US supreme court rules Trump has ‘absolute immunity’ for official acts

[Trunkage]

This has been the plan since Nixon got ousted

 

[Eacaraxe]

I do indeed know that damn well. That disclaimer wasn't hidden at all-- I knew someone(s) would try to point to the existing civil immunity as precedent.

I'm without doubt you're aware, hence your preemptive attempts to shift the conversation well away from any aspect of this unamenable to your opinion. As you always do.

Yet this ruling specifically covered criminal prosecution and specifically addressed (and overturned) a criminal indictment.

Yes, this would be the part in which harm occurred and the resultant question set before the court, not on the part of prosecution or defense but rather the court of original jurisdiction. Are you now going to pretend civil and criminal procedure are entirely separate and distinct, with decisions rendered in one entirely uninfluential to the other?

An inferred "guiding principle" isn't a legal precedent, and nothing would've been overturned had the court ruled any other way.

Nothing other than Article I, Section 2, Clause 5; Article I, Section 3, Clause 6; and Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, and the entire body of case law pursuant to them, anyhow. One can see how you might presume that to be "nothing" as Bad Orange Man is involved.

You're damn desperate to talk about anything but how the Court might enforce such a ruling as you'd like, how Congress might react to having impeachment power usurped by the judiciary, what legal remedy is even available in the first place, how that one legal remedy available (the one ultimately being sought, blocking Trump from the ballot) doesn't prove this is ultimately a political question, how such a ruling would very much be an ex post facto law as it then makes every other former (but still alive) president liable for criminal indictment, or how such a ruling would be readily weaponized by future courts and legislatures against sitting presidents, aren't you.

But hey, you keep right on fucking that juridical democracy chicken despite eight years' running of evidence put before you it backfires the nanosecond a sitting conservative executive gets opportunity to wield appointment power as if it were the sword of God, itself.

 

[Agema]

Something implied has become stated, but the content is unchanged.

I know what you mean, but I still think there's a difference. Where interpretation is unclear, sure, what SCOTUS eventually ruled can be said to be implied. The problem is, several other things are also implied by a lack of clarity, but those others cease to be true when the ruling arrives. This is not like discovering a real thing - like that New Zealand existed before the Maori discovered it. Law is a social construction, and we give it meaning. This sort of ruling is not a discovery of previously unknown reality, it's the creation of reality.

No, but if I understand correctly, that isn't what they ruled. They laid out 3 possibilities:
1) Absolute immunity for actions proscribed by law, you can't be prosecuted for doing what the constitution says your job is.
2) Presumed immunity for actions done in the course of the job of president, talking to the VP would fall in this category, but that presumed immunity can be overcome by circumstance or the weight of the crime.
3) No immunity for personal actions.

Sure. The absolute immunity, okay. But the presumptive immunity gives the president an extremely broad shield, because it puts the onus on a prosecutor to prove that the president's acts were outside immunity. As already stated, I'm extraordinarily dubious about the ruling that immunity also extends to barring potential evidence: for instance, supporting facts and indication of motivations. As I have stated many times, I am very strongly in favour of transparency and accountability. The ruling seems to me to be a contraction of both.

I also have concerns about how this plays out on a wider scale.

Firstly, US judges are politicised appointees - this is a potential threat to the independence of the judiciary, albeit one that was baked into the system from the start. A president has the liberty to fill judicial posts with ideological appointees and cronies. The Senate must confirm, but this places the Senate in the difficult position of either approving biased jusges, or refusing and causing a judge shortfall, gumming up the justice system. I am going to note here that we can see how biased judges might play out in the documents case, as Aileen Cannon seems to be extraordinarily helpful to Trump in how she is slow-walking it. And, of course, in SCOTUS itself.

Furthermore, the DoJ is now very clearly subordinated to the president, away from the convention of quasi-independence. This is the irony of the bone-headed comments from Republicans like Mike Johnson crowing about blocking the "weaponisation" of the DoJ. This ruling, very obviously, enhances the ability of the president to weaponise the DoJ now and onwards.

The final concern is that one potential impediment to this is the refusal of federal appointees and civil servants to carry out abusive acts. But the whole "deep state" theory, now heavily pushed in the right-wing think tanks, will fundamentally degrade this. AGs like Barr resisted Trump on occasion. Do you think Trump, or someone of that ilk, will make that mistake again? The very plan is to uproot the civil service en masse and plant a new one loyal to politicised ambitions - the president - not the state.

And then the final backstop, which is impeachment. But a president requires the support of just 34/100 senators to avoid this. Hell, in a crunch vote, a president could simply order a supine DoJ to file charges and arrest a senator to make them unable to attend and thus swing the vote (any vote, for that matter). Why not?

* * *

The USA is not going to become a dictatorship overnight, under Trump 2025 or anyone else. But nor does it take that long to severely unpick democratic norms for a determined government, and the whole structure becomes hollowed out and vulnerable to collapse. I think we are looking at a series of structural flaws or attacks that should give us huge cause for concern. It remains to be seen where it will go in the long run, but the current trajectory of US democracy looks to have become even more unhealthy than it already was.

 

[Silvanus]

I'm without doubt you're aware, hence your preemptive attempts to shift the conversation well away from any aspect of this unamenable to your opinion. As you always do.

* keep the conversation relevant to the actual topic of the ruling, yes. You attempted to divert the conversation onto more convenient ground from the go.

Yes, this would be the part in which harm occurred and the resultant question set before the court, not on the part of prosecution or defense but rather the court of original jurisdiction. Are you now going to pretend civil and criminal procedure are entirely separate and distinct, with decisions rendered in one entirely uninfluential to the other?

Nope. Nor am I going to pretend they're the same thing and that if something is established regarding civil liability, it somehow automatically applies to criminal liability and any difference is "overturning".

Nothing other than Article I, Section 2, Clause 5; Article I, Section 3, Clause 6; and Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution, and the entire body of case law pursuant to them, anyhow.

Haha, that's a laugh-- none of these convey immunity from criminal prosecution for someone who isn't in office. They deal with impeachment as the mechanism of dealing with a sitting President and the legislature as the body with powers to pursue it. They have fuck all to say about a former President. Hell, if we followed your interpretation of these sections, even personal actions in office would be conveyed immunity.

The rest of that post is furious waffle.

 

[Trunkage]

I know what you mean, but I still think there's a difference. Where interpretation is unclear, sure, what SCOTUS eventually ruled can be said to be implied. The problem is, several other things are also implied by a lack of clarity, but those others cease to be true when the ruling arrives. This is not like discovering a real thing - like that New Zealand existed before the Maori discovered it. Law is a social construction, and we give it meaning. This sort of ruling is not a discovery of previously unknown reality, it's the creation of reality.



Sure. The absolute immunity, okay. But the presumptive immunity gives the president an extremely broad shield, because it puts the onus on a prosecutor to prove that the president's acts were outside immunity. As already stated, I'm extraordinarily dubious about the ruling that immunity also extends to barring potential evidence: for instance, supporting facts and indication of motivations. As I have stated many times, I am very strongly in favour of transparency and accountability. The ruling seems to me to be a contraction of both.

I also have concerns about how this plays out on a wider scale.

Firstly, US judges are politicised appointees - this is a potential threat to the independence of the judiciary, albeit one that was baked into the system from the start. A president has the liberty to fill judicial posts with ideological appointees and cronies. The Senate must confirm, but this places the Senate in the difficult position of either approving biased jusges, or refusing and causing a judge shortfall, gumming up the justice system. I am going to note here that we can see how biased judges might play out in the documents case, as Aileen Cannon seems to be extraordinarily helpful to Trump in how she is slow-walking it. And, of course, in SCOTUS itself.

Furthermore, the DoJ is now very clearly subordinated to the president, away from the convention of quasi-independence. This is the irony of the bone-headed comments from Republicans like Mike Johnson crowing about blocking the "weaponisation" of the DoJ. This ruling, very obviously, enhances the ability of the president to weaponise the DoJ now and onwards.

The final concern is that one potential impediment to this is the refusal of federal appointees and civil servants to carry out abusive acts. But the whole "deep state" theory, now heavily pushed in the right-wing think tanks, will fundamentally degrade this. AGs like Barr resisted Trump on occasion. Do you think Trump, or someone of that ilk, will make that mistake again? The very plan is to uproot the civil service en masse and plant a new one loyal to politicised ambitions - the president - not the state.

And then the final backstop, which is impeachment. But a president requires the support of just 34/100 senators to avoid this. Hell, in a crunch vote, a president could simply order a supine DoJ to file charges and arrest a senator to make them unable to attend and thus swing the vote (any vote, for that matter). Why not?

* * *

The USA is not going to become a dictatorship overnight, under Trump 2025 or anyone else. But nor does it take that long to severely unpick democratic norms for a determined government, and the whole structure becomes hollowed out and vulnerable to collapse. I think we are looking at a series of structural flaws or attacks that should give us huge cause for concern. It remains to be seen where it will go in the long run, but the current trajectory of US democracy looks to have become even more unhealthy than it already was.

Ah, I think you skipped a step

If the president is talking to the VP about a lunch, that's no worries

If he is asking the VP to bomb LA or Miami to get rid of voters, I HOPE everyone would say that's wrong....

The Supreme court did not say that talking to a VP is immune. You just have hurdles to cross. What hurdles? Who knows? Because they haven't made them yet. This is just going to keep going back and forth for a long time

And pretending that Trump just 'talked' to Pence is an outright lie. He was trying to manipulate Pence so he could retain the presidency. We arent worried about 99.9% of Trump/Pence conversations. We're worried about ones that broke laws

Also, the nonsense about not allowing evidence a president's time in office is ridiculous

I do find it really funny how Trump is blaming Biden and 'Mainstream Media' for targeting him and then threatens to target them with the DOJ. If it's wrong for Biden and the media to use the DOJ to target people, it would ALSO be wrong for Trump to do it. But, self-awareness is not Trump's strong suit

 

[tstorm823]

Struggling how else to interpret sentences directly from the ruling such as "absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority".

Not every action of a president is part of their constitutional authority. Those powers specifically granted to the president by the constitution are the only ones guaranteed immunity. Everything else can potentially be prosecuted.

I know what you mean, but I still think there's a difference. Where interpretation is unclear, sure, what SCOTUS eventually ruled can be said to be implied. The problem is, several other things are also implied by a lack of clarity, but those others cease to be true when the ruling arrives. This is not like discovering a real thing - like that New Zealand existed before the Maori discovered it. Law is a social construction, and we give it meaning. This sort of ruling is not a discovery of previously unknown reality, it's the creation of reality.
...
The USA is not going to become a dictatorship overnight, under Trump 2025 or anyone else. But nor does it take that long to severely unpick democratic norms for a determined government, and the whole structure becomes hollowed out and vulnerable to collapse. I think we are looking at a series of structural flaws or attacks that should give us huge cause for concern.

You kind of preempted my question to the start of your post: do you actually expect anyone to act differently based on this decision? I guess you don't immediately, but maybe down the line...

I obviously don't expect presidents to suddenly do different things because of this. I think in a world where we aren't in an election year and Trump isn't running again, the response to this might be very different. Maybe even if everything was the same and Biden was leading in the polls, the result might be different. Looking at the exact same ruling from just a slightly different perspective, one could equally write headlines like "Supreme Court Confirms Presidents Can Be Criminally Prosecuted for Actions as President" (with the silent "some" in there, of course, but gotta keep it sensational). This decision says that any action beyond constitutionally stated authority can be prosecuted, and for Trump's charges, that is most of them. I feel like 2 years ago that would be Democrats' messaging on this, we just happen to be in a political climate where fearmongering is more advantageous than Trump dunking, so instead we get claims that Seal Team 6 is gonna assassinate politicians... but nobody serious thinks that's actually an option they wouldn't be put in jail for.

 

[tstorm823]

Hell, if we followed your interpretation of these sections, even personal actions in office would be conveyed immunity.

Sort of, yes, but that's meant as a limit on presidential authority. The president is above the justice department, hierarchically. It is silly to imagine a world where criminal justice gets applied to a president in office, since they have the authority to not investigate themselves. That is why Congress is given the powers of oversight and impeachment, so that they might remove the president from office first. If you want to convict the president criminally, even for personal actions unrelated to the presidency, it is practically required to remove them from office first through impeachment.

Edit: which is one of the silly ways this goes, as if Trump wins and is inaugurated, Democrats immediately start impeachment processes, otherwise all of these criminal cases end up meaningless.

 

[Silvanus]

Not every action of a president is part of their constitutional authority. Those powers specifically granted to the president by the constitution are the only ones guaranteed immunity. Everything else can potentially be prosecuted.

Yet this ruling overturned an indictment for an action that, although invoking Presidential power, was absolutely not required of his role or in service of the duties for which he's afforded that authority.

So, same as ordering the Seals to deal with a political rival. He has the authority to order them. That order would be completely outside of his official duties, but you're arguing that doesn't matter?

 

[XsjadoBlayde]

Words written in wind and running water

 

[Hades]

This has been the plan since Nixon got ousted

Speaking of Nixon. He must be rolling in his grave. Decades after he got ousted the supreme court made clear that what he did was actually fully legal, and that even if Nixon had gone on to do a coup that would probably have been legal too.

So in other words Nixon lost his dream job for nothing.

 

[tstorm823]

Yet this ruling overturned an indictment for an action that, although invoking Presidential power, was absolutely not required of his role or in service of the duties for which he's afforded that authority.

Where did the "required" come from?

 

[Eacaraxe]

* keep the conversation relevant to the actual topic of the ruling, yes.

You mean that nasty little part of the "conversation" where you said there was no precedent, and it was pointed out to you there very much was and how it might apply to this case, at which time you decided to throw a forum tantrum?

Nope. Nor am I going to pretend they're the same thing and that if something is established regarding civil liability, it somehow automatically applies to criminal liability and any difference is "overturning".

Automatically, no. Can be used as precedent and applied to the other when and where applicable? emphatically, yes.

This would be exactly how the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, for example, found its way from criminal procedure to civil.

Haha, that's a laugh-- none of these convey immunity from criminal prosecution for someone who isn't in office.

And at this point, you are quite literally advocating SCOTUS single-handedly implement ex post facto law.

Should Barack Obama then be indicted for conspiracy to murder for personally greenlighting the Osama bin Laden raid? If presidential immunity no longer applies to a former president, for acts performed as or while president, Barack Obama should absolutely be indicted for conspiracy to murder Osama bin Laden.

They have fuck all to say about a former President.

No, it has exactly fuck-all to say about a former president, because for the circumstances to involve a former president then the case itself is fucking moot. The president is no longer in office.

The rest of that post is furious waffle.

So you can't in fact answer to how the court might saliently rule any way other than they did, in a moot case that also happens to be a political question, while somehow managing to enforce its own ruling.

 

[meiam]

The USA is not going to become a dictatorship overnight, under Trump 2025 or anyone else. But nor does it take that long to severely unpick democratic norms for a determined government, and the whole structure becomes hollowed out and vulnerable to collapse. I think we are looking at a series of structural flaws or attacks that should give us huge cause for concern. It remains to be seen where it will go in the long run, but the current trajectory of US democracy looks to have become even more unhealthy than it already was.

Won't it? 2029, Trump (or whoever is in place after he die) lost the election, but order the VP, who was pick specifically because they're loyal, to not certify the election and instead decide to trust the elector that all say GOP won with 99% of vote. That's all been made legal (just last month everyone in that conspiracy got away scotts free because GOP judge tossed out the charge on technicality).

 

[Agema]

I obviously don't expect presidents to suddenly do different things because of this. I think in a world where we aren't in an election year and Trump isn't running again, the response to this might be very different. Maybe even if everything was the same and Biden was leading in the polls, the result might be different. Looking at the exact same ruling from just a slightly different perspective, one could equally write headlines like "Supreme Court Confirms Presidents Can Be Criminally Prosecuted for Actions as President" (with the silent "some" in there, of course, but gotta keep it sensational). This decision says that any action beyond constitutionally stated authority can be prosecuted, and for Trump's charges, that is most of them. I feel like 2 years ago that would be Democrats' messaging on this, we just happen to be in a political climate where fearmongering is more advantageous than Trump dunking, so instead we get claims that Seal Team 6 is gonna assassinate politicians... but nobody serious thinks that's actually an option they wouldn't be put in jail for.

Uncertainty can be good. A person - president - who fears repercussions will be less inclined to do something iffy. A preson who knows what the limits are and has a very good reason to believe they will be safe to act will be strongly inclined to act. There is a chilling factor here: any prosecutor will have to weigh the situation, and SCOTUS have loaded a big, pile of negatives onto the "Do not proceed" side of the scales. This necessarily emboldens presidents who want to push their luck.

Politicians generally are people who tend to know the art of getting things done: squeezing things through the gaps in the system where they face obstacles. Nor can we ever rely on politicians doing the right thing by their innate internal moral compass, because inevitably plenty of people in high office barely have a moral compass. The safety and security of a system depends on watchfulness, transparency and accountability to catch those who are too slack.

I would take a look at places like Hungary, Poland, and now Slovakia in progress. They are examples of where, within the rules, the system can be degraded and democracy diminished within the rules. There is absolutely no room for complacency in places like the USA, UK, France, etc. It's sheer delusion to believe that somehow, magically, our states will be immune to malevolent authoritarians who are not safely constrained. Trump is not necessarily the man who breaks the system, but he has - and will if re-elected - play an integral role in breaking down the barriers and normalising the sort of abuses that more competent successors will exploit.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Won't it? 2029, Trump (or whoever is in place after he die) lost the election, but order the VP, who was pick specifically because they're loyal, to not certify the election and instead decide to trust the elector that all say GOP won with 99% of vote. That's all been made legal (just last month everyone in that conspiracy got away scotts free because GOP judge tossed out the charge on technicality).

Omg, you guys are so fucking paranoid. If Trump wins this election, none of that is gonna happen. The only reason Republicans care/back Trump is because he's the most electable in the party. After a 2nd term, he's no longer electable so there's no reason anyone in the party is gonna care about Trump anymore. He'll be a lame duck president in his last 2 years basically. Everyone mocks republican voters for believing blatant lies; well, the democrats saying this election is to save democracy is also a massive fucking lie so stop believing that shit.

 

[Agema]

Won't it? 2029, Trump (or whoever is in place after he die) lost the election, but order the VP, who was pick specifically because they're loyal, to not certify the election and instead decide to trust the elector that all say GOP won with 99% of vote. That's all been made legal (just last month everyone in that conspiracy got away scotts free because GOP judge tossed out the charge on technicality).

Sure, but if they'd really tried to push that through, it would have been Constitutional crisis and mass public disorder. The worst riots the USA had ever experienced could be a picnic compared to those likely at such an outrageous attempt to cheat an election; and it would be shattering for national unity.

Would Congress suffer that? I suspect not. It's one thing to play-act at challenging state counts as a cheap crowd-pleaser for the base, it's another to let the President set a train of action that is so obviously going to end incredibly badly. Outside the MTG/Gaetz wing, I think it would be more than many Republicans could stomach - and certainly a large number of their big donors.

 

[tstorm823]

I would take a look at places like Hungary, Poland, and now Slovakia in progress. They are examples of where, within the rules, the system can be degraded and democracy diminished within the rules. There is absolutely no room for complacency in places like the USA, UK, France, etc. It's sheer delusion to believe that somehow, magically, our states will be immune to malevolent authoritarians who are not safely constrained. Trump is not necessarily the man who breaks the system, but he has - and will if re-elected - play an integral role in breaking down the barriers and normalising the sort of abuses that more competent successors will exploit.

I'm not terribly worried, as most people or groups trying to discuss "democratic backsliding" tend to consider anything on the right inherent attacks on democracy even if the left has done the same thing for decades. Like, oh no, people with ties to the government own most of the media in Hungary, I can hardly imagine living in such a hellscape...

 

[Trunkage]

Omg, you guys are so fucking paranoid. If Trump wins this election, none of that is gonna happen. The only reason Republicans care/back Trump is because he's the most electable in the party. After a 2nd term, he's no longer electable so there's no reason anyone in the party is gonna care about Trump anymore. He'll be a lame duck president in his last 2 years basically. Everyone mocks republican voters for believing blatant lies; well, the democrats saying this election is to save democracy is also a massive fucking lie so stop believing that shit.

Why would you assume that he wouldn't go for a third term?

The 22nd amendment will be loopholed like how all the other amendments now have loopholes. Many of those loopholes were specifically created by this Supreme Court

It also wouldn't suprise me if Don Jr was next in line

 

[Worgen]

Omg, you guys are so fucking paranoid. If Trump wins this election, none of that is gonna happen. The only reason Republicans care/back Trump is because he's the most electable in the party. After a 2nd term, he's no longer electable so there's no reason anyone in the party is gonna care about Trump anymore. He'll be a lame duck president in his last 2 years basically. Everyone mocks republican voters for believing blatant lies; well, the democrats saying this election is to save democracy is also a massive fucking lie so stop believing that shit.

Have you not heard of the project 2025 plan? Conservatives have big plans, big scary plans that are right out in the open.

 

[meiam]

Sure, but if they'd really tried to push that through, it would have been Constitutional crisis and mass public disorder. The worst riots the USA had ever experienced could be a picnic compared to those likely at such an outrageous attempt to cheat an election; and it would be shattering for national unity.

Would Congress suffer that? I suspect not. It's one thing to play-act at challenging state counts as a cheap crowd-pleaser for the base, it's another to let the President set a train of action that is so obviously going to end incredibly badly. Outside the MTG/Gaetz wing, I think it would be more than many Republicans could stomach - and certainly a large number of their big donors.

Nah there wouldn't be much public disorder. I just talked to a friend in the US, literally didn't know about anything that was going on, will vote Trump because all he heard was how bad Biden debate performance was. GOP play the media so well at this point that few americans would even know really hear of it, at most they'd hear that there was legitimate reason for the alternate elector. Look, SCOTUS just in less than 2 weeks legalized bribe, killed large part of the EPA power and elevated the president above the law (plus probably more stuff I'm forgetting) and there's nothing, barely any sound. Go to most major news website and there's just as many story about Biden poor debate performance, if not more.

Omg, you guys are so fucking paranoid. If Trump wins this election, none of that is gonna happen. The only reason Republicans care/back Trump is because he's the most electable in the party. After a 2nd term, he's no longer electable so there's no reason anyone in the party is gonna care about Trump anymore. He'll be a lame duck president in his last 2 years basically. Everyone mocks republican voters for believing blatant lies; well, the democrats saying this election is to save democracy is also a massive fucking lie so stop believing that shit.

Yeah the GOP don't give a shit about Trump, but they do give a shit about staying in power, now that they know they can just keep it by going "actually we won" forever, why would they not? Look at the shit they're openly saying. This isn't paranoia, this is just being mildly informed.

A conservative leading the pro-Trump Project 2025 suggests there will be a new American Revolution

The leader of a conservative think tank planning for a massive overhaul of the federal government says we are in the midst of “a second American Revolution” that will be bloodless “if the left allows it to be.”

apnews.com