The story now is the Trump lawyers are bargaining with the conservatives on the SCOTUS to find a plausible alternative to ruling that Joe Biden can legally have Trump dropped from a helicopter. So they are saying “no, we don’t think potus has UNlimited immunity from all bad acts, but SOME immunity, enough to let Trump
off the hook here, now.” And the conservatives on the court like it. They want desperately to help him, and give him a reach-around for his court stacking, and give him a shot at ‘24. But how to do that without ruling even Democrat presidents can do whatever they want? Oh, what a pickle!
They barely care about looking like an off-the-rails kangaroo court anymore, but they care a little. So they want to write that potus immunity is not unlimited, oh, no. Heavens no. But there is some for “official” acts that count as presidential business. Overthrowing an election and inciting a riot because you lost and your advisors are desperate doesn’t look like official potus biz to me, but wait until Alito has a chance to define it. It will probably say “potus immunity is LIMITED…to Republican presidents who haven’t yet left for Florida with a U-Haul full of classified documents.” So Trump will get a pass for J6 and The Big Lie. And Judge Cannon is taking care of destroying his classified docs case. So everyone is doing their part.
Point 1. Republicans are far more likely to illegitimately prosecute a former Democratic president, so just more protection.
Point 2. Who here believes this SCOTUS would consistently apply these rulings on immunity to a Democratic POTUS. Not I did not end that question with a question mark.
Joe Biden determines--after consulting with his advisors at the local ice cream saloon--that Donald Trump presents imminent peril to the security of the US. Based on that advice, he has Trump detained at Gitmo until further notice. Can he be prosecuted?
Jesus Christ, lawyers, come up with better hypotheticals.
- If the President is immune from prosecution, doesn't it mean he doesn't have to abide by the rulings of this Court if he doesn't like them?
- Doesn't it mean he can take anyone's property and money without justification, including any justice of this Court?
- Doesn't it mean he can simply cancel any impeachment proceedings against himself? Order members of Congress to aquit on pain of killing their families? Summarily execute any member who doesn't play ball? Lock the Congress out? Dissolve Congress? Dissolve this Court? Murder any lawmaker and any justice that he believes is hostile to his personal rule? Take families hostage?
Which makes anyone under him, who has sworn an oath to uphold the law, forced to do his tyrannical bidding or be dealt with, extra-judiciously, as well. For not following orders.
"[Sauer] pressed an extreme version of the former president’s argument. In answer to hypothetical questions, he said that presidential orders to murder [Supreme Court justices] could well be subject to immunity."
Imagine ten years ago, pitching a tv show to HBO or Bravo about how a president tries to overturn an election, and is impeached but acquitted because the senators from his own party say that the right way to punish him is to prosecute him, and then somehow that isn't the end of his political career and he gets prosecuted by his successor but claims that since he wasn't impeached, he can't be prosecuted. And a court including three people he appointed plus one guy whose wife was in on the insurrection tell him, "yeah, that's right." I think that script goes nowhere.
Questioning your premise, as it parrots the theory that Cheeto is being ‘prosecuted by his successor’. In fact, charges are brought by various jurisdictions and presented to a grand jury for indictment. If they don’t fit, you don’t get the indictment. Ergo, if you ain’t crimin’, you ain’t timin’. Successive presidents cannot prosecute you just for so…at least, not yet…
IKR, if America was going to fall it was supposed to through some incredibly complex Machiavellian manipulations, not just because some rich guy stomped his foot and repeated "I want it!" enough.
It occurred to me that in the other American nations, outgoing presidents who are likely to face criminal charges always have the option of going to Florida. Then I realized it wouldn't stop Trump. Oh well... maybe he can go to Guatemala.
i think roberts will join the women of the court . . . not because it's something he wants to do but even he doesn't want this to be the legacy of "his court".
. . . or he knows with abortion and civil rights and so many other things, it just won't matter.
The authors of the Constitution did not address this specifically. Mostly because being intelligent men, such an idiotic notion never occurred to them. Maybe they should have supplied an additional document "the Constitution for Dummies"
Soooo, anyway... wouldn't it be within the purview of the court, any damn court in fact, to simply DISMISS any claim they considered frivolous? Isn't that part of their job? Well, unless they happen to be far too busy being constantly and expensively feted by their very own special billionaire sugar daddies at the time.
Not only that, SCOTUS has no obligation to take any case on appeal. You have a right to appeal from a district to a circuit, but SCOTUS picks and chooses.
This might backfire on the GOP. Odds are pretty favorable for a Biden win. So if the President is immune, Uncle Joe can just hire some goons to go beat the crap out of any Republican Congress critter that gives him any shit.
But he won't. On the other hand, based on the court's presumed ruling, "have 5 justices garroted in the night to save the Constitution" would almost certainly be admitted as an official and legitimate act of the Presidency.
…it was only a hundred years ago, now history repeats itself in America
https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/beer-hall-putsch
The story now is the Trump lawyers are bargaining with the conservatives on the SCOTUS to find a plausible alternative to ruling that Joe Biden can legally have Trump dropped from a helicopter. So they are saying “no, we don’t think potus has UNlimited immunity from all bad acts, but SOME immunity, enough to let Trump
off the hook here, now.” And the conservatives on the court like it. They want desperately to help him, and give him a reach-around for his court stacking, and give him a shot at ‘24. But how to do that without ruling even Democrat presidents can do whatever they want? Oh, what a pickle!
They barely care about looking like an off-the-rails kangaroo court anymore, but they care a little. So they want to write that potus immunity is not unlimited, oh, no. Heavens no. But there is some for “official” acts that count as presidential business. Overthrowing an election and inciting a riot because you lost and your advisors are desperate doesn’t look like official potus biz to me, but wait until Alito has a chance to define it. It will probably say “potus immunity is LIMITED…to Republican presidents who haven’t yet left for Florida with a U-Haul full of classified documents.” So Trump will get a pass for J6 and The Big Lie. And Judge Cannon is taking care of destroying his classified docs case. So everyone is doing their part.
Point 1. Republicans are far more likely to illegitimately prosecute a former Democratic president, so just more protection.
Point 2. Who here believes this SCOTUS would consistently apply these rulings on immunity to a Democratic POTUS. Not I did not end that question with a question mark.
Remember, SCOTUS, this guy says he wants to do away with "parts" of the constitution.
Hint Hint, that's you fuckers!
"What this person so constantly does to everyone else, they will NEVER do to me!" -- Lynda Barry
Not sure why no one offered this hypothetical:
Joe Biden determines--after consulting with his advisors at the local ice cream saloon--that Donald Trump presents imminent peril to the security of the US. Based on that advice, he has Trump detained at Gitmo until further notice. Can he be prosecuted?
Jesus Christ, lawyers, come up with better hypotheticals.
- If the President is immune from prosecution, doesn't it mean he doesn't have to abide by the rulings of this Court if he doesn't like them?
- Doesn't it mean he can take anyone's property and money without justification, including any justice of this Court?
- Doesn't it mean he can simply cancel any impeachment proceedings against himself? Order members of Congress to aquit on pain of killing their families? Summarily execute any member who doesn't play ball? Lock the Congress out? Dissolve Congress? Dissolve this Court? Murder any lawmaker and any justice that he believes is hostile to his personal rule? Take families hostage?
Which makes anyone under him, who has sworn an oath to uphold the law, forced to do his tyrannical bidding or be dealt with, extra-judiciously, as well. For not following orders.
"[Sauer] pressed an extreme version of the former president’s argument. In answer to hypothetical questions, he said that presidential orders to murder [Supreme Court justices] could well be subject to immunity."
FIFY, aszhole. Goose and gander.
Imagine ten years ago, pitching a tv show to HBO or Bravo about how a president tries to overturn an election, and is impeached but acquitted because the senators from his own party say that the right way to punish him is to prosecute him, and then somehow that isn't the end of his political career and he gets prosecuted by his successor but claims that since he wasn't impeached, he can't be prosecuted. And a court including three people he appointed plus one guy whose wife was in on the insurrection tell him, "yeah, that's right." I think that script goes nowhere.
jesus. gorgeous.
Questioning your premise, as it parrots the theory that Cheeto is being ‘prosecuted by his successor’. In fact, charges are brought by various jurisdictions and presented to a grand jury for indictment. If they don’t fit, you don’t get the indictment. Ergo, if you ain’t crimin’, you ain’t timin’. Successive presidents cannot prosecute you just for so…at least, not yet…
IKR, if America was going to fall it was supposed to through some incredibly complex Machiavellian manipulations, not just because some rich guy stomped his foot and repeated "I want it!" enough.
I guess there are no good options left when you realise that the founding principles of your polity where a lie.
Who will guard the guardians, indeed.
As a social studies teacher I have been pounding "rule of law" for decades.
Looks like I was wrong. It was "rule of chud" all along.
Big fat turds.
It occurred to me that in the other American nations, outgoing presidents who are likely to face criminal charges always have the option of going to Florida. Then I realized it wouldn't stop Trump. Oh well... maybe he can go to Guatemala.
i think roberts will join the women of the court . . . not because it's something he wants to do but even he doesn't want this to be the legacy of "his court".
. . . or he knows with abortion and civil rights and so many other things, it just won't matter.
The authors of the Constitution did not address this specifically. Mostly because being intelligent men, such an idiotic notion never occurred to them. Maybe they should have supplied an additional document "the Constitution for Dummies"
"the Constitution for Dummies"
I am hoping that's what Trump's trials will amount to.
Ta, Evan. Scumpreme court.
Soooo, anyway... wouldn't it be within the purview of the court, any damn court in fact, to simply DISMISS any claim they considered frivolous? Isn't that part of their job? Well, unless they happen to be far too busy being constantly and expensively feted by their very own special billionaire sugar daddies at the time.
They take the cases Leonard Leo tells them to take, even if he has to make one up.
"Feted"? C'mon, don't pull your punches. The word should have been "fellatioed".
*fellated
Thanks for the correction. What I wrote looked wrong, but I couldn't think of the right word.
And thank YOU for not going for the easy, "Well you'd know all about blowjobs" comeback.
But yes, they are "blowful" in more than one sense of the word.
Not only that, SCOTUS has no obligation to take any case on appeal. You have a right to appeal from a district to a circuit, but SCOTUS picks and chooses.
This might backfire on the GOP. Odds are pretty favorable for a Biden win. So if the President is immune, Uncle Joe can just hire some goons to go beat the crap out of any Republican Congress critter that gives him any shit.
also sounds like if they remand, there will be an entire fucking hearing before the DC circuit.
beggars meet choosers.
In fact, Biden should do it and then demand to be tried and convicted, to establish a binding precedent.
But he won't. On the other hand, based on the court's presumed ruling, "have 5 justices garroted in the night to save the Constitution" would almost certainly be admitted as an official and legitimate act of the Presidency.