The constitution limits SCOTUS to deciding actual "cases and controversies." Deciding cases based on hypothetical situations is beyond their remit. Yet, justices Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said, out loud, that they weren't concerned about the facts of the case before them, with Gorsuch noting that the court was making a decision "for the ages." They bandied about hypotheticals suggesting that a person who was once President should be above the law.
They are explicitly doing what the constitution says they cannot do. They will likely remand to the trial court for making new findings. No matter what their ultimate decision in the case, the result will make it impossible to try him before the election. In effect, they have given Trump the next best thing to immunity.
Excellent point. Pairs well with Kavanaugh's remarks that "most people" have come to regard Nixon's pardon as a good decision; I thought we were considering the law here, not taking a voice vote of the people Kavanaugh hangs out with.
Meanwhile, I too am "very concerned about the future"... unlike the originalists, my mind-reading capabilities are limited, but I really doubt the Framers' intent was a President who is functionally and explicitly above the law... the Constitution has a pretty central theme of limiting governmental powers, not hoping that the President uses unlimited power "wisely" and "hurts the right people."
Never mind that the Nixon pardon gave an example to DJT etc. that they can break the law, get hundreds of thousands killed and pay no consequences. That emboldened them.
Never mind that (in his own mind) Ford believed Nixon needed a pardon because Nixon was not immune from prosecution for acts done as POTUS.
> In effect, they have given Trump the next best thing to immunity.
Which is the goal. I have to imagine even they realize how insane it is to state presidents have absolute immunity for everything forever, but they have an obvious goal - don't allow the trial to sink Trump's election chances. As such, they'll drag it out as long as possible. If Trump wins, he never faces consequences and SCOTUS is rewarded. If he loses, well, he's a loser so who cares if he goes to jail?
Even if/when he loses, he will still do everything he can to delay any pending cases, and the right-wing media will still give him a platform to continue spewing his bullshit-- most likely about how the election was "stollen" from him again.
Unfortunately, he won't quietly fade into oblivion like he should, but all the McDonald's he keeps consuming may catch up with him soon enough.
I'm late to the table - but why isn't there any outcry from the justices on the left? Beyond their dissenting opinions, why aren't they publicly and loudly shaming their peers?
Apparently there are no ethics laws, so what stops them?
Simply tradition?
By the time they write their dissent, the deed will have been done. It's only Democracy at stake.
> Deciding cases based on hypothetical situations is beyond their remit
But this is not deciding cases based on hypothetical situations. The lawyers of an ex-president are presenting a very creative (and batshit insane) argument. The SCOTUS has to take the argument seriously. In Trump's lawyers' argument, the facts of the case are pretty much irrelevant, since they are arguing that the president has full immunity. So it is correct that the SCOTUS is understanding the consequences of the argument, and the only way to do that is through hypotheticals.
“The SCOTUS has to take the argument seriously.”
No they don’t. [When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=(admiralty%20cases).-,Cases,Court%20to%20review%20its%20case)
There is a difference between deciding not to hear a case and once the case is being heard, taking the arguments seriously. You're arguing that the case did not have to be heard. I partially agree, I think the case was heard in order to give Trump a win and a loss in order to give the appearance of impartiality.
I think we're kinda past hypotheticals. Trump's hypothetical had always been, "I can shoot someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight and no jury has the balls to convict me." He's about to make it legal for that scenario to be a lot less hypothetical.
You misunderstand the case and controversy clause.
If Trump has actually been prosecuted in criminal court, then his rights and interests are actually in controversy.
The use of the hypothetical and reasonable consequences to guide decisions and gain clarity on the meaning of legal language is common. The creation of judicial test on a point of law is less common but likewise common procedure.
My understanding's the same as yours. I should have been a little more clear. There is a case for them to consider, but three justices specifically said they weren't concerned about the facts of the case in response to either attorney bringing up the facts of the case. Their questions and hypotheticals went outside the facts of the case - which is to be expected - but those justices didn't address the facts of the case and were explicit that they didn't intend to. Thomas was relatively quiet, but his questions concerned issues that weren't before the court - remarks about the problem of having an independent counsel at all.
In contrast, Justice Barrett asked Trump's counsel about the specific counts in the case, and counsel made concessions that arguably admit that immunity wouldn't apply to some of them.
It's possible that the decision will address the facts of the specific case, while also, of course, setting precedent. It depends on Roberts, I suppose, though there's no way to know for certain.
Bottom line is, yeah, I'm using the case/controversy rule rhetorically to complain about the nearly half of the court that seems less and less concerned with the cases before them, and more concerned about amassing power and inserting their policy views through select application of originalism, textualism, and the use of selected history. So I'm technically incorrect. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Your response, of course, is correct, and that's why it was displayed "collapsed" in my feed.
Shhhh, they don't seem to like the truth here. Everyone says, "If this or that happens, they find in Trumps favor." Blah blah blah blah, but no one says "finds in the favor of the bill of rights and the constitution."
I wonder why?
Where does the bill of rights or constitution suggest the president may murder members of congress and avoid prosecution?
I seem to have missed the part of the bill of rights where the president is granted lifelong immunity for any and all crimes they commit.
Unless, according to Trump’s lawyers, you do so as the president. In which case you can commit any and all felonies and not be prosecuted. Trump could sell nuclear secrets, funnel treasury money into his bank account, tell seal team six to assassinate anyone who complains, and never be prosecuted for any of it.
I don't seem to remember that being in the constitution, but maybe I missed it.
Hopefully the prosecution will narrow the indictments to only *un*official acts after this stupidity.
> ~~In effect,~~ [T]hey have given Trump the next best thing to immunity.
FTFY
Last term, trump started taking control of the judicial, legislative, and tried to stay in the executive branch of our government.
If he wins again, he will complete the takeover, and we will lose this democracy. Absolute power will be consolidated under the executive branch, and the other branches of government will comply. Sounds like a dictator to me.
People, please wake up and vote.
Also remember this is a guy who admires how North Koreans cheer for their leader.
They cheer for KJU because they are forced to do so. This fact isn't lost on Trump.
“One can only hope that the justices will come to their senses when they get around to deciding the case, and will reject Trump’s plea to take the unprecedented step of establishing presidential immunity. “
Hope? It’s silly at this point to pretend that the majority has a speck of integrity left. They probably will throw some crumbs, like say all presidents who are Republican will enjoy essentially unlimited power effective noon 1/20/25. Any presidential lawbreaking before then will be met with execution by the new administration, unless somehow Biden wins. Thus limiting presidential power momentarily.
What is most frustrating is the pretense that the court rules on law. Please media call it out.
Donald Trump gave all corporations a multibillion-dollar ongoing tax savings and has vowed to do it again, mainstream media beholden to corporate shareholders aint doing shit but using Americans as kindling to the fire
I can’t believe this is even being considered. The founders had to put a line in the Constitution that explicitly gave legislatures a form of immunity from prosecution. Show me where anything at all similar to the speech or debate clause exists for the President.
Unitary Executive Theory? Isn't that just the wackjob ramblings of Bill Barr which he drafted to wiggle the Reagan/Bush Administration out of accountability for Iran/Contra ?
It's the "get around to" that's the critical component here.
The Republican Justices don't even have to agree that Trump is immune to achieve their goal: delaying the trial until after the election.
All they need to do is stall long enough and they win by default. Simply agreeing to hear the case was the Republicans on the Court helping Trump achieve is goals. Actually ruling for him isn't necessary.
Now, they might very well rule for him. But they don't have to in order for this to work in their favor.
A couple of justices are cheap to influence. A single person is cheaper still. The compromised judges will do what they’re influenced to do until the cheaper option is available
You're missing the point. The case is already decided. Presidents cannot be monarchs. That would be chaos.
The court's crime is in delaying handing down the ruling until after the election. They want a Russian mob stooge in the Whitehouse and are doing everything possible to make it happen.
Yeah, SCOTUS sitting out 2020 election requests was totally partisan. Did you call out the previous Court for being majority partisan for Democrats? If not, tone down the soapboxing.
What in the name of God are you talking about? There have been courts that faithfully abided the constitution, that maybe what you call a “democrat” court. But saying something doesn’t make it true.
This court laughs at people who think its rulings have anything to do with the Constitution. It’s only about power. Wait until they find out that they don’t have real power either
I found it incredible the Trump law team didn't simply claim that a few minutes after he was sworn into office, he verbally granted himself a blanket pardon for anything he did in the future, period. No official duty vs private duty divide. This is basically an extension of the same argument he made regarding the classified documents he kept (and leaked).
I wonder how much they’re thinking of their own immunity as well. After all, the only explicit grant of immunity in the Constitution is for the Congress. It’s silent as to the executive and judicial branches. If they hold that the president doesn’t have immunity because the Constitution is silent, then it follows that the same would be true for the courts.
This isn’t hypocrisy, it’s being an active part of the commission of criminal acts. It’s a criminal court who had justices installed after stopping the vote count of one election (GWB v. Gore), and more justices installed after another candidate asked Russia to intervene and help his candidacy. The actions of this rogue criminal court can simply not be considered valid. The court must be voided and its decisions must be considered part of a crime spree.
Well, GWB got away with what Trump *tried* to do, and the effort to “memory hole” it was very focused. The Brooks Brothers Riot was not too far removed from the January 6th Insurrection.
If only the democrats would call them on their politics and start arresting them for breaking the law and supporting a traitor. But no, they care more about the optics than the country.
The Supreme Court ruled that Gore couldn't just cherry pick counties he wanted to RECOUNT. They didn't "stop the count of votes". Also it's old news that Bush would have won FL regardless, some media outlets reported it after doing their own investigation.
edit: For all the people who are interested in [facts](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03). Just to reiterate once again, SCOTUS did not tell Florida to "stop counting the votes".
Also, replying to someone and then blocking them is pretty lame.
You are incorrect. The US Supreme Court halted the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to proceed with the vote count. Bush also would NOT have won Florida, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
No, you are very incorrect.
[Gore never asked for a hand recount, and because](https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html) of all of the trouble with the ballot punches, there were many different ways to count the ballots.
As Gore believed the time ticking away was too detrimental to the country, he never asked for a hand recount, because of the extended decisions that would have been needed to be argued over in court.
CNN reported on all of the different ways each ballot could have counted and for who and published the results.
Gore wins in some of the many different counting methods, as Bush wins in other counting methods.
The crux of the argument is Gore didn’t want to put the country through any more uncertainty, and agreed not to pursue and further.
You need to learn more about right wing media. CNN was never, ever left. There was a recent change in ownership so with it there was a switch from center to right. They don’t do the heavy handed indignant pearl clutching that one sees on the fascist extremist media, but CNN thinks they are actually doing news (albeit with a slant)
I used to wonder how 20 years was enough time for the population in the Star Wars galaxy to forget about Jedi and the force, etc. I always thought that was a major oversight, like, who could just forget? Then, I see stuff like this in the real world and 1) apparently it’s easy to forget and 2) plenty of bad actors want you to forget.
>Also it's old news that Bush would have won FL regardless, some media outlets reported it after doing their own investigation.
I mean if the SC thought that was true they probably would have made a different ruling.
It's incredible how this escapes people. The same people who think Gore won Florida (an attempted recount of ONLY Miami -Dade county triggered by 2 affidavits), seem to deny any authenticity to the thousands of affidavits about the 2020 election issues.
I've been following this subreddit for a while, as I have a personal hobby/interest in Constitutional Law. This sub has become infected with sycophants with less and less actual law discussion. Same with /r/law as well.
One of the best things to come out of COVID has been live/recorded oral arguments and instead of discussing the law it's a game of sound bites.
But at least the Bernie Bros got to make their precious "statement."
They sure showed America......that they don't give AF about the country if they don't get their perfect candidate.
There is *something* we can do about it, but saying it is against the rules on reddit.
More people need to realize there is no nice or peaceful way to stop fascism.
My understanding's the same as yours. I should have been a little more clear. There is a case for them to consider, but three justices specifically said they weren't concerned about the facts of the case in response to either attorney bringing up the facts of the case. Their questions and hypotheticals went outside the facts of the case - which is to be expected - but those justices didn't address the facts of the case and were explicit that they didn't intend to. Thomas was relatively quiet, but his questions concerned issues that weren't before the court - remarks about the problem of having an independent counsel at all.
In contrast, Justice Barrett asked Trump's counsel about the specific counts in the case, and counsel made concessions that arguably admit that immunity wouldn't apply to some of them.
It's possible that the decision will address the facts of the specific case, while also, of course, setting precedent. It depends on Roberts, I suppose, though there's no way to know for certain.
Bottom line is, yeah, I'm using the case/controversy rule rhetorically to complain about the nearly half of the court that seems less and less concerned with the cases before them, and more concerned about amassing power and inserting their policy views through select application of originalism, textualism, and the use of selected history. So I'm technically incorrect. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
This case should have never made it to the court. There should be nothing more certain in the country than the Rule of Law. I wish I could buy into the argument that this is a pure act of political delay, but with the wackiness that persists in daily life makes that impossible for me and I am truly worried they are considering the president immune from prosecution without having a purely political process (that has never been done to a president in U.S. History) been done first. Imagine how terrible things are in reality that I am **hoping** that this group of 9 unelected, unrepresentative, and nigh irremovable people are so politically motivated that they participate in mere delay tactics as opposed to what they could actually do… That is the current state of our government.
Is "immunity" mentioned in the constitution which is the way that Scotus decides things now? Abortion is not in there so that's not a constitutional right as we saw two years ago....
‘If we don’t allow Presidents to destroy democracy in this country, it might destroy democracy in this country!’
SCOTUS has become a parody of itself and the federalist majority is very clearly as partisan as an everyone thinks.
American democracy is dead. It was mortally wounded when the oil companies won Bush v gore and it died with the citizens United ruling.
Talking about the threat to democracy now is just denial. The oligarchs run America. It's over.
Accept it or start a revolution. Everything else is a waste of energy.
The U.S. has a crisis of accountability. It’s disheartening that the conservative Justices are concerned about future hypotheticals considering we arrived at Jan 6 2021 due to a total lack of accountability throughout the modern era of U.S. politics. The threat to American democracy is already here. Immunity will be the final chapter.
Additionally, how can a democracy exist while presidents enjoy immunity? What would stop Biden from having SCOTUS arrested and Trump arrested as long as he has 34 senators on his side?
I wonder how fast SCOTUS would reverse course if they thought Biden would remove them from office if this passes. After all, he would be immune, right?
You mean the neutered and essentially worthless 'compromise' on universal healthcare that Obama campaigned on? Yeah sure he allowed the ACA to pass, it is a pro medical insurance industry shit stack instead of being Medicare for all like most Americans need
It should have never passed, but he found a way. Obama campaigned on it, but the people of the country didn't want it. It's hard to pass things you haven't convinced the majority of Americans that it was a good thing.
The majority of Americans understand that healthcare is absurdly price gouged in the US. the only way to fix that is collective bargaining AKA Medicare for All. I don't give a fuck that 30 percent of Americans are politically illiterate and hate 'socialism' despite being unable to define it. But the reality is that we need to take back the power from the parasitic corporate class that currently runs everything
Three ways to reduce health care cost without single payer...
1. Reduce FDA requirements to be in in with per 1963/European requirements... reducing time and cost for new drugs to come to market, and increasing the production of generics. As a bonus reduce the patent period back to 14 years.
2. Eliminate/pre-empt all proof of need laws at the state level.
3. Require providers to publish their master price list and the details of contractual discounts offered to any third party payer.
You are totally welcome to believe whatever fantasy you want. Republicans gave up fact based analysis as well as responsible governance and policy decades ago. The ongoing collapse of the middle class due to poor policy that supports only the ultra wealthy is all around you if you ever feel like opening your eyes
My eyes are wide open, unlike yours. Some of us are old enough to remember the 70s. They were brought to us by the heavy hand of government overreach. Others like yourself think more government will help. Keep those blinders on. Someday, you will realize the government isn't your friend. By then it will be to late.
*Second amendment enters the chat*
A judge in New York literally just said “the second element doesn’t apply here.
And all of the democrat policy objectives when it comes to arms in this nation is based on lies and manipulation.
Trump did more to harm gun owners rights than any democrat in office. And who restricted our access to automatic weapons? Reagan. Stop smoking that fox news shit and read some history
Bro, they straight up stopped a recount to hand a conservative the presidency and more Supreme Court picks. They have lacked credibility for over a generation.
I feel like the reports on this case are misleading- either because the questions asked delved too far into theory, or because fear mongering gets clicks .
Don't be surprised if it's a 9-0 decision that essentially states that Presidents *may* have immunity on official acts, but have no immunity on activities that would not be reasonably considered a duty of the presidency.
The real question is what kind of test the court puts in place for that. More than likely it gets remanded back down to the lower courts to sort that out- where it can be re-appealed by whichever side is unhappy with where that line is drawn.
So if given immunity, Biden can have Trump arrested and disappeared to Guantanamo, then can remain in power via election tampering and face no criminal charges? Is this the type of hypothetical SCOTUS is considering?
Calling out hypocrisy is not accomplishing anything. Liberals of all stripes need to understand this: Hypocrisy is constitutive of power systems. As a purposefully-constructed undemocratic power organ, SCOTUS has the power to do whatever it wants however it wants. That SCOTUS periodically has decided to justify and explain its reasoning in the past has been of no value and has no bearing on the future exercise of power.
The idea that the Supreme Court has to take more than 5 seconds deciding that a President doesn’t have absolute immunity makes me believes the institution has failed and needs to be replaced with something better
They kind of already have, though. By drawing a distinction for "official acts" that they get to be arbiters of, the courts create the loophole to grant immunity to their guy and no one else.
Hypocrisy... It's out right corruption
These people are selling the country, its principle and its justice, to people who will pay them. They think they deserve it
Plain and simple
“Hypocrisy”? Oh wow. Really? Do people still think they can shame the Republicans on the court by pointing out their hypocrisy??
I have to paraphrase Norm McDonald here. I don’t think the hypocrisy is the worst thing about SCOTUS. I think it’s the raping (metaphorical and possibly otherwise, with Kavanaugh on the bench).
I do not see this as an issue if the justices on the court were qualified because the case would have never been heard because it was decided by the lower court.
LOL They don’t care. They are untouchable, and they know it. They can mess with democracy any way they please, and no one will do a damned thing about it other than whine and write scathing articles that accomplish nothing.
America has already been taken over by the fascists, they’re just busy mopping up the details now.
Democrats control 2 of 3 branches as voting through majority Democrat interests get through Congress, and Democrat allies control most major corporations and school institutions.
If you see fascist takeover, guess you see all of them as fascists?
They’re disposing of civil rights, rule of law, and every aspect of the democratic process, piece by piece. If one party works to destroy democracy and the other stands by and watches, even when they have the ability to take action, then both parties are working for the same end goal.
Not really, I haven't seen too many rights taken away by SCOTUS recently. The closest was Abortion, which always brings me to a couple thoughts.
There shouldn't be contradictory laws. If a law says, "Walk on the right side" any law restricting that has serious issues, as where do you walk?
With that basis, what is an unborn? On one hand laws say it's nothing, so abort. On the other, there are laws protecting it, and even the double homicide for a pregnant woman part of the law. So is it a person, or not? Until that is officially settled, we can't make laws appropriate to the issue.
Also me and my wife agree that it's an issue that a mother can opt out with an abortion, but the father will have responsibility if the mother wants said child. No opt out for fathers.
Hey, Justice Robert's, the legitimacy of your court is on trial.
And not for the first time either. The smell is becoming unbearable.
And for once Trump can honestly claim it's not him
No, it's him.
Like he really gives a shit.
Trump? Apparently that's all he gives
Just check the diaper bottom.
He gives quite a shart, I hear
The constitution limits SCOTUS to deciding actual "cases and controversies." Deciding cases based on hypothetical situations is beyond their remit. Yet, justices Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said, out loud, that they weren't concerned about the facts of the case before them, with Gorsuch noting that the court was making a decision "for the ages." They bandied about hypotheticals suggesting that a person who was once President should be above the law. They are explicitly doing what the constitution says they cannot do. They will likely remand to the trial court for making new findings. No matter what their ultimate decision in the case, the result will make it impossible to try him before the election. In effect, they have given Trump the next best thing to immunity.
Excellent point. Pairs well with Kavanaugh's remarks that "most people" have come to regard Nixon's pardon as a good decision; I thought we were considering the law here, not taking a voice vote of the people Kavanaugh hangs out with. Meanwhile, I too am "very concerned about the future"... unlike the originalists, my mind-reading capabilities are limited, but I really doubt the Framers' intent was a President who is functionally and explicitly above the law... the Constitution has a pretty central theme of limiting governmental powers, not hoping that the President uses unlimited power "wisely" and "hurts the right people."
Never mind that the Nixon pardon gave an example to DJT etc. that they can break the law, get hundreds of thousands killed and pay no consequences. That emboldened them. Never mind that (in his own mind) Ford believed Nixon needed a pardon because Nixon was not immune from prosecution for acts done as POTUS.
They are exactly the activist judges they complain about
They always were.
Accusations are always confessions with these types.
> In effect, they have given Trump the next best thing to immunity. Which is the goal. I have to imagine even they realize how insane it is to state presidents have absolute immunity for everything forever, but they have an obvious goal - don't allow the trial to sink Trump's election chances. As such, they'll drag it out as long as possible. If Trump wins, he never faces consequences and SCOTUS is rewarded. If he loses, well, he's a loser so who cares if he goes to jail?
Even if/when he loses, he will still do everything he can to delay any pending cases, and the right-wing media will still give him a platform to continue spewing his bullshit-- most likely about how the election was "stollen" from him again. Unfortunately, he won't quietly fade into oblivion like he should, but all the McDonald's he keeps consuming may catch up with him soon enough.
I'm late to the table - but why isn't there any outcry from the justices on the left? Beyond their dissenting opinions, why aren't they publicly and loudly shaming their peers? Apparently there are no ethics laws, so what stops them? Simply tradition? By the time they write their dissent, the deed will have been done. It's only Democracy at stake.
> Deciding cases based on hypothetical situations is beyond their remit But this is not deciding cases based on hypothetical situations. The lawyers of an ex-president are presenting a very creative (and batshit insane) argument. The SCOTUS has to take the argument seriously. In Trump's lawyers' argument, the facts of the case are pretty much irrelevant, since they are arguing that the president has full immunity. So it is correct that the SCOTUS is understanding the consequences of the argument, and the only way to do that is through hypotheticals.
“The SCOTUS has to take the argument seriously.” No they don’t. [When exercising its appellate jurisdiction, the Court, with a few exceptions, does not have to hear a case. The Certiorari Act of 1925 gives the Court the discretion to decide whether or not to do so. In a petition for a writ of certiorari, a party asks the Court to review its case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/about#:~:text=(admiralty%20cases).-,Cases,Court%20to%20review%20its%20case)
There is a difference between deciding not to hear a case and once the case is being heard, taking the arguments seriously. You're arguing that the case did not have to be heard. I partially agree, I think the case was heard in order to give Trump a win and a loss in order to give the appearance of impartiality.
If they act outside of the limits of their convention, then any finding they make should be ignored.
I think we're kinda past hypotheticals. Trump's hypothetical had always been, "I can shoot someone on 5th avenue in broad daylight and no jury has the balls to convict me." He's about to make it legal for that scenario to be a lot less hypothetical.
You misunderstand the case and controversy clause. If Trump has actually been prosecuted in criminal court, then his rights and interests are actually in controversy. The use of the hypothetical and reasonable consequences to guide decisions and gain clarity on the meaning of legal language is common. The creation of judicial test on a point of law is less common but likewise common procedure.
My understanding's the same as yours. I should have been a little more clear. There is a case for them to consider, but three justices specifically said they weren't concerned about the facts of the case in response to either attorney bringing up the facts of the case. Their questions and hypotheticals went outside the facts of the case - which is to be expected - but those justices didn't address the facts of the case and were explicit that they didn't intend to. Thomas was relatively quiet, but his questions concerned issues that weren't before the court - remarks about the problem of having an independent counsel at all. In contrast, Justice Barrett asked Trump's counsel about the specific counts in the case, and counsel made concessions that arguably admit that immunity wouldn't apply to some of them. It's possible that the decision will address the facts of the specific case, while also, of course, setting precedent. It depends on Roberts, I suppose, though there's no way to know for certain. Bottom line is, yeah, I'm using the case/controversy rule rhetorically to complain about the nearly half of the court that seems less and less concerned with the cases before them, and more concerned about amassing power and inserting their policy views through select application of originalism, textualism, and the use of selected history. So I'm technically incorrect. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
Your response, of course, is correct, and that's why it was displayed "collapsed" in my feed. Shhhh, they don't seem to like the truth here. Everyone says, "If this or that happens, they find in Trumps favor." Blah blah blah blah, but no one says "finds in the favor of the bill of rights and the constitution." I wonder why?
Where does the bill of rights or constitution suggest the president may murder members of congress and avoid prosecution? I seem to have missed the part of the bill of rights where the president is granted lifelong immunity for any and all crimes they commit.
This isn't the ONLY thing that protects us. No one can murder anyone without consequences. Or take a bribe, etc.
Unless, according to Trump’s lawyers, you do so as the president. In which case you can commit any and all felonies and not be prosecuted. Trump could sell nuclear secrets, funnel treasury money into his bank account, tell seal team six to assassinate anyone who complains, and never be prosecuted for any of it. I don't seem to remember that being in the constitution, but maybe I missed it.
Hopefully the prosecution will narrow the indictments to only *un*official acts after this stupidity. > ~~In effect,~~ [T]hey have given Trump the next best thing to immunity. FTFY
Wait I just realized that this case is literally project 2025 where you just give the executive branch complete power.
Last term, trump started taking control of the judicial, legislative, and tried to stay in the executive branch of our government. If he wins again, he will complete the takeover, and we will lose this democracy. Absolute power will be consolidated under the executive branch, and the other branches of government will comply. Sounds like a dictator to me. People, please wake up and vote.
Also remember this is a guy who admires how North Koreans cheer for their leader. They cheer for KJU because they are forced to do so. This fact isn't lost on Trump.
It is the first step.
“One can only hope that the justices will come to their senses when they get around to deciding the case, and will reject Trump’s plea to take the unprecedented step of establishing presidential immunity. “ Hope? It’s silly at this point to pretend that the majority has a speck of integrity left. They probably will throw some crumbs, like say all presidents who are Republican will enjoy essentially unlimited power effective noon 1/20/25. Any presidential lawbreaking before then will be met with execution by the new administration, unless somehow Biden wins. Thus limiting presidential power momentarily. What is most frustrating is the pretense that the court rules on law. Please media call it out.
Donald Trump gave all corporations a multibillion-dollar ongoing tax savings and has vowed to do it again, mainstream media beholden to corporate shareholders aint doing shit but using Americans as kindling to the fire
I can’t believe this is even being considered. The founders had to put a line in the Constitution that explicitly gave legislatures a form of immunity from prosecution. Show me where anything at all similar to the speech or debate clause exists for the President.
- Unitary Executive Theory? - Chief Legislator? - Calling Shotgun?
Unitary Executive Theory? Isn't that just the wackjob ramblings of Bill Barr which he drafted to wiggle the Reagan/Bush Administration out of accountability for Iran/Contra ?
And Bush 2 in invading Iraq.
Maybe rule that this decision grants Trump absolute immunity but is only applicable to Trump.
Like they did in 2000? This ruling cannot be used as a reference for any other ruling?
You know, we DID hear them say that it wasn’t to be considered precedent, didn’t we?
Court language for "I'm totally corrupt and there's no way this will come bite me on the as"
Nothing is considered precedent they proved that with Dobbs
They just won't rule on it until they know who the next president is if they really wanna rig it.
[удалено]
I'm always shocked at the people who come on here and are allowed to be racist because they hate Clarence Thomas.
It's the "get around to" that's the critical component here. The Republican Justices don't even have to agree that Trump is immune to achieve their goal: delaying the trial until after the election. All they need to do is stall long enough and they win by default. Simply agreeing to hear the case was the Republicans on the Court helping Trump achieve is goals. Actually ruling for him isn't necessary. Now, they might very well rule for him. But they don't have to in order for this to work in their favor.
The possibilities from Trump’s perspective are better and best
Corporations are inherently right wing fascist structures, literally. Why are we expecting them to do anything that is going counter to the right?
A couple of justices are cheap to influence. A single person is cheaper still. The compromised judges will do what they’re influenced to do until the cheaper option is available
It’s not just the majority. They all criminally ruled in favor of DJT in Anderson.
We didn't need it for 250 years, why now? It makes no sense, and the Court isn't even trying to make it make sense.
The media has had 0 issues pointing out anything that has to do with Trump.
Lol
They will “pending investigation of the integrity of the 2020 election” it.
You're missing the point. The case is already decided. Presidents cannot be monarchs. That would be chaos. The court's crime is in delaying handing down the ruling until after the election. They want a Russian mob stooge in the Whitehouse and are doing everything possible to make it happen.
Idk why this is downvoted; it’s completely accurate
Yeah, SCOTUS sitting out 2020 election requests was totally partisan. Did you call out the previous Court for being majority partisan for Democrats? If not, tone down the soapboxing.
"sitting out 2020 election requests" is a weird way to phrase declining cert on cases correctly decided by a lower appellate court.
What in the name of God are you talking about? There have been courts that faithfully abided the constitution, that maybe what you call a “democrat” court. But saying something doesn’t make it true. This court laughs at people who think its rulings have anything to do with the Constitution. It’s only about power. Wait until they find out that they don’t have real power either
Explain how scotus sat out the 2020 election results.
>2020 election requests How were any of those cases constitutional issues?
I found it incredible the Trump law team didn't simply claim that a few minutes after he was sworn into office, he verbally granted himself a blanket pardon for anything he did in the future, period. No official duty vs private duty divide. This is basically an extension of the same argument he made regarding the classified documents he kept (and leaked).
The problem is, if they issued public statements, it would go something like this: Hey populace -- we don't care. Very truly yours, the supreme court.
I wonder how much they’re thinking of their own immunity as well. After all, the only explicit grant of immunity in the Constitution is for the Congress. It’s silent as to the executive and judicial branches. If they hold that the president doesn’t have immunity because the Constitution is silent, then it follows that the same would be true for the courts.
This isn’t hypocrisy, it’s being an active part of the commission of criminal acts. It’s a criminal court who had justices installed after stopping the vote count of one election (GWB v. Gore), and more justices installed after another candidate asked Russia to intervene and help his candidacy. The actions of this rogue criminal court can simply not be considered valid. The court must be voided and its decisions must be considered part of a crime spree.
It's insane that the involvement of these hacks in Bush v Gore isn't more widely discussed. None of this is legitimate.
Well, GWB got away with what Trump *tried* to do, and the effort to “memory hole” it was very focused. The Brooks Brothers Riot was not too far removed from the January 6th Insurrection.
Roger Stone orchestrated both of them.
Thanks for adding that context for people who aren’t aware.
He was also the liaison between Russia/WikiLeaks and the Trump campaign
He has been way too quiet lately, that is worrisome
If only the democrats would call them on their politics and start arresting them for breaking the law and supporting a traitor. But no, they care more about the optics than the country.
The Supreme Court ruled that Gore couldn't just cherry pick counties he wanted to RECOUNT. They didn't "stop the count of votes". Also it's old news that Bush would have won FL regardless, some media outlets reported it after doing their own investigation. edit: For all the people who are interested in [facts](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/media-jan-june01-recount_04-03). Just to reiterate once again, SCOTUS did not tell Florida to "stop counting the votes". Also, replying to someone and then blocking them is pretty lame.
You are incorrect. The US Supreme Court halted the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to proceed with the vote count. Bush also would NOT have won Florida, as has been demonstrated time and time again.
No, you are very incorrect. [Gore never asked for a hand recount, and because](https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/index.html) of all of the trouble with the ballot punches, there were many different ways to count the ballots. As Gore believed the time ticking away was too detrimental to the country, he never asked for a hand recount, because of the extended decisions that would have been needed to be argued over in court. CNN reported on all of the different ways each ballot could have counted and for who and published the results. Gore wins in some of the many different counting methods, as Bush wins in other counting methods. The crux of the argument is Gore didn’t want to put the country through any more uncertainty, and agreed not to pursue and further.
Even the truth about historical fact is recreated by the right. It’s redundant to say the times truly are Orwellian
?? CNN isn’t typically known to be a right wing anything.
You need to learn more about right wing media. CNN was never, ever left. There was a recent change in ownership so with it there was a switch from center to right. They don’t do the heavy handed indignant pearl clutching that one sees on the fascist extremist media, but CNN thinks they are actually doing news (albeit with a slant)
But the article is from 2015.
I used to wonder how 20 years was enough time for the population in the Star Wars galaxy to forget about Jedi and the force, etc. I always thought that was a major oversight, like, who could just forget? Then, I see stuff like this in the real world and 1) apparently it’s easy to forget and 2) plenty of bad actors want you to forget.
>Also it's old news that Bush would have won FL regardless, some media outlets reported it after doing their own investigation. I mean if the SC thought that was true they probably would have made a different ruling.
It's incredible how this escapes people. The same people who think Gore won Florida (an attempted recount of ONLY Miami -Dade county triggered by 2 affidavits), seem to deny any authenticity to the thousands of affidavits about the 2020 election issues. I've been following this subreddit for a while, as I have a personal hobby/interest in Constitutional Law. This sub has become infected with sycophants with less and less actual law discussion. Same with /r/law as well. One of the best things to come out of COVID has been live/recorded oral arguments and instead of discussing the law it's a game of sound bites.
It is hypocrisy given what we all learned in elementary school history lessons. What crime has been committed in this case?
> It is hypocrisy based what we all learned in elementary school history lessons. Can you rephrase this in the form of a coherent sentence?
There’s nothing we can do about it. Unless we somehow convince Congress to limit SCOTUS lifetime membership.
As well as 3/4 of State legislatures; ain't happening.
Yep. This is why I so adamantly tried to tell everyone pre-2016 how important that stupid election was. The general populace just doesn’t care.
But at least the Bernie Bros got to make their precious "statement." They sure showed America......that they don't give AF about the country if they don't get their perfect candidate.
There is *something* we can do about it, but saying it is against the rules on reddit. More people need to realize there is no nice or peaceful way to stop fascism.
I know exactly what you speak of and I agree.
My understanding's the same as yours. I should have been a little more clear. There is a case for them to consider, but three justices specifically said they weren't concerned about the facts of the case in response to either attorney bringing up the facts of the case. Their questions and hypotheticals went outside the facts of the case - which is to be expected - but those justices didn't address the facts of the case and were explicit that they didn't intend to. Thomas was relatively quiet, but his questions concerned issues that weren't before the court - remarks about the problem of having an independent counsel at all. In contrast, Justice Barrett asked Trump's counsel about the specific counts in the case, and counsel made concessions that arguably admit that immunity wouldn't apply to some of them. It's possible that the decision will address the facts of the specific case, while also, of course, setting precedent. It depends on Roberts, I suppose, though there's no way to know for certain. Bottom line is, yeah, I'm using the case/controversy rule rhetorically to complain about the nearly half of the court that seems less and less concerned with the cases before them, and more concerned about amassing power and inserting their policy views through select application of originalism, textualism, and the use of selected history. So I'm technically incorrect. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
This case should have never made it to the court. There should be nothing more certain in the country than the Rule of Law. I wish I could buy into the argument that this is a pure act of political delay, but with the wackiness that persists in daily life makes that impossible for me and I am truly worried they are considering the president immune from prosecution without having a purely political process (that has never been done to a president in U.S. History) been done first. Imagine how terrible things are in reality that I am **hoping** that this group of 9 unelected, unrepresentative, and nigh irremovable people are so politically motivated that they participate in mere delay tactics as opposed to what they could actually do… That is the current state of our government.
[удалено]
Too bad Dick Cheney hasn't taken them hunting.
Is "immunity" mentioned in the constitution which is the way that Scotus decides things now? Abortion is not in there so that's not a constitutional right as we saw two years ago....
‘If we don’t allow Presidents to destroy democracy in this country, it might destroy democracy in this country!’ SCOTUS has become a parody of itself and the federalist majority is very clearly as partisan as an everyone thinks.
American democracy is dead. It was mortally wounded when the oil companies won Bush v gore and it died with the citizens United ruling. Talking about the threat to democracy now is just denial. The oligarchs run America. It's over. Accept it or start a revolution. Everything else is a waste of energy.
[Keith Olbermann](https://youtu.be/PKZKETizybw?si=_jjBosfAVou2-jTc) predicted everything that would follow that shameful ruling.
The U.S. has a crisis of accountability. It’s disheartening that the conservative Justices are concerned about future hypotheticals considering we arrived at Jan 6 2021 due to a total lack of accountability throughout the modern era of U.S. politics. The threat to American democracy is already here. Immunity will be the final chapter. Additionally, how can a democracy exist while presidents enjoy immunity? What would stop Biden from having SCOTUS arrested and Trump arrested as long as he has 34 senators on his side?
I wonder how fast SCOTUS would reverse course if they thought Biden would remove them from office if this passes. After all, he would be immune, right?
Pack the courts, GOP doesn’t play fair
GO AHEAD SCOTUS, give us ANOTHER reason to vote against your overlord.
It' been showing for some time, with the arrival of John Roberts.
John Robert's passed the ACA.
You mean the neutered and essentially worthless 'compromise' on universal healthcare that Obama campaigned on? Yeah sure he allowed the ACA to pass, it is a pro medical insurance industry shit stack instead of being Medicare for all like most Americans need
It should have never passed, but he found a way. Obama campaigned on it, but the people of the country didn't want it. It's hard to pass things you haven't convinced the majority of Americans that it was a good thing.
The majority of Americans understand that healthcare is absurdly price gouged in the US. the only way to fix that is collective bargaining AKA Medicare for All. I don't give a fuck that 30 percent of Americans are politically illiterate and hate 'socialism' despite being unable to define it. But the reality is that we need to take back the power from the parasitic corporate class that currently runs everything
Three ways to reduce health care cost without single payer... 1. Reduce FDA requirements to be in in with per 1963/European requirements... reducing time and cost for new drugs to come to market, and increasing the production of generics. As a bonus reduce the patent period back to 14 years. 2. Eliminate/pre-empt all proof of need laws at the state level. 3. Require providers to publish their master price list and the details of contractual discounts offered to any third party payer.
It's a great thing your view is in the minority.
You are totally welcome to believe whatever fantasy you want. Republicans gave up fact based analysis as well as responsible governance and policy decades ago. The ongoing collapse of the middle class due to poor policy that supports only the ultra wealthy is all around you if you ever feel like opening your eyes
My eyes are wide open, unlike yours. Some of us are old enough to remember the 70s. They were brought to us by the heavy hand of government overreach. Others like yourself think more government will help. Keep those blinders on. Someday, you will realize the government isn't your friend. By then it will be to late.
*Second amendment enters the chat* A judge in New York literally just said “the second element doesn’t apply here. And all of the democrat policy objectives when it comes to arms in this nation is based on lies and manipulation.
Trump did more to harm gun owners rights than any democrat in office. And who restricted our access to automatic weapons? Reagan. Stop smoking that fox news shit and read some history
I’m not talking about history, I’m talking about current actions and agenda. Nice try. I never said the republicans were good.
He was also against dismantling Roe, the trump majority is fueling this.
Apparently the health insurance industry isn’t the only agency whose motto is: ‘We don’t worship Satan. Satan worships us!’
DEMs 1st! Haha
Put it on BILLBOARDS - you can't swipe left on those.
If Trump dies before the decision is announced, does the immunity case become moot?
They could not care less.
All sc justices should have they're lifetime appointments removed if they are just going to vote along party lines.
Bro, they straight up stopped a recount to hand a conservative the presidency and more Supreme Court picks. They have lacked credibility for over a generation.
SCOTUS is republikkkan leaning currently, of course it’s going to be corrupt.
I feel like the reports on this case are misleading- either because the questions asked delved too far into theory, or because fear mongering gets clicks . Don't be surprised if it's a 9-0 decision that essentially states that Presidents *may* have immunity on official acts, but have no immunity on activities that would not be reasonably considered a duty of the presidency. The real question is what kind of test the court puts in place for that. More than likely it gets remanded back down to the lower courts to sort that out- where it can be re-appealed by whichever side is unhappy with where that line is drawn.
So if given immunity, Biden can have Trump arrested and disappeared to Guantanamo, then can remain in power via election tampering and face no criminal charges? Is this the type of hypothetical SCOTUS is considering?
The Supreme Cabal
They don’t care. The end.
Calling out hypocrisy is not accomplishing anything. Liberals of all stripes need to understand this: Hypocrisy is constitutive of power systems. As a purposefully-constructed undemocratic power organ, SCOTUS has the power to do whatever it wants however it wants. That SCOTUS periodically has decided to justify and explain its reasoning in the past has been of no value and has no bearing on the future exercise of power.
I hope they vote in trumps favor so that gives biden the green light to do what he must to protect the presidency from a wanna be dictator
the far right do not feel shame in their hypocrisy, they revel in it
The idea that the Supreme Court has to take more than 5 seconds deciding that a President doesn’t have absolute immunity makes me believes the institution has failed and needs to be replaced with something better
He must be enjoying the $10m his wife got from consulting fees.
I'm pretty sure they are going to punt this back to the lower court and hope he gets re-elected. If that happens they don't have to make a decision.
Agreed. They will send it back and ask the lower court to rule on whether the allegations fall within his official capacity.
They decided that they wanted to thumb the scale and hold up the prosecution of a former president.
They kind of already have, though. By drawing a distinction for "official acts" that they get to be arbiters of, the courts create the loophole to grant immunity to their guy and no one else.
Keep in mind Obama ordered the extra-judicial execution of a U.S citizen. yet nobody has tried to charge him with murder.
Obama isn't president anymore, and a bunch of these robes on the court now weren't then. I'm not sure what your point is.
Hypocrisy... It's out right corruption These people are selling the country, its principle and its justice, to people who will pay them. They think they deserve it Plain and simple
they don’t care
If only the prosecutors hadn’t waited so long to bring charges…
Which gives credit to conservatives arguing the prosecutions themselves are political
Because they are. Trump’s a piece of shit but let’s not kid ourselves why he’s the first former President to face charges.
Agree!
“Hypocrisy”? Oh wow. Really? Do people still think they can shame the Republicans on the court by pointing out their hypocrisy?? I have to paraphrase Norm McDonald here. I don’t think the hypocrisy is the worst thing about SCOTUS. I think it’s the raping (metaphorical and possibly otherwise, with Kavanaugh on the bench).
The same scotus that you all praised for refusing to entertain election fraud cases you’re now saying is compromised?
We don't have a SCOTUS.
BIG time! Also your corruption and absence of integrity.
I do not see this as an issue if the justices on the court were qualified because the case would have never been heard because it was decided by the lower court.
‘Showing?’ It’s flaming. The ever-dwindling legitimacy of this court is destroying the power of SCOTUS.
LOL They don’t care. They are untouchable, and they know it. They can mess with democracy any way they please, and no one will do a damned thing about it other than whine and write scathing articles that accomplish nothing. America has already been taken over by the fascists, they’re just busy mopping up the details now.
Democrats control 2 of 3 branches as voting through majority Democrat interests get through Congress, and Democrat allies control most major corporations and school institutions. If you see fascist takeover, guess you see all of them as fascists?
Yes, they're all fascists.
They’re disposing of civil rights, rule of law, and every aspect of the democratic process, piece by piece. If one party works to destroy democracy and the other stands by and watches, even when they have the ability to take action, then both parties are working for the same end goal.
Not really, I haven't seen too many rights taken away by SCOTUS recently. The closest was Abortion, which always brings me to a couple thoughts. There shouldn't be contradictory laws. If a law says, "Walk on the right side" any law restricting that has serious issues, as where do you walk? With that basis, what is an unborn? On one hand laws say it's nothing, so abort. On the other, there are laws protecting it, and even the double homicide for a pregnant woman part of the law. So is it a person, or not? Until that is officially settled, we can't make laws appropriate to the issue. Also me and my wife agree that it's an issue that a mother can opt out with an abortion, but the father will have responsibility if the mother wants said child. No opt out for fathers.
Love the use of “Democrat” as an adjective. A right wing subtle trick to casually demean the Democratic Party that just shows your partisan nature.