@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?

You really think this is questionable?

attention @gjohnsit 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

#4 It isn't a matter of my opinion. It's a fact. You would know that if you actually read anything that I wrote.

@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?

Substack - Jeff Childers

@Tall Bald and Ugly

Page 7 of the decision syllabus-

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

has forgotten #6
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!