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

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
2,106
398
88
Country
US
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!
Nobody wants to vote for Biden. People are essentially either voting for Trump, or voting against him in the only fashion that has a non-zero chance of being successful.

If Biden wins and we see 25A section 4 get invoked sometime in 2025, I suspect a surprisingly large share of those who voted for Biden will not be upset by the result because for most of them it wasn't about voting for him but against his opponent. I'd hate for this to be the way we get our first woman President, but there's still a small part of my heart that would be warmed by Hillary Clinton living to see a woman become President and that woman President not being a Clinton.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,174
1,614
118
Country
The Netherlands
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!
You don't find such people directly worshiping Biden or any such nonsense. They just have the accurate belief that even a drunk goat or Biden's literal corpse would be preferable over Trump.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,501
818
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Nobody wants to vote for Biden. People are essentially either voting for Trump, or voting against him in the only fashion that has a non-zero chance of being successful.

If Biden wins and we see 25A section 4 get invoked sometime in 2025, I suspect a surprisingly large share of those who voted for Biden will not be upset by the result because for most of them it wasn't about voting for him but against his opponent. I'd hate for this to be the way we get our first woman President, but there's still a small part of my heart that would be warmed by Hillary Clinton living to see a woman become President and that woman President not being a Clinton.
That is exactly what everyone does (vote so their worst nightmare doesn't get elected) and it needs to stop. There are other people to vote for than Trump or Biden. The problem with 25A is that Kamala would be president.

You don't find such people directly worshiping Biden or any such nonsense. They just have the accurate belief that even a drunk goat or Biden's literal corpse would be preferable over Trump.
You all build up (Trump or Biden, depending on what side your on) as some existential threat when that's not the case.
 

Kwak

Elite Member
Sep 11, 2014
2,266
1,778
118
Country
4
That is exactly what everyone does (vote so their worst nightmare doesn't get elected) and it needs to stop. There are other people to vote for than Trump or Biden. The problem with 25A is that Kamala would be president.


You all build up (Trump or Biden, depending on what side your on) as some existential threat when that's not the case.
Keep pretending this is totally normal.


TIME: How Far Trump Would Go

Eric Cortellessa
04/30/24

Key sections:

What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.

To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland.

He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.

He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.

Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”

The events of Jan. 6, during which a pro-Trump mob attacked the center of American democracy in an effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, was a profound stain on his legacy. Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. “I call them the J-6 patriots,” he says. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, “Yes, absolutely.”

In our Mar-a-Lago interview, Trump says he might fire U.S. Attorneys who refuse his orders to prosecute someone: “It would depend on the situation.” He’s told supporters he would seek retribution against his enemies in a second term.

Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the Remain in Mexico program, which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum. […] The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second.

For an operation of that scale, Trump says he would rely mostly on the National Guard to round up and remove undocumented migrants throughout the country. […] When I ask if that means he would override the Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 law that prohibits the use of military force on civilians—Trump seems unmoved by the weight of the statute.

As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. […] More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says.


Trump’s team is eyeing two bills to kick off a second term: a border-security and immigration package, and an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. Many of the latter’s provisions expire early in 2025: the tax cuts on individual income brackets, 100% business expensing, the doubling of the estate-tax deduction. Trump is planning to intensify his protectionist agenda, telling me he’s considering a tariff of more than 10% on all imports, and perhaps even a 100% tariff on some Chinese goods. […] When I point out that independent analysts estimate Trump’s first term tariffs on thousands of products, including steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines, may have cost the U.S. $316 billion and more than 300,000 jobs, by one account, he dismisses these experts out of hand..

Trump’s intention to remake America’s relations abroad may be just as consequential. […] Trump takes a much more transactional approach to international relations than his predecessors, expressing disdain for what he views as free-riding friends and appreciation for authoritarian leaders like President Xi Jinping of China, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, or former President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil.

That’s one reason America’s traditional allies were horrified when Trump recently said at a campaign rally that Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO country he believes doesn’t spend enough on collective defense. That wasn’t idle bluster, Trump tells me.

He has pledged to send the National Guard into cities struggling with crime in a second term—possibly without the request of governors—and plans to approve Justice Department grants only to cities that adopt his preferred policing methods like stop-and-frisk.

One weapon in Trump’s second-term “War on Washington” is a wonky one: restoring the power of impoundment, which allowed Presidents to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. […] Trump and his allies plan to challenge a 1974 law that prohibits use of the measure, according to campaign policy advisers.

Another inside move is the enforcement of Schedule F, which allows the President to fire nonpolitical government officials and which Trump says he would embrace. “You have some people that are protected that shouldn’t be protected,” he says.

These obsessions could once again push the nation to the brink of crisis. Trump does not dismiss the possibility of political violence around the election. “If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he tells TIME. “It always depends on the fairness of the election.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
8,938
2,977
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
I don't like Kamala. She not a very nice human

Still prefer her over Biden, Clinton and Trump

Phoenix is right. It would be great if we voted for people and policies we like. Neither party has provided a suitable person for a long time

This is not a solely US problem. In my country, I'm probably going to have to vote Albanese because Dutton is the conservative who thought saying sorry to the Stolen Generation was a bad idea.

So.... it's just a bit wishful thinking
 

Schadrach

Elite Member
Legacy
Mar 20, 2010
2,106
398
88
Country
US
There are other people to vote for than Trump or Biden.
Due to the structure of the American electoral system, there really isn't. Your choices are the Dem candidate, the GOP candidate, or any number of other people who are definitely not going to win and probably not get even a single electoral vote.

That's unlikely to change without electoral reform of a sort that neither party currently in power really supports. For example, a move to ranked choice or approval voting, a move to make gerrymandering harder, those sorts of things.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
2,174
1,614
118
Country
The Netherlands
You all build up (Trump or Biden, depending on what side your on) as some existential threat when that's not the case.
Between his incompetence, corruption, anti democratic inclinations(up to a coup when he loses) , his stance on Russia and his open hatred for Europe there's nothing suggesting Trump is not an existential threat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,501
818
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Keep pretending this is totally normal.


TIME: How Far Trump Would Go

Eric Cortellessa
04/30/24

Key sections:

What emerged in two interviews with Trump, and conversations with more than a dozen of his closest advisers and confidants, were the outlines of an imperial presidency that would reshape America and its role in the world.

To carry out a deportation operation designed to remove more than 11 million people from the country, Trump told me, he would be willing to build migrant detention camps and deploy the U.S. military, both at the border and inland.

He would let red states monitor women’s pregnancies and prosecute those who violate abortion bans. He would, at his personal discretion, withhold funds appropriated by Congress, according to top advisers. He would be willing to fire a U.S. Attorney who doesn’t carry out his order to prosecute someone, breaking with a tradition of independent law enforcement that dates from America’s founding.

He is weighing pardons for every one of his supporters accused of attacking the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, more than 800 of whom have pleaded guilty or been convicted by a jury. He might not come to the aid of an attacked ally in Europe or Asia if he felt that country wasn’t paying enough for its own defense. He would gut the U.S. civil service, deploy the National Guard to American cities as he sees fit, close the White House pandemic-preparedness office, and staff his Administration with acolytes who back his false assertion that the 2020 election was stolen.

Every election is billed as a national turning point. This time that rings true. To supporters, the prospect of Trump 2.0, unconstrained and backed by a disciplined movement of true believers, offers revolutionary promise. To much of the rest of the nation and the world, it represents an alarming risk. A second Trump term could bring “the end of our democracy,” says presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, “and the birth of a new kind of authoritarian presidential order.”

The events of Jan. 6, during which a pro-Trump mob attacked the center of American democracy in an effort to subvert the peaceful transfer of power, was a profound stain on his legacy. Trump has sought to recast an insurrectionist riot as an act of patriotism. “I call them the J-6 patriots,” he says. When I ask whether he would consider pardoning every one of them, he says, “Yes, absolutely.”

In our Mar-a-Lago interview, Trump says he might fire U.S. Attorneys who refuse his orders to prosecute someone: “It would depend on the situation.” He’s told supporters he would seek retribution against his enemies in a second term.

Trump’s radical designs for presidential power would be felt throughout the country. A main focus is the southern border. Trump says he plans to sign orders to reinstall many of the same policies from his first term, such as the Remain in Mexico program, which requires that non-Mexican asylum seekers be sent south of the border until their court dates, and Title 42, which allows border officials to expel migrants without letting them apply for asylum. […] The capstone of this program, advisers say, would be a massive deportation operation that would target millions of people. Trump made similar pledges in his first term, but says he plans to be more aggressive in a second.

For an operation of that scale, Trump says he would rely mostly on the National Guard to round up and remove undocumented migrants throughout the country. […] When I ask if that means he would override the Posse Comitatus Act—an 1878 law that prohibits the use of military force on civilians—Trump seems unmoved by the weight of the statute.

As President, Trump nominated three Supreme Court Justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he claims credit for his role in ending a constitutional right to an abortion. […] More than 20 states now have full or partial abortion bans, and Trump says those policies should be left to the states to do what they want, including monitoring women’s pregnancies. “I think they might do that,” he says.


Trump’s team is eyeing two bills to kick off a second term: a border-security and immigration package, and an extension of his 2017 tax cuts. Many of the latter’s provisions expire early in 2025: the tax cuts on individual income brackets, 100% business expensing, the doubling of the estate-tax deduction. Trump is planning to intensify his protectionist agenda, telling me he’s considering a tariff of more than 10% on all imports, and perhaps even a 100% tariff on some Chinese goods. […] When I point out that independent analysts estimate Trump’s first term tariffs on thousands of products, including steel and aluminum, solar panels, and washing machines, may have cost the U.S. $316 billion and more than 300,000 jobs, by one account, he dismisses these experts out of hand..

Trump’s intention to remake America’s relations abroad may be just as consequential. […] Trump takes a much more transactional approach to international relations than his predecessors, expressing disdain for what he views as free-riding friends and appreciation for authoritarian leaders like President Xi Jinping of China, Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary, or former President Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil.

That’s one reason America’s traditional allies were horrified when Trump recently said at a campaign rally that Russia could “do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO country he believes doesn’t spend enough on collective defense. That wasn’t idle bluster, Trump tells me.

He has pledged to send the National Guard into cities struggling with crime in a second term—possibly without the request of governors—and plans to approve Justice Department grants only to cities that adopt his preferred policing methods like stop-and-frisk.

One weapon in Trump’s second-term “War on Washington” is a wonky one: restoring the power of impoundment, which allowed Presidents to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. […] Trump and his allies plan to challenge a 1974 law that prohibits use of the measure, according to campaign policy advisers.

Another inside move is the enforcement of Schedule F, which allows the President to fire nonpolitical government officials and which Trump says he would embrace. “You have some people that are protected that shouldn’t be protected,” he says.

These obsessions could once again push the nation to the brink of crisis. Trump does not dismiss the possibility of political violence around the election. “If we don’t win, you know, it depends,” he tells TIME. “It always depends on the fairness of the election.”
Hyperbole, I'm sure someone that just gets info from right media can come up with a very similar diatribe about what will happen if Biden wins. Both were already president and if either wins (which will happen), then it's not nearly that big of a deal.

I don't like Kamala. She not a very nice human

Still prefer her over Biden, Clinton and Trump

Phoenix is right. It would be great if we voted for people and policies we like. Neither party has provided a suitable person for a long time

This is not a solely US problem. In my country, I'm probably going to have to vote Albanese because Dutton is the conservative who thought saying sorry to the Stolen Generation was a bad idea.

So.... it's just a bit wishful thinking
I haven't honestly seen too much of Kamala but from what I've seen, she seems like someone that can't really discuss anything complex at all while being fully mentally capable (aka she seems pretty dumb) while Biden is just that because of his age. It was kinda the same problem with Trump and Pence; if you got Trump out, then Pence takes over, I guess that's an ever-so-slight upgrade but it's kinda like what's the point?

I don't get why people don't vote more rationally (I do get it but be better). If there was a burger place that served basically rare burgers (Trump) and a burger place that sold really overcooked burgers (Biden), nobody would go to either burger place.

Due to the structure of the American electoral system, there really isn't. Your choices are the Dem candidate, the GOP candidate, or any number of other people who are definitely not going to win and probably not get even a single electoral vote.

That's unlikely to change without electoral reform of a sort that neither party currently in power really supports. For example, a move to ranked choice or approval voting, a move to make gerrymandering harder, those sorts of things.
If everyone voted for who they actually thought was the best candidate, it wouldn't be an issue.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,768
6,135
118
Country
United Kingdom
If there was a burger place that served basically rare burgers (Trump) and a burger place that sold really overcooked burgers (Biden), nobody would go to either burger place.
I quite like this analogy, because the Biden-burger is unpalatable whereas the Trump-burger will actually poison you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,952
3,734
118
I don't like Kamala. She not a very nice human

Still prefer her over Biden, Clinton and Trump

Phoenix is right. It would be great if we voted for people and policies we like. Neither party has provided a suitable person for a long time

This is not a solely US problem. In my country, I'm probably going to have to vote Albanese because Dutton is the conservative who thought saying sorry to the Stolen Generation was a bad idea.

So.... it's just a bit wishful thinking
Ah, but we do have preferential voting, though, which helps. In theory, ultimately your votes will go to one of those two.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,693
1,284
118
Country
United States
Ah, so it's not just due process-- it's a benefit of wealth and connection. Glad you're now on the same page.
1720874730125.png

Leave it to you to attempt conflating two distinct topics, in order to grasp for straws and find "gotcha!" moments.

No, these -- a person's entitlement to due process in American law, and the impact of social and financial privilege in navigating the legal system -- are two different topics. You're implicitly arguing (because you're not honest enough to make it explicit) because Trump is financially, politically, and socially privileged he should be denied due process. That is not how the law works.

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?
1720874887176.png

Try harder next time. But of course, I can't stop there. You have Ronald Reagan, pick a member of the Bush family (up to and including Prescott), Warren G. Harding, basically any President since Truman if we're counting war crime and violation of international law, hell even Ulysses S. Grant. Those are just the presidents I can name off the top of my head.

Not that Ulysses S. Grant getting detained for speeding in a horse-drawn carriage, resisting arrest, and evading the authorities in what can only be described as "an exceedingly polite 19th Century GTA pro gamer move" only to show up in court later and pay a fine, without ever being charged or standing trial, is here nor there...but it is funny, and stands testament quite well to how off-base you are.

Shall we extend this challenge to cabinet members and executive officials, legislators, and general members of the socioeconomic elite? I'm certain the finance, fossil fuels, defense, and health care industries would reveal a virtual wealth of examples. Though, I suspect I really don't need to go further than the Sackler and DuPont families to make the point, really. I mean, it's not like Beau Biden refused to prosecute a confessed child rapist who happened to be a member of the DuPont family.

"But they weren't indicted!" I can already hear you say, continuing to grasp at straws. Indeed, they weren't, which makes the point in and of itself Trump, if anything, has been treated with greater bias in the legal system than basically anyone else among the socioeconomic elite, not less.

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.
This is a straight-up straw man.

If the case law provided a proper reason to delay trial to the point where prosecution could become impossible, it would be relevant.
Again with the straw men. That was expressly not what happened, here; in fact, the opposite did. I already explained why and how the Supreme Court could have done exactly that, but they instead accommodated the Biden DoJ's request for expedition.

Ain't my problem that backfired spectacularly. Perhaps you should be spending the time wondering why so many Biden and Obama appointees are this colossally incompetent.

But that was just another long-winded history lesson peppered with the usual condescension, which I have very little interest in indulging.
Purport yourself in a way to earn respect, to be treated with respect. That's a low bar, really, which in this case is "don't act like anything you don't like is irrelevant, including actual case law and citation".

Indeed. Furious personal insults do, which are your stock and trade.
Not my problem your ego is so fragile that you can't take your arguments being called out as dishonest and ignorant. Case in point,

And more partial judges, too, like ones you appointed yourself.
The nanosecond you think I'm out of the thread you go right back to spewing nonsense, as if repetition will make it true.

Well good golly gosh gee whiz, it almost makes one wish the Constitution had laid out a process by which sitting executives could stand accused of crime and malpractice, that expressly isn't presided by executive appointees. Or that the judiciary had a long-standing legal doctrine by which it would refuse to hear cases that were primarily political in nature, for which there were no legal remedies. Well, a doctrine that hadn't already been violated by judges at lower levels. You know, to prevent the very situation about which you're excessively whining, despite being told numerous times and with citation you are factually incorrect and your reasoning is fundamentally flawed.

But I will say, it is rather funny that you want to call out Supreme Court justices -- rather vociferously and at every opportunity -- for ruling on a case while being Trump appointees, but haven't said a single word about the DC District court judge being a vocally anti-Trump Obama appointee, nor two of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals justices being vocally anti-Trump Biden appointees (the third was a Bush I appointee). Strange how "conflicts of interest" and "political bias in court rulings" seems to only be a one-way street, that street being "does Silvanus like this decision or not, regardless of case history, case facts, justiciability, implications of a ruling, legal or political strategy, or even logic itself?".
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,768
6,135
118
Country
United Kingdom
Leave it to you to attempt conflating two distinct topics, in order to grasp for straws and find "gotcha!" moments.
That's what you've been attempting from the start, yeah. If you want to start discussing this as an adult, let me know, and we can talk about this like adults without shitpost memes.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,693
1,284
118
Country
United States
That's what you've been attempting from the start, yeah.
Actually what I've been doing "from the start" is the same thing I'm still doing: pointing out how colossally stupid it was for anti-Trump lower court justices to open the door to a Supreme Court appeal in the first place, because this is a political question and it's moot. Instead, they started a battle any knowledgeable, rational, observer would know to be unwinnable, based on case facts and the strategic position of the judiciary compared to the executive and legislative branches alone.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, anti-Trump people vacated their rationality eight years ago. You might notice "be careful what you wish for" has been something of a trend of mine when discussing liberals' relationship to Trump (and fact). Circumstances like this are precisely why.

If you want to start discussing this as an adult, let me know, and we can talk about this like adults without shitpost memes.
Well, I really wanted to do this for a while now and luckily you gave me such a wonderful opportunity...

1720919750613.png

It rather speaks for itself, I think.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,768
6,135
118
Country
United Kingdom
It rather speaks for itself, I think.
Yep, that was pretty immature. But of course, it came in response to yet another post full of furious insult and general condescension. When I see that kind of thing, it doesn't tend to encourage me to respond with consideration and care.

But yeah, it was immature. I sunk to the tone that had been set and shouldn't have done so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,768
6,135
118
Country
United Kingdom
The case against Trump for illegally holding classified documents has been thrown out by a judge he appointed.

Her basis for the decision is that the special prosecutor's role is not empowered by Congress or the constitution, so he doesn't have the power. The use of special prosecutors goes back to the 70s but is suddenly unacceptable, precedent be damned.

Link, including the ruling itself.
 

Chimpzy

Simian Abomination
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
12,615
8,970
118
The case against Trump for illegally holding classified documents has been thrown out by a judge he appointed.

Her basis for the decision is that the special prosecutor's role is not empowered by Congress or the constitution, so he doesn't have the power. The use of special prosecutors goes back to the 70s but is suddenly unacceptable, precedent be damned.

Link, including the ruling itself.
Guess we know who'll get a SCOTUS seat when Trump gets elected
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,651
9,253
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
The case against Trump for illegally holding classified documents has been thrown out by a judge he appointed.

Her basis for the decision is that the special prosecutor's role is not empowered by Congress or the constitution, so he doesn't have the power. The use of special prosecutors goes back to the 70s but is suddenly unacceptable, precedent be damned.

Link, including the ruling itself.
Cannon is just doing what Trump put her in place to do: Protect him from the consequences of his actions.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,693
1,284
118
Country
United States
The case against Trump for illegally holding classified documents has been thrown out by a judge he appointed.

Her basis for the decision is that the special prosecutor's role is not empowered by Congress or the constitution, so he doesn't have the power. The use of special prosecutors goes back to the 70s but is suddenly unacceptable, precedent be damned.

Link, including the ruling itself.
Why, hello there! I see you can't drag yourself away from this thread, and couldn't help but comment!

So, why don't we start seeing sources for how hunky-dory the state of affairs were with special counsels and how uncontroversial they've been since "the '70s", at least until Trump got involved. Actual citations, no kind of format or anything, just a few links, please and thank you.

Because really, after Morrison v. Olson, 487 US 654 (1988) -- or more specifically, Scalia's lone dissent in the ruling -- special counsels became more controversial for all the reasons Scalia would cite in his dissent, not less. This culminated with the appointment of Kenneth Starr as special prosecutor to investigate Clinton, and with the humiliating shitshow that investigation (and impeachment) was, the Independent Counsel Act (part of EIGA) was sunset in 1999 on urging of none other than Janet Reno herself. And since, special counsels have been operating not on statutory authority, but rather regulatory authority delegated by Congress to the Department of Justice.

"Suddenly" unacceptable? That's just factually incorrect in every conceivable way. Morrison v. Olson was just the start of post-Nixon jurisprudence on special counsels' role, authority, and scope of powers.

Which by the way, since ICA's sunset this does not include appointing special prosecutors with the legal authority to press charges. This is why special counsel appointments are usually US Attorneys, who do have that authority external to the special counsel appointment, and those who aren't merely recommend indictments based upon their findings.

Otherwise, for the past twenty-five years the DoJ -- Democrat- or Republican-led -- has been operating on spit, duct tape, gentleman's agreements, and bluffs. Trump was just the one to call it.

Which was the crux of this ruling, and it's why the DoJ ultimately hung itself in the case. Either Smith was a principal officer and had the authority to press charges, in which case the DoJ exceeded its authority under the Constitution, or Smith was an inferior officer and lacked the authority to press charges, in which case the charges against Trump themselves were illegal. The DoJ itself argued Smith was an inferior officer, but upon examination of the scope of his activities, his lack of oversight, the broadness of his commission, and independence, the court found he was acting as a principal officer (and the DoJ had commissioned him as such).

Y'all gonna be pissed when you figure out this opens the door to motions to vacate judgments against those indicted and convicted in the Mueller probe. Cohen's the only one this affects as the others were pardoned, but the others could technically see judgments against them vacated as well.

If I were y'all, I'd start asking why the Biden admin sent the Keystone Kops after Trump, because every step of these investigations have been marred by truly mind-boggling incompetence with plenty of loopholes written in along the way. Far be it for me to suggest the Biden admin is sandbagging its own investigation to cover its ass, but it seems an awful lot like the Biden admin is sandbagging its own investigation to cover its ass.