@JtC@JtC
you mean the same opinion as the dissenting opinions on the SCOTUS? You mean giving the president criminal immunity for any and all official acts, while intentionally making "unofficial" acts undefined, while making it impossible to question the motives of the president, is a bad thing?
You really think this is questionable?
but I do have a problem with you telling everyone that only your opinion is valid.
@gjohnsit@gjohnsit
it's about the arrogance of any member here claiming that their opinion is sacrosanct, on any issue.
And what about "I don't have a problem with this post" do you not understand?
#1#1 you mean the same opinion as the dissenting opinions on the SCOTUS? You mean giving the president criminal immunity for any and all official acts, while intentionally making "unofficial" acts undefined, while making it impossible to question the motives of the president, is a bad thing?
@JtC
murder is bad.
I declare that a military dictatorship taking over American would be bad.
I declare that the president ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate political rivals would be bad.
If I can't say these things then you are welcome to ban me.
#1.1#1.1
it's about the arrogance of any member here claiming that their opinion is sacrosanct, on any issue.
And what about "I don't have a problem with this post" do you not understand?
@gjohnsit
your strawman argument. It's not about the contents of that video, it's this statement I have an issue with:
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Your free to say just about anything here, including that your opinion is unassailable, but when you do I'll call you out for your arrogance.
#1.1.1 murder is bad.
I declare that a military dictatorship taking over American would be bad.
I declare that the president ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate political rivals would be bad.
If I can't say these things then you are welcome to ban me.
you sound like your ass is on fire
and your hair was catching
fear induced dopamine fix
much?
uh, newsflash; dRumph Already was
Priesidunce for Four(4) years
aaaand. . . bumpkis, nada, nothing
got on a chopper to board a plane to. . . ?
fly to florida
no coup
no dictatorship
no refusal to step down
no one had to put a gun to his head
although many crazy fuckers want to
he just. . . flew away
Get Help
May I suggest a booster?
up
6 users have voted.
—
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
you sound like your ass is on fire
and your hair was catching
fear induced dopamine fix
much?
uh, newsflash; dRumph Already was
Priesidunce for Four(4) years
aaaand. . . bumpkis, nada, nothing
got on a chopper to board a plane to. . . ?
fly to florida
no coup
no dictatorship
no refusal to step down
no one had to put a gun to his head
although many crazy fuckers want to
he just. . . flew away
BTW, you have no idea just how much credibility you give me by being a d*ck and throwing around personal insults, while having JTC look the other way. Thanks.
@JtC
you call That insults?
You KNOW I can do better than That!
Didn’t even Curse at ‘em? Okay.
I was just needling ‘‘em where it hurts
Their belief in The System that’s actively
Killing people
dRumph ain’t no hero and he ain’t satan either
Fuck Me but Dopey Gropey Joe is responsible for
more heartache, pain, anguish and suffering
around The World than dRumph could Eveh
hope to attain in what’s left of his lifetime
Both those AssWholes ain’t the problem
Any guesses on what is?
you sound like your ass is on fire
and your hair was catching
fear induced dopamine fix
much?
Get Help
May I suggest a booster?
would this be your 11th jab now?
maybe You need an exorcist
#4.1.1.1 you call That insults?
You KNOW I can do better than That!
Didn’t even Curse at ‘em? Okay.
I was just needling ‘‘em where it hurts
Their belief in The System that’s actively
Killing people
dRumph ain’t no hero and he ain’t satan either
Fuck Me but Dopey Gropey Joe is responsible for
more heartache, pain, anguish and suffering
around The World than dRumph could Eveh
hope to attain in what’s left of his lifetime
Both those AssWholes ain’t the problem
Any guesses on what is?
@JtC
I've quoted from the text of the ruling.
I've quoted from the text of Sotomeyer dissent.
I've quoted from the Brennan Center.
Tall Bald and Ugly hasn't offered a single link or source, nor replied to any of these facts. But he has gotten personal with every reply. He's contradicted himself.
I have a different opinion of what is wrong. I think some people simply don't want to hear facts.
of what's wrong with politics in America, people shout past each other and don't bother to listen to the other side.
Folks make their minds up and close themselves off from considering opposing viewpoints. It's the antithesis of the intent of this site.
Preferred doing that to listening to what was a somewhat annoying presentation. I'm referring only to his speaking style, not commenting on his analysis. It's just much easier for me to read the case. So I guess I can say I did my July 4 patriotic drill.
It is that bad. The majority just made up some new bs doctrine of immunity out of whole cloth. Talk of legislating from the bench. Their doctrine ironically has a methodological similarity to Roe v. Wade. Except Roe provides a tripartite penumbral factual analysis for application. This absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts analysis is a three part jurisprudential theoretical application someone just made up. Way too overbroad, legitimizing empire and the unchallengeable imperial executive and court interpreters. I think Jackson's dissent is brilliant. Just what is the scope of these different levels of immunity one absolute and one presumptive. They say in jurisprudence, the one with the presumption wins. Then also the immune functions of the presidents office preclude any reference to them as elements of proof in criminal prosecutions of private acts of the presidency. Frankly, I think the category of unofficial acts was just placed in there, to give the court some creds. The only thing is the doctrine is to be applied prospectively? In other words, it's a pretrial battlefield that puts a president's misconduct even more distant from any accountability whatsoever, but lets the court look like it left something to adjudicate. As Jackson says the scope of immunity isn't even defined. They're throwing a bone to people who want to think somehow there's something jurisprudential in what they just decided. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
No need for president's to worry about their war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's official now.
@soryang
analysis I had was from Jeff Childers, an evangelical Christian, lawyer, resident of Florida. I read him daily and often get a huge laugh. WE partwaays on homelessness but totally agree on Vaxxines.
I'll provide a link to his whole set of views on these decisions but blockquote the meaty part. Thank you in advance for any comments you may want to share. I'm a total novice on legal subjects, but really like to understand what is going on.
Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
He argues that under this system presidents back to George W. Bush could be tried for murder, genocide and other crimes.
Should I be encouraged or is this someone with his right wing blinders on?
Preferred doing that to listening to what was a somewhat annoying presentation. I'm referring only to his speaking style, not commenting on his analysis. It's just much easier for me to read the case. So I guess I can say I did my July 4 patriotic drill.
It is that bad. The majority just made up some new bs doctrine of immunity out of whole cloth. Talk of legislating from the bench. Their doctrine ironically has a methodological similarity to Roe v. Wade. Except Roe provides a tripartite penumbral factual analysis for application. This absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts analysis is a three part jurisprudential theoretical application someone just made up. Way too overbroad, legitimizing empire and the unchallengeable imperial executive and court interpreters. I think Jackson's dissent is brilliant. Just what is the scope of these different levels of immunity one absolute and one presumptive. They say in jurisprudence, the one with the presumption wins. Then also the immune functions of the presidents office preclude any reference to them as elements of proof in criminal prosecutions of private acts of the presidency. Frankly, I think the category of unofficial acts was just placed in there, to give the court some creds. The only thing is the doctrine is to be applied prospectively? In other words, it's a pretrial battlefield that puts a president's misconduct even more distant from any accountability whatsoever, but lets the court look like it left something to adjudicate. As Jackson says the scope of immunity isn't even defined. They're throwing a bone to people who want to think somehow there's something jurisprudential in what they just decided. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
No need for president's to worry about their war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's official now.
up
6 users have voted.
—
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
The fact that your source talks about the "Democrats most deranged temper tantrums" should tell you that this is a biased source. Why do people even consider these opinions over the actual text of the ruling?
In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
In order to prove that a criminal act ordered by the president wasn't an official act, the prosecution can't use the motives of the president, nor his private records, and if he used an official act, such as commanding the military to do this criminal act, then that whole side of the act falls automatically under immunity.
#6 analysis I had was from Jeff Childers, an evangelical Christian, lawyer, resident of Florida. I read him daily and often get a huge laugh. WE partwaays on homelessness but totally agree on Vaxxines.
I'll provide a link to his whole set of views on these decisions but blockquote the meaty part. Thank you in advance for any comments you may want to share. I'm a total novice on legal subjects, but really like to understand what is going on.
Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
He argues that under this system presidents back to George W. Bush could be tried for murder, genocide and other crimes.
Should I be encouraged or is this someone with his right wing blinders on?
@Dawn's Meta@Dawn's Meta
It falls into a kind of "I know when I see it," exception to the 1st Amendment, category.
This is the exact quote that I think is key to that analysis-
At most, to distinguish official from unofficial conduct,
the majority advises asking whether the former President’s
conduct was “‘manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.’” Ante, at 17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC 2023)). But that test can be illusory, as is evidenced by the facts alleged in this very case. With respect to the indictment’s allegations concerning petitioner’s attempt to assemble false slates of electors..."
(Imo) The problem here is that criminal acts are generally not within the scope of official duties. Even with a core constitutional function, criminal acts should not be within the scope of the role. For instance, intentionally killing civilians in a war zone, without even the colorable argument, that it was incidental to a legitimate military objective or that the killings "were a mistake." The court is mistakenly using the "manifestly or palpable" to distinguish a boundary between official acts from unofficial conduct. The distinction should be applied to even the absolutely immune acts "as defined by the majority) to define the scope of the immunity. There is within the scope, and then there are serious criminal acts which although not private are not within the scope of any presidential privilege. A policeman could arguably be acting within the scope of core function when he commits a homicide. That doesn't mean he's necessarily immune from criminal homicide prosecution, nor does it mean his motive can't be examined.
I think the DC Circuit decision had it right-
From this distinction, the D. C. Circuit concluded
that the “separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in
Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary
to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws.” 91 F. 4th, at 1191. In the court’s view, the fact that Trump’s actions “allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws” meant that those
actions “were not properly within the scope of his lawful
discretion.” Id., at 1192. The D. C. Circuit thus concluded
that Trump had “no structural immunity from the charges
in the Indictment.” Ibid.
Here's another zinger from the majority opinion-
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because
it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
This is a civil law application, not criminal law. Unlawful and criminal are not the same, although they may overlap.
This is really bad-
The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose
do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the
investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct
within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is
therefore absolutely immune from prosecution
for the alleged conduct involving his discussions
with Justice Department officials.
So lawfare okay then? It cuts both ways.
It may be that in the instant case, what the Supreme Court has done is not within the "parade of horribles," described in Sotomayor's dissent. However, the majority occupied the field in an area with little precedent and promoted a general standard which is erroneous in its analysis. It will apply as a precedent for future courts, regardless of whether the ultimate outcome is fair for this particular president.
(one edit for clarity)
#6 analysis I had was from Jeff Childers, an evangelical Christian, lawyer, resident of Florida. I read him daily and often get a huge laugh. WE partwaays on homelessness but totally agree on Vaxxines.
I'll provide a link to his whole set of views on these decisions but blockquote the meaty part. Thank you in advance for any comments you may want to share. I'm a total novice on legal subjects, but really like to understand what is going on.
Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
He argues that under this system presidents back to George W. Bush could be tried for murder, genocide and other crimes.
Should I be encouraged or is this someone with his right wing blinders on?
@soryang
with quotes. So much of much of what is in the news benefits from nuance which many of us have become allergic to.
It's one of the reasons I like to read someone like Childers. He can be more than annoying, but he looks at things in a way that is not usual for me.
Your carefully laid out response makes abundant sense. I will continue to ponder these things hoping for clarity.
#6.1#6.1 It falls into a kind of "I know when I see it," exception to the 1st Amendment, category.
This is the exact quote that I think is key to that analysis-
At most, to distinguish official from unofficial conduct,
the majority advises asking whether the former President’s
conduct was “‘manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.’” Ante, at 17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC 2023)). But that test can be illusory, as is evidenced by the facts alleged in this very case. With respect to the indictment’s allegations concerning petitioner’s attempt to assemble false slates of electors..."
(Imo) The problem here is that criminal acts are generally not within the scope of official duties. Even with a core constitutional function, criminal acts should not be within the scope of the role. For instance, intentionally killing civilians in a war zone, without even the colorable argument, that it was incidental to a legitimate military objective or that the killings "were a mistake." The court is mistakenly using the "manifestly or palpable" to distinguish a boundary between official acts from unofficial conduct. The distinction should be applied to even the absolutely immune acts "as defined by the majority) to define the scope of the immunity. There is within the scope, and then there are serious criminal acts which although not private are not within the scope of any presidential privilege. A policeman could arguably be acting within the scope of core function when he commits a homicide. That doesn't mean he's necessarily immune from criminal homicide prosecution, nor does it mean his motive can't be examined.
I think the DC Circuit decision had it right-
From this distinction, the D. C. Circuit concluded
that the “separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in
Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary
to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws.” 91 F. 4th, at 1191. In the court’s view, the fact that Trump’s actions “allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws” meant that those
actions “were not properly within the scope of his lawful
discretion.” Id., at 1192. The D. C. Circuit thus concluded
that Trump had “no structural immunity from the charges
in the Indictment.” Ibid.
Here's another zinger from the majority opinion-
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because
it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
This is a civil law application, not criminal law. Unlawful and criminal are not the same, although they may overlap.
This is really bad-
The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose
do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the
investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct
within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is
therefore absolutely immune from prosecution
for the alleged conduct involving his discussions
with Justice Department officials.
So lawfare okay then? It cuts both ways.
It may be that in the instant case, what the Supreme Court has done is not within the "parade of horribles," described in Sotomayor's dissent. However, the majority occupied the field in an area with little precedent and promoted a general standard which is erroneous in its analysis. It will apply as a precedent for future courts, regardless of whether the ultimate outcome is fair for this particular president.
(one edit for clarity)
up
6 users have voted.
—
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
@soryang
I don't want Trump to have this power. I don't want Biden to have this power. I don't want any future president to have this power.
I think the presidency was already too powerful, and anyone who claims that they support justices be originalists cannot logically justify this. I think anyone who can't view this except through a partisan lens is an enabler to treason.
#6.1#6.1 It falls into a kind of "I know when I see it," exception to the 1st Amendment, category.
This is the exact quote that I think is key to that analysis-
At most, to distinguish official from unofficial conduct,
the majority advises asking whether the former President’s
conduct was “‘manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.’” Ante, at 17 (quoting Blassingame v. Trump, 87 F. 4th 1, 13 (CADC 2023)). But that test can be illusory, as is evidenced by the facts alleged in this very case. With respect to the indictment’s allegations concerning petitioner’s attempt to assemble false slates of electors..."
(Imo) The problem here is that criminal acts are generally not within the scope of official duties. Even with a core constitutional function, criminal acts should not be within the scope of the role. For instance, intentionally killing civilians in a war zone, without even the colorable argument, that it was incidental to a legitimate military objective or that the killings "were a mistake." The court is mistakenly using the "manifestly or palpable" to distinguish a boundary between official acts from unofficial conduct. The distinction should be applied to even the absolutely immune acts "as defined by the majority) to define the scope of the immunity. There is within the scope, and then there are serious criminal acts which although not private are not within the scope of any presidential privilege. A policeman could arguably be acting within the scope of core function when he commits a homicide. That doesn't mean he's necessarily immune from criminal homicide prosecution, nor does it mean his motive can't be examined.
I think the DC Circuit decision had it right-
From this distinction, the D. C. Circuit concluded
that the “separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in
Marbury and its progeny, necessarily permits the Judiciary
to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws.” 91 F. 4th, at 1191. In the court’s view, the fact that Trump’s actions “allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws” meant that those
actions “were not properly within the scope of his lawful
discretion.” Id., at 1192. The D. C. Circuit thus concluded
that Trump had “no structural immunity from the charges
in the Indictment.” Ibid.
Here's another zinger from the majority opinion-
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because
it allegedly violates a generally applicable law
This is a civil law application, not criminal law. Unlawful and criminal are not the same, although they may overlap.
This is really bad-
The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were “sham[s]” or proposed for an improper purpose
do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the
investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. App. 186–187, Indictment¶10(c). And the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct
within his exclusive constitutional authority. Trump is
therefore absolutely immune from prosecution
for the alleged conduct involving his discussions
with Justice Department officials.
So lawfare okay then? It cuts both ways.
It may be that in the instant case, what the Supreme Court has done is not within the "parade of horribles," described in Sotomayor's dissent. However, the majority occupied the field in an area with little precedent and promoted a general standard which is erroneous in its analysis. It will apply as a precedent for future courts, regardless of whether the ultimate outcome is fair for this particular president.
seems to me the supremes left
the details to be hashed out in
the lower courts and since
The Costitution(you know, that Rag most politicians
[okay; all] wipe their asses with) Still should have
Some bearing on this.
Like, you Can’t even Charge a prez UNTIL
they’ve been IMPEACHED in the House
and CONVICTED in the Senate.
Or is that moot now?
‘Cause the way I’ve seen it presented
is that this applies to Former prezidunces
as the Article II section four still applies to current prez
otherwise, it seems to me that Somebody
is fomenting discord the usual way by getting
people het up enough to start a ruckus by getting
up in peoples faces Screaming ohmugodwe’reAllgonna
DIE!
No Karen, have another bonghit and relax
on the hot takes. Just like everything
Else in this country, this shite’ll get worked through
as well.
Also, it seems to me the folks advocating for direct action
unilaterally dis-armed and the rest just want to
Be Left Alone
and the BLA folks kept Their guns
So go ahead, keep agitating like good little serfs
Doing the Right Thingtm
Just bear in mind A Wise Man’s Fears
one of which is The Wrath of a Gentle Man
this was Fun!
Preferred doing that to listening to what was a somewhat annoying presentation. I'm referring only to his speaking style, not commenting on his analysis. It's just much easier for me to read the case. So I guess I can say I did my July 4 patriotic drill.
It is that bad. The majority just made up some new bs doctrine of immunity out of whole cloth. Talk of legislating from the bench. Their doctrine ironically has a methodological similarity to Roe v. Wade. Except Roe provides a tripartite penumbral factual analysis for application. This absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts analysis is a three part jurisprudential theoretical application someone just made up. Way too overbroad, legitimizing empire and the unchallengeable imperial executive and court interpreters. I think Jackson's dissent is brilliant. Just what is the scope of these different levels of immunity one absolute and one presumptive. They say in jurisprudence, the one with the presumption wins. Then also the immune functions of the presidents office preclude any reference to them as elements of proof in criminal prosecutions of private acts of the presidency. Frankly, I think the category of unofficial acts was just placed in there, to give the court some creds. The only thing is the doctrine is to be applied prospectively? In other words, it's a pretrial battlefield that puts a president's misconduct even more distant from any accountability whatsoever, but lets the court look like it left something to adjudicate. As Jackson says the scope of immunity isn't even defined. They're throwing a bone to people who want to think somehow there's something jurisprudential in what they just decided. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
No need for president's to worry about their war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's official now.
up
0 users have voted.
—
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one the
Court recognizes, contending that the indictment must be dismissed
because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. But the text of the Clause does not address whether and on what
conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and
convicted. See Art. I, §3, cl. 7. Historical evidence likewise lends little
support to Trump’s position. The Federalist Papers on which Trump
relies concerned the checks available against a sitting President; they
did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment
Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. Transforming
the political process of impeachment into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of the Nation’s Government
seems to me the supremes left
the details to be hashed out in
the lower courts and since
The Costitution(you know, that Rag most politicians
[okay; all] wipe their asses with) Still should have
Some bearing on this.
Like, you Can’t even Charge a prez UNTIL
they’ve been IMPEACHED in the House
and CONVICTED in the Senate.
Or is that moot now?
‘Cause the way I’ve seen it presented
is that this applies to Former prezidunces
as the Article II section four still applies to current prez
otherwise, it seems to me that Somebody
is fomenting discord the usual way by getting
people het up enough to start a ruckus by getting
up in peoples faces Screaming ohmugodwe’reAllgonna
DIE!
No Karen, have another bonghit and relax
on the hot takes. Just like everything
Else in this country, this shite’ll get worked through
as well.
Also, it seems to me the folks advocating for direct action
unilaterally dis-armed and the rest just want to
Be Left Alone
and the BLA folks kept Their guns
So go ahead, keep agitating like good little serfs
Doing the Right Thingtm
Just bear in mind A Wise Man’s Fears
one of which is The Wrath of a Gentle Man
Comments
I don't have a problem with this post...
but I do have a problem with you telling everyone that only your opinion is valid.
That's not what this site is about.
By "my opinion"
you mean the same opinion as the dissenting opinions on the SCOTUS? You mean giving the president criminal immunity for any and all official acts, while intentionally making "unofficial" acts undefined, while making it impossible to question the motives of the president, is a bad thing?
You really think this is questionable?
No...
it's about the arrogance of any member here claiming that their opinion is sacrosanct, on any issue.
And what about "I don't have a problem with this post" do you not understand?
I declare that
murder is bad.
I declare that a military dictatorship taking over American would be bad.
I declare that the president ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate political rivals would be bad.
If I can't say these things then you are welcome to ban me.
I'm not going to fall for...
your strawman argument. It's not about the contents of that video, it's this statement I have an issue with:
Your free to say just about anything here, including that your opinion is unassailable, but when you do I'll call you out for your arrogance.
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
you sound like your ass is on fire
and your hair was catching
fear induced dopamine fix
much?
uh, newsflash; dRumph Already was
Priesidunce for Four(4) years
aaaand. . . bumpkis, nada, nothing
got on a chopper to board a plane to. . . ?
fly to florida
no coup
no dictatorship
no refusal to step down
no one had to put a gun to his head
although many crazy fuckers want to
he just. . . flew away
Get Help
May I suggest a booster?
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
And you still haven't
watched the video or read anything I posted.
Uh why
do you think I
suggested you get help
would this be your 11th jab now?
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Do yourself a favor and read something
about this ruling that didn't come from a MAGA source.
BTW, you have no idea just how much credibility you give me by being a d*ck and throwing around personal insults, while having JTC look the other way. Thanks.
Oh and if
you’re worried that orangemanbad
IS going to do anything along the lines
YOU are projecting. . .
you can thank the Dems for giving him
the Playbook AND
Setting Precedent
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
By your
own logic(such as it is)
Bidet could do whatever HE
wanted to do-Right Now
including shooting(or having someone shoot)
orangemanbad! Right Now
Today!
Right?
what’s that? No?
Why not?
‘cause it Ain’t part of his official duties/capacities
go smoke a stonebone and chill
you’ll be alright
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Yes, Biden could
It isn't a matter of my opinion. It's a fact. You would know that if you actually read anything that I wrote.
and if you paid
attention to the fact
no presidunce is in charge
Look at bidet with his crackwhore son
sitting in on briefings in the WH!
Who’s Actually running the joint?
Hunter? God forbid!
Blinkin?
Sullivan?
CIA Director(Burns?)?
‘Cause it Damn Sure AIN’T
Dopey Gropey Joe!
Since you voted for him I would
think that Should bother you?
stop letting omb live in your head Rent Free
get him Out of your Shadow
maybe You need an exorcist
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Ok, that's enough...
I just came back in from mowing.
Time to end the insults.
Seriously?
you call That insults?
You KNOW I can do better than That!
Didn’t even Curse at ‘em? Okay.
I was just needling ‘‘em where it hurts
Their belief in The System that’s actively
Killing people
dRumph ain’t no hero and he ain’t satan either
Fuck Me but Dopey Gropey Joe is responsible for
more heartache, pain, anguish and suffering
around The World than dRumph could Eveh
hope to attain in what’s left of his lifetime
Both those AssWholes ain’t the problem
Any guesses on what is?
Bueller?
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
Yeah, seriously...
HEY!
that last one
I was being Nice!
I didn’t say lobotomy?
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
This is a big part...
of what's wrong with politics in America, people shout past each other and don't bother to listen to the other side.
Folks make their minds up and close themselves off from considering opposing viewpoints. It's the antithesis of the intent of this site.
Is that what is going on?
I've quoted from the text of the ruling.
I've quoted from the text of Sotomeyer dissent.
I've quoted from the Brennan Center.
Tall Bald and Ugly hasn't offered a single link or source, nor replied to any of these facts. But he has gotten personal with every reply. He's contradicted himself.
I have a different opinion of what is wrong. I think some people simply don't want to hear facts.
I read the decision
Preferred doing that to listening to what was a somewhat annoying presentation. I'm referring only to his speaking style, not commenting on his analysis. It's just much easier for me to read the case. So I guess I can say I did my July 4 patriotic drill.
It is that bad. The majority just made up some new bs doctrine of immunity out of whole cloth. Talk of legislating from the bench. Their doctrine ironically has a methodological similarity to Roe v. Wade. Except Roe provides a tripartite penumbral factual analysis for application. This absolute immunity, presumptive immunity, and unofficial acts analysis is a three part jurisprudential theoretical application someone just made up. Way too overbroad, legitimizing empire and the unchallengeable imperial executive and court interpreters. I think Jackson's dissent is brilliant. Just what is the scope of these different levels of immunity one absolute and one presumptive. They say in jurisprudence, the one with the presumption wins. Then also the immune functions of the presidents office preclude any reference to them as elements of proof in criminal prosecutions of private acts of the presidency. Frankly, I think the category of unofficial acts was just placed in there, to give the court some creds. The only thing is the doctrine is to be applied prospectively? In other words, it's a pretrial battlefield that puts a president's misconduct even more distant from any accountability whatsoever, but lets the court look like it left something to adjudicate. As Jackson says the scope of immunity isn't even defined. They're throwing a bone to people who want to think somehow there's something jurisprudential in what they just decided. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
No need for president's to worry about their war crimes and crimes against humanity. It's official now.
語必忠信 行必正直
Hi Soryang, I'm so glad you wrote this. Until now the only
analysis I had was from Jeff Childers, an evangelical Christian, lawyer, resident of Florida. I read him daily and often get a huge laugh. WE partwaays on homelessness but totally agree on Vaxxines.
I'll provide a link to his whole set of views on these decisions but blockquote the meaty part. Thank you in advance for any comments you may want to share. I'm a total novice on legal subjects, but really like to understand what is going on.
Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts. “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under Article Two of the Constitution. Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts. The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts officially, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that type of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not supposed to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts. “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's unofficial acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all.
As you can see, this three-tier system neither turns Presidents into kings —not Burger King, impotent King Charles, or Solomon— nor places presidents above the law. Certainly not Trump. The decision only resolved a couple of the worst counts in a single Trump case. As for the surviving counts involved in this particular appeal (Judge Chutkan’s case), the Supremes bounced most of the counts back down to her, to apply the new test and then get back to them.
He argues that under this system presidents back to George W. Bush could be tried for murder, genocide and other crimes.
Should I be encouraged or is this someone with his right wing blinders on?
Substack - Jeff Childers
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
The ruling
official SCOTUS ruling
The fact that your source talks about the "Democrats most deranged temper tantrums" should tell you that this is a biased source. Why do people even consider these opinions over the actual text of the ruling?
In order to prove that a criminal act ordered by the president wasn't an official act, the prosecution can't use the motives of the president, nor his private records, and if he used an official act, such as commanding the military to do this criminal act, then that whole side of the act falls automatically under immunity.
Initially I had considered this argument
It falls into a kind of "I know when I see it," exception to the 1st Amendment, category.
This is the exact quote that I think is key to that analysis-
(Imo) The problem here is that criminal acts are generally not within the scope of official duties. Even with a core constitutional function, criminal acts should not be within the scope of the role. For instance, intentionally killing civilians in a war zone, without even the colorable argument, that it was incidental to a legitimate military objective or that the killings "were a mistake." The court is mistakenly using the "manifestly or palpable" to distinguish a boundary between official acts from unofficial conduct. The distinction should be applied to even the absolutely immune acts "as defined by the majority) to define the scope of the immunity. There is within the scope, and then there are serious criminal acts which although not private are not within the scope of any presidential privilege. A policeman could arguably be acting within the scope of core function when he commits a homicide. That doesn't mean he's necessarily immune from criminal homicide prosecution, nor does it mean his motive can't be examined.
I think the DC Circuit decision had it right-
Here's another zinger from the majority opinion-
This is a civil law application, not criminal law. Unlawful and criminal are not the same, although they may overlap.
This is really bad-
So lawfare okay then? It cuts both ways.
It may be that in the instant case, what the Supreme Court has done is not within the "parade of horribles," described in Sotomayor's dissent. However, the majority occupied the field in an area with little precedent and promoted a general standard which is erroneous in its analysis. It will apply as a precedent for future courts, regardless of whether the ultimate outcome is fair for this particular president.
(one edit for clarity)
語必忠信 行必正直
Thank you for your considered opinion, especially
with quotes. So much of much of what is in the news benefits from nuance which many of us have become allergic to.
It's one of the reasons I like to read someone like Childers. He can be more than annoying, but he looks at things in a way that is not usual for me.
Your carefully laid out response makes abundant sense. I will continue to ponder these things hoping for clarity.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
I don't understand why this is a partisan issue
I don't want Trump to have this power. I don't want Biden to have this power. I don't want any future president to have this power.
I think the presidency was already too powerful, and anyone who claims that they support justices be originalists cannot logically justify this. I think anyone who can't view this except through a partisan lens is an enabler to treason.
So, everyone
has forgotten
Article II section four?
seems to me the supremes left
the details to be hashed out in
the lower courts and since
The Costitution(you know, that Rag most politicians
[okay; all] wipe their asses with) Still should have
Some bearing on this.
Like, you Can’t even Charge a prez UNTIL
they’ve been IMPEACHED in the House
and CONVICTED in the Senate.
Or is that moot now?
‘Cause the way I’ve seen it presented
is that this applies to Former prezidunces
as the Article II section four still applies to current prez
otherwise, it seems to me that Somebody
is fomenting discord the usual way by getting
people het up enough to start a ruckus by getting
up in peoples faces Screaming ohmugodwe’reAllgonna
DIE!
No Karen, have another bonghit and relax
on the hot takes. Just like everything
Else in this country, this shite’ll get worked through
as well.
Also, it seems to me the folks advocating for direct action
unilaterally dis-armed and the rest just want to
Be Left Alone
and the BLA folks kept Their guns
So go ahead, keep agitating like good little serfs
Doing the Right Thingtm
Just bear in mind A Wise Man’s Fears
one of which is The Wrath of a Gentle Man
this was Fun!
Ya got to be a Spirit, cain't be no Ghost. . .
Explain Bldg #7. . . still waiting. . .
If you’ve ever wondered whether you would have complied in 1930’s Germany,
Now you know. . .
sign at protest march
There was nothing to forget
Page 7 of the decision syllabus-
語必忠信 行必正直