Indecision 2024

[bjn]

FFS, even King John was supposed to not be above the law. Divine Right of US Presidents?

[IvanV]

And it also gives Biden immunity to assassinate or arrest Trump. Or the Supreme Court.

The judgment says

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
...
The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

The first sentence is, I believe, reasonably uncontroversial. The stretching it is in the second sentence. Because, as they say, shortly after, not all his official acts are within his "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."

But they say quite clearly, there is no immunity for unofficial acts. He doesn't have immunity for shoplifting. I think assassination of a political rival would usually be an unofficial act.

As the second para I quote makes clear, this does not on its own throw out the election interference case, but it makes it harder. They have sent it back to the district court for further fact-finding.

[Stranger Mouse]

No more independent DOJ so all systems go on Trump’s revenge prosecutions if he gets re-elected

IMG_0763.jpeg (251.66 KiB) Viewed 2322 times

[dyqik]

And it also gives Biden immunity to assassinate or arrest Trump. Or the Supreme Court.

The judgment says

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
...
The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

The first sentence is, I believe, reasonably uncontroversial. The stretching it is in the second sentence. Because, as they say, shortly after, not all his official acts are within his "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."

But they say quite clearly, there is no immunity for unofficial acts. He doesn't have immunity for shoplifting. I think assassination of a political rival would usually be an unofficial act.

As the second para I quote makes clear, this does not on its own throw out the election interference case, but it makes it harder. They have sent it back to the district court for further fact-finding.

Three Supreme Court Justices disagree with you.

Commanding the military is an official act. And the reasons for those official acts can no longer be examined in court to determine if they are legal or not.

[dyqik]

Oh, and the President can just hand out pardons to those that obey illegal orders they issue, with absolute immunity.

[Stranger Mouse]

Looks like Judge Cannon has some support on the Supreme Court if she decides to dismiss the documents case

https://x.com/annabower/status/1807814924778754350?s=61

IMG_0765.jpeg (121.72 KiB) Viewed 2299 times

[IvanV]

And it also gives Biden immunity to assassinate or arrest Trump. Or the Supreme Court.

The judgment says

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
...
The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.

The first sentence is, I believe, reasonably uncontroversial. The stretching it is in the second sentence. Because, as they say, shortly after, not all his official acts are within his "conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority."

But they say quite clearly, there is no immunity for unofficial acts. He doesn't have immunity for shoplifting. I think assassination of a political rival would usually be an unofficial act.

As the second para I quote makes clear, this does not on its own throw out the election interference case, but it makes it harder. They have sent it back to the district court for further fact-finding.

Three Supreme Court Justices disagree with you.

Commanding the military is an official act. And the reasons for those official acts can no longer be examined in court to determine if they are legal or not.

Rather they point out that what I wrote is irrelevant. Now I read Sotomayor's dissent statment, he points out that a President can use official powers to do almost anything, you don't need to act unofficially.

Well, that's put down a challenge to the Democrats. What official acts within his newly provided immunity can Biden devise to ensure Trump does not succeed as president?

But of course we do not want the US to become a dictatorship, whether it is Biden or Trump who takes the initiative to do that. Maybe Biden could do something just sufficiently outrageous, to make clear how terrible this ruling is, to force the Republicans to cooperate in eviscerating it.

[Gfamily]

Is there time to expand SCOTUS to 15 justices?

[monkey]

Is there time to expand SCOTUS to 15 justices?

That's set by Congress, it wouldn't get past the House of Representatives. Evidence for this is that it hasn't happened yet, despite at least one bill being introduced (last year, irc, think it was to 13 members).

So it's not a matter of time, it's just not going to happen before the election.

ETA If it does pass, there's a massive risk of Trump getting to pick the new judges too, if the republicans can delay proceedings long enough and he wins the presidential election.

[lpm]

Presumably Trump won't bother. He'll be at 8-1 or 7-2 by 2028 anyway. Then 9-0 under the Ivanka Trump Presidency 2029-53.

[dyqik]

Is there time to expand SCOTUS to 15 justices?

There's time to reduce it to 3 justices, via drone strikes, arrests or just withdrawing all security from SCOTUS and Trump.

[IvanV]

Is there time to expand SCOTUS to 15 justices?

That's set by Congress, it wouldn't get past the House of Representatives. Evidence for this is that it hasn't happened yet, despite at least one bill being introduced (last year, irc, think it was to 13 members).

So it's not a matter of time, it's just not going to happen before the election.

ETA If it does pass, there's a massive risk of Trump getting to pick the new judges too, if the republicans can delay proceedings long enough and he wins the presidential election.

Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court in 1937. The reason is that they were being very awkward over various economic reforms he was trying to introduce, and he felt that really wasn't their job. In the end, it was opposition from his own party that prevented him from packing the court. The court also realised what it was provoking, and became a bit more compromising. Though as WW2 approached it was conservative elements in his own party that stood in the way of various of his economic reforms.

What I learn from episode is that, with suitable majorities in the houses, court packing is a feasible policy for a president to pursue. I don't see Trump's own party providing the opposition that Roosevelt had from his own party. But as monkey says, there's lots of ways of stopping things, or at least delaying them beyond a presidential term, in the US.

[headshot]

Someone could try shooting them on Fifth Avenue.

/sarcasm in case anyone was wondering.

[IvanV]

Biden has given a speech on how terrible this is.

I wonder if he could arrange a stunt to demonstrate it, send in the army to arrest some prominent conservatives for a bit, and then release them after a while. Make them understand what they have done, and that they have to cooperate in stopping it.

Btw my apology for misgendering Justice Sotomayor.

[dyqik]

Biden has given a speech on how terrible this is.

I wonder if he could arrange a stunt to demonstrate it, send in the army to arrest some prominent conservatives for a bit, and then release them after a while. Make them understand what they have done, and that they have to cooperate in stopping it.

Btw my apology for misgendering Justice Sotomayor.

I was thinking that a night time visit by special forces to various SCOTUS justices bedrooms to explain to them what they have done might be effective.

[Woodchopper]

Biden has given a speech on how terrible this is.

I wonder if he could arrange a stunt to demonstrate it, send in the army to arrest some prominent conservatives for a bit, and then release them after a while. Make them understand what they have done, and that they have to cooperate in stopping it.

Btw my apology for misgendering Justice Sotomayor.

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

[Gfamily]

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

I'm not sure how immunity (from trial in the Courts) impacts the rules of impeachment - which is prosecuted and trialled by Congress

[Woodchopper]

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

I'm not sure how immunity (from trial in the Courts) impacts the rules of impeachment - which is prosecuted and trialled by Congress

As far as I know the President can still be impeached by Congress (and presumably punished). The problem for democracy is if an autocratic party with enough seats in congress were to be able to block an impeachment. If the courts don't have a role then a check on executive abuse of power has been removed.

[dyqik]

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

I'm not sure how immunity (from trial in the Courts) impacts the rules of impeachment - which is prosecuted and trialled by Congress

As far as I know the President can still be impeached by Congress (and presumably punished). The problem for democracy is if an autocratic party with enough seats in congress were to be able to block an impeachment. If the courts don't have a role then a check on executive abuse of power has been removed.

Which in practice is 34/100 seats in the Senate for a party like the GOP, which has eliminated all independent thinkers.

[dyqik]

Biden has given a speech on how terrible this is.

I wonder if he could arrange a stunt to demonstrate it, send in the army to arrest some prominent conservatives for a bit, and then release them after a while. Make them understand what they have done, and that they have to cooperate in stopping it.

Btw my apology for misgendering Justice Sotomayor.

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

The president can also fire military commanders until he gets one that will carry it out, and offer preemptive pardons to those that do. Under this ruling, there is absolute immunity for both of those actions as well, so the reasons cannot be examined in court for legality.

[monkey]

Biden has given a speech on how terrible this is.

I wonder if he could arrange a stunt to demonstrate it, send in the army to arrest some prominent conservatives for a bit, and then release them after a while. Make them understand what they have done, and that they have to cooperate in stopping it.

Btw my apology for misgendering Justice Sotomayor.

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

It seems pretty simple to me, bit I'm not a expert or owt.

It's immunity from prosecution for the president. That doesn't mean the illegal stuff done isn't suddenly legal and it doesn't give protection to people who aren't president who might be involved*.


*You have pardons for them.

[Woodchopper]

Biden has given a speech on how terrible this is.

I wonder if he could arrange a stunt to demonstrate it, send in the army to arrest some prominent conservatives for a bit, and then release them after a while. Make them understand what they have done, and that they have to cooperate in stopping it.

Btw my apology for misgendering Justice Sotomayor.

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

The president can also fire military commanders until he gets one that will carry it out, and offer preemptive pardons to those that do. Under this ruling, there is absolute immunity for both of those actions as well, so the reasons cannot be examined in court for legality.

Certainly, and a Secretary of Defense could presumably change the military codes of justice to allow soldiers to follow orders which would have been illegal. But but this would be when democracy would be being dismantled. I don't think that Biden could just detain some republicans in order to make a point (without doing a lot more).

[Woodchopper]

Biden has given a speech on how terrible this is.

I wonder if he could arrange a stunt to demonstrate it, send in the army to arrest some prominent conservatives for a bit, and then release them after a while. Make them understand what they have done, and that they have to cooperate in stopping it.

Btw my apology for misgendering Justice Sotomayor.

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

It seems pretty simple to me, bit I'm not a expert or owt.

It's immunity from prosecution for the president. That doesn't mean the illegal stuff done isn't suddenly legal and it doesn't give protection to people who aren't president who might be involved*.


*You have pardons for them.

I agree. As mentioned in other comments, there would be several other hurdles before the president could actually detain political enemies.

[dyqik]

I'd like to see some legal commentary on this. The President could issue such an order (presumably with immunity so long as it counted as an official act) but I doubt that soldiers could lawfully carry it out. As far as I know the US armed forces codes of justice state that they are supposed to refuse to follow illegal orders.

The president can also fire military commanders until he gets one that will carry it out, and offer preemptive pardons to those that do. Under this ruling, there is absolute immunity for both of those actions as well, so the reasons cannot be examined in court for legality.

Certainly, and a Secretary of Defense could presumably change the military codes of justice to allow soldiers to follow orders which would have been illegal. But but this would be when democracy would be being dismantled. I don't think that Biden could just detain some republicans in order to make a point (without doing a lot more).

Remember, Nixon already did this with attorney generals during the Saturday Night Massacre, and Trump started down that road with Jan 6th and AGs. So the getting rid of people until you find one who will follow your illegal orders is absolutely not a hypothetical. It's also part of the origin of the word "borked".

[Stranger Mouse]

Trump lawyer claiming that creating fake electors is an official act https://x.com/acyn/status/1807945960687128610?s=61