And now you know you cannot vote for donald who would become a refactoring king. Staying home or not voting for Democrats up and down the line is a vote for donald to be king. CHOOSE WISELY. DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT WILL END WITH DONALD
I’ve generally been negative on the Supreme Court the last few years, but I still didn’t think they’d go this far. Today’s ruling was just awful though, and it makes me totally OK with Democrats packing the court if they somehow win the Presidency and hold the Senate. How it’s legal for the President to instruct the Justice Department to spread lies about voter fraud in an election the incumbent lost is beyond me. Extremely bleak.
All the MAGA’s see this as trump getting to be the king and dictator forever. Just suppose, though, he loses in November? That president would be able to come after him with impunity. And looking even closer - Biden is the current president, so this applies to him. I’d love to see him sic the DOJ on trump and throw him in jail to await his repeals. What’s to stop him?
I am really biting my tongue on the fact that deploying Seal Team Six is an official act…
I am a programmer, not lawyer. Nonetheless, it seems to me this ruling and arguments are a broad expansion by the "Supremes" of presidential power. Justice Sotomayor is clearly disappointed by the majority.
Democrats must do everything possible (must be legal & moral/ethical) to ensure Democrats win EVERY contest, especially the Presidency, especially if that means keeping Biden (he is at the very least a moral figurehead, and likely far better than that). Keeping a democratic republic will require new laws and amendments (and likely super majorities in House & Senate) - thus costly educational initiatives to teach Americans why democracy is in their/our interests - to preserve the ideals of the founders, imperfect as those founders may have been in practice.
Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” (Sept. 2005)
Only possible silver lining here is a revival of Biden's (or whoever Trump's opponent turns out to be) case for protecting democracy, which has thus far fallen flat. The question becomes whether this blatant threat of presidential abuse of power and potential dictatorship, now officially enabled, is clear and present enough to the blessed low-information voter to motivate them to keep Trump from acquiring such power (and possibly motivate Trump-fearing voters to crawl through fire and the various GOP suppression schemes to cast their votes). I'm not optimistic but I'm sure Democrats will run on this and can only hope to good effect.
Sam, someone pointed out that the audience for the debate was the lowest in this century: fifty million, while one hundred fifty million voted in 2020. Also, those who watched were mostly the already committed: never-Trump or MAGA. The undecided, who are the most important, were the ones least likely to have watched, and the debate has not shown any change in polling numbers. So take some cheer, and keep the hope and determination.
It’s crazy how the hubris of one Supreme Court justice really changed the course of history. One has to wonder what would have happened if RBG had resigned before passing away on the bench.
I completely see and understand this argument. But the first thing that comes to mind is would the Republicans have even allowed a confirmation if she had. We only need to look at Merrick Garland for that answer as depressing as it is.
As many Americans including Chris do not want to admit: Welcome to 3rd World country of presidential power. This is not playing chess in immunity for life.
The SCOTUS decision for Convicted Trump is similar to some of 3rd World countries constitutions which created a senate seat for life for ex-Presidents/dictators like Augusto Pinochet in Chile to keep immunity for life after committing crimes in power
I saw this on a blog: “In Russia, Putin terrorized parliament into legislating lifetime immunity for him. In the United States, Trump merely had to appoint three Supreme Court Justices to effect the same.”
I'll re-share here my FB post from a few hours ago. Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm not that kind of lawyer (my practice areas aren't relevant to the topic), so this is essentially a layman's thoughts.
___
The Supreme Court issued its opinion regarding the former president's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts while in office. I haven't read the entire opinion yet, but have skimmed some portions.
Media coverage of Court opinions tends to oversimplify things, I think. It's not nearly so simple as "the Court took Trump's side," as portrayed in headlines; I think that's inaccurate. Though the Court's opinion does help some of his legal arguments.
The Court did *not* agree with his argument that he can't be charged with a crime unless first impeached and convicted. Presidents, after leaving office, can be charged and convicted of crimes committed while in office, even if Congress chose not to impeach and convict.
The Court, however, determined that presidents have a *presumption* of immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. It is a rebuttable presumption.
For example, regarding Trump's efforts to cajole VP Pence into overturning the election for him, the Court viewed this as a potentially impermissible intrusion by the president into the workings of the Legislative Branch
-- because the Vice President's role in the election certification is as the presiding officer of the Senate. The prosecution would need to demonstrate this to the trial court to overcome the presumption.
And trial courts also need to make a determination whether a given action by a president is an official act.
For example, the Court discussed at some length the efforts of Trump and his campaign to influence election officials in Georgia and other states, and his Tweets and public comments on Jan. 6. In the case of the pressures applied to state election officials, the Court seemed to lean toward viewing this as primarily private, campaign-related conduct (but did not hold it to be so). In the case of the Tweets and speech on Jan. 6, the Court seemed to lean toward finding most public comments a president makes as being within the realm of official conduct (but again, did not hold it to be so).
All of this means - I think - that there will need to be extensive pretrial brief and hearings in the Jan. 6 federal prosecution and the Georgia election interference case regarding the "official" versus "private" scope of Trump's actions. Those things will take months, and so trial won't happen until well after the election. (If Trump is elected, trial will never happen in the federal case. He will get away with it.)
I don't think the Court's ruling today affects the federal prosecution regarding unlawful retention and disclosure of classified documents; that activity happened after his term, when Trump was a private citizen, so the presidential immunity issue isn't applicable. (However, if Trump is elected, he'll get away with that, too, because he'll have the ability to end the prosecution and/or pardon himself.)
This is very helpful. I have a question, I am no lawyer.... so much less than even a layman's understanding! It sounds to me that the Supreme court is claiming for itself the role of managing the President. Sure, impeachment, but that is never going to be a failsafe. it sounds as if the Supreme Court will be the only institution able to reign in a President. God help us all. Second question, can Biden on the last day of his term pardon himself and anyone else? wouldn't every President going forward categorically pardon themselves?
The idea of a self-pardon is an unknown. The pardon power is essentially absolute (though for presidents it only applies to *federal* crimes - just like Governors can only pardon for crimes in their states). But whether it is so absolute that a president can pardon himself is unknown. Ultimately it may come down to whether the Supreme Court thinks so - which ties back to your first question.
Is the Supreme Court the only authority able to constrain the president? Is that what they want? I don't think I can answer that. It *should* be Congress that constrains the President, but that requires political will to put country over party, and that kind of political will is in short supply.
Cartoon: Six yappy dogs in robes running, chanting, "We caught the bus! We caught the bus!" While three also robed noble dogs (you pick the breed) sit mournfully on the curb. Free to any artist.
It's interesting to me that this opinion is viewed - rightly - as the Court expanding the powers of the presidency (i.e., the Executive Branch). Because the Court's decision a few days ago to overrule Chevron should be viewed at the Court significantly curtailing Executive Branch power.
Taken together, I think this shows the Court is - arguably - at least trying to decide cases on the legal merits as they come, rather than with some overarching view of Executive authority being the driving factor.
With the end of "Chevron deference," I think it's weird that liberals are unhappy and conservatives are happy. Given the substantial likelihood that 6 months from now Executive Branch agencies will be doing whatever crazy thing DJT tells them to do, it's a *good* thing, in my view, that people will have greater ability to challenge the Executive Branch in court.
GOP, led by Moscow Mitc,h, played the long game from the day Justice Alito died, and it paid off better than they could have imagined. Trumpf was just the empty vessel they used to carry out the plan.
RBG is as guilty as Mitch. Her insistence on staying on the court cost us another seat.
If Donnie gets back in, 2 more of them will retire and be replaced by young activist judges.
And now you know you cannot vote for donald who would become a refactoring king. Staying home or not voting for Democrats up and down the line is a vote for donald to be king. CHOOSE WISELY. DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT WILL END WITH DONALD
I’ve generally been negative on the Supreme Court the last few years, but I still didn’t think they’d go this far. Today’s ruling was just awful though, and it makes me totally OK with Democrats packing the court if they somehow win the Presidency and hold the Senate. How it’s legal for the President to instruct the Justice Department to spread lies about voter fraud in an election the incumbent lost is beyond me. Extremely bleak.
All the MAGA’s see this as trump getting to be the king and dictator forever. Just suppose, though, he loses in November? That president would be able to come after him with impunity. And looking even closer - Biden is the current president, so this applies to him. I’d love to see him sic the DOJ on trump and throw him in jail to await his repeals. What’s to stop him?
I am really biting my tongue on the fact that deploying Seal Team Six is an official act…
I am a programmer, not lawyer. Nonetheless, it seems to me this ruling and arguments are a broad expansion by the "Supremes" of presidential power. Justice Sotomayor is clearly disappointed by the majority.
Democrats must do everything possible (must be legal & moral/ethical) to ensure Democrats win EVERY contest, especially the Presidency, especially if that means keeping Biden (he is at the very least a moral figurehead, and likely far better than that). Keeping a democratic republic will require new laws and amendments (and likely super majorities in House & Senate) - thus costly educational initiatives to teach Americans why democracy is in their/our interests - to preserve the ideals of the founders, imperfect as those founders may have been in practice.
Courtesy of Republican Voters Against Trump:
Chief Justice John Roberts at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” (Sept. 2005)
That statement didn't age well.
Only possible silver lining here is a revival of Biden's (or whoever Trump's opponent turns out to be) case for protecting democracy, which has thus far fallen flat. The question becomes whether this blatant threat of presidential abuse of power and potential dictatorship, now officially enabled, is clear and present enough to the blessed low-information voter to motivate them to keep Trump from acquiring such power (and possibly motivate Trump-fearing voters to crawl through fire and the various GOP suppression schemes to cast their votes). I'm not optimistic but I'm sure Democrats will run on this and can only hope to good effect.
If you conducted this while on an airplane, I'm impressed.
Why oh why oh why did Joe Biden have to be so awful last week?
Sam, someone pointed out that the audience for the debate was the lowest in this century: fifty million, while one hundred fifty million voted in 2020. Also, those who watched were mostly the already committed: never-Trump or MAGA. The undecided, who are the most important, were the ones least likely to have watched, and the debate has not shown any change in polling numbers. So take some cheer, and keep the hope and determination.
Well, that was just fu**ing depressing.
It’s crazy how the hubris of one Supreme Court justice really changed the course of history. One has to wonder what would have happened if RBG had resigned before passing away on the bench.
I completely see and understand this argument. But the first thing that comes to mind is would the Republicans have even allowed a confirmation if she had. We only need to look at Merrick Garland for that answer as depressing as it is.
As many Americans including Chris do not want to admit: Welcome to 3rd World country of presidential power. This is not playing chess in immunity for life.
The SCOTUS decision for Convicted Trump is similar to some of 3rd World countries constitutions which created a senate seat for life for ex-Presidents/dictators like Augusto Pinochet in Chile to keep immunity for life after committing crimes in power
SCOTUS gave Convicted Trump Immunity for life
I saw this on a blog: “In Russia, Putin terrorized parliament into legislating lifetime immunity for him. In the United States, Trump merely had to appoint three Supreme Court Justices to effect the same.”
New reality in America after “nobody is above law” was eliminated by SCOTUS
😩
I'll re-share here my FB post from a few hours ago. Disclaimer: I am a lawyer, but I'm not that kind of lawyer (my practice areas aren't relevant to the topic), so this is essentially a layman's thoughts.
___
The Supreme Court issued its opinion regarding the former president's claim to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts while in office. I haven't read the entire opinion yet, but have skimmed some portions.
Media coverage of Court opinions tends to oversimplify things, I think. It's not nearly so simple as "the Court took Trump's side," as portrayed in headlines; I think that's inaccurate. Though the Court's opinion does help some of his legal arguments.
The Court did *not* agree with his argument that he can't be charged with a crime unless first impeached and convicted. Presidents, after leaving office, can be charged and convicted of crimes committed while in office, even if Congress chose not to impeach and convict.
The Court, however, determined that presidents have a *presumption* of immunity from prosecution for official acts taken while in office. It is a rebuttable presumption.
For example, regarding Trump's efforts to cajole VP Pence into overturning the election for him, the Court viewed this as a potentially impermissible intrusion by the president into the workings of the Legislative Branch
-- because the Vice President's role in the election certification is as the presiding officer of the Senate. The prosecution would need to demonstrate this to the trial court to overcome the presumption.
And trial courts also need to make a determination whether a given action by a president is an official act.
For example, the Court discussed at some length the efforts of Trump and his campaign to influence election officials in Georgia and other states, and his Tweets and public comments on Jan. 6. In the case of the pressures applied to state election officials, the Court seemed to lean toward viewing this as primarily private, campaign-related conduct (but did not hold it to be so). In the case of the Tweets and speech on Jan. 6, the Court seemed to lean toward finding most public comments a president makes as being within the realm of official conduct (but again, did not hold it to be so).
All of this means - I think - that there will need to be extensive pretrial brief and hearings in the Jan. 6 federal prosecution and the Georgia election interference case regarding the "official" versus "private" scope of Trump's actions. Those things will take months, and so trial won't happen until well after the election. (If Trump is elected, trial will never happen in the federal case. He will get away with it.)
I don't think the Court's ruling today affects the federal prosecution regarding unlawful retention and disclosure of classified documents; that activity happened after his term, when Trump was a private citizen, so the presidential immunity issue isn't applicable. (However, if Trump is elected, he'll get away with that, too, because he'll have the ability to end the prosecution and/or pardon himself.)
This is very helpful. I have a question, I am no lawyer.... so much less than even a layman's understanding! It sounds to me that the Supreme court is claiming for itself the role of managing the President. Sure, impeachment, but that is never going to be a failsafe. it sounds as if the Supreme Court will be the only institution able to reign in a President. God help us all. Second question, can Biden on the last day of his term pardon himself and anyone else? wouldn't every President going forward categorically pardon themselves?
thanks
A
The idea of a self-pardon is an unknown. The pardon power is essentially absolute (though for presidents it only applies to *federal* crimes - just like Governors can only pardon for crimes in their states). But whether it is so absolute that a president can pardon himself is unknown. Ultimately it may come down to whether the Supreme Court thinks so - which ties back to your first question.
Is the Supreme Court the only authority able to constrain the president? Is that what they want? I don't think I can answer that. It *should* be Congress that constrains the President, but that requires political will to put country over party, and that kind of political will is in short supply.
It seems as though we’ve just witnessed the birth of the imperial presidency.
😱
This interview did not make me feel any better about today's events. Time for a stiff drink.
Cartoon: Six yappy dogs in robes running, chanting, "We caught the bus! We caught the bus!" While three also robed noble dogs (you pick the breed) sit mournfully on the curb. Free to any artist.
It's interesting to me that this opinion is viewed - rightly - as the Court expanding the powers of the presidency (i.e., the Executive Branch). Because the Court's decision a few days ago to overrule Chevron should be viewed at the Court significantly curtailing Executive Branch power.
Taken together, I think this shows the Court is - arguably - at least trying to decide cases on the legal merits as they come, rather than with some overarching view of Executive authority being the driving factor.
With the end of "Chevron deference," I think it's weird that liberals are unhappy and conservatives are happy. Given the substantial likelihood that 6 months from now Executive Branch agencies will be doing whatever crazy thing DJT tells them to do, it's a *good* thing, in my view, that people will have greater ability to challenge the Executive Branch in court.
The USA died a little (actually a lot) today.
GOP, led by Moscow Mitc,h, played the long game from the day Justice Alito died, and it paid off better than they could have imagined. Trumpf was just the empty vessel they used to carry out the plan.
RBG is as guilty as Mitch. Her insistence on staying on the court cost us another seat.
If Donnie gets back in, 2 more of them will retire and be replaced by young activist judges.
We are truly screwed.