Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

With the increased scrutiny due to recent revelations in the press I thought maybe we can use a SCOTUS thread. We can discuss the impending Senate investigation and the legislation proposed today by Murkowski and King in the Senate that will formalize ethical guidelines.

We can also use this thread to highlight cases that possibly don’t deserve their own thread, like the following.

I saw this case today, and I cannot believe the US Government is allowed to do this. Unreasonable search and seizure? The examples he gives in the rest of the thread are just sickening:

 

[coldseat]

Except that is entirely contrary to why we have the executive/regulatory system in the first place. The legislative process is very slow and when it is highly partisan, like it has been recently, it is generally snarled into basic ineffectiveness.

The current Congress has passed 65 bills since January 3, 2023. The average number in a two year term is about 350 to 400. This Congress and any in a similar environment will not "create legislation if Congress agrees with the agency." It's beyond silly to even say that's a reasonable concept.

Completely difficult and a recipe for gumming up the federal government - which was entirely the purpose, let's be clear about that.

It's the same stupidity as with voting and wanting only paper ballots and hand counting. We live in freaking 2024, not the 1850's. These people that are so attached to the past and won't allow the future to move forward are going to end us all. The same ones who won't allow the government to make any regulations to protect human life are also the same ones unwilling to put any restrictions or regulations on guns that are actually killing us. It's like their whole platform and world view is to aid in killing as many people as possible as quickly as possible. I don't understand how people can support this malice.

 

[Optimus Prime]

JUST IN: The Supreme Court ruled Monday that former presidents are entitled to immunity from prosecution for official actions – but not private conduct. The decision comes in response to a case related to Donald Trump’s claims of sweeping immunity in the federal election subversion case.

Supreme Court issues decision on Trump immunity case | CNN Politics

The Supreme Court issued a ruling on the blockbuster case about former President Donald Trump’s immunity claims. Follow here for the latest live news updates, analysis and more.

www.cnn.com

 

[superchuck500]

Court says President has absolute immunity for core constitutional powers - this shouldn't be surprising.

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court sends Trump’s immunity case back to a lower court in Washington, dimming prospect of a pre-election trial.

https://apnews.com/article/20bbb0601e7570f69e25ea03395f0729

 

[superchuck500]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court sends Trump’s immunity case back to a lower court in Washington, dimming prospect of a pre-election trial.

https://apnews.com/article/20bbb0601e7570f69e25ea03395f0729

This is not surprising at all - it's the correct result. The president does have immunity, like other government officials, for official acts that are under the necessary and proper standard. We just never had to extend it to the presidency but it's entirely correct to me that it's the same concept. The president enjoys no more immunity, but also no less.

Mark Meadows argued official immunity and the court (including the 11th Circuit) held that his actions regarding trying to change the election result were not official acts of his office. I suppose the presidency has somewhat of a wider scope of official function but the result should be the same for most of the allegations, IMO.

 

[DaveXA]

This is no surprising at all - it's the correct result. The president does have immunity, like other government officials, for official acts that are under the necessary and proper standard. We just never had to extend it to the presidency but it's entirely correct to me that it's the same concept. The president enjoys no more immunity, but also no less.

Mark Meadows argued official immunity and the court (including the 11th Circuit) held that his actions regarding trying to change the election result were not official acts of his office. I suppose the presidency has somewhat of a wider scope of official function but the result should be the same for most of the allegations, IMO.

Yeah, this seems like the correct ruling. At least it's clear Trump isn't immune to the litigation covering acts outside the purview of the Presidency.

 

[coldseat]

This is no surprising at all - it's the correct result. The president does have immunity, like other government officials, for official acts that are under the necessary and proper standard. We just never had to extend it to the presidency but it's entirely correct to me that it's the same concept. The president enjoys no more immunity, but also no less.

Mark Meadows argued official immunity and the court (including the 11th Circuit) held that his actions regarding trying to change the election result were not official acts of his office. I suppose the presidency has somewhat of a wider scope of official function but the result should be the same for most of the allegations, IMO.

Hmmm.....

What is SCOTUS claiming was an "official act" in what Trump was charged with? Did they make any attempt to delineate what was official and unofficial in what Trump was charged with? Nothing that Trump did to overturn the election was an "official act". As the sitting president, he had no "official role" in determining or deciding the winner of the next election. All of his illegal action was as a contender for the office of the president. Crying about non-existent voter fraud does not turn anything he did into an official act.

This feels like exactly what it is, the SC conservatives torturing themselves into a twisted ruling to delay Trump's case before the election. They should have stuck with the DC appeals court ruling and never heard this case. But they can't resist the temptation to keep their heavy hand on the scale of everything that's happening in this country. They truly are the epitime of a run away, right wing court obsessed with its power and expanding right wing ideology.

 

[J-DONK]

Hmmm.....

What is SCOTUS claiming was an "official act" in what Trump was charged with? Did they make any attempt to delineate what was official and unofficial in what Trump was charged with? Nothing that Trump did to overturn the election was an "official act". As the sitting president, he had no "official role" in determining or deciding the winner of the next election. All of his illegal action was as a contender for the office of the president. Crying about non-existent voter fraud does not turn anything he did into an official act.

This feels like exactly what it is, the SC conservatives torturing themselves into a twisted ruling to delay Trump's case before the election. They should have stuck with the DC appeals court ruling and never heard this case. But they can't resist the temptation to keep their heavy hand on the scale of everything that's happening in this country. They truly are the epitime of a run away, right wing court obsessed with its power and expanding right wing ideology.

Yeah Sotomayor brought the heat in her dissent:

“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

 

[DaveXA]

Yeah Sotomayor brought the heat in her dissent:

Yeah, I disagree with her. This really isn't some sort of shift away from rulings in the past that I can see. The President and government employees have immunity for official acts and that's been litigated.

I would think the attempt to overthrow an election wouldn't be considered an official act, so Trump could presumably be subject to litigation there, although that might end up being a blurry line in the courts.

The classified docs case wouldn't fall under immunity provisions because this was post-Presidency and I'd argue no longer fall under official acts as President.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Hmmm.....

What is SCOTUS claiming was an "official act" in what Trump was charged with? Did they make any attempt to delineate what was official and unofficial in what Trump was charged with? Nothing that Trump did to overturn the election was an "official act". As the sitting president, he had no "official role" in determining or deciding the winner of the next election. All of his illegal action was as a contender for the office of the president. Crying about non-existent voter fraud does not turn anything he did into an official act.

This feels like exactly what it is, the SC conservatives torturing themselves into a twisted ruling to delay Trump's case before the election. They should have stuck with the DC appeals court ruling and never heard this case. But they can't resist the temptation to keep their heavy hand on the scale of everything that's happening in this country. They truly are the epitime of a run away, right wing court obsessed with its power and expanding right wing ideology.

This is exactly what it is IMHO... SCOTUS punting again.

 

[SaintRob]

Yeah, I disagree with her. This really isn't some sort of shift away from rulings in the past that I can see. The President and government employees have immunity for official acts and that's been litigated.

I would think the attempt to overthrow an election wouldn't be considered an official act, so Trump could presumably be subject to litigation there, although that might end up being a blurry line in the courts.

The classified docs case wouldn't fall under immunity provisions because this was post-Presidency and I'd argue no longer fall under official acts as President.

I find some of this concerning:

“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the president’s motives,” Roberts wrote. “Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.”

The opinion found Trump is “absolutely immune” from prosecution for alleged conduct involving discussions with the Justice Department.

Trump is also “at least presumptively immune” from allegations that he tried to pressure Pence to reject certification of the vote, Roberts wrote.

 

[bird]

Trump will claim anything and everything he did or will do should the stupid electorate vote him in again are official acts. This will result in literal years of lawsuits including more SCOTUS cases with the claims that the SCOTUS cannot determine what is and isn’t an official act.

This is Nixon and the “if the president does it, it is legal” bullschlitz on steroids.

Once again, this SCOTUS is aiming to be the worst court ever.

 

[bird]

Yeah, I disagree with her. This really isn't some sort of shift away from rulings in the past that I can see. The President and government employees have immunity for official acts and that's been litigated.

I would think the attempt to overthrow an election wouldn't be considered an official act, so Trump could presumably be subject to litigation there, although that might end up being a blurry line in the courts.

The classified docs case wouldn't fall under immunity provisions because this was post-Presidency and I'd argue no longer fall under official acts as President.

Trump will claim it was an official act because the election was “stolen” despite no proof.

When combined, imo, with this SCOTUS’s “deeply held belief” nonsense we would be entering an era of failed state. Trump “deeply believes” the election was stolen. Therefore his actions were an “official act” to stop the election from being stolen.

 

[DaveXA]

Hmmm.....

What is SCOTUS claiming was an "official act" in what Trump was charged with? Did they make any attempt to delineate what was official and unofficial in what Trump was charged with? Nothing that Trump did to overturn the election was an "official act". As the sitting president, he had no "official role" in determining or deciding the winner of the next election. All of his illegal action was as a contender for the office of the president. Crying about non-existent voter fraud does not turn anything he did into an official act.

This feels like exactly what it is, the SC conservatives torturing themselves into a twisted ruling to delay Trump's case before the election. They should have stuck with the DC appeals court ruling and never heard this case. But they can't resist the temptation to keep their heavy hand on the scale of everything that's happening in this country. They truly are the epitime of a run away, right wing court obsessed with its power and expanding right wing ideology.

I will say though that SCOTUS wasted a lot of time with the ruling. They could and should have rejected the case. The ruling didn't change anything, so I'm not sure why they wanted to review it.

 

[bird]

I will say though that SCOTUS wasted a lot of time with the ruling. They could and should have rejected the case. The ruling didn't change anything, so I'm not sure why they wanted to review it.

I agree that they should not have taken it. But, as I posted above, this will give Trump cover even if that is not reality because the perception will be that it did. And perception is reality.

I expect Cannon to dismiss the case in front of her with prejudice and the J6 case to eventually be dropped.

 

[SaintRob]

Does this not open the door to any sitting president from using the office to attack/jail/"whatever" a political rival as an official act?

 

[bird]

Does this not open the door to any sitting president from using the office to attack/jail/"whatever" a political rival as an official act?

Seems the potential is certainly there.

 

[DaveXA]

Does this not open the door to any sitting president from using the office to attack/jail/"whatever" a political rival as an official act?

Pretty sure that wouldn't be considered an official act, but I have no idea anymore.