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

[Silvanus]

So, conspiracy theories and scare quotes, got it.

The delay is unarguably happening, so no conspiracy theory there.

And if you think the extraordinarily broad stipulations on presumptive immunity will have no impact on the case against Trump for pressuring state officials and legislators, you're not paying attention.

 

[tstorm823]

The delay is unarguably happening, so no conspiracy theory there.

And if you think the extraordinarily broad stipulations on presumptive immunity will have no impact on the case against Trump for pressuring state officials and legislators, you're not paying attention.

You're not claiming just that the case is delayed, you're claiming that the delay is indicative of the Supreme Court's intent to declare Trump immune for these actions.

If you think that the Supreme Court ruling that Trump, as the president, can be criminally liable for actions taken officially as president, so long as they aren't within his specific core constitutional authority, is a statement that he's probably immune for all these things, you're completely misreading the situation.

 

[Silvanus]

You're not claiming just that the case is delayed, you're claiming that the delay is indicative of the Supreme Court's intent to declare Trump immune for these actions.

It is true that I look at the impact of their decisions rather than just the stated purpose.

If you think that the Supreme Court ruling that Trump, as the president, can be criminally liable for actions taken officially as president, so long as they aren't within his specific core constitutional authority, is a statement that he's probably immune for all these things, you're completely misreading the situation.

Can't help but notice your description of their ruling is wildly different from their own.

 

[Eacaraxe]

The delay is unarguably happening, so no conspiracy theory there.

You'll have to show where exactly the "delay" is in the first place, thank you very much.

The stay on the trial was procedurally necessary, due to the need to discover which charges (if any) would be rendered invalid and what evidence would then be admissible. Regardless of outcome, the result would force proceedings back to pretrial which in itself would push the trial to well after the election. That's how due process works, and indeed Bad Orange Man is entitled to due process of law regardless how bad you think Bad Orange Man is. That's not conspiracy, that's just how crimpro works.

But hey, thanks for pointing out how the election is the linchpin of this entire fracas, tacitly admitting it's a political question here.

As far as the Supreme Court's conduct...

They granted cert on 28 February, held orals on 25 April, and issued the ruling on 1 July. The average time for orals to be held after a grant of cert is about three months, and the average time between orals and issuing the ruling is another three. Usually, it's three to six for each step, and under normal circumstances a case granted cert in February won't be heard until the next Supreme Court session, which begins in October.

That's blazingly fast by typical Supreme Court timelines. They literally shifted around their entire docket to accommodate this one case, when in fact the court would have been well within its rights to not even schedule orals until after the election and hold off on issuing the opinion until after inauguration day. Which, by the way, would have been the far more preferable alternative had the Court been interfering in the election so as to benefit Trump. So, I don't even know where the fuck you're assuming malfeasance here.

As far as why they waited until the last day of the session to issue the opinion? That's just typical SCOTUS behavior, now or at any time in its history. They always wait until the last day of the session to issue opinions in high profile, high impact, and/or highly controversial cases. It's literally called "opinion day" by political and legal wonks for this very reason. Roberts had to add two additional opinion days to the schedule at the last minute, because SCOTUS heard an absolute buttload of cases (60) this session, and the other nineteen yet to be issued as of Thursday were also high-impact, high-controversy, cases.

Again, I don't even know where the fuck you're assuming malfeasance here. This is absolutely conspiratorial thinking, and tstorm is right [gag] to call you out on shilling conspiracy theories. Now, the only question is whether you will try to change the subject, move the goalposts and now try to claim the Court's expedition of proceedings was evidence of conspiracy, or simply jump straight to the ad-homs.

 

[tstorm823]

tstorm is right [gag]

I've been called many things here, but this may be the most insulting yet.

 

[Silvanus]

You'll have to show where exactly the "delay" is in the first place, thank you very much.

The stay on the trial was procedurally necessary, due to the need to discover which charges (if any) would be rendered invalid and what evidence would then be admissible. Regardless of outcome, the result would force proceedings back to pretrial which in itself would push the trial to well after the election. That's how due process works, and indeed Bad Orange Man is entitled to due process of law regardless how bad you think Bad Orange Man is. That's not conspiracy, that's just how crimpro works.

Alas, I'm sure there was just no way to do it otherwise. Out of interest, how many delays have there been now to Trump's judicial processes? It must be into the hefty double digits, a privilege not afforded to regular joes-- hey, and remember when he explicitly said that delaying was part of the strategy?

But hey, thanks for pointing out how the election is the linchpin of this entire fracas, tacitly admitting it's a political question here.

Not "tacitly admitting". It is a political question. The Supreme Court is a political organ, stocked with political appointees willing to use whatever argument is most convenient for the rulings they find politically preferable.

or simply jump straight to the ad-homs.

He said, seemingly without irony.

 

[Trunkage]

Impeachments can do something. Just because IIRC any impeachment in the last 30 years was pointless bullshit doesn't mean impeachments don't do anything. Also, even Nixon got off scot free and that was before this presidential immunity BS that you guys are bitching about. What the hell is the difference anyway?

Nixon and Reagan only got off scot-free because they were pardoned by the next president

I would suggest looking up that interview with Nixon. The same 'presidential immunity BS' was in that interview. This admission that any crime by a president could not be classed as illegal was stated by Nixon live on air and was one of the reasons the GOP turned against him. Because it's clearly nonsense... well until this decision

This Supreme Court decision is just vengeance for Nixon. It's got nothing to do with the law or constitution

That's not how that works because a civilian having confidential documents is illegal. It doesn't matter if it was done as president because possession is something in the present and Trump was also not presently president at the time. You're also acting like these documents are constantly mishandled by other presidents and politicians. Get Trump on something actually fucking serious; I don't care about him having documents like everyone else, I don't care about hush money to a porn star, etc. Nor would I care if Biden or Obama did similar things. If Trump's the doing all these really horrible illegal things, get him on one of those things. All this stuff ends up being something I'm not gonna believe until there's an actual conviction because the left lied so fucking hardcore about the Trump-Russia bullshit that had no evidence so I'm not gonna believe anything else until you show me the actual wolf this time.

Masks off time

 

[Eacaraxe]

Alas, I'm sure there was just no way to do it otherwise.

Just outright say you believe that in the specific case of Donald Trump, due process should be suspended. You've done everything in your power to avoid just being out with it.

Out of interest, how many delays have there been now to Trump's judicial processes? It must be into the hefty double digits, a privilege not afforded to regular joes-- hey, and remember when he explicitly said that delaying was part of the strategy?

Yeah, that's just how the American legal system works, especially in cases in which the charges and evidence against the accused are as specious as they are in this. Any high-profile criminal trial gets bogged down in discovery, motions to exclude or admit evidence, and motions to dismiss from either side as goalposts shift.

That's not Trump and his counsel saying they're acting in bad faith, that's Trump and his counsel saying they're fighting the case. That's due process, which again if you believe due process should be suspended for Trump and Trump alone, just say it so that your opinions can be discarded as the ignorant nakedly partisan trash they are.

Not "tacitly admitting". It is a political question...

Good, then you agree lower courts ruled in error and the case should have been dismissed.

...The Supreme Court is a political organ, stocked with political appointees willing to use whatever argument is most convenient for the rulings they find politically preferable.

Ah, "move the goalposts" it is by simply ignoring that "political question" is a specific doctrine in US case law, as laid out by Baker v. Carr, 389 US 186 (1962). Or, you just have absolutely no idea what I'm even talking about. Being this isn't the first time you've demonstrated ignorance of how US courts actually work while trying to speak as if you had any authority or credibility on the matter, I'm legitimately unsure.

Prominent on the surface of any case held to involve a political question is found a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; or a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for non judicial discretion; or the impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government; or an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made; or the potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.

Those are the six prongs of the Baker test, any one of which is sufficient to demonstrate the case before the court to be a political question. In this case,

- Trying (and convicting) a currently-serving or former US president for alleged crime while in office is an enumerated power expressly delegated to Congress.

- There is no remedial action available to the court, as even if the judiciary had the enumerated power to remove a president from office, Trump is already out. [This alone indicates the case is, as I pointed out, moot.]

- The root of the case is to determine Trump's eligibility to run again for president in 2024, which is a policy question not under judicial purview as ballot access for those standing trial and convicted felons is a matter of statute. To rule in this case is equivalent to determining Trump's eligibility to run again for president in 2024, and therefore outside the courts' enumerated responsibility. [This is the only justification prosecutors can provide to get around mootness, which is what they did.]

- Being impeachment is the enumerated power of Congress, to override Congressional determination is a prima facie demonstration of lack of respect towards Congress. [And as Congress already impeached and acquitted Trump once for these allegations, not only is it double jeopardy, but the judiciary would be implementing ex post facto law to rule after-the-fact Trump was guilty of what he's already been acquitted for once, and by extension his ballot access would be retroactively revoked.]

- And not only is it a prima facie demonstration of lack of respect towards Congress, to rule differently from Congress invokes the potentiality of embarrassment on one or both parties.

Again, failing any one prong of the Baker test indicates the question before the court is a political question. This case failed five. And again, responsibility for this falls not on the Supreme Court but rather the lower courts which, out of anti-Trump partisan zeal, paved the way for the Supreme Court to (quite predictably) go scorched earth so as to prevent another case like this from coming up again.

I said three years ago to be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it. AKA, "fuck around and find out". Handpicked liberal prosecutors and weapons-grade idiot district court justices fucked around, and they certainly found out.

 

[Silvanus]

Just outright say you believe that in the specific case of Donald Trump, due process should be suspended. You've done everything in your power to avoid just being out with it.

Nope, because I don't accept your flimsy premise that the endless indulgence of Donald Trump by the justice system-- far beyond anything afforded anyone else, and in line with his own stated avoidance strategy-- is just due process.

Yeah, that's just how the American legal system works

When you have the money, establishment support, & pocket-justices, it is. Otherwise defendants have to go fish-- it very rarely seems to work this way, except for a certain class of defendant.

The rest is another irrelevant wall-of-text history lesson.

Ah, "move the goalposts" it is [...]

Whereas you've gone for the ad hominems as usual. Incredible-- you really did say that without irony in the prior post!

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Nixon and Reagan only got off scot-free because they were pardoned by the next president

I would suggest looking up that interview with Nixon. The same 'presidential immunity BS' was in that interview. This admission that any crime by a president could not be classed as illegal was stated by Nixon live on air and was one of the reasons the GOP turned against him. Because it's clearly nonsense... well until this decision

This Supreme Court decision is just vengeance for Nixon. It's got nothing to do with the law or constitution


Masks off time

There's already things in place that essentially gave presidents full immunity is my point. Just have someone as your VP that you're tight with, commit some crime and quit, and just have your VP pardon you; it works every time. You're acting like this changes the game or something when it doesn't. Again, you can use the impeachment process to charge a president.

 

[Trunkage]

There's already things in place that essentially gave presidents full immunity is my point. Just have someone as your VP that you're tight with, commit some crime and quit, and just have your VP pardon you; it works every time. You're acting like this changes the game or something when it doesn't. Again, you can use the impeachment process to charge a president.

Maybe that not adequate

 

[Schadrach]

Again, you can use the impeachment process to charge a president.

So, are you saying that impeaching former presidents to "unlock" their actions to regular criminal prosecutions is how this should work? Or essentially that if your party has the Senate that basically anything is on the table because they definitely won't convict you with impeachment during the term and afterwards you are simply permanently immune because it can't go to criminal court without impeachment and you can't be impeached after end of term?

I'm curious what your line of thinking is.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So, are you saying that impeaching former presidents to "unlock" their actions to regular criminal prosecutions is how this should work? Or essentially that if your party has the Senate that basically anything is on the table because they definitely won't convict you with impeachment during the term and afterwards you are simply permanently immune because it can't go to criminal court without impeachment and you can't be impeached after end of term?

I'm curious what your line of thinking is.

Nixon wasn't even arrested for super obvious crime and that went to impeachment (or was going to impeachment). If there was any sitting president to be charged with a crime and arrested, it would be Nixon, but that didn't even happen. Immunity does have to extend after being president for legit official actions because you can really drag any former president through the courts on criminal charges if you wanted to. The crux of the issue is defining these official actions, which the legislature can write a law that details presidential immunity if they want to.

Yeah, you can basically be like "what's the point?" if your party has Senate majority. However, the next president can just pardon the former president then anyway. If the president wants to get out of charges, there was a way to do it previously and it was rather simple. With not being confident in elected legislators just voting on party lines and not impeaching a law-breaking president, maybe vote people in that aren't as horrible and won't just vote on party lines. People have to power to vote other people in, but they don't. That's not just concerning this very issue, but tons of other issues that are still issues because people keep voting the same people back in power.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Nope, because I don't accept your flimsy premise that the endless indulgence of Donald Trump by the justice system-- far beyond anything afforded anyone else, and in line with his own stated avoidance strategy-- is just due process...When you have the money, establishment support, & pocket-justices, it is.

I'd love for you to prove this is unique to Donald Trump, and not emblematic of how any wealthy and connected citizen navigates the American justice system. That is, after all, the assertion you're making here: that Trump received preferential treatment unique to him in this case.

Hell, I already pointed out how the Supreme Court greatly expedited orals and publishing the ruling, when it could have just as easily waited until after election and inauguration day respectively.

Otherwise defendants have to go fish-- it very rarely seems to work this way, except for a certain class of defendant.

I've stated what I actually think of the American criminal justice system elsewhere on the forum, at length and with conviction. My opinion of it doesn't change the fact the system is what it is.

The rest is another irrelevant wall-of-text history lesson.

The actual case law of this topic is irrelevant now? Is this yet another case of "anything Silvanus doesn't like doesn't matter"?

Whereas you've gone for the ad hominems as usual. Incredible-- you really did say that without irony in the prior post!

Calling attention to the ignorance or dishonesty of your arguments, and demonstrating why and how they're either ignorant or dishonest, pointing to the documented history here of either ignorance or dishonesty on this subject, and calling attention to the Bush league rhetorical tinker toys to which you resort when you're cornered, does not an ad hom make.

So, are you saying that impeaching former presidents to "unlock" their actions to regular criminal prosecutions is how this should work?

That's not how it should work, that's how it does work. It only took Trump for Republicans to remember how lawfare is waged and won after a 90-odd year losing streak, but alas, here we are and for the worse.

Better start writing your Congresspeople urging them to call for another Constitutional convention...but more likely, start finding primary candidates who will call for another Constitutional convention if elected. That's what it'll take to fix this, at this point.

Of course, if that somehow happens (without the vastly more likely civil war in the meantime), good luck with American oligarchs not railroading the process to turn the US outright into Galt's Gulch.

 

[Worgen]

 

[Silvanus]

I'd love for you to prove this is unique to Donald Trump, and not emblematic of how any wealthy and connected citizen navigates the American justice system.

Ah, so it's not just due process-- it's a benefit of wealth and connection. Glad you're now on the same page.

That is, after all, the assertion you're making here: that Trump received preferential treatment unique to him in this case.

Can you provide a single other example of: 1) someone who, facing numerous charges (including felonies), was afforded so very many delays in their interactions with the justice system; and 2) someone who, facing indictment, received delays that could render prosecution impossible?

I've stated what I actually think of the American criminal justice system elsewhere on the forum, at length and with conviction. My opinion of it doesn't change the fact the system is what it is.

Neither of us are arguing the system isn't what it is. I'm arguing it's not fine, and you're seemingly arguing it is fine in this instance, because you don't like criticisms that specifically address Donald Trump and the people who he appointed.

The actual case law of this topic is irrelevant now? Is this yet another case of "anything Silvanus doesn't like doesn't matter"?

If the case law provided a proper reason to delay trial to the point where prosecution could become impossible, it would be relevant. But that was just another long-winded history lesson peppered with the usual condescension, which I have very little interest in indulging.

Calling attention to the ignorance or dishonesty of your arguments, and demonstrating why and how they're either ignorant or dishonest, pointing to the documented history here of either ignorance or dishonesty on this subject, and calling attention to the Bush league rhetorical tinker toys to which you resort when you're cornered, does not an ad hom make.

Indeed. Furious personal insults do, which are your stock and trade.

 

[Schadrach]

Ah, so it's not just due process-- it's a benefit of wealth and connection. Glad you're now on the same page.

Wealth and connection lets you get better lawyers that are willing to spend more of their time on your behalf. And Trump's best chance for getting off is delaying as much as possible until after the election, hoping he wins, using the office to delay prosecution until he's out of office (or kill it entirely for federal cases) and then starting the whole process over again once out of office with the hopes he can drag it out until he's in the ground.

It's the kind of thing you do when you can afford the lawfare and know you are probably going to be convicted if it goes to trial. Especially if there's a possible way out if you delay things long enough.

 

[Silvanus]

Wealth and connection lets you get better lawyers that are willing to spend more of their time on your behalf.

And more partial judges, too, like ones you appointed yourself.

 

[Hades]

Rumor has it Epstein had a video of Trump Epsteining it up. Pfff...as if that would matter. Trump could literally cook and eat the kid when he's done with her and no mind would have changed.

Trump's cult would just spin to glorify it or say the kid deserved it while the mainstream electorate would say ''Okay that's bad but we just don't WANT to do anything to prevent Trump from taking office!''

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Rumor has it Epstein had a video of Trump Epsteining it up. Pfff...as if that would matter. Trump could literally cook and eat the kid when he's done with her and no mind would have changed.

Trump's cult would just spin to glorify it or say the kid deserved it while the mainstream electorate would say ''Okay that's bad but we just don't WANT to do anything to prevent Trump from taking office!''

So that side is a cult but the other side that sees their candidate obviously not mentally well enough to hold a basic conversation and will still vote for him; nope, not a cult here at all!