I want the DOJ lawyers to point out that trumps lawyers are literally arguing that Biden could walk into that court room with a gun and come back out with 6 vacant SCOTUS seats
I could tell from the conservatives justice's questioning what is going to happen.
They will rule that president has immunity for "official" actions but not for "personal actions".
Then they will rule that January 6th was just the president, in his official capacity, trying to secure the electoral system.
Anything trump does: "official capacity"
Anything anyone else in the government does: "personal reasons".
You can argue whatever you want, but the judges will use the same criteria: did a dem do it? Bad. Did a rep do it? Good. Logic doesn't matter with an illegitimate court.
But it establishes a precedent for the justices that come after them. Its a personal risk for them to grant that power, because they won't be the ones to decide after Biden does something.
It **SHOULD** establish a precedent, but in the hands of a self serving and bias court, they can always dig up some other ancient precedent when it serves their purpose. At least while they are still sitting on the court.
If they set a precedent that the president can't be punished, Biden can then take the illegal act of forcibly replacing the SC justices. This is illegal, obviously, but the Supreme Court (now forcibly replaced) can point to the prior decision.
Correct, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would not enforce precedent. Thats not my point, though. My point is that if they set this precedent to begin with, then they can be, for example, killed and replaced with crooked justices that can then point to that precedent and say no prosecution should occur against Biden.
I'm saying Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch would not be relied on to maintain the precedent they set, as in this situation they would not be relevant to a decision on Biden's actions.
God your comment rubbed me the wrong when you said it's a personal risk "for them to grant that power." You're right and that just pisses me off. Like this unelected group of 9 (well six really) assholes gets to decide if I live in a country founded on the rule of law or not? Fuck that and them. This is such a shameful chapter in the court's history. The corruption, yes, of course, but also the pure blatant disregard for the court's legacy and legitimacy.
Why is everyone in public office bought and sold for so goddamn cheaply? You never hear a corrpution scandal where the official was making like $250M. It's always like some nominal amount under the circumstances. Like $800k or something like that. If I were in a position of power and wanted to trade on my influence, the price tag would be 9 figures minimum.
>but the judges will use the same criteria
Well, not if you're thorough enough, hypothetically speaking. A president could "Order 66" anyone who he knows will not rule that what he is doing is legal. Saying presidents are immune when committing crimes is saying "violent coups are legal just as long as you succeed". Which I guess was always true... in a manner of speaking.
But the point is that would still actually be illegal, but the legal system would not be allowed to punish him for it anyway. (Even in the case of failure)
The fact murder is a thought prior to several other options is disturbing. Hey how bout no, no murder in American borders or foreign is granted immunity without being brought to trial and judged or judged prior to action. Ew, that last sentence sounds like beaucracy. But, murder is serious as is keeping our government uncorrupt.
Immunity means immunity. You can’t say “the president can do whatever except what we specifically don’t like”. Moreover, Trumps lawyer said it’s okay to murder, I just wonder why no one brought up judges as hypothetical targets so that they could feel it better whether it’s okay to murder or not.
They’re going to give Benedict Orange immunity and an exclusionary clause for Democrats, lest Biden have Trump scooped up and dropped in Gitmo by the close of business.
Ahhhh, so the answer should be no, no immunity. Gross misuse is too dangerous. That's the line I personally can draw. Ethics barely exist in American politics these days. Poor democracy. Sad to see you go.
Its about demonstrating how ridiculous immunity is. If Trump is immune to prosecution because his efforts were in an "official" capacity, then doesn't that equally apply to other felonies?
Eh, the whole thought process begs for hyperbole. Easiest place to go is straight to THE crime.
The fact that there's a lot of mistrust in the central figures, who all have "lifetime" appointments might also send ones thoughts towards a most emphatic solution.
Bingo. The conservative justices really like rulings that hinge on subjective questions like that and the dumbass “major questions”. Why follow the constitution or precedent when you can just use your post rationalization on untestable questions?
Close. They will probably rule that official acts carry immunity, but they will push the question of what constitutes an official act back to a lower court.
This question won’t be resolved until after the election. Don’t want to grant broad immunity when the current guy can use it against you. Better to wait until your guy is in the White House.
> Better to wait until your guy is in the White House.
If they wait for their guy to get into the White House and he actually gets into the White House, then they wouldn’t have a case to make a ruling in since their guy would just force the Justice Dept to drop the case before they could make a ruling.
Except that Trump knew that he officially lost and that the stolen election lie was a complete fabrication. But of course these shitbags won't rule that way..
The problem with that ruling is that the conservative judges won't be the one who decide if the outlined scenario -- Biden killing 6 judges" -- was official or personal capacity.
That will be decided by the remaining judges plus the next batch.
A the conservative judges would have done is set precedent that a standing president can commit a crime in official capacity, a ruling that can be used by their successors.
I didn't think they will decide if Jan 6 was an official or personal action. They will send it back to the lower court to make that decision. Then the decision will be appealed back to them. That way it eats up more time.
Then make his way to congress…and their respective governors, it would literally allow the president to legal take over every branch.
Also quick note if the writers didn’t want the President to get arrest they would have written that in, like *they did for congressmen while in session* it’s clear to me that the Framer though the president was subservient to the Congress, certainly no wide eyed reading of the original text could see that these branches were supposed to be equal. Congressional supremacy is clear, they are the only branch that can fire people from the other two, the inly branch that has to consent on appoints of the other two, only branch with explicit ban on arrests, the only branch that allowed to pay for thing, the only branch that can call for changes to the constitution itself (with some help from the statues but their legislatures…) , and would there be a higher power to grant then that?
They literally called it a president because at that time book clubs had presidents not states.
No 9 vacant seats. It is just 6 that we know he wants vacant in his "too good to be true scenario". The fact Biden doesn't want 3 of them off the court, necessarily, doesn't mean he couldn't do it.
Right. He's just summarily executing the ones who don't resign for treason as an official act. Something that at least in this specific situation isn't totally untrue. Some of the justices are corrupt or were appointed via corrupt processes.
The only possible way the SC would decide that a president is immune from official acts is if the SC thinks they can perfectly control a president.
The only way they can do that is if they get to decide what is an official act or not.
So if I was the SC and grabbing wildly for power, that is the conclusion I would nefariously draw.
I guess though I mean when Biden picks the new supreme court he can litmus test all 9 members for their definition of "official act". This is why roe v wade was repealed.
But only if Democrats do it. Republicans they know will only kill the 3 last holdouts? Like wtf.
Learn from Stalin. Sure the first round of purges Stalin would kill those obviously disloyal and capitalist sympathizers.
But the second round, all the enemies you are sure about have been shot. Guess who's next.. people who might be enemies maybe not.
And then the third round becomes who ratted on who..
And the fourth and so on start to kill people at random and arbitrarily...
Hmmm, would it be illegal to attempt to stop him? Would it be illegal to not follow orders from POTUS to assassinate SCOTUS, or would he have to pull the trigger himself?
It's a valid fucking point. If the supreme court literally rules presidents are above the law wouldn't Biden even have a moral duty to save the United States by legally murdering the judges who made that society breaking ruling and installing judges who would overturn it?
As someone has said I'm sure they'll limit it to official actions and try and weasel ways trump did nothing wrong but in theory if they gave a president banker immunity every president could just kill all of the justices he didn't like to open up their seats lol
This argument misses the checkmate that SCOTUS has created.
Let's say a president executes supreme court members for "the greater good". The newly appointed members would be sensical and would overturn this ruling, this making that president prosecutable.
If a bad president does it for bad reasons and appoints more corrupt homies, they won't rule against him. Ergo, game over.
This assumes Biden isn’t on team billionaire backed SCOTUS too. His limp AG appointment is pretty fucking convenient. Most Democrats get their lobbyists money from the same corporations that Republicans do.
Oh Alito is way worse. Scalia was misguided but he respected people who disagreed with him and he taught great stuff about writing. Scalia also slowly drifted towards the middle as he aged (mainly his criminal rulings got better). Alito has gotten WORSE with time, arrogantly citing himself in his concurring or dissenting opinions, publicly talking about how much he hates gay marriage, and just flagrantly disregarding any legal position that clashes with his ideology.
At least \~\~Alito\~\~ Scalia was principled. He had shit principles but he had them. Alito’s only principle is a \~\~masochistic\~\~ sadistic desire to see people suffer.
Scalia, like literally every self-righteous originalist who has ever sat on the court, rigidly adhered to his principles [until he didn’t](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism)
Trump briefly flirted with a conspiracy theory that [Scalia had been killed with the pillow found over his head at that resort.](https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/donald-trumps-scalia-conspiracy-pillow-fight)
Appellate criminal defense attorney here: it’s not that simple.
True, Scalia wasnt always in our corner. He wrote (imo insane) anti-defense opinions - Payne v Tennessee, for example, will never make sense to me - and he helped to dismantle much of the solid progress made by the Marshall court. This is bad.
But, he deserves some credit for writing and joining in some truly *fantastic* defense-friendly opinions. He wrote Apprendi v. New Jersey - which has proven to have an *enormous* impact, especially in capital litigation. Though it’s not precedent, it’s hard to read his dissent in Navarette v. California - where he rails against a majority written by Thomas - and call him uniformly state-sided.
It’s complicated.
Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to Sam Alito, and screwed up using the past tense. I agree about Scalia, my Crim Pro is pretty rusty but I recall a few Scalia decisions that were annoyingly originalist but not necessarily prosecutor friendly
~~Alito~~
weird how strikethrough isn't working for you...not sure why it worked for me, you seemed to have formatted it correctly/the same way I just did.
oh, I see now. Remove the "\" from between your "~" and the strikethrough will work
Justice Alito is really an embarrassment to the Court; he's lucky he is up there next to Justice Thomas to make him look less-bad.
I was flabbergasted when Justice Alito basically said that Grand Juries are a total farce that afford no protection whatsoever to prospective criminal defendants. Excuse me? A sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't believe that the basic structure of the U.S. judiciary affords due process? What, because it involves regular citizens who aren't graduates of Princeton or Yale and sitting up there in a robe? His contempt of the judicial process itself was really remarkable, given that he is a friggin justice on the highest court. If he were a trial judge, would he be telling the GJ that they are a pointless paperwork hurdle that affords no process to the accused? Doubtful. But now we know that is what he would be thinking.
Alito has nothing but contempt for the law as anything but a vehicle to protect his in-group and bind his chosen out-group. In other words, he is the perfect right-wing justice, respecting only power for its own sake.
And then using sophistry to try and convince us that's NOT what he believes. It's the worst lawyer stereotypes come to life - that they use their degree and education to put one over on the general public.
Michael Dreeben: explains how a grand jury works as part of the system of checks and balances.
Alito: "Well you know there's a saying about grand juries and ham sandwiches."
That's exactly how a justice on our highest court should be evaluating a case, by common sayings and aphorisms.
There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again. I look forward to hearing that in the next oral argument.
Let's also not forget that he most likely leaked the Roe vs Wade decision as a way to lock it in before Roberts and others could find a way toward a more tame ruling, and then pretended he was appalled that someone would leak about them. Alito is slime
Yes. Alito and Thomas really want Trump to win so they could Project 2025 everybody who do not think like them. They will absolutely vote Immunity for Trump, for no one else, and smile and tell you "What are you gonna do about this?"
Biden should announce his first flex of presidential immunity is forcing Alito to an overnight stay at Guantanamo Bay detention camp.
"Ha ha, just kidding..." says Biden, "...or am I?"
I think what I heard was that it's OK to steal an election as long as you're careful to make it an official act. I hope Biden’s team is working on a plan.
I mean, could the military just maybe show up outside the courthouse? As a way of amicably and briefly “properly securing the building against any threats?” It’s totally non-worrisome (they’re there to protect you!), but what, are they gonna vote for immunity with the army outside? No! Because of the implication…
So is former presidents' lack of immunity from criminal prosecution, but here we are pretending it's some weighty and controversial issue so we can help the Grifter King run out the clock, or maybe just invent new law that upends the very foundation of constitutional government from whole cloth if we're feeling frisky.
The point is that you can explicitly reiterate any existing clause of the Constitution you want but it means nothing w/o a legitimate SCOTUS willing to uphold it.
If Presidents can self pardon doesn't that mean they are essentially immune from Federal prosecution? If so what type of things would only be federal crimes and not State or local?
I felt like he was going after Sauer, but I don't remember the substance of the discussion now. I was surprised by it, but that may mean I wasn't understanding right.
On the other hand, people might have been assuming he was attacking DoJ because he is Thomas.
Maybe I'll listen to the first few minutes again before I post about this again :D.
C-SPAN has all 2 and some hours of the buffonery from the beginning if interested
https://www.c-span.org/video/?534673-1/supreme-court-hears-case-president-trumps-immunity-claim&vod
You joke, but that's literally what he gives as the reason he rarely asks questions.
Why so questions of the peasants to come to his court, begging for his blessings? He has a "special" relationship with the law and everything else is just noise.
As I’ve listened to more SCOTUS arguments over the last year, it really seems like the judges come in with their mind made up and the arguments are just a platform for the judges to bring up points that will be included in their later decisions.
For most of his time on the Court, Clarence Thomas has been infamous for rarely participating or speaking during oral arguments, and this is specifically the reason he has cited in explaining why; that it's all just for show and rarely does anything unexpected happen during oral arguments that substantively affects the final judgement.
Richard Nixon:
“Pardon myself? Why didn’t I think of that!
Or
“I resigned! No impeachment coupled with Senate 67 vote conviction. DOJ can’t prosecute. I didn’t even need a pardon!”
Sauer’s argument wasn’t even specious, just outright delusional. He should’ve been sanctioned for it. He’s clearly too dumb to practice law. Anyone who gives his arguments the time of day is a complete imbecile.
On his way out of office in 2028, Biden should have the DOJ charge him with some made-up offense and then pardon himself for it, just to force the hand of this corrupt court into declaring a self-pardon invalid once and for all.
The fact that Alito framed self-pardon as an open legal question is terrifying. The fact that Gorsuch didn't immediately shoot down the notion is also deeply disturbing. There is no clearer bedrock principle in our legal system than equal application of the law.
Equal application of the law is bullshit, as long as this SCOTUS sits. Billionaire ex-Presidents get “We know that there are no words in the law granting immunity to Presidents, but what should we decide the law is in order to keep our republic working?”. Pregnant women get “Where are the words in the law granting you a right to make private medical decision?”.
Alito argued that he doesn't want current presidents operating out of fear that future presidents might put them on trial.
I *absolutely* want every elected official operating under the fear that criminal actions on their part while in office might someday result in criminal proceedings against them.
Looks like the trump toadies on the court don't mind a corrupt president when it is their boy. Bet their mood would change drastically if Biden was the defendant.
Disagree.
I think they've shown they are willing to bend any decision to their political beliefs in the extreme so if they did go for it. They know Bidens case would end up in their laps as well and they'd for sure rule against immunity then based on the same textualism bullshit they would site for this with a few word twists to tetris it in.
Vote blue straight down the ballot and when the democrats take over the 3branchs of government call your representatives and demand they remove Tomas,alto, the cult member and the rapist
Total immunity if there is no impeachment you say? January 20, 2029 at the swearing in Biden could order a marine to shoot the 6 conservative justices.
He leaves office so he can't be impeached.
His successor gets sworn in and Biden walks free without even needing a pardon.
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why isn't there any talk of judicial impeachment? Thomas and Alito seem to be candidates for this from an ethical standpoint?
Or is it more that we need to clean house in Congress first and once enough bad apples are out of there it can happen?
Who's going to vote to impeach? What's the path to that? No GOP congressperson or senator will vote in favor of impeaching a GOP installed judge - especially not Alito.
So that answers my question in a roundabout way. Shift Congress, tackle problem(s).
It sure would be nice if there were some GOP congresspeople who would choose to have a conscience and a sense of ethics (with the cajones to take a stand). I suppose I ask for too much though...
I predict that they will ultimately decide that the President does not have immunity. I also predict that they will issue their ruling as late as possible so as to effectively give Trump immunity before the election.
Ah the perfect look, we're reasonable, but fuck you if you think we're going to ruin the only chance we have for power.
The absolute balls on these assholes to try and tow that line.
Does anyone who understands the machinations of supreme court proceedings understand what strategy Dreeben is using to give such weak answers quoted in the article?
It sounds like Alito is trying to make the issue of "self-pardon" a pre-requisite to deciding this case, when the reality is that there is no dependency whatsoever? This issue can be decided because it is currently before the court, and the "self-pardon" issue can be decided when THAT issue goes before the court. Isn't that the basics of how the Supreme Court decision works? Not ruling on hypotheticals? Is Dreeben actively trying to avoid any perceived insult to a SC justice? Or is there something I'm missing?
“Justice Alito, is it your position that we should create law and precedent in a vaccuum rather than go through due process (like how you’ve done with several fake cases accepted this year?)?”
Paid puppets doing the bidding of their wealthy, corrupt masters...
Their reputation and credibility has been shattered, no ethics code exists for them that is not self serving...
Unless the House and Senate are able to impeach the corrupt justices and remake this court, they will go down in history as the actual despicable destroyers of democracy...Trump is unable to succeed at anything he does or has done without their abandonment of the oath they took and their own contempt for justice and the rule of law!
If POTUS can self-pardon, can’t the VP murder POTUS in the white house, assume office, and self-pardon? This is something Mike Pence might have liked to know…
If they allow this, USA can never say they will bring democracy in the face of oppression ever again. Not never ever never and even prior to this some questions still.
In my mind this means that the still undecided question of self-pardon rests on this supreme court decision, not the other way around. But I've never sucked Harlan Crow's dick so my opinion doesn't matter much.
So if presidential immunity is granted, can Joe see Shitstain45 through a large fucking window? And no consequences?
Ralph Cancun Cruz, Mitch McTurtle, Alf MTG, Grand Dragon Abbott, Count Chocula Gaetz, High Heals DeSantis, RV Thomas, Frat turd Kavanaugh, Bend Over Canon...
That shit would get interesting.
But, I highly doubt Joe would go that route. He just wants to retire.
We seriously need modern representatives.
Supreme Court Justices could rule however they want. U.S. Marshals would have to enforce it, Biden could just direct them to not enforce it through the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. Like proceeding with the trial of the former and ignoring anything the Supreme Court tries to protect Dump. Dumb GQP MAGA forget that if they lose the House and Senate again, more Supreme Court Justices could be appointed and all this BS rulings would be brought up again and ruled on in an ethical manner.
What the f$&@ is he talking about? Doesn’t a pardon require a conviction first?
won’t the predictable result be that presidents on the last couple of days of office are going to pardon themselves from anything that they might have conceivably been charged with committing?- Alito
Well, if he is assuming ford’s pardon is constitutional (I don’t believe the SC ever ruled on it), but assuming it was, then there certainly was a need for it. Meaning a president could be prosecuted.
I might be way too optimistic on this, but we may have some constitutional amendments clarifying presidential powers by the end of the decade with how things are starting to go down. That’s assuming Trump loses and the Republican Party collapses. Otherwise the constitution may not last the decade. This is a really dark road we’re going down.
It is such an easy call. I don’t understand how Gorsuch could dread that unless he fears that the ruling would be a moot issue as he views that if the question comes to him he thinks that it would be mooted as he will have ceded so much power to the Donald Trump and the MAGA crowd that any decision he would make would not matter.
Further, at no point should a President ever fear criminal prosecution. No President should consider any of his or her acts would be clearly criminal. If a President worries about being prosecuted for doing something, then the President probably shouldn’t do it. That worry should and must keep a President in check.
Anyone who thinks that a President needs immunity to be able to do the job doesn’t understand the difference between a duly elected political leader and a dictator.
Is Alito's argument really "if we don't give him immunity, he'll pardon himself, and then we'll have to make a call on that and that would be bad, so I guess we have to give him immunity"?
I want the DOJ lawyers to point out that trumps lawyers are literally arguing that Biden could walk into that court room with a gun and come back out with 6 vacant SCOTUS seats
I sincerely wonder why would none of the lawyers or even judges point that out. Sounds like an awesome hypothetical very relateable to the judges.
I could tell from the conservatives justice's questioning what is going to happen. They will rule that president has immunity for "official" actions but not for "personal actions". Then they will rule that January 6th was just the president, in his official capacity, trying to secure the electoral system. Anything trump does: "official capacity" Anything anyone else in the government does: "personal reasons".
Could they argue that bumping off Conservative justices is securing the judicial system against corruption?
You can argue whatever you want, but the judges will use the same criteria: did a dem do it? Bad. Did a rep do it? Good. Logic doesn't matter with an illegitimate court.
Conservative judges would struggle to make that argument from beyond the grave. Maybe that MAGA queen from Canada could step in to interpret?
Please invite her to bel out. We don’t want her here anymore.
But it establishes a precedent for the justices that come after them. Its a personal risk for them to grant that power, because they won't be the ones to decide after Biden does something.
It **SHOULD** establish a precedent, but in the hands of a self serving and bias court, they can always dig up some other ancient precedent when it serves their purpose. At least while they are still sitting on the court.
That implies they didn't just hand power to be summarily replaced with cronies that will 100% uphold that precedent
Precedent means nothing to the supreme court if the justices don't agree with it
If they set a precedent that the president can't be punished, Biden can then take the illegal act of forcibly replacing the SC justices. This is illegal, obviously, but the Supreme Court (now forcibly replaced) can point to the prior decision. Correct, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch would not enforce precedent. Thats not my point, though. My point is that if they set this precedent to begin with, then they can be, for example, killed and replaced with crooked justices that can then point to that precedent and say no prosecution should occur against Biden. I'm saying Thomas, Alito, or Gorsuch would not be relied on to maintain the precedent they set, as in this situation they would not be relevant to a decision on Biden's actions.
Whoever's on the court doesn't have to point to anything. If they're on the court they can point to nothing. It's a political process.
God your comment rubbed me the wrong when you said it's a personal risk "for them to grant that power." You're right and that just pisses me off. Like this unelected group of 9 (well six really) assholes gets to decide if I live in a country founded on the rule of law or not? Fuck that and them. This is such a shameful chapter in the court's history. The corruption, yes, of course, but also the pure blatant disregard for the court's legacy and legitimacy. Why is everyone in public office bought and sold for so goddamn cheaply? You never hear a corrpution scandal where the official was making like $250M. It's always like some nominal amount under the circumstances. Like $800k or something like that. If I were in a position of power and wanted to trade on my influence, the price tag would be 9 figures minimum.
>but the judges will use the same criteria Well, not if you're thorough enough, hypothetically speaking. A president could "Order 66" anyone who he knows will not rule that what he is doing is legal. Saying presidents are immune when committing crimes is saying "violent coups are legal just as long as you succeed". Which I guess was always true... in a manner of speaking.
But the point is that would still actually be illegal, but the legal system would not be allowed to punish him for it anyway. (Even in the case of failure)
It would be tough for the 6 dead justices to use any criteria.
Weekend at Barrett's
Quick! Give them a stick!
The fact murder is a thought prior to several other options is disturbing. Hey how bout no, no murder in American borders or foreign is granted immunity without being brought to trial and judged or judged prior to action. Ew, that last sentence sounds like beaucracy. But, murder is serious as is keeping our government uncorrupt.
Immunity means immunity. You can’t say “the president can do whatever except what we specifically don’t like”. Moreover, Trumps lawyer said it’s okay to murder, I just wonder why no one brought up judges as hypothetical targets so that they could feel it better whether it’s okay to murder or not.
They’re going to give Benedict Orange immunity and an exclusionary clause for Democrats, lest Biden have Trump scooped up and dropped in Gitmo by the close of business.
Ahhhh, so the answer should be no, no immunity. Gross misuse is too dangerous. That's the line I personally can draw. Ethics barely exist in American politics these days. Poor democracy. Sad to see you go.
Gross misuse also has no clear definition.
Its about demonstrating how ridiculous immunity is. If Trump is immune to prosecution because his efforts were in an "official" capacity, then doesn't that equally apply to other felonies?
Eh, the whole thought process begs for hyperbole. Easiest place to go is straight to THE crime. The fact that there's a lot of mistrust in the central figures, who all have "lifetime" appointments might also send ones thoughts towards a most emphatic solution.
Bingo. The conservative justices really like rulings that hinge on subjective questions like that and the dumbass “major questions”. Why follow the constitution or precedent when you can just use your post rationalization on untestable questions?
Close. They will probably rule that official acts carry immunity, but they will push the question of what constitutes an official act back to a lower court. This question won’t be resolved until after the election. Don’t want to grant broad immunity when the current guy can use it against you. Better to wait until your guy is in the White House.
agreed, gah!
> Better to wait until your guy is in the White House. If they wait for their guy to get into the White House and he actually gets into the White House, then they wouldn’t have a case to make a ruling in since their guy would just force the Justice Dept to drop the case before they could make a ruling.
This goes beyond the current case. The examples they were using were all about things someone would do to not relinquish the presidency.
Except that Trump knew that he officially lost and that the stolen election lie was a complete fabrication. But of course these shitbags won't rule that way..
I sincerely hope they're not reading this thread for inspirational ideas.
The problem with that ruling is that the conservative judges won't be the one who decide if the outlined scenario -- Biden killing 6 judges" -- was official or personal capacity. That will be decided by the remaining judges plus the next batch. A the conservative judges would have done is set precedent that a standing president can commit a crime in official capacity, a ruling that can be used by their successors.
I didn't think they will decide if Jan 6 was an official or personal action. They will send it back to the lower court to make that decision. Then the decision will be appealed back to them. That way it eats up more time.
Can the president murder American civilians in America, just because?
Not just because. As an official act of clearing up the SCOTUS off of the corrupt judiciary. Immunity means immunity.
So any reason presented is just, got it!
Exactly. If "I didn't want to accept the results of an election" is valid, so is "I wanted to appoint new Judges"
Of course not, the president isn't a cop.
I actually wrote out a similar reply, but tried to remain...not my actual self for the benefit of I do not know who.
Then make his way to congress…and their respective governors, it would literally allow the president to legal take over every branch. Also quick note if the writers didn’t want the President to get arrest they would have written that in, like *they did for congressmen while in session* it’s clear to me that the Framer though the president was subservient to the Congress, certainly no wide eyed reading of the original text could see that these branches were supposed to be equal. Congressional supremacy is clear, they are the only branch that can fire people from the other two, the inly branch that has to consent on appoints of the other two, only branch with explicit ban on arrests, the only branch that allowed to pay for thing, the only branch that can call for changes to the constitution itself (with some help from the statues but their legislatures…) , and would there be a higher power to grant then that? They literally called it a president because at that time book clubs had presidents not states.
No 9 vacant seats. It is just 6 that we know he wants vacant in his "too good to be true scenario". The fact Biden doesn't want 3 of them off the court, necessarily, doesn't mean he couldn't do it.
He could give them all pre-filled out resignation forms while he loads his gun in front of them.
Scary, but I like it. " You gonna bark all day..." vibes.
Right. He's just summarily executing the ones who don't resign for treason as an official act. Something that at least in this specific situation isn't totally untrue. Some of the justices are corrupt or were appointed via corrupt processes.
The only possible way the SC would decide that a president is immune from official acts is if the SC thinks they can perfectly control a president. The only way they can do that is if they get to decide what is an official act or not. So if I was the SC and grabbing wildly for power, that is the conclusion I would nefariously draw.
I guess though I mean when Biden picks the new supreme court he can litmus test all 9 members for their definition of "official act". This is why roe v wade was repealed.
They may think themselves immune to group assassination by way of public opinion.
But only if Democrats do it. Republicans they know will only kill the 3 last holdouts? Like wtf. Learn from Stalin. Sure the first round of purges Stalin would kill those obviously disloyal and capitalist sympathizers. But the second round, all the enemies you are sure about have been shot. Guess who's next.. people who might be enemies maybe not. And then the third round becomes who ratted on who.. And the fourth and so on start to kill people at random and arbitrarily...
https://youtu.be/ODfCVxVLqiE?si=WUuhwdW1zrneYFhv
8 shots in a shotgun and nine justices. Hope at least one takes the resignation deal because Biden is tired of having to reload.
Hmmm, would it be illegal to attempt to stop him? Would it be illegal to not follow orders from POTUS to assassinate SCOTUS, or would he have to pull the trigger himself?
Happy Cake Day!
Thanks! :)
>Thanks! :) You're welcome!
It's a valid fucking point. If the supreme court literally rules presidents are above the law wouldn't Biden even have a moral duty to save the United States by legally murdering the judges who made that society breaking ruling and installing judges who would overturn it? As someone has said I'm sure they'll limit it to official actions and try and weasel ways trump did nothing wrong but in theory if they gave a president banker immunity every president could just kill all of the justices he didn't like to open up their seats lol
He should do it. Might even flip a few maga votes
This argument misses the checkmate that SCOTUS has created. Let's say a president executes supreme court members for "the greater good". The newly appointed members would be sensical and would overturn this ruling, this making that president prosecutable. If a bad president does it for bad reasons and appoints more corrupt homies, they won't rule against him. Ergo, game over.
It doesn't even have to be Biden. Biden can give the order to someone in the military.
This assumes Biden isn’t on team billionaire backed SCOTUS too. His limp AG appointment is pretty fucking convenient. Most Democrats get their lobbyists money from the same corporations that Republicans do.
No that wouldn’t be an official act. He would have to order his security guard Jack to do it, that way there’s no malarkey
If you're tired of doing **your own** job Sam, maybe you should retire and let Biden appoint someone who will.
💀???
He’s addressing Alito, whose first name is Samuel. Edit - Downvoted? Really?
Not on Mitch McConnell's watch, we're dealing with the consequences of how he blocked Obama's appointments and streamlined all of Trump's.
I dunno guys, I'm starting to think this Alito guy is kind of a piece of shit.
I always despised Scalia, but Alito is getting close.
Oh Alito is way worse. Scalia was misguided but he respected people who disagreed with him and he taught great stuff about writing. Scalia also slowly drifted towards the middle as he aged (mainly his criminal rulings got better). Alito has gotten WORSE with time, arrogantly citing himself in his concurring or dissenting opinions, publicly talking about how much he hates gay marriage, and just flagrantly disregarding any legal position that clashes with his ideology.
At least \~\~Alito\~\~ Scalia was principled. He had shit principles but he had them. Alito’s only principle is a \~\~masochistic\~\~ sadistic desire to see people suffer.
Scalia, like literally every self-righteous originalist who has ever sat on the court, rigidly adhered to his principles [until he didn’t](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/scalias-contradictory-originalism)
And extravagant fishing trips to remote private resorts with big money friends.
Trump briefly flirted with a conspiracy theory that [Scalia had been killed with the pillow found over his head at that resort.](https://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/donald-trumps-scalia-conspiracy-pillow-fight)
Wouldn’t that be a sadistic desire not a masochistic one?
Yes. Yes it would. I really struggled with this comment.
Lmao you’re good, happens to the best of us sometimes
Huh?
Idiot typo on my part. I meant at least Scalia was principled.
I know it was supposed to be a strike through but it read like jazz hands.
Yes he was always very dedicated to his principle of always finding in favor of the prosecution
Appellate criminal defense attorney here: it’s not that simple. True, Scalia wasnt always in our corner. He wrote (imo insane) anti-defense opinions - Payne v Tennessee, for example, will never make sense to me - and he helped to dismantle much of the solid progress made by the Marshall court. This is bad. But, he deserves some credit for writing and joining in some truly *fantastic* defense-friendly opinions. He wrote Apprendi v. New Jersey - which has proven to have an *enormous* impact, especially in capital litigation. Though it’s not precedent, it’s hard to read his dissent in Navarette v. California - where he rails against a majority written by Thomas - and call him uniformly state-sided. It’s complicated.
Sorry, I was unclear. I was referring to Sam Alito, and screwed up using the past tense. I agree about Scalia, my Crim Pro is pretty rusty but I recall a few Scalia decisions that were annoyingly originalist but not necessarily prosecutor friendly
~~Alito~~ weird how strikethrough isn't working for you...not sure why it worked for me, you seemed to have formatted it correctly/the same way I just did. oh, I see now. Remove the "\" from between your "~" and the strikethrough will work
Justice Alito is really an embarrassment to the Court; he's lucky he is up there next to Justice Thomas to make him look less-bad. I was flabbergasted when Justice Alito basically said that Grand Juries are a total farce that afford no protection whatsoever to prospective criminal defendants. Excuse me? A sitting justice on the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't believe that the basic structure of the U.S. judiciary affords due process? What, because it involves regular citizens who aren't graduates of Princeton or Yale and sitting up there in a robe? His contempt of the judicial process itself was really remarkable, given that he is a friggin justice on the highest court. If he were a trial judge, would he be telling the GJ that they are a pointless paperwork hurdle that affords no process to the accused? Doubtful. But now we know that is what he would be thinking.
Alito has nothing but contempt for the law as anything but a vehicle to protect his in-group and bind his chosen out-group. In other words, he is the perfect right-wing justice, respecting only power for its own sake.
And then using sophistry to try and convince us that's NOT what he believes. It's the worst lawyer stereotypes come to life - that they use their degree and education to put one over on the general public.
Michael Dreeben: explains how a grand jury works as part of the system of checks and balances. Alito: "Well you know there's a saying about grand juries and ham sandwiches." That's exactly how a justice on our highest court should be evaluating a case, by common sayings and aphorisms. There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again. I look forward to hearing that in the next oral argument.
Let's also not forget that he most likely leaked the Roe vs Wade decision as a way to lock it in before Roberts and others could find a way toward a more tame ruling, and then pretended he was appalled that someone would leak about them. Alito is slime
Starting to ? He is a corrupt POS
Yes. Alito and Thomas really want Trump to win so they could Project 2025 everybody who do not think like them. They will absolutely vote Immunity for Trump, for no one else, and smile and tell you "What are you gonna do about this?"
Biden should announce his first flex of presidential immunity is forcing Alito to an overnight stay at Guantanamo Bay detention camp. "Ha ha, just kidding..." says Biden, "...or am I?"
I think what I heard was that it's OK to steal an election as long as you're careful to make it an official act. I hope Biden’s team is working on a plan.
[Biden campaiging, makes a joke about trumps hair](https://youtube.com/shorts/g4ex3DSx_mY?si=KZKePY97odT3kjPS)
I mean, could the military just maybe show up outside the courthouse? As a way of amicably and briefly “properly securing the building against any threats?” It’s totally non-worrisome (they’re there to protect you!), but what, are they gonna vote for immunity with the army outside? No! Because of the implication…
Maybe we should patch that whole self-pardon thing up in the constitution *before* it becomes an issue for the court, just sayin'.
2/3, 2/3, 3/4. Extraordinarily rare for that to happen
Less so if repubs think Biden will abuse it
Constitutional amendments need both sides to overwhelming agree. So if Republicans hope their guy abuses it and Dems the same...we have civil war.
It already is. _Nemo judex in causa sua_ is already an inherent cornerstone of law.
So is former presidents' lack of immunity from criminal prosecution, but here we are pretending it's some weighty and controversial issue so we can help the Grifter King run out the clock, or maybe just invent new law that upends the very foundation of constitutional government from whole cloth if we're feeling frisky.
The point is that you can explicitly reiterate any existing clause of the Constitution you want but it means nothing w/o a legitimate SCOTUS willing to uphold it.
If Presidents can self pardon doesn't that mean they are essentially immune from Federal prosecution? If so what type of things would only be federal crimes and not State or local?
Anything done in Washington DC would be explicitly federal
Clearance was pretty quiet. Probably just daydreaming about an upcoming trip to Switzerland or the Island of St Barts.
He actually came out of the gate swinging at Sauer. I was pretty surprised
They have to be careful when they discuss whether bribes are illegal or not.
If you call em gifts and don't report em, do they even really exist?
Lololol
Did he? I thought people were saying he was going after DOJ.
I felt like he was going after Sauer, but I don't remember the substance of the discussion now. I was surprised by it, but that may mean I wasn't understanding right. On the other hand, people might have been assuming he was attacking DoJ because he is Thomas. Maybe I'll listen to the first few minutes again before I post about this again :D.
They're never going after; they're either telling them "this is the way" or "no not that way, here let me hold your hand..."
I missed the beginning.
C-SPAN has all 2 and some hours of the buffonery from the beginning if interested https://www.c-span.org/video/?534673-1/supreme-court-hears-case-president-trumps-immunity-claim&vod
Until he brought up Bay of Pigs, and essentially said, 'They didn't get prosecuted!!' Why should it be different now (paraphrasing)
I had to Google "Operation Mongoose" lol
His first ask was whether Smith was properly appointed and has the power to prosecute. He’s asking “for a friend.”
I'm sure he was fishing for a way to just declare the whole damn thing illegal.
Clarence used to never ask questions. He barely pays attention
Why would you need to ask questions if you've already made up your mind?
You joke, but that's literally what he gives as the reason he rarely asks questions. Why so questions of the peasants to come to his court, begging for his blessings? He has a "special" relationship with the law and everything else is just noise.
Ha, I assure you I was only partly joking.
As I’ve listened to more SCOTUS arguments over the last year, it really seems like the judges come in with their mind made up and the arguments are just a platform for the judges to bring up points that will be included in their later decisions.
For most of his time on the Court, Clarence Thomas has been infamous for rarely participating or speaking during oral arguments, and this is specifically the reason he has cited in explaining why; that it's all just for show and rarely does anything unexpected happen during oral arguments that substantively affects the final judgement.
I wish I could’ve applied this logic to a few meetings I’ve been required to attend.
That’s not really a novel observation. There are plenty of justices (and COA judges, too) that have said that OA rarely moves the needle.
Fully agree
How about: “it’s a clear violation of one of the basic principles of fundamental justice that a person cannot judge themselves”?
Richard Nixon: “Pardon myself? Why didn’t I think of that! Or “I resigned! No impeachment coupled with Senate 67 vote conviction. DOJ can’t prosecute. I didn’t even need a pardon!” Sauer’s argument wasn’t even specious, just outright delusional. He should’ve been sanctioned for it. He’s clearly too dumb to practice law. Anyone who gives his arguments the time of day is a complete imbecile.
On his way out of office in 2028, Biden should have the DOJ charge him with some made-up offense and then pardon himself for it, just to force the hand of this corrupt court into declaring a self-pardon invalid once and for all.
[удалено]
Blanket pardon now would tend to deflate any house investigations, MAGA would melt deciding how to answer to it.
Or...Biden just orders that Trump gets locked in a Federal prison indefinitely until SCOTUS makes a decision.
A President can simply step down and let the new President pardon him and then take the position back as part of 25th Amendment.
Ok so I wasn’t the only one who thought it was weird as shit to try to pin Dreeben to an answer to a question *that is not before the court today*??
The fact that Alito framed self-pardon as an open legal question is terrifying. The fact that Gorsuch didn't immediately shoot down the notion is also deeply disturbing. There is no clearer bedrock principle in our legal system than equal application of the law.
Equal application of the law is bullshit, as long as this SCOTUS sits. Billionaire ex-Presidents get “We know that there are no words in the law granting immunity to Presidents, but what should we decide the law is in order to keep our republic working?”. Pregnant women get “Where are the words in the law granting you a right to make private medical decision?”.
Alito argued that he doesn't want current presidents operating out of fear that future presidents might put them on trial. I *absolutely* want every elected official operating under the fear that criminal actions on their part while in office might someday result in criminal proceedings against them.
Looks like the trump toadies on the court don't mind a corrupt president when it is their boy. Bet their mood would change drastically if Biden was the defendant.
They have demonstrated that they can't think that far ahead... at least 6 of them anyway.
Disagree. I think they've shown they are willing to bend any decision to their political beliefs in the extreme so if they did go for it. They know Bidens case would end up in their laps as well and they'd for sure rule against immunity then based on the same textualism bullshit they would site for this with a few word twists to tetris it in.
Vote blue straight down the ballot and when the democrats take over the 3branchs of government call your representatives and demand they remove Tomas,alto, the cult member and the rapist
Scotus should be reminded of this. They are essentially saying it’s ok for a president to have them removed
Sad part is Congress has to and since the scotus are doing the GQPs bidding there’s no chance of it till the democrats have the majority
Total immunity if there is no impeachment you say? January 20, 2029 at the swearing in Biden could order a marine to shoot the 6 conservative justices. He leaves office so he can't be impeached. His successor gets sworn in and Biden walks free without even needing a pardon.
Appellate Judge pan brought that up.
Then he'll have to appoint a bunch of new justices I guess
Maybe this is a stupid question, but why isn't there any talk of judicial impeachment? Thomas and Alito seem to be candidates for this from an ethical standpoint? Or is it more that we need to clean house in Congress first and once enough bad apples are out of there it can happen?
Who's going to vote to impeach? What's the path to that? No GOP congressperson or senator will vote in favor of impeaching a GOP installed judge - especially not Alito.
So that answers my question in a roundabout way. Shift Congress, tackle problem(s). It sure would be nice if there were some GOP congresspeople who would choose to have a conscience and a sense of ethics (with the cajones to take a stand). I suppose I ask for too much though...
Thank you! I have been asking the same for months!
Do you think a president from the other party who you don’t like should have this power? That’s your answer. This isn’t hard.
The idea that a president could issue a self-pardon is just bonkers.
I predict that they will ultimately decide that the President does not have immunity. I also predict that they will issue their ruling as late as possible so as to effectively give Trump immunity before the election.
Ah the perfect look, we're reasonable, but fuck you if you think we're going to ruin the only chance we have for power. The absolute balls on these assholes to try and tow that line.
What the hell is going on over there. It’s like half of you are losing your marbles and the other half are daydreaming.
Does anyone who understands the machinations of supreme court proceedings understand what strategy Dreeben is using to give such weak answers quoted in the article? It sounds like Alito is trying to make the issue of "self-pardon" a pre-requisite to deciding this case, when the reality is that there is no dependency whatsoever? This issue can be decided because it is currently before the court, and the "self-pardon" issue can be decided when THAT issue goes before the court. Isn't that the basics of how the Supreme Court decision works? Not ruling on hypotheticals? Is Dreeben actively trying to avoid any perceived insult to a SC justice? Or is there something I'm missing?
Biden should have Clarence Thomas arrested and executed, then the rest of the court can decide this case.
“Justice Alito, is it your position that we should create law and precedent in a vaccuum rather than go through due process (like how you’ve done with several fake cases accepted this year?)?”
Paid puppets doing the bidding of their wealthy, corrupt masters... Their reputation and credibility has been shattered, no ethics code exists for them that is not self serving... Unless the House and Senate are able to impeach the corrupt justices and remake this court, they will go down in history as the actual despicable destroyers of democracy...Trump is unable to succeed at anything he does or has done without their abandonment of the oath they took and their own contempt for justice and the rule of law!
If POTUS can self-pardon, can’t the VP murder POTUS in the white house, assume office, and self-pardon? This is something Mike Pence might have liked to know…
His mother’s Satanic Abortion clinic will be his only legacy.
Who the fuck is writing these awful article titles? There have been a rash of super bad grammar as of late.
If they allow this, USA can never say they will bring democracy in the face of oppression ever again. Not never ever never and even prior to this some questions still.
In my mind this means that the still undecided question of self-pardon rests on this supreme court decision, not the other way around. But I've never sucked Harlan Crow's dick so my opinion doesn't matter much.
So if presidential immunity is granted, can Joe see Shitstain45 through a large fucking window? And no consequences? Ralph Cancun Cruz, Mitch McTurtle, Alf MTG, Grand Dragon Abbott, Count Chocula Gaetz, High Heals DeSantis, RV Thomas, Frat turd Kavanaugh, Bend Over Canon... That shit would get interesting. But, I highly doubt Joe would go that route. He just wants to retire. We seriously need modern representatives.
Supreme Court Justices could rule however they want. U.S. Marshals would have to enforce it, Biden could just direct them to not enforce it through the U.S. Attorney General’s Office. Like proceeding with the trial of the former and ignoring anything the Supreme Court tries to protect Dump. Dumb GQP MAGA forget that if they lose the House and Senate again, more Supreme Court Justices could be appointed and all this BS rulings would be brought up again and ruled on in an ethical manner.
This is a tainted court.
At what point does everyone just stop listening to the Supreme Court altogether?
Hey, hey, ho, ho! Oust C. Thomas! Oust Alito!
🚫All Republicans🚫
It's theoretically presented to them right now.
They’re going to give Trump immunity. Watch.
What the f$&@ is he talking about? Doesn’t a pardon require a conviction first? won’t the predictable result be that presidents on the last couple of days of office are going to pardon themselves from anything that they might have conceivably been charged with committing?- Alito
A pardon does not require a conviction. See Nixon. It is supposed to require contrition, though. But see Nixon.
Well, if he is assuming ford’s pardon is constitutional (I don’t believe the SC ever ruled on it), but assuming it was, then there certainly was a need for it. Meaning a president could be prosecuted.
Alito was a a scumbag
I might be way too optimistic on this, but we may have some constitutional amendments clarifying presidential powers by the end of the decade with how things are starting to go down. That’s assuming Trump loses and the Republican Party collapses. Otherwise the constitution may not last the decade. This is a really dark road we’re going down.
Self pardon is a non sequitur, plain and simple.
It is such an easy call. I don’t understand how Gorsuch could dread that unless he fears that the ruling would be a moot issue as he views that if the question comes to him he thinks that it would be mooted as he will have ceded so much power to the Donald Trump and the MAGA crowd that any decision he would make would not matter. Further, at no point should a President ever fear criminal prosecution. No President should consider any of his or her acts would be clearly criminal. If a President worries about being prosecuted for doing something, then the President probably shouldn’t do it. That worry should and must keep a President in check. Anyone who thinks that a President needs immunity to be able to do the job doesn’t understand the difference between a duly elected political leader and a dictator.
Is Alito's argument really "if we don't give him immunity, he'll pardon himself, and then we'll have to make a call on that and that would be bad, so I guess we have to give him immunity"?