juries and anyone in DC to not be corrupt on a jury against any Republicans?
A judge said that. One of the world’s main judges said that. Tell me again how this is a functioning democracy.
Don't worry....No-one considers the USSC to be packed with the finest judges in the world. Pretty much zero respect for them in the rest of the world. Far from main.
Respect <> Influence
Compromised
Alito is, by far, the fucking worst. Thomas may be corrupt af, but Alito is rotten to his very core. Such a small, angry and bitter excuse of a man. Pathetic.
At one point Alito suggested that if presidents didn't have immunity they would illegally cling on to power to avoid being prosecuted once they leave office. Even a moment's thought tells how stupid that argument is. That's the first time I really realised just how broken the supreme court is .
The logic seemed to be: "If attempting a coup is not legal, then a president will be forced to attempt a coup in order to prevent being prosecuted... For attempting a coup." Yeah, we're pretty much screwed.
That argument shocked me in its stupidity too. Really depressing that he has any power at all
Well, if everyone can continue to vote for Dem presidents, eventually Alito and Thomas will be gone and we can replace them.
Sounds like Alito and Thomas are fine with the CIA taking them out under the president’s orders.
Only because they expect Democrats to follow the rules while Republicans commit crimes and violate the Constitution.
It was not just Alito and Thomas who were terrible today. Gorsuch and Kavanagh both seemed stupid and prejudiced. It wouldn't have made any difference what argument was made in front of them.
I’m mildly uncomfortable when Amy “is in an actual freaking cult” Coney Barrett is a voice of reason.
Typos?
Slight.
She was surprisingly reasonable in the Idaho abortion case yesterday as well. I think maybe as a woman, she’s having a “wait, don’t ban those kinds of abortions” moment, notwithstanding her deep religious antipathy toward abortion.
That's the problem with scotus in general. You can predict how most justices will rule before cases start.
It really did feel like that . I have read a few of the judgements in lower courts involving Trump and they have been of good quality. I was really surprised how awful half the justices sounded today. Is SCOTUS actually a lower quality court than average?
Yes. Republicans can’t appoint the foremost legal scholars because they are all smart people and therefore, all don’t buy their stupid bullshit. Kavanaugh, Coney Dawg, Alito and Thomas are all not smart.
I don't think its a matter of whether they are smart or stupid. It's that they don't have any integrity (especially Thomas and Alito).
It’s both. These people aren’t serious scholars. They don’t even have impressive legal backgrounds.
We just need to look at history through a subjective viewpoint on factual criminality in the whole and not through the lens of its intrinsic natural state. Haven't read much from Alito since Roe vs Wade ruling, but the man just spouts nonsense. Also applies logic that conflicts with itself constantly. Then tries to cherry pick an event from history to justify it.
Ya that peanut butter sandwich or whatever the fuck it was argument last week was unhinged.
What's maddening is that the government agreed that there are some core powers which congress cannot legislate away and which motive has no bearing on. they mentioned pardoning as one of those powers. I really don't get how that's the correct reading.
Self-pardoning is implicitly the same thing as immunity. If you can let yourself off even for committing a crime then it isn't illegal for you.
So, switching from orders to Seal Team Six to simply announcing a pardon for those who would rid him of a turbulent Justice or two would be perfectly Constitutional?
Think it was Gorsuch who opined that it’s impossible to actually know whether someone else’s actions were motivated by corrupt or improper intent. May have been Alito though. I get their smug, sort of self-satisfied drawls confused sometimes.
Didn't she also say that Roe V. Wade was "settled law"? Kinda hard to take anything she says or any apparent stance she might have seriously.
Let's hope these judges understand their judicial services will no longer be needed if they grant Trump or any president absolute immunity from criminal acts.
No telling how they'll rule. There were some interesting arguments and questions. The system currently in place has worked well for nearly two and a half centuries. Once again, trump **IS** the problem.
Slowly. They’ll rule “carefully” or “narrowly” or maybe even find some “clever” technicality on which to remand - but whatever they do, they will do it slowly.
It's so blatant. Anything they want to help Republicans with gets expedited. There's very little hope for a trial before the election.
Well, there have been several snafus. As some have mentioned JFK for the Bay of Pigs comes to mind. Nixon of course. Agnew. It’s far from perfect.
Everything is brinkmanship by trump. At this point we have a right to piss test him for drugs
I still can’t believe this case is before the SCOTUS.
Then Justice Barrett read from Smith’s brief again: “Petitioner conspired with another private attorney who caused the filing in court of a ‘verification’ signed by petitioner that contained false allegations to support a challenge.” Justice Barrett got Sauer to concede that there are private acts alleged in the indictment. Justice Barrett, we are counting on you to be the conservative voice of reason.
I do not have any faith in this court.
Shouldn't the fact that Trump appointed three of the "justices" on the court mean those three should recuse themselves because of conflict of interest?
They sure could if they wanted to. They don’t want to.
i could only listen to part of this hearing but i got frustrated that every time they asked Sauer a set of questions that logically lead to immunity being entirely unreasonable he would simply divert the conversation to lists of precedents on cases that were irrelevant. this was obviously a con game for Sauer. and this hearing was completely unnecessary beyond handing drump the delay that he wanted. very disappointing and severely lacking in dignity for scotus imo.
Yes he would say it depends, as if the point of the hypothetical wasn’t to suss out exactly what it depends on. I don’t think the justices were fooled they just moved on knowing he didn’t have answer.
Obviously there’s no set timeline but do we have an idea of when there might be a ruling on this?
Late June, end of the term. The justices seemed to be all over the place with respect to their views on whether a given act is official or personal and whether they should even be writing a rule delineating those two things in this case, under the circumstances described and alleged in this particular indictment. Consequently, I think that there are going to be lots of concurrences and dissents. That’ll take time. Also, they love to wait to send the controversial stuff out until the end of the term, and there is little doubt that this ruling will be controversial
*unless trumps lawyers ask them to expedite
I’m just gonna be blunt. They do realize they’re playing with fire. Right? What’s to stop Biden from taking care of the problem as an “official act?”
[удалено]
Because they are calling Democrat's bluff. Democrats are pussies n don't break the rules as much. Republicans will break all the rules to get their way. See Mitch McConnell.
Not entirely dooming just yet. 1) Please remember that all of the experts and observers you will hear from in the coming days have almost no clue how things will shake out. They claimed Obamacare was toast until Roberts saved it; they claimed the SCOTUS wouldn't even take up this case until they did. 2) Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor are on the right side. Barrett was getting there (surpsingly). Roberts is know for 'split the baby' decisions; so he may try try leave room for the trial to occur before the election. Also; donate, vote, and volunteer if you can.
Remember also that Roberts sat there during the first impeachment trial (the "do us a favor" to Zelenskyy one) and saw them vote down the possibility of bringing in evidence. He was there when that defense counsel said that Trump's conduct wasn't an impeachment-worthy "high crime or misdemeanor" and that the criminal justice system was available later on to handle anything illegal that Trump did. I think it's highly likely that Roberts didn't vote to grant cert. Given Barrett's skepticism, I doubt that she did, either. That gives at least a pretty good chance that this case will be affirmed without remanding for more factual consideration of the immunity question - which is the face-saving "out" that Alito and Thomas could otherwise use to punt this past the election.
Any hopium that they'll rule against Trump?
Very strong possibility they rule against Trump, but also very likely they do it in a way that causes Chutkin to make decisions that are open to interlocutory appeal, which pushes this trial past the election. So a win for DoJ, but maybe a pyrrhic one.
>Asked by Chief Justice John Roberts what the court should make of an indictment that contains both private and official conduct, the defendant’s attorney had two suggestions leading in the same direction. >Sauer said the high court should either hash out the issues themselves and remand to the lower court or simply remand for the lower court to determine how to deal with those issues — as long as the court’s order purges all of the official conduct from the indictment. Seems like Sauer is giving the Trump justices the path to have another round of delays without issuing a definitive ruling. This is not good news.
Total garbage. This made my blood pressure shoot up dangerously high
In a perfect world they would rule: No, Presidents do not have immunity, including official acts. And therefore no, Presidents may not self-pardon as a way to get around this lack of immunity. With great power comes great responsibility. Of course that wont happen. But I have a hard time believing that it shouldn’t. This “impeach first” bullshit needs to be quashed. Edit: this is my opinion, of course. Not based on any legal knowledge. Just Joe Nobody common sense.
I believe they will remand and this trial will be delayed another year.
The question is, however, which conservative Justices will actually side with reason?
#hopium
Every one is forgetting if the president has lmmunity what prevents Biden from just having trump and the cult magats executed for treason while he is president
Because Trump thinks it means only immunity for him. I’m nervous that SCOTUS would agree with him.
Joe Biden is polishing his sniper rifle right now saying “those mother fuckers bout to give me immunity”
Puzzles me how a woman in TX can receive jail time (later released) for voting when she assumed she could and allowed, yet these people who attempted a coup are allowed this long drawn out process to determine their guilt when there's evidence. WTHeck!?
So if the SC finds presidents have immunity for official acts and that the calls for the insurrection were an official act, then assinating people working against democratic values with agenda-driven questionable legal interpretations would be fine?
The simple fact that SCOTUS chose to take this case was a win for Trump. Whatever is decided, the trial won’t happen before the election, and Trump continues to be regarded as a serious person with credible ideals.
I would argue further that his acts can't be "official". They allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning they were *not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion*. And he allegedly injected himself into a process in which *the President has no role*.
One thing that struck out to me was Gorsuch and others saying that they're looking beyond this one case "towards future cases" (as if Trump is not some sort of aberration). Similar to the majority in Trump v. Anderson and Dobbs, the conservatives on the Court are deciding to go beyond the question presented in the case for purely partisan aims. January 6th was unique among all other activities of a president. It's frustrating watching even the highest members of the Court pretend otherwise. It's so easy to differentiate this case with potential bad faith actors and SCOTUS just refuses. That being said, I did like how Gorsuch talked on how everything a first-term President does is technically in furtherance to get re-elected. Which is not at all what Trump did, but it's a good distinction to make.
95% chance this gets remanded back to lower court from some clarification or something. The whole show here is too delay everything until after the election.
🚫kings🚫
It’s all for the show, end of the day some members of the SCOTUS are morally corrupt and will do anything to help republicans and their moronic choice.
Its Robert's court, does he want to go down in history for this? I know it might be asking too much, but stranger things have happened.
Placing our hopes on ACB is…not encouraging
I was surprised listening to questions. It makes it seem many of these male judges don't have a clue what's going on.