Ongoing discussion of SCOTUS cases (1 Viewer)

[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:

 

[J-DONK]

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.

They waited until the last day to give a ruling as well. It's as if wasting time was the point.

 

[SaintRob]

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

I agree, but if pressuring Pence to not certify has "presumed immunity," then wouldn't jailing a political rival fall under the same umbrella? According to the ruling, “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.”

This is frightening.

I kinda think Biden needs to do something crazy so that this gets revisited in October when SCOTUS comes back.

 

[superchuck500]

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 think the situation is that there is no record of findings as to specific acts. The Court has now ruled that the defendant does not have absolute immunity that would prevent the case going forward - so the case goes forward and the immunity question is to be addressed by the district court consistent with this ruling.

To the extent the district court finds that specific acts were or were not official, Trump could appeal those decisions.

 

[superchuck500]

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.

I suppose that there is a difference between the immunity of officials (that is adjudged on a 'necessary and proper' standard even for official acts), and 'absolute immunity' that the decision says that the president enjoys. I really need to spend some time reading the decision

 

[Lapaz]

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.

I’ve never understood that government officials have immunity from criminal acts. It seems that being immune from his core duties would allow the president to have anyone he declares a threat killed, since one of his core duties includes sending out our military to attack threats. So Sotomayor is correct that this opens the Pandora’s box to criminality.

Keeping the Balance: What a President Can Do and Cannot Do | Harry S. Truman

A PRESIDENT CAN . . .

www.trumanlibrary.gov

This ruling is for the ages. It is another blow to our democracy regardless of who wins the next election. The only thing that could correct this travesty is if Trump still gets prosecuted to dissuade future presidents from attempting anything similar, but it will still leave open the possibility of killing their adversaries.

Also, I’ve heard the argument that impeachment would be a guardrail, but that’s not true in a president’s last term, especially if it becomes clear he will lose. He would be immune so why not just declare his rival a threat and have him killed?

 

[SaintRob]

I’ve never understood that government officials have immunity from criminal acts. It seems that being immune from his core duties would allow the president to have anyone he declares a threat killed, since one of his core duties includes sending out our military to attack threats. So Sotomayor is correct that this opens the Pandora’s box to criminality.

Keeping the Balance: What a President Can Do and Cannot Do | Harry S. Truman

A PRESIDENT CAN . . .

www.trumanlibrary.gov

This ruling is for the ages. It is another blow to our democracy regardless of who wins the next election. The only thing that could correct this travesty is if Trump still gets prosecuted to dissuade future presidents from attempting anything similar, but it will still leave open the possibility of killing their adversaries.

Also, I’ve heard the argument that impeachment would be a guardrail, but that’s not true in a president’s last term, especially if it becomes clear he will lose. He would be immune so why not just declare his rival a threat and have him killed?

So what is to stop a sitting president from believing that a candidate for president, in an upcoming election, would be a threat to democracy if he/she won, and have them jailed or killed? Or what if after losing the presidency to a political rival, the sitting president considers the president-elect as a threat, and has that person jailed or killed, in the weeks between the election and inauguration of the new president?

Interesting scenarios considering the current political climate.

 

[DaveXA]

I’ve never understood that government officials have immunity from criminal acts.

They don't have immunity from criminal acts. They have immunity from criminal charges for official acts. If theyre acting in the capacity that their job requires or allows, they're generally immune. But if they act in a way that would not be considered official, they can and often are charged.

For example, a federal employee mishandling PII is subject to criminal penalties for doing so. If the agency or organization fails to adhere to PII regulations, they can be subject to civil penalties.

It seems that being immune from his core duties would allow the president to have anyone he declares a threat killed, since one of his core duties includes sending out our military to attack threats. So Sotomayor is correct that this opens the Pandora’s box to criminality.

That's not a core duty of the President. He's the CIC. He can't use the military to kill US citizens and he can't use any agency here to do the same. There are limitations to his core duties.

Keeping the Balance: What a President Can Do and Cannot Do | Harry S. Truman

A PRESIDENT CAN . . .

www.trumanlibrary.gov

This ruling is for the ages. It is another blow to our democracy regardless of who wins the next election. The only thing that could correct this travesty is if Trump still gets prosecuted to dissuade future presidents from attempting anything similar, but it will still leave open the possibility of killing their adversaries.

Also, I’ve heard the argument that impeachment would be a guardrail, but that’s not true in a president’s last term, especially if it becomes clear he will lose. He would be immune so why not just declare his rival a threat and have him killed?

It's a blanket immunity for official acts. They can't just arbitrarily say the President shooting someone in the street is an official act. That won't fly.

 

[FullMonte]

Lost in all of this…

The one case that would seem to not be affected is the Mar-A-Lago documents case. After all, the crime Trump is accused of committing is refusing to return documents. That occurred after his term ended, so he was not president, and therefore has no immunity.

But…wait…there’s more.

Currently Trumps team is arguing to the judge that the Special counsel is not legal since he wasn’t approved by the senate. This is something that has been tried dozens of times before, and the courts have always dismissed such claims.

BUT…

Clarence Thomas writes a concurring opinion to this SCOTUS opinion on presidential immunity, and what does he say on the very first page?

I write separately to highlight another way in which this prosecution may violate our constitutional structure. In this case, the Attorney General purported to appoint a special counsel to prosecute a former president on behalf of the United States. But, I am not sure that any office for the Soecial counsel has been “established by Law” as the Constitution requires.

So, Thomas goes out of his way to give Canon the go ahead to say that the Special counsel is illegitimate, and dismiss the case.

The flip side is that I would assume that would also mean the dismissal of all charges and convictions against Hunter Biden since his special counsel must also be illegal.

 

[DaveXA]

Lost in all of this…

The one case that would seem to not be affected is the Mar-A-Lago documents case. After all, the crime Trump is accused of committing is refusing to return documents. That occurred after his term ended, so he was not president, and therefore has no immunity.

But…wait…there’s more.

Currently Trumps team is arguing to the judge that the Special counsel is not legal since he wasn’t approved by the senate. This is something that has been tried dozens of times before, and the courts have always dismissed such claims.

BUT…

Clarence Thomas writes a concurring opinion to this SCOTUS opinion on presidential immunity, and what does he say on the very first page?



So, Thomas goes out of his way to give Canon the go ahead to say that the Special counsel is illegitimate, and dismiss the case.

The flip side is that I would assume that would also mean the dismissal of all charges and convictions against Hunter Biden since his special counsel must also be illegal.

Thankfully, since he wrote that separately from the majority opinion, I don't think anything Thomas said in that passage is binding.

 

[Lapaz]

They don't have immunity from criminal acts. They have immunity from criminal charges for official acts. If theyre acting in the capacity that their job requires or allows, they're generally immune. But if they act in a way that would not be considered official, they can and often are charged.

For example, a federal employee mishandling PII is subject to criminal penalties for doing so. If the agency or organization fails to adhere to PII regulations, they can be subject to civil penalties.

That's not a core duty of the President. He's the CIC. He can't use the military to kill US citizens and he can't use any agency here to do the same. There are limitations to his core duties.

It's a blanket immunity for official acts. They can't just arbitrarily say the President shooting someone in the street is an official act. That won't fly.

Presidents have already ordered the killing of American citizens that were deemed terrorists.

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years...ing-for-the-united-states-drones-wars-awaits/

I think this decision opens the door to more egregious acts.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Presidents have already ordered the killing of American citizens that were deemed terrorists.

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years...ing-for-the-united-states-drones-wars-awaits/

I think this decision opens the door to more egregious acts.

The magic words "clear & Present danger" comes to mind! As long as any POTUS preface any action with those words, they good! Thanks SCOTUS!

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Thankfully, since he wrote that separately from the majority opinion, I don't think anything Thomas said in that passage is binding.

It's not as it's not in question. But the opinion is a part of the record and could definitely signal to her to go for it. IIRC, it's either Thomas or Alito who covers the 11th Circuit.

 

[Optimus Prime]

So what is to stop a sitting president from believing that a candidate for president, in an upcoming election, would be a threat to democracy if he/she won, and have them jailed or killed? Or what if after losing the presidency to a political rival, the sitting president considers the president-elect as a threat, and has that person jailed or killed, in the weeks between the election and inauguration of the new president?

Interesting scenarios considering the current political climate.

wasn't that more or less Trump's argument for the quid pro quo first impeachment?

He wasn't trying to get dirt on Biden for the personal gain of just winning the election but he genuinely believed that a Biden administration would be such a threat he was doing it for the good of the country

 

[Optimus Prime]

I think the situation is that there is no record of findings as to specific acts. The Court has now ruled that the defendant does not have absolute immunity that would prevent the case going forward - so the case goes forward and the immunity question is to be addressed by the district court consistent with this ruling.

To the extent the district court finds that specific acts were or were not official, Trump could appeal those decisions.

And if he loses that appeal won't he just try to get back in front of the Supreme Court again?

Why didn't/wouldn't SCOTUS just rule on this now? "These acts are official, these acts are not"

It seems too open ended and ambiguous to me

TRUMP: Do I have immunity for the acts I committed?

SCOTUS: You have the same immunity as any other government official

 

[DaveXA]

Presidents have already ordered the killing of American citizens that were deemed terrorists.

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/ten-years...ing-for-the-united-states-drones-wars-awaits/

I think this decision opens the door to more egregious acts.

They were actually terrorists though. If you're a citizen in another country planning to attack the US, you're a valid target. I don't think it opens any other doors though. What makes you think that?

 

[DaveXA]

It's not as it's not in question. But the opinion is a part of the record and could definitely signal to her to go for it. IIRC, it's either Thomas or Alito who covers the 11th Circuit.

Possibly. I have no idea.

 

[Bayouboy]

It feels like we are in a bizzaro world and all of these little things keep piling up. Before we know it, America will look like 1930's Germany.

 

[Optimus Prime]