The Supreme Court's Decision On Presidential Immunity

[bob_sauve28]

The court just gave presidents freedom to do anything. This is so bad it is hard to get my head around. They just destroyed the Constitution

 

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/trump-immunity-supreme-court/

 

Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here:

The immunity is absolute

There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given

On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified,” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts.

Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.

Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office.

 

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires. 

There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn’t as bad as all that. These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” and so they will say that everything is fine.

But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says “unofficial” acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially”?

Take the now-classic example of a president ordering Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival. According to the logic of the Republicans on the Supreme Court, that would likely be an official act. According to their logic, there is also no way to prove it’s “unofficial,” because any conversation the president has with their military advisers (where, for instance, the president tells them why they want a particular person assassinated) is official and cannot be used against them.

There will doubtless be people still wondering if Trump can somehow be prosecuted: The answer is “no.” Special counsel Jack Smith will surely argue that presenting fake electors in connection with his cadre of campaign sycophants was not an “official act.” Lower-court judges may well agree. But when that appeal gets back to the Supreme Court next year, the same justices who just ruled that Trump is entitled to absolute immunity will surely rule that submitting fake electors was also part of Trump’s “official” responsibilities.

 

[Weave]

Character matters more than ever, now.  More than party.  More than policy. More than experience.  More than age.  More than competence.  A President that will hold to moral behavior is an absolute must now.

[SwampD]

13 hours ago, Weave said:

Character matters more than ever, now.  More than party.  More than policy. More than experience.  More than age.  More than competence.  A President that will hold to moral behavior is an absolute must now.

Good luck with that. There is a candidate that is using outright hate speech and his followers gobble it up.

We’re screwed. 

[Weave]

4 hours ago, SwampD said:

Good luck with that. There is a candidate that is using outright hate speech and his followers gobble it up.

We’re screwed. 

And the right now has the opening they needed.

Its right out in the open now.  Violence if they don’t get their way.

https://apple.news/A0IHpkslwRxOrWpvzU5yLzA

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,”

 

[SwampD]

Just now, Weave said:

And the right now has the opening they needed.

Its right out in the open now.  Violence if they don’t get their way.

https://apple.news/A0IHpkslwRxOrWpvzU5yLzA

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be,”

 

ugh

[K-9]

Perhaps Biden should put this ruling to the test, declare Trump, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and the people intent on implementing, including those various members of Congress, as domestic threats and a clear and present danger to the Constitution and take them all out in a covert SEAL team operation. Defending the Constitution is job one for a President and is the epitome of an “official act.” 

[SABRES 0311]

On 7/12/2024 at 1:25 PM, K-9 said:

Perhaps Biden should put this ruling to the test, declare Trump, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and the people intent on implementing, including those various members of Congress, as domestic threats and a clear and present danger to the Constitution and take them all out in a covert SEAL team operation. Defending the Constitution is job one for a President and is the epitome of an “official act.” 

I don’t recommend putting “take them all out” and the people you mention on a message board. Regardless of political affiliation. 

I understand you have freedom speech but…

edit: I very much recommend you remove this post in light of recent events.

Edited July 13 by SABRES 0311

[K-9]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I don’t recommend putting “take them all out” and the people you mention on a message board. Regardless of political affiliation. 

I understand you have freedom speech but…

edit: I very much recommend you remove this post in light of recent events.

No. 

[Taro T]

On 7/12/2024 at 4:25 PM, K-9 said:

Perhaps Biden should put this ruling to the test, declare Trump, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and the people intent on implementing, including those various members of Congress, as domestic threats and a clear and present danger to the Constitution and take them all out in a covert SEAL team operation. Defending the Constitution is job one for a President and is the epitome of an “official act.” 

Wow.  Just, wow.

[K-9]

48 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Wow.  Just, wow.

Please don’t misconstrue what my point is in that post. It was meant as an absurd scenario to point out the utter madness in the SCOTUS ruling regarding immunity. Nothing more and certainly not a call for a ridiculous assassination attempt.

Believe what you want, but this court is like European courts in the 1930s that paved the way for fascist regimes to assume power and fundamentally change their democracies. That is the stated goal of Trump, the Heritage Foundation, certain members of Congress, and other right wing extremists. It is dangerous and needs to be stopped. 
 

So yeah; wow. Just, wow.

Edited July 14 by K-9

[K-9]

So Gorsuch goes on Fox news and warns us to “be careful.” Or what, Neil? 

Pardon me if I find your statements about the importance of an “independent court” beyond hypocritical. You, Alito, Thomas (and I suspect Kavanaugh until he tells us who paid off his huge student loans) are bought and paid for by the billionaires who’ve lavished you with gifts and whose interests have been involved in cases heard before this court.

This SCOTUS is as corrupt AF so it’s no wonder its recent ruling says that if an elected official accepts a gift before the act, it’s a bribe but if accepted after the act it’s a gratuity. A gratuity! LMFAO! History will not be kind to these clowns.