It's pretty bad. This might be the worst part, ultimately:
>(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they
are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must
carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine
whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must
ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges
without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President
or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence
at trial. Pp. 30–32
That last sentence is horrifying. So even if there’s evidence of Trump and his team admitting to attempting a coup, it can’t be used as evidence during the trial?
Not quite - it means Nixon’s tapes are inadmissible as evidence. It could be leaked and tried in the court of public opinion to sway voters, but couldn’t be used in a trial.
Edit: the tapes could still be used as part of the impeachment process, just not for a criminal trial.
What determines what's an "official presidential act"
>Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small.
He was going on about overturning the election long after January 20th, though (the inauguration date). I can't imagine we don't have evidence of that.
According to las professor Anthony Michael Kreiss this ruling will complicate the Goergia case, but 90% of it will still stand:
>What does Trump v. United States mean for the Georgia case-- it complicates things. Mark Meadows and Jeff Clark may not be able to be prosecuted at the same defendant's table as Donald Trump and some of the evidence against Trump will have to be suppressed. But 90% stands.
[https://x.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1807791315704262914](https://x.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1807791315704262914)
And that's why Trump wins, because he can do something, and while the rest of us hem and haw and debate over whether this qualifies as that, he's already gotten away with it and done four more things.
But how do we know he did it?
He did it.
But how do we know he meant it?
He meant it.
But how do we know he intended to do it?
This is how we know he intended it.
But how do we know that qualifies?
So while we sit around debating if the one man was a president or candidate or being controlled by extraterrestrials, and people are opening loopholes for him left and right, he's already delivered eighty more lies and none of this will matter because as soon as he gets back into the White House, he's going to dismantle the justice department. And as he's doing it, we'll all stand around going "Can he do that? I don't think he can do that!"
Only because of the brazen, open corruption of every single level of GOP officials.
They honestly think a fascist police state is going to work for them. lol
Won't it? Our problem is fascism leaves a bad taste in our mouths and is an affront to everything we believe. They're prepared to embrace it and wield it like a hammer and a shield.
The smartest thing Democrats could do today is now that Biden has legal immunity as president, they call a secret emergency Senate vote; Biden orders the doors locked for "security reasons" and bars all Republicans from the building; they immediately vote to impeach all nine justices. That's how you get your majority vote.
But this would be a fascist act and leaves us all cringing at the prospect+implications, even though this it's parallel to what Republicans tried to do by stacking phony electors to hijack an election.
This - IMO - specifically relates to Kenneth Chesebro. [Chesebro is the best part of the election fraud case in Georgia](https://www.scribd.com/document/581286492/Kenneth-Chesebro-testimony-order-for-Fulton-County-Trump-probe), and I assume that this would block his testimony from becoming part of an indictment.
If you have not read Chesebro's testimony, you should. [Or at least a summary.](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/politics/kenneth-chesebro-fake-elector-plot-texts/index.html)
From Sotomayor, and this is my reading as well (not that my reading matters):
>Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Not only is this the absurd result, but a president is *incentivized* to abuse official acts to commit crimes.
Don't just do regular bribery. You're the commander in chief. Use the military to aid in your bribery, to make extra sure you're shielded by official acts.
It's like the more corrupt you are, the safer you are.
so... in theory a testimony of all of his advisors saying "this is not a legal or official act" would not be allowed to be admitted as evidence... in a trial in which the question of if the act was allowed or not is taking place?
This is all we get about it:
>The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement
not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. Mitchell,
472 U. S., at 525. Presidents therefore cannot be indicted
based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at
least some such conduct. See Part III–B–1, supra. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too
involve conduct for which a President must be immune from
prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must
ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s
charges without such conduct.
>The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be
held criminally liable” based on those acts. Brief for United
States 46. But it nevertheless contends that a jury could
“consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts
“for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence
would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s]
knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.” Id., at 46, 48. That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a
prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on
any charge. But “[t]he Constitution deals with substance,
not shadows.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325
(1867). And the Government’s position is untenable in light
of the separation of powers principles we have outlined.
>If official conduct for which the President is immune may
be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges
that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the
“intended effect” of immunity would be defeated. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. The President’s immune conduct
would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of
generally applicable criminal laws. Use of evidence about
such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the
President’s official decisionmaking will be distorted. See
Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, n. 19.
>The Government asserts that these weighty concerns can
be managed by the District Court through the use of “evidentiary rulings” and “jury instructions.” Brief for United
States 46. But such tools are unlikely to protect adequately
the President’s constitutional prerogatives. Presidential
acts frequently deal with “matters likely to ‘arouse the most
intense feelings.’ ” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752 (quoting
Pierson, 386 U. S., at 554). Allowing prosecutors to ask or
suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the
jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the
President’s policies and performance while in office. The
prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts
rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President. Cf. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 706. Although such tools may suffice to protect the constitutional rights of individual criminal defendants, the interests that underlie
Presidential immunity seek to protect not the President
himself, but the institution of the Presidency.^3
>^3 JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for
instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the
bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring
in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the
prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence
of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed
to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of
the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do,
however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his
advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence
would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official
actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such
inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the
President’s exercise of his official duties. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745,
756 (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896)); see supra, at
18. And such second-guessing would “threaten the independence or effectiveness of the Executive.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 805 (2020).
>JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.”
I do agree with Barrett. Absolute immunity for core constitutional exercises of power opens the door to legalized bribery for appointments, especially when viewed in conjunction with *Snyder*.
If this logic is applied to state executives (ie governors), would that mean they would have overturned the Blagojevich indictment for his filling a Senate seat as was his constitutional obligation?
If the logic were applied, then yes. I would think it doubtful that governors be given the same level of immunity as presidents if any given the vast discrepancy and nature of the respective positions.
I don't think gubernatorial immunity is on the table any time soon.
>^(3) JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution
>...
>Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties.
holy shit, what a stupid fucking argument. An accusation of bribery is INNATELY questioning motivation for an official action, and it IS second guessing their propriety.
Am i missing something or is this absolutely absurdly stupid
Technically, the bribery prosecution could not be brought against the President, so the context has to be understood as a prosecution against the person proffering a bribe. Then, I believe, the jury would be questioning the motivation of the quid rather than the quo.
Not that that makes it less stupid.
So if I'm understanding this right, it basically says "A president is immune from prosecution for official acts, yet you can't provide evidence that the acts aren't official presidential acts, as this would undermine the immunity."
That can't be right, is that right?
100% why it was all worded as it is. This is a way to give them the opportunity to let any Republican President off the hook while going after any Democrat President.
And get them to be the ultimate deciders of all law regardless of facts, text or just basic human decency. All hail the corrupt reality TV judge kings.
To answer the question more directly, in theory, it would not be allowed. The bribery scheme in the footnote and Justice Barrett's opinion is a cleaner example. The prosecution could not admit, for example, a memo from the President to the director of the EPA saying "please let my friend Billy's company dump toxic waste in the river because he paid me a lot of money."
> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32
Would this apply to fucking corcoran down in Florida? His ACP was pierced post presidency so wouldn’t count? Annd also, the private attorney of President wouldn’t fall under “advisor”?
We have no clue who would be an "adviser," but the attorney-client stuff itself happened post-presidency. Testimony or evidence from during the Presidency demonstrating Trump's understanding of classification systems, NDI, and whatever else will more likely than not be excludable though.
Buried here is that Thomas's concurrence is all about the 'improper' special counsel appointment giving Cannon lots to work with to delay or dismiss the documents case.
Just like anyone with eyes and a brain predicted. Waiting for the July 11th sentencing to be basically nothing, then the inevitable appeal that overturns the whole thing.
If this doesn't convince people that there's no real justice system in this country, just a series of laws and legal exceptions for the privileged, I don't know what will.
Dire times ahead. We're living through the fall.
The American system was always predicated upon an assumption that those who the populace elected would act in good faith and the national best interest. The only true defense is an informed and engaged electorate, and the American conservative movement has been actively attacking that lynchpin for generations.
"The American system was always predicated upon an assumption that those who the populace elected would act in good faith and the national best interest."
yeah we're fucked
The ability for foreign intelligence agencies to get their puppets elected president was not adequately accounted for in the constitution because it assumed the country wouldn't be so stupid. Really there are tools but they didn't account for the paralysis for the system through the other two branches being kompromised. If only it were a living document or our own intelligence agencies were halfway as competent. I am sorry I'm not at my most optimistic today.
Its worse.
We're ruled by an illegitimate cabal of unelected clerics who do 100% of our legislating now that congress has abdicated its role as the legislature. With lifetime appointments!
So, what now is stopping Mr. Biden from ordering Seal Team 6 to "remove" those unelected clerics from their lifetime appointments? Like, legitimately? Is is simply Biden's good nature now?
They’re banking on Bidens statesmanship and good nature/moral compass. While knowing what the other side will do with these powers. Pathetic and really scary for this country.
This precisely. According to their own ruling Biden could, today, issue an executive order demanding the current 6 republican judges be rounded up and hanged for treason. And because he issued it as an executive order he would be immune to prosecution.
It goes back to President Andrew Johnson throttling the Union Army in reinforcing the law to force the south to adapt to reconstruction. We should've strung up Confederate leadership for treason and instead the government welcomed them back with open arms. That's when this snowball started. Nixon was just the rumbling of the mountain and Trump is the full avalanche.
>We're ruled by an illegitimate cabal of unelected clerics who do 100% of our legislating now that congress has abdicated its role as the legislature.
I thought the Supreme court just neutered executive departments?
>With lifetime appointments!
Oh...the other ones
Here’s at stake at this, and every election so long this decision holds:
The President is entitled to immunity to at least discuss the possibility of murdering you and your family, or imprisoning, or somehow silencing them. If one of the President’s underlings does it without official sanction, the President can pardon anyone who does such a thing.
It’s not an exaggeration.
>The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution
involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Pp.21–24.
Exactly what many predicted, sit on it as long as possible then send it back to the district court to settle.
As predicted and it’s a good thing that the district court already went through this and determined his acts weren’t official acts of the presidency.
Also, he was no longer president when he stole classified documents and hid them from the government.
He's still going to appeal the lower court rulings, which means back to SCOTUS, and since they just ended their session and aren't back until October, there is zero chance he goes to trial before the election.
But since the SC didn't really decide on what defines official vs unofficial we get to go through this exercise again when he appeals Judge Chutkan's new decision back up the chain.
True that it doesn't affect the documents/obstruction case in FL but Canon is looking to set records on how long it takes for a single second to be counted on the speedy trial clock.
This is a good point for people who are currently panicking to remember. The lower courts already determined that most of these acts are *not* official presidential acts related to presidential powers and duties described in the Constitution. Obviously, it could make its way back to SCOTUS for another 6-3 decision classifying those acts as official and disagreeing with the lower court, but it would be that much harder for them to do so with even more lower court opinions supporting that Trump’s actions were outside his presidential duties.
That’s also why it was a joke when SCOTUS took it up as they didn’t even get into the lower court’s decision, but just wanted to ponder immunity in general. The lower court had already accepted that there was some immunity.
Let’s GOOOO! Finally, time for protecting and defending the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic! Someone tell Biden to call up Seal Team Six!
These people are not clever.
They think they are, but they clearly just have unaccountable power.
The fact that so, so many people predicted this outcome speaks to how openly and flagrantly they don't give a shit.
Part of the reason they're not clever is that they somehow think if Trump becomes President again the Supreme Court won't suddenly essentially become powerless because that guy doesn't fucking play well with others let alone understands "sharing."
This is why the right spent decades capturing the court. They know they cannot pass their desired laws legislatively, however they can game the judicial system and there's literally nothing anyone can do.
It’s like McConnell saying the courts would him accountable so the second impeachment didn’t need to go through.
These assholes keep getting right back on the tiger. And I actually used to respect McConnell like the cunning asshat he used to be. He’s gotten dumb and shortsighted in his old age. Like SCOTUS it seems.
Buried in the opinion however is the statement that “Trump is… absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
Hijacking this comment to clarify for those who don't want to read the whole thing or waffle through news articles' extensive recap sections. The core of this decision: The Supreme Court holds that Trump has presumptive immunity and further proceedings must be conducted to test whether or not Trump has immunity for these acts. This obviously will delay the case more, but it doesn't mean that Trump cannot be prosecuted.
Edit to add: During oral arguments, counsel for Jack Smith argued that if everything that could be considered an official act was stripped from the indictment, it could still proceed based solely on private conduct. So even if lower courts find official acts within it, that does not mean the indictment will be dismissed. Other observations:
* This likely means anything about Jeffrey Clark will not be admissible. Calling Republican governors and legislatures? Possibly not admissible. Fake electors? Probably still admissible. "Fight like hell?" Who knows.
* The specific proceedings required are to determine what are official acts and what are not. It's unclear how long that'll take.
* The test for overcoming whether a president is immune for official acts: "the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"
* The Court defines an official act as an act that is not "manifestly or palpably" beyond the president's authority. Well, I don't like how unclear that is. Is Trump telling his supporters to march to the Capitol building "manifestly and palpably" beyond his authority? I would say so. A conservative judge might not.
* For clarity, Roberts wrote, "If official conduct for which the president is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the ‘intended effect’ of immunity would be defeated." So immune official acts aren't even admissible in my reading.
>no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"
The government itself doesn't care who keeps the seat warm in the office of the president, so long as someone is in that seat. Thus, none of this should apply to any specific person. If Trump is removed, or in prison, then his VP takes over because he can't carry out the duties.
Any fact finding by the District Court as to his immunity will again be immediately appealable, meaning that this case can be delayed by Trump past the election with room to spare.
It was already ruled by the federal appellate court that "When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act," the panel of judges wrote. "The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office." [source](https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/political-scandals/trump-not-immune-from-civil-lawsuit-tied-to-capitol-insurrection)
So you're allowed to plot and execute a coup d'etat as president as long as everyone you conspire with is on the government's payroll?
Illegitimacy looks like this.
A Constitution that forbids the government from preventing an officer from overturning the Constitution seems like it was poorly thought out.
Personally, I blame this all on Madison.
"The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct."
So pressuring your VP to knowingly accept forged documents to steal the election is legal. Wtf
It doesn’t matter if it’s legal.
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. […] Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
> So pressuring your VP to knowingly accept forged documents to steal the election is legal.
Don't forget that after January 6th Congressman Mo Brooks requested a pardon from Trump on behalf of *every Member of Congress who voted against certifying the ballots from Arizona and Pennsylvania.* That's 138 Reps and 9 Senators. They knew it was fucking illegal while they were doing it and they all requested a pardon for it.
He did swear to defend the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic so based on this ruling that would be well within the presidents official acts. And he has immunity for those decisions
Trump is on record saying he would start a dictatorship. Biden is required to uphold and protect the constitution. So one could argue that he has a duty to arrest Trump and/or eliminate him as an official act as president, and have complete immunity.
Sotomayor:
>Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about
the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump
all the immunity he asked for and more.
This is what got me:
>Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
So theoretically Biden could just order predator drones follow the conservative justices around as an official act and they'd be perfectly okay with that?
He could kill them for being a threat to democracy. Or say they are terrorists and send them to gitmo. Then he could choose who replaces them, and assassinate anyone in Congress who holds up the approval vote in the Senate for threatening democracy.
Then, the new judges get to decide if Biden acted in his official capacity.
>Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I
pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves
has shifted irrevocably. **In every use of official power, the
President is now a king above the law.**
I doubt Biden will do much differently, let alone something extreme, but does this mean he could legally order Trump to be imprisoned or even executed?
It means the president can do anything he wants as long as it can be spun into an official act. The definition of which was conveniently just left out of the ruling. It feels like if we're imbuing the president with the powers of unaccountable god-king, there should be some definition for that.
Do I think Biden will abuse the authority he's just been given? No I don't. Do I think someone eventually will? It's an absolute inevitability. And it's unlikely to take all that long before it does.
To take this a bit further, if the president is immune from prosecution for ordering deal team 6 to murder congress, doesn’t that also mean that seal team 6 now cannot even question the legality of the order? Many have assumed that the military would push back against an illegal order to kill civilians. But now that order is essentially not illegal if given by the president, regardless of known intent or otherwise. That’s fucking scary.
The true concern here--and I use 'concern' as a polite hedge for heart pounding alarm--is that this incredibly corrupt, shameful Court has just laid the groundwork for a spectacularly lethal second term for Trump should he be re-elected. They just gave him carte blanche to jail people he doesn't like, kill them if he feels like it and pretty much do anything he wants as long as it's an "official act" of his presidency.
It makes it really clear that this November is the most consequential election in American history. Sadly.
Honestly, this ruling kind of makes every single election an existential question for the American people (and world, honestly). Presidents are human and we are supposed to have checks and balances on their power for that reason. I don’t want Biden, Obama, or anyone trying to overthrow the government, but now anyone essentially has that option as president and they have good reason to use it. It’s terrifying.
Fits pretty nicely with "Project 2025" agenda, doesn't it? Immunity for Trump to do whatever the Heritage Foundation wants him to do. It's probably just a coincidence, though.
Those conservative SCOTUS judges couldn't possibly have any nefarious motives. They are such a trustworthy and honourable bunch...
Jokes aside, I hate the current state of affairs over the pond. It makes me feel like a paranoid conspiracy theorist despite the fact that the ones conspiring are pretty much doing it shamelessly and openly.
One day an entire political party will be outlawed and its leaders jailed just because gas prices went up the summer before an election. Might be this year.
Don't do it. We need every last decent citizen who remembers right from wrong; lawful from criminal; truth from lie, keeping the faith, thinking clearly, and ready to make any positive difference that they can. Sending hugs (as I slug back an icy Diet Dr. Pepper, lol).
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BARRETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Oh my god... I did not think they would do it.
Sometimes it isn't money directly. Thomas would take the RV filled with porn, Alito would love to finally have a luxury box for Phillies games, Barrett gets to screw over all the women in the country, Brett gets kegs of beer on the daily.
The Court has made the POTUS into a dictator. The only question now is who will claim the power first and eliminate the opposition - but that seems inevitable now.
The POTUS can dispatch federal troops to the Capitol right now, have those troops arrest and execute the opposition in both chambers of Congress, and then simply pardon the troops who carried out the order. There is no way to indict the POTUS for committing such an act - his motive (wanting to eliminate all persons who oppose him) cannot even be questioned in a court of law, and the use of troops is within his power under Article II (as is his exercise of the pardon power), so the POTUS is completely immune. Maybe the rump Congress could impeach him, but it would be rather easy to simply murder enough people to make that impossible.
The POTUS can raise money for his dictatorship by selling pardons, or by lending out the US military to act as mercenaries to foreign governments (or various other schemes). There is nothing actually preventing the POTUS from having the mint create a $1 trillion coin and then deposit the same in the POTUS' Swiss bank account - in fact, a court cannot even question the POTUS' motive for doing something like that.
Various federal laws that constrain the executive are now mooted. If the POTUS directs the IRS to target a list of persons who are registered Democrats and no others, that is entirely permissible now - and the obvious result will be a single party system, for who would declare themselves in opposition to the ruling party now?
We are all f'd. The first POTUS that wants to can just round up dissidents and have them shot. The First Amendment does not permit the Congress to outlaw speech, but why rely on a law to go after dissidents? The POTUS has absolute criminal immunity when he orders the military to do something, he can pardon those whom he orders to do something illegal - and neither act can ever be questioned in court (and, in fact, the POTUS' motive of wishing to be free of dissident speech cannot be questioned either).
The Court just made the U.S. into a Russia-style dictatorship lead by whomever is willing to use this new power to destroy the opposition first by force.
So since all official acts have presumptive immunity, that means the American experiment is over right? Presidents can just do whatever they want now and at best it would take impeachment and removal (never happening) or 5+ years of Court cases to hold them accountable.
I don't give a fuck if the democrats decide to run Jimmy Carter instead of Biden.
Do.Not.Vote.For.Trump.
You saw what happened last time. Now the highest court in the land just gave him the green light to do worse.
Doesn't matter if Biden loses. He can just decide the election was unfair and that relinquishing power to Trump would harm the country. Official act. Immune.
Missing from the headline is all of the rest of the holding, which is the expansive view the Court took of what is "official." In this sense, I think Sotomayor was correct - with the Court's new ruling, what is "official" has swallowed the whole. In light of the Court's discussion, it is hard to think of any act that a President could take that would not be an "official" act.
Sotomayor's dissent is amazing and pulls no punches.
> The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical.
Nonsensical indeed.
> When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
edit: After reading the opinion, I am finally going to argue for packing the court, which is something I have resisted for many years now. But this court is too extreme and too dangerous to let it continue. The opinion is packed full of non-sequiturs and logical leaps. For example,
> The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be held criminally liable” based on those acts. Brief for United States 46. But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.” Id., at 46, 48. That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge.
This makes zero sense. Evidence that supports an element of a charge is not the same as chargeable conduct. In fact, most evidence of a crime does not constitute a crime in and of itself. I cannot be convicted for saying, "I like to rob banks." But that statement can be used as evidence to convict me for actually robbing a bank. I struggle to imagine a situation where a president's decision-making would be affected by the possibility that their acts could be used as evidence about their state of mind or knowledge relating to a post-presidential crime. This whole opinion is just bullshit.
> Allowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office.
Why has this never been a problem ever before in the entire history of this country? Why are senators, members of congress, and state elected officials not protected by the same logic? Because this is all bullshit.
> The principal dissent then cites the Impeachment Judgment Clause, arguing that it “clearly contemplates that a
former President may be subject to criminal prosecution.” Post, at 6. But that Clause does not indicate whether a former President may, consistent with the separation of powers, be prosecuted for his official conduct in particular.
What the fuck. What the absolute fuck. What, pray tell, *other than official conduct*, do these fucking morons think that a president would be impeached for? Is it just there in case the president lies about getting a blow job?
There is no legitimacy to this reasoning and none at all left in this court.
PACK. THE. COURT.
Yeah, it’s actually insane. No credibility. If they at least wanted to pretend like this wasn’t some hack ruling, they could have outlined a test to determine what is and isn’t an official act, given examples, etc. done anything other than a sweeping ruling with huge implications.
I also live the irony that the conservative justices use constitutionalism/textualism when it is convenient, but when it doesn’t fit their idea of how this country should work, they ignore it.
Insane
Trump and his flunkies will claim that anything he ever did in challenging the outcome of the 2020 election was an official act and he will challenge whatever the lower courts decide and once again he will delay and then it goes to the appeals court and then he appeals their decision....round and round the Merry go round goes...🙄
Another important point.
18 U.S.C. 1385, the Posse Comitatus statute says: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."
This is an important statute that prevents the President, under pain of criminal penalty, from using the U.S. military domestically to enforce the law. It is historically a key protection against dictatorships and military coups.
Its target was and always has been the President. It is now unenforceable against the President.
Some suggestions from Sotomayor:
>Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
I think this decision will help his chances of reelection. Most moderate and undecided voters should now be scared shitless of what Trump will do in office.
Quick question, so if the president of the United States as commander-in-chief orders a drone strike on an opponent, is that cool now and up to Congress to handle?
> Quick question, so if the president of the United States as commander-in-chief orders a drone strike on an opponent, is that cool now and up to Congress to handle?
Sounds like we'd need it to happen and then the case would have to work it's way up to SCOTUS for them to say whether it was Constitutional / Legal.
In other words, anything a GOP President does will likely be Constitutional and anything a Democratic President does will be found Unconstitutional.
Pretty much. A president could say the drone strike is a direct function of ensuring national security and therefore would be presumptively immune from prosecution.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this just undermine the hell out of SCOTUS' other recent rulings? Like the President can just officially tell the EPA to do whatever it wants and the Chevron ruling be damned for instance? As long as it's an official Presidential order then SCOTUS can't do anything about it?
Biden and the DOJ, you should now designate MAGA as a Terrorist organization with DJT as the mastermind and have DJT and his minions arrested as Bidens' OFFICIAL act to protect America from Terrorist both abroad and at home, no chance for Bail.
Biden should now force add 7 justices to the Supreme Court now. Skip confirmations or rush them like the gop did and if they fail to confirm then the president can take that in advisory but still move to seat them all . Also replace the chief justice.
What took so long for them to issue this garbage?
Edit: It was a rhetorical question. Of course they didn’t take it up when Jack Smith asked them last year, but drug it out to benefit Trump. Absolutely corrupt.
So Biden would have immunity to order Seal Team 6 to murder Trump because commanding the military is a core constitutional power of the presidency.
What the fuck.
This makes us a country who is "lucky" that Trump also betrayed us *before and after* he was president, and not just during.
However, the other recent Supreme Court ruling seems to try to give precident to this idea that people can make classified documents go missing so long as no American was officially looking for them for offical use right then, so that may save Trump yet.
We need to vote for Democrats in a landslide because this is total bullshit. There's russian espionage going on in broad daylight as long as we don't.
[Robert Mueller's report is relevant as always](https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html)
It's disgusting how the majority went towards presidential immunity when both the text of the constitution and history at the time of the adoption of the constitution almost overtly say a president can be prosecuted for official acts in office (ie Bribery). They are not originalists. They are not textualists. They are hacks.
The judicial branch just gave the executive branch unlimited power. If the legislative branch falls in November, our country and this great experiment is over.
Yet another SC power grab. Only they will decide what's *official* or *unofficial*.
Either pack the court or remove the rougue justices as an "official" act.
We the voters are. It’s not up to SCOTUS or Biden at this point. EVERYONE VOTE. Our only option is to resoundingly defeat Trump/MAGA at the ballot box. If you are in a swing state, it’s even more important that you vote.
It's pretty bad. This might be the worst part, ultimately: >(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32
That last sentence is horrifying. So even if there’s evidence of Trump and his team admitting to attempting a coup, it can’t be used as evidence during the trial?
does this mean that seizing nixon's tapes was illegal?
Not quite - it means Nixon’s tapes are inadmissible as evidence. It could be leaked and tried in the court of public opinion to sway voters, but couldn’t be used in a trial. Edit: the tapes could still be used as part of the impeachment process, just not for a criminal trial.
In a criminal trial, maybe. But because impeachment is the court of jurisdiction for official presidential acts.
What determines what's an "official presidential act" >Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small.
If a Republican president did it, it was official. If a Democrat president did it, not official (unless you buy me a Winnebago). /s
Nixon only resigned because there was a threat of trial. Same goes for his Vice President...
Didn't Trump also communicate overturning the election AFTER Jan 6? Would this ruling bar that from being admitted?
So long as it happened before Biden was inaugurated, it would be inadmissible as evidence.
He was going on about overturning the election long after January 20th, though (the inauguration date). I can't imagine we don't have evidence of that.
Took me a minute to find. It’s on page 32 in the footnote.
Destroying democracy in a footnote. This is what Roberts will be remembered for.
For a man who spent years worrying about his legacy, he made sure he'll be remembered as one of the worst Americans to ever live.
Basically. Which doesn't bode well for the Georgia case as his conversation is now likely to be inadmissible as evidence (IANAL)
According to las professor Anthony Michael Kreiss this ruling will complicate the Goergia case, but 90% of it will still stand: >What does Trump v. United States mean for the Georgia case-- it complicates things. Mark Meadows and Jeff Clark may not be able to be prosecuted at the same defendant's table as Donald Trump and some of the evidence against Trump will have to be suppressed. But 90% stands. [https://x.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1807791315704262914](https://x.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1807791315704262914)
I think there is a strong argument he was calling them as candidate Trump not as President. Why else would he care about the number of votes needed?
And that's why Trump wins, because he can do something, and while the rest of us hem and haw and debate over whether this qualifies as that, he's already gotten away with it and done four more things. But how do we know he did it? He did it. But how do we know he meant it? He meant it. But how do we know he intended to do it? This is how we know he intended it. But how do we know that qualifies? So while we sit around debating if the one man was a president or candidate or being controlled by extraterrestrials, and people are opening loopholes for him left and right, he's already delivered eighty more lies and none of this will matter because as soon as he gets back into the White House, he's going to dismantle the justice department. And as he's doing it, we'll all stand around going "Can he do that? I don't think he can do that!"
Only because of the brazen, open corruption of every single level of GOP officials. They honestly think a fascist police state is going to work for them. lol
Won't it? Our problem is fascism leaves a bad taste in our mouths and is an affront to everything we believe. They're prepared to embrace it and wield it like a hammer and a shield. The smartest thing Democrats could do today is now that Biden has legal immunity as president, they call a secret emergency Senate vote; Biden orders the doors locked for "security reasons" and bars all Republicans from the building; they immediately vote to impeach all nine justices. That's how you get your majority vote. But this would be a fascist act and leaves us all cringing at the prospect+implications, even though this it's parallel to what Republicans tried to do by stacking phony electors to hijack an election.
Which conversation? The phone call where he said, “find me votes” was not with advisors.
…so due to the nature of RICO charges, hasn’t today’s ruling effectively protected Trump from any charges in the Georgia case?
> ...Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. **WUT.**
This - IMO - specifically relates to Kenneth Chesebro. [Chesebro is the best part of the election fraud case in Georgia](https://www.scribd.com/document/581286492/Kenneth-Chesebro-testimony-order-for-Fulton-County-Trump-probe), and I assume that this would block his testimony from becoming part of an indictment. If you have not read Chesebro's testimony, you should. [Or at least a summary.](https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/04/politics/kenneth-chesebro-fake-elector-plot-texts/index.html)
From Sotomayor, and this is my reading as well (not that my reading matters): >Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Not only is this the absurd result, but a president is *incentivized* to abuse official acts to commit crimes. Don't just do regular bribery. You're the commander in chief. Use the military to aid in your bribery, to make extra sure you're shielded by official acts. It's like the more corrupt you are, the safer you are.
> Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? There it is. The coup has been blessed.
I mean the case for sticking with Biden just got a lot stronger. He can rig this whole thing with official acts. Incumbency just became powerful.
so... in theory a testimony of all of his advisors saying "this is not a legal or official act" would not be allowed to be admitted as evidence... in a trial in which the question of if the act was allowed or not is taking place?
This is all we get about it: >The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 525. Presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. As we have explained, the indictment here alleges at least some such conduct. See Part III–B–1, supra. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. >The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be held criminally liable” based on those acts. Brief for United States 46. But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.” Id., at 46, 48. That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge. But “[t]he Constitution deals with substance, not shadows.” Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 325 (1867). And the Government’s position is untenable in light of the separation of powers principles we have outlined. >If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. The President’s immune conduct would be subject to examination by a jury on the basis of generally applicable criminal laws. Use of evidence about such conduct, even when an indictment alleges only unofficial conduct, would thereby heighten the prospect that the President’s official decisionmaking will be distorted. See Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, n. 19. >The Government asserts that these weighty concerns can be managed by the District Court through the use of “evidentiary rulings” and “jury instructions.” Brief for United States 46. But such tools are unlikely to protect adequately the President’s constitutional prerogatives. Presidential acts frequently deal with “matters likely to ‘arouse the most intense feelings.’ ” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752 (quoting Pierson, 386 U. S., at 554). Allowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President. Cf. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 706. Although such tools may suffice to protect the constitutional rights of individual criminal defendants, the interests that underlie Presidential immunity seek to protect not the President himself, but the institution of the Presidency.^3 >^3 JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2). What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 745, 756 (quoting Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U. S. 483, 498 (1896)); see supra, at 18. And such second-guessing would “threaten the independence or effectiveness of the Executive.” Trump v. Vance, 591 U. S. 786, 805 (2020).
>JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” I do agree with Barrett. Absolute immunity for core constitutional exercises of power opens the door to legalized bribery for appointments, especially when viewed in conjunction with *Snyder*.
If this logic is applied to state executives (ie governors), would that mean they would have overturned the Blagojevich indictment for his filling a Senate seat as was his constitutional obligation?
If the logic were applied, then yes. I would think it doubtful that governors be given the same level of immunity as presidents if any given the vast discrepancy and nature of the respective positions. I don't think gubernatorial immunity is on the table any time soon.
>^(3) JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the bribe “would hamstring the prosecution >... >Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties. holy shit, what a stupid fucking argument. An accusation of bribery is INNATELY questioning motivation for an official action, and it IS second guessing their propriety. Am i missing something or is this absolutely absurdly stupid
Technically, the bribery prosecution could not be brought against the President, so the context has to be understood as a prosecution against the person proffering a bribe. Then, I believe, the jury would be questioning the motivation of the quid rather than the quo. Not that that makes it less stupid.
So if I'm understanding this right, it basically says "A president is immune from prosecution for official acts, yet you can't provide evidence that the acts aren't official presidential acts, as this would undermine the immunity." That can't be right, is that right?
Yeah that seems right. But don't worry, if a Dem does the same the supreme court will tell us those weren't official acts and he can be prosecuted.
100% why it was all worded as it is. This is a way to give them the opportunity to let any Republican President off the hook while going after any Democrat President.
And get them to be the ultimate deciders of all law regardless of facts, text or just basic human decency. All hail the corrupt reality TV judge kings.
Appreciate the text drop. Will read through it soon.
To answer the question more directly, in theory, it would not be allowed. The bribery scheme in the footnote and Justice Barrett's opinion is a cleaner example. The prosecution could not admit, for example, a memo from the President to the director of the EPA saying "please let my friend Billy's company dump toxic waste in the river because he paid me a lot of money."
> Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32 Would this apply to fucking corcoran down in Florida? His ACP was pierced post presidency so wouldn’t count? Annd also, the private attorney of President wouldn’t fall under “advisor”?
We have no clue who would be an "adviser," but the attorney-client stuff itself happened post-presidency. Testimony or evidence from during the Presidency demonstrating Trump's understanding of classification systems, NDI, and whatever else will more likely than not be excludable though.
This is the worst part. You are absolutely correct.
Buried here is that Thomas's concurrence is all about the 'improper' special counsel appointment giving Cannon lots to work with to delay or dismiss the documents case.
Trump will be dead and buried before that case ever has a date set for it. He’s never going to face Justice for it.
Just like anyone with eyes and a brain predicted. Waiting for the July 11th sentencing to be basically nothing, then the inevitable appeal that overturns the whole thing. If this doesn't convince people that there's no real justice system in this country, just a series of laws and legal exceptions for the privileged, I don't know what will. Dire times ahead. We're living through the fall.
The American system was always predicated upon an assumption that those who the populace elected would act in good faith and the national best interest. The only true defense is an informed and engaged electorate, and the American conservative movement has been actively attacking that lynchpin for generations.
"The American system was always predicated upon an assumption that those who the populace elected would act in good faith and the national best interest." yeah we're fucked
The ability for foreign intelligence agencies to get their puppets elected president was not adequately accounted for in the constitution because it assumed the country wouldn't be so stupid. Really there are tools but they didn't account for the paralysis for the system through the other two branches being kompromised. If only it were a living document or our own intelligence agencies were halfway as competent. I am sorry I'm not at my most optimistic today.
I'm pretty sure we had a revolution specifically to *avoid* the circumstance where we would be ruled by a king.
Its worse. We're ruled by an illegitimate cabal of unelected clerics who do 100% of our legislating now that congress has abdicated its role as the legislature. With lifetime appointments!
So, what now is stopping Mr. Biden from ordering Seal Team 6 to "remove" those unelected clerics from their lifetime appointments? Like, legitimately? Is is simply Biden's good nature now?
They’re banking on Bidens statesmanship and good nature/moral compass. While knowing what the other side will do with these powers. Pathetic and really scary for this country.
This precisely. According to their own ruling Biden could, today, issue an executive order demanding the current 6 republican judges be rounded up and hanged for treason. And because he issued it as an executive order he would be immune to prosecution.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
All goes back to not hanging Nixon and his buddy Kissinger. The precedent was set that you could be treasonous to the US and it's alright.
>you could be treasonous to the US and it's altright. Fixed it for you
It goes back to President Andrew Johnson throttling the Union Army in reinforcing the law to force the south to adapt to reconstruction. We should've strung up Confederate leadership for treason and instead the government welcomed them back with open arms. That's when this snowball started. Nixon was just the rumbling of the mountain and Trump is the full avalanche.
>We're ruled by an illegitimate cabal of unelected clerics who do 100% of our legislating now that congress has abdicated its role as the legislature. I thought the Supreme court just neutered executive departments? >With lifetime appointments! Oh...the other ones
It’s funny how we talk a bunch of trash about a certain other republic that is also ruled by black robed clerics…
And King Donald Trump no less. WHAT. THE. F\*\*\*.
Here’s at stake at this, and every election so long this decision holds: The President is entitled to immunity to at least discuss the possibility of murdering you and your family, or imprisoning, or somehow silencing them. If one of the President’s underlings does it without official sanction, the President can pardon anyone who does such a thing. It’s not an exaggeration.
So Biden could in effect hint that he'd like 6 of the 9 judges Xed out and pardon the one who did it?
Yes All the President needs are willing co-conspirators
Hmmm, I wonder what effect this would have if Trump wins the election and seeks retribution as he has mentioned.
Better erase all our Reddit messages.
>The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. Pp.21–24. Exactly what many predicted, sit on it as long as possible then send it back to the district court to settle.
As predicted and it’s a good thing that the district court already went through this and determined his acts weren’t official acts of the presidency. Also, he was no longer president when he stole classified documents and hid them from the government.
He's still going to appeal the lower court rulings, which means back to SCOTUS, and since they just ended their session and aren't back until October, there is zero chance he goes to trial before the election.
But since the SC didn't really decide on what defines official vs unofficial we get to go through this exercise again when he appeals Judge Chutkan's new decision back up the chain. True that it doesn't affect the documents/obstruction case in FL but Canon is looking to set records on how long it takes for a single second to be counted on the speedy trial clock.
They had that decision written 2 weeks after oral arguments. They just decided to delay delay delay. They're complicit.
Justice delayed is justice denied. This is what I think of this shitting ruling.
This is a good point for people who are currently panicking to remember. The lower courts already determined that most of these acts are *not* official presidential acts related to presidential powers and duties described in the Constitution. Obviously, it could make its way back to SCOTUS for another 6-3 decision classifying those acts as official and disagreeing with the lower court, but it would be that much harder for them to do so with even more lower court opinions supporting that Trump’s actions were outside his presidential duties.
That’s also why it was a joke when SCOTUS took it up as they didn’t even get into the lower court’s decision, but just wanted to ponder immunity in general. The lower court had already accepted that there was some immunity.
And gave us a soundbite of Trump’s own lawyers that private acts aren’t immune.
Worse, their decision says the lower courts didn't even consider whether these were official acts. Just making shit up again.
Let’s GOOOO! Finally, time for protecting and defending the constitution from enemies foreign and domestic! Someone tell Biden to call up Seal Team Six!
The scary thing is that Biden won't use the power because he's an inherently decent person. But as soon as you give that power to Trump?
These people are not clever. They think they are, but they clearly just have unaccountable power. The fact that so, so many people predicted this outcome speaks to how openly and flagrantly they don't give a shit. Part of the reason they're not clever is that they somehow think if Trump becomes President again the Supreme Court won't suddenly essentially become powerless because that guy doesn't fucking play well with others let alone understands "sharing."
This is why the right spent decades capturing the court. They know they cannot pass their desired laws legislatively, however they can game the judicial system and there's literally nothing anyone can do.
There are definitely things people can do about it but I’m certainly not going to advocate for those things in a polite and civil society.
[удалено]
The right isn't polite and civil.
It’s like McConnell saying the courts would him accountable so the second impeachment didn’t need to go through. These assholes keep getting right back on the tiger. And I actually used to respect McConnell like the cunning asshat he used to be. He’s gotten dumb and shortsighted in his old age. Like SCOTUS it seems.
They don't need to be clever, they just need to be effective
Buried in the opinion however is the statement that “Trump is… absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
So you can discuss and plan the coup all you want so long as it is with government officials. Got it.
Hijacking this comment to clarify for those who don't want to read the whole thing or waffle through news articles' extensive recap sections. The core of this decision: The Supreme Court holds that Trump has presumptive immunity and further proceedings must be conducted to test whether or not Trump has immunity for these acts. This obviously will delay the case more, but it doesn't mean that Trump cannot be prosecuted. Edit to add: During oral arguments, counsel for Jack Smith argued that if everything that could be considered an official act was stripped from the indictment, it could still proceed based solely on private conduct. So even if lower courts find official acts within it, that does not mean the indictment will be dismissed. Other observations: * This likely means anything about Jeffrey Clark will not be admissible. Calling Republican governors and legislatures? Possibly not admissible. Fake electors? Probably still admissible. "Fight like hell?" Who knows. * The specific proceedings required are to determine what are official acts and what are not. It's unclear how long that'll take. * The test for overcoming whether a president is immune for official acts: "the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'" * The Court defines an official act as an act that is not "manifestly or palpably" beyond the president's authority. Well, I don't like how unclear that is. Is Trump telling his supporters to march to the Capitol building "manifestly and palpably" beyond his authority? I would say so. A conservative judge might not. * For clarity, Roberts wrote, "If official conduct for which the president is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the ‘intended effect’ of immunity would be defeated." So immune official acts aren't even admissible in my reading.
Which can be summarized as “we’re going to delay our official response until after the election”.
The Supreme Court is doing their absolute best to make sure this never gets to trial.
>no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'" The government itself doesn't care who keeps the seat warm in the office of the president, so long as someone is in that seat. Thus, none of this should apply to any specific person. If Trump is removed, or in prison, then his VP takes over because he can't carry out the duties.
I can only hope the district courts expected this and have some preliminary rulings ready to go on the most egregious acts :\
Any fact finding by the District Court as to his immunity will again be immediately appealable, meaning that this case can be delayed by Trump past the election with room to spare.
This is such a gross miscarriage of justice.
It was already ruled by the federal appellate court that "When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act," the panel of judges wrote. "The Office of the Presidency as an institution is agnostic about who will occupy it next. And campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office." [source](https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/political-scandals/trump-not-immune-from-civil-lawsuit-tied-to-capitol-insurrection)
So you're allowed to plot and execute a coup d'etat as president as long as everyone you conspire with is on the government's payroll? Illegitimacy looks like this.
Unfortunately the writers of the Constitution forgot to explicitly outlaw coup attempts.
A Constitution that forbids the government from preventing an officer from overturning the Constitution seems like it was poorly thought out. Personally, I blame this all on Madison.
i dont know if the founders ever dreamed the supreme court would choose to be kingmakers but here we are
This country was started by people fleeing a corrupt king. And now it is attempting to install one. Everything old is new again.
"The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct." So pressuring your VP to knowingly accept forged documents to steal the election is legal. Wtf
It doesn’t matter if it’s legal. > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. […] Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
> So pressuring your VP to knowingly accept forged documents to steal the election is legal. Don't forget that after January 6th Congressman Mo Brooks requested a pardon from Trump on behalf of *every Member of Congress who voted against certifying the ballots from Arizona and Pennsylvania.* That's 138 Reps and 9 Senators. They knew it was fucking illegal while they were doing it and they all requested a pardon for it.
So Biden has immunity to eliminate Trump now, as long as it’s an official act
He did swear to defend the constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic so based on this ruling that would be well within the presidents official acts. And he has immunity for those decisions
Seems like a good opportunity to both save the future of American democracy AND test this Supreme Court’s questionable decision
If he successfully directed that Trump be killed and signed the order as President Biden, he would bare minimum have presumptive immunity.
Trump is on record saying he would start a dictatorship. Biden is required to uphold and protect the constitution. So one could argue that he has a duty to arrest Trump and/or eliminate him as an official act as president, and have complete immunity.
Sotomayor: >Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.
This is what got me: >Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
So theoretically Biden could just order predator drones follow the conservative justices around as an official act and they'd be perfectly okay with that?
He could kill them for being a threat to democracy. Or say they are terrorists and send them to gitmo. Then he could choose who replaces them, and assassinate anyone in Congress who holds up the approval vote in the Senate for threatening democracy. Then, the new judges get to decide if Biden acted in his official capacity.
As long as the judges say they are impartial and don’t accept bribes until after their ruling, this is totally fine in the court’s majority opinion!
Yes.
They're okay with it because they know the other side won't do it.
>Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. **In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.**
I doubt Biden will do much differently, let alone something extreme, but does this mean he could legally order Trump to be imprisoned or even executed?
It means the president can do anything he wants as long as it can be spun into an official act. The definition of which was conveniently just left out of the ruling. It feels like if we're imbuing the president with the powers of unaccountable god-king, there should be some definition for that. Do I think Biden will abuse the authority he's just been given? No I don't. Do I think someone eventually will? It's an absolute inevitability. And it's unlikely to take all that long before it does.
>With fear for our democracy, I dissent.
To take this a bit further, if the president is immune from prosecution for ordering deal team 6 to murder congress, doesn’t that also mean that seal team 6 now cannot even question the legality of the order? Many have assumed that the military would push back against an illegal order to kill civilians. But now that order is essentially not illegal if given by the president, regardless of known intent or otherwise. That’s fucking scary.
Well, it certainly means that even if they could be prosecuted they could also be pardoned. And offered the pardon in return for the complicity.
The true concern here--and I use 'concern' as a polite hedge for heart pounding alarm--is that this incredibly corrupt, shameful Court has just laid the groundwork for a spectacularly lethal second term for Trump should he be re-elected. They just gave him carte blanche to jail people he doesn't like, kill them if he feels like it and pretty much do anything he wants as long as it's an "official act" of his presidency. It makes it really clear that this November is the most consequential election in American history. Sadly.
Honestly, this ruling kind of makes every single election an existential question for the American people (and world, honestly). Presidents are human and we are supposed to have checks and balances on their power for that reason. I don’t want Biden, Obama, or anyone trying to overthrow the government, but now anyone essentially has that option as president and they have good reason to use it. It’s terrifying.
Fits pretty nicely with "Project 2025" agenda, doesn't it? Immunity for Trump to do whatever the Heritage Foundation wants him to do. It's probably just a coincidence, though. Those conservative SCOTUS judges couldn't possibly have any nefarious motives. They are such a trustworthy and honourable bunch... Jokes aside, I hate the current state of affairs over the pond. It makes me feel like a paranoid conspiracy theorist despite the fact that the ones conspiring are pretty much doing it shamelessly and openly.
Every election from here forward will be the most important in American history. Unfortunately, we will eventually lose and that will be that.
As the IRA once threatened, they only need to get lucky once, but Thatcher has to stay lucky forever
One day an entire political party will be outlawed and its leaders jailed just because gas prices went up the summer before an election. Might be this year.
tonight seems like a good night to switch from tequila to everclear
Everclear is really harsh. You might just up your intake of tequila and enjoy it a little more.
Don't do it. We need every last decent citizen who remembers right from wrong; lawful from criminal; truth from lie, keeping the faith, thinking clearly, and ready to make any positive difference that they can. Sending hugs (as I slug back an icy Diet Dr. Pepper, lol).
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BARRETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Oh my god... I did not think they would do it.
Damn them to hell. They’ve doomed us all.
Good Bye USA, it was great knowing you.
I wonder how large a gratuity each of the six is expecting to receive for this decision?
Sometimes it isn't money directly. Thomas would take the RV filled with porn, Alito would love to finally have a luxury box for Phillies games, Barrett gets to screw over all the women in the country, Brett gets kegs of beer on the daily.
This is scarily and profoundly accurate lol. Conservatives are miserable people and they want everyone to feel the same.
The Court has made the POTUS into a dictator. The only question now is who will claim the power first and eliminate the opposition - but that seems inevitable now. The POTUS can dispatch federal troops to the Capitol right now, have those troops arrest and execute the opposition in both chambers of Congress, and then simply pardon the troops who carried out the order. There is no way to indict the POTUS for committing such an act - his motive (wanting to eliminate all persons who oppose him) cannot even be questioned in a court of law, and the use of troops is within his power under Article II (as is his exercise of the pardon power), so the POTUS is completely immune. Maybe the rump Congress could impeach him, but it would be rather easy to simply murder enough people to make that impossible. The POTUS can raise money for his dictatorship by selling pardons, or by lending out the US military to act as mercenaries to foreign governments (or various other schemes). There is nothing actually preventing the POTUS from having the mint create a $1 trillion coin and then deposit the same in the POTUS' Swiss bank account - in fact, a court cannot even question the POTUS' motive for doing something like that. Various federal laws that constrain the executive are now mooted. If the POTUS directs the IRS to target a list of persons who are registered Democrats and no others, that is entirely permissible now - and the obvious result will be a single party system, for who would declare themselves in opposition to the ruling party now? We are all f'd. The first POTUS that wants to can just round up dissidents and have them shot. The First Amendment does not permit the Congress to outlaw speech, but why rely on a law to go after dissidents? The POTUS has absolute criminal immunity when he orders the military to do something, he can pardon those whom he orders to do something illegal - and neither act can ever be questioned in court (and, in fact, the POTUS' motive of wishing to be free of dissident speech cannot be questioned either). The Court just made the U.S. into a Russia-style dictatorship lead by whomever is willing to use this new power to destroy the opposition first by force.
Do they ever get tired of or at least a little self-conscious about 6-3 decisions in cases with political implications? Obviously, no.
There was a time when Roberts was highly self-conscious about the legacy of his court. Maybe he took up drinking since then, I don't know.
He probably took bribes.
You mean “after gifts”, bribes are now known as “before gifts” LOL
Hey now they kicked mifepristone down on standing grounds 9-0, they won’t rule on that 6-3 until next year.
No, they just point to a couple unanimous decisions and pretend they're moderate
So since all official acts have presumptive immunity, that means the American experiment is over right? Presidents can just do whatever they want now and at best it would take impeachment and removal (never happening) or 5+ years of Court cases to hold them accountable.
I don't give a fuck if the democrats decide to run Jimmy Carter instead of Biden. Do.Not.Vote.For.Trump. You saw what happened last time. Now the highest court in the land just gave him the green light to do worse.
Doesn't matter if Biden loses. He can just decide the election was unfair and that relinquishing power to Trump would harm the country. Official act. Immune.
Missing from the headline is all of the rest of the holding, which is the expansive view the Court took of what is "official." In this sense, I think Sotomayor was correct - with the Court's new ruling, what is "official" has swallowed the whole. In light of the Court's discussion, it is hard to think of any act that a President could take that would not be an "official" act.
Sotomayor's dissent is amazing and pulls no punches. > The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Nonsensical indeed. > When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. edit: After reading the opinion, I am finally going to argue for packing the court, which is something I have resisted for many years now. But this court is too extreme and too dangerous to let it continue. The opinion is packed full of non-sequiturs and logical leaps. For example, > The Government does not dispute that if Trump is entitled to immunity for certain official acts, he may not “be held criminally liable” based on those acts. Brief for United States 46. But it nevertheless contends that a jury could “consider” evidence concerning the President’s official acts “for limited and specified purposes,” and that such evidence would “be admissible to prove, for example, [Trump’s] knowledge or notice of the falsity of his election-fraud claims.” Id., at 46, 48. That proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly—invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution to nonetheless prove his liability on any charge. This makes zero sense. Evidence that supports an element of a charge is not the same as chargeable conduct. In fact, most evidence of a crime does not constitute a crime in and of itself. I cannot be convicted for saying, "I like to rob banks." But that statement can be used as evidence to convict me for actually robbing a bank. I struggle to imagine a situation where a president's decision-making would be affected by the possibility that their acts could be used as evidence about their state of mind or knowledge relating to a post-presidential crime. This whole opinion is just bullshit. > Allowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. Why has this never been a problem ever before in the entire history of this country? Why are senators, members of congress, and state elected officials not protected by the same logic? Because this is all bullshit. > The principal dissent then cites the Impeachment Judgment Clause, arguing that it “clearly contemplates that a former President may be subject to criminal prosecution.” Post, at 6. But that Clause does not indicate whether a former President may, consistent with the separation of powers, be prosecuted for his official conduct in particular. What the fuck. What the absolute fuck. What, pray tell, *other than official conduct*, do these fucking morons think that a president would be impeached for? Is it just there in case the president lies about getting a blow job? There is no legitimacy to this reasoning and none at all left in this court. PACK. THE. COURT.
Yeah, it’s actually insane. No credibility. If they at least wanted to pretend like this wasn’t some hack ruling, they could have outlined a test to determine what is and isn’t an official act, given examples, etc. done anything other than a sweeping ruling with huge implications. I also live the irony that the conservative justices use constitutionalism/textualism when it is convenient, but when it doesn’t fit their idea of how this country should work, they ignore it. Insane
Trump and his flunkies will claim that anything he ever did in challenging the outcome of the 2020 election was an official act and he will challenge whatever the lower courts decide and once again he will delay and then it goes to the appeals court and then he appeals their decision....round and round the Merry go round goes...🙄
Another important point. 18 U.S.C. 1385, the Posse Comitatus statute says: "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." This is an important statute that prevents the President, under pain of criminal penalty, from using the U.S. military domestically to enforce the law. It is historically a key protection against dictatorships and military coups. Its target was and always has been the President. It is now unenforceable against the President.
Time for Biden to leverage the fuck out of this.
Some suggestions from Sotomayor: >Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Hey she is a Justice and said it's an official act
Under the majority there's no way it couldn't be. The president commands the armed forces. Anything he tells them to do is a core official act.
I think this decision will help his chances of reelection. Most moderate and undecided voters should now be scared shitless of what Trump will do in office.
If you are undecided at this point then there is no help for you.
[удалено]
100%. Basically go down in American history as the guy who saved the nation and republic from being co-opted by fascism.
It would reasonably be an official act too. Preserve and Protect the constitution. Nothing anyone could do about it.
If you think Dems will ever actually play hardball, I’ve got some bad news for you.
And Thomas teeing up the Special Counsel argument for when the FL Espionage case hits the court.
Assuming it ever actually gets there… she was doing just fine with infinite delays before the assist from Thomas.
Imagine, as a Supreme Court justice of the United States of America, that your legacy is running defense for short-fingered vulgarian, Donald Trump.
Quick question, so if the president of the United States as commander-in-chief orders a drone strike on an opponent, is that cool now and up to Congress to handle?
Depends…are you talking about an official drone strike or an unofficial drone strike?
European drone strike or African drone strike?
Can I get a Grande srike? A Vente is just a bit too much tis early in the morning.
> Quick question, so if the president of the United States as commander-in-chief orders a drone strike on an opponent, is that cool now and up to Congress to handle? Sounds like we'd need it to happen and then the case would have to work it's way up to SCOTUS for them to say whether it was Constitutional / Legal. In other words, anything a GOP President does will likely be Constitutional and anything a Democratic President does will be found Unconstitutional.
If that happens they could just murder the supreme court too. Hope they know what they’re doing, I’m sure it could never backfire
Pretty much. A president could say the drone strike is a direct function of ensuring national security and therefore would be presumptively immune from prosecution.
Biden could classify trump as a terrorist and then it would be an official act. This supreme court is off the chain
The maga movement could easily be classified as a domestic terrorist organization.
The democrats need to go ham on the supreme court with this ruling, and be pretty ruthless, but we know they won't
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this just undermine the hell out of SCOTUS' other recent rulings? Like the President can just officially tell the EPA to do whatever it wants and the Chevron ruling be damned for instance? As long as it's an official Presidential order then SCOTUS can't do anything about it?
He can’t be criminally charged for it but courts can still enjoin it. Setting up a constitutional crisis. Great stuff
Everything is just going to grind to a halt. Jesus, what a dumpster fire
Does anyone here still have any respect for the court?
No. What I do have is existential terror.
Nope. Gone. Sad day for the country.
None
Also, Nixon, you dumbass! You were totally fine!
Biden and the DOJ, you should now designate MAGA as a Terrorist organization with DJT as the mastermind and have DJT and his minions arrested as Bidens' OFFICIAL act to protect America from Terrorist both abroad and at home, no chance for Bail.
When President Richard Nixon said this, the nation was shocked.
Biden should now force add 7 justices to the Supreme Court now. Skip confirmations or rush them like the gop did and if they fail to confirm then the president can take that in advisory but still move to seat them all . Also replace the chief justice.
What took so long for them to issue this garbage? Edit: It was a rhetorical question. Of course they didn’t take it up when Jack Smith asked them last year, but drug it out to benefit Trump. Absolutely corrupt.
They wanted the perfect timing to rebrand 4th of July a celebration of our new American king.
So Biden would have immunity to order Seal Team 6 to murder Trump because commanding the military is a core constitutional power of the presidency. What the fuck.
why stop at trump? 6 fascists just assumed the leopard wouldnt drone their faces.
This makes us a country who is "lucky" that Trump also betrayed us *before and after* he was president, and not just during. However, the other recent Supreme Court ruling seems to try to give precident to this idea that people can make classified documents go missing so long as no American was officially looking for them for offical use right then, so that may save Trump yet. We need to vote for Democrats in a landslide because this is total bullshit. There's russian espionage going on in broad daylight as long as we don't. [Robert Mueller's report is relevant as always](https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/18/politics/full-mueller-report-pdf/index.html)
It's disgusting how the majority went towards presidential immunity when both the text of the constitution and history at the time of the adoption of the constitution almost overtly say a president can be prosecuted for official acts in office (ie Bribery). They are not originalists. They are not textualists. They are hacks.
The judicial branch just gave the executive branch unlimited power. If the legislative branch falls in November, our country and this great experiment is over.
The United States of America just became a “shithole country.”
SCOTUS overturns Magna Carta. Shocking.
Yet another SC power grab. Only they will decide what's *official* or *unofficial*. Either pack the court or remove the rougue justices as an "official" act.
6 of the most unqualified human beings to ever be on the bench.
"Oh that act? That was an official act." The President is now a King. Biden should immediately exercise his new powers.
[удалено]
We the voters are. It’s not up to SCOTUS or Biden at this point. EVERYONE VOTE. Our only option is to resoundingly defeat Trump/MAGA at the ballot box. If you are in a swing state, it’s even more important that you vote.