This case shouldn't have been taken. If it was taken, it should have been decided months ago.
The basic conceit here is absurd. The Constitution provides limited immunity to members of Congress (Speech and Debate Clause). That's it.
The Impeachment Clause implies anything that can be subject to impeachment (public acts a-plenty) can be criminally punished.
Chief Justice Burger managed an 8-0 opinion within the month in U.S. v. Nixon. Roberts couldn't even retain full control of six conservatives. He should resign.
BTW, if Alito & Thomas recused, Barrett's concurrence would have been controlling, including her wider acceptance of possible criminal acts.
How will he use these new powers to SAVE DEMOCRACY?
Biden better kick it in the ass before we turn into Fascist US........all corrupt judges and Dumpster have us fast-tracking to dictatorship and loss of freedom & democracy.
With this Court, one can possibly argue - despite Gorsuch's "one for the ages" claim - that this decision, and Roberts' own opinion for the majority, was aimed at and tailored for tRump in particular, and that a *Republican* AG could indict a former Dem president for "criminal actions" that upon appeal to this Court, would fail the *official acts* criteria and be dumped into the prosecutable "unofficial acts" bucket. I mean, tRump and cohorts have for months talked about prosecuting Joe Biden for his "corrupt and criminal behavior", and who among us would gainsay SCOTUS greenlighting these prospective actions by the same tortuous logic?
A roadmap for authoritarian, anti-constitutional rule, folks, it's there in black and white.
If the Trump regime takes office, the federal courts will have a choice. They can either rubber stamp everything for him, or they can have their orders ignored by the branch of government responsible for executing them. So yes, either way, Democrats can be persecuted - prosecuted, I mean.
* Which somehow means 100% of Democrats - including (especially...?) an old man who is allegedly so senile he can't even think without taking big doses of medication, who apparently is simultaneously a machiavelical gang leader - and 0% of Republicans. How very logical.
Lower courts but tied their hands literally to legislatively to strangle hold any decisions?
How does a JURY honestly litigate if all the FACTS OF THE D—- case are not admissible?
Oh right! If there is no legitimate heading or trial, isn’t this the SAME PLAY THAT CANNON DID? “ asking to hear litigants prove what the indictment said?
Because this is the play that Cannon is using and. Is Robert’s.
Some of Biden's responses during the debate were gibberish, but the justices’ opinions over this term have been a form of legal gibberish. They’ve been contorting their collective ideological bent to make their opinions sound rational and acceptable, but it seems at some point their hubris kicked into high gear and they didn’t care if any of it made sense. It doesn’t have to. They’re lifers.
Thinking about each of their responses during their Senate hearing when each of them feigned respect for precedence is enraging. They’ve demonstrated they’re no better at truth telling than the liar they’ve chosen to protect. What about the rest of us?
I hope Chris will comment on Thomas’s concurring opinion about the special counsel.
President Biden, and, should she take office before January 20th, President Harris, now possess extensive immunity. They would be well advised to act accordingly.
But if the next six months are anything like the past several decades, they almost certainly won't be that shrewd.
And yes, that is part of why we are here, and where we will be on January 20th.
So, as stated, the right gets theories, as majority decisions, and the left gets dissents because not enough case law or examples can be cited? Great job Roberts. More overreach he likes when it is in favor of his favorite things like the Grants Pass decision, written by Gorsuch, and commented by Roberts, during oral arguments, that he didn't understand that everyone doesn't have a place to live.
When I heard the answer to a question Roberts was asked about the most difficult decision, as Chief Justice, he has made, his remark, was too stunning to even acknowledge.
He stated the hardest thing he has ever had to decide was whether to put up barricades around the court house to keep out the noise of the Roe protesters. Yes, you read that right even if I may not have gotten the exact wording correct.
I wonder when deciding religious cases he cites Federalist 69 where Hamilton clearly compares the King of Britain to the Executive as the latter one having no spiritual jurisdiction versus the former being the supreme head and governor of the national church?
I'm all for one thing. I see it has been mentioned and that is no voter can execute their constitutional civic duty without knowing the two cases, indicted under Jack Smith, are tried and a jury verdict is rendered. It is too much to expect and it is not what was ever intended with representation for We The People deciding on that representation blindly. So, I agree Biden will be the only person in this dystopian nightmare that can take this decision to task and do what is necessary in his "core" duties, his official acts, his emergency powers, his extra constitutional powers, and screw Congress, to do whatever he deems necessary to enshrine our democracy and keep the threat, per his oath of office, away from destroying the country. The threats about not accepting the election results and the vigilante violence which WILL occur justifies anything over Trump demanding his acting AG, threatening the VP, inciting an insurrection where one Mrs. Thomas was directly involved, and attempting to overthrow the will of the voters by subverting more than 80M votes. This is not any official act(s). It is a conflict of interest and one where he knew he lost and has been quoted as saying as much.
Roberts is making voters go to the voting booth, not in a normal two party election decision, but in one where the country loses its constitution and its democracy. Does Roberts think an Imperial POTUS needs a SCOTUS for very long? Hitler kept them around a while but their decisions were useless as was any oversight or sentencing. No rule of law means no courts, judges, attorneys, etc.
He cites Federalist 70 as he sees fit but 70 takes aim at the difficulty of a plurality in the Executive and the muddy waters of the blame game. Hamilton argues the need for an energetic, singular Executive for the purposes of responsibility and security to THE PEOPLE. Separation of powers was not in Hamilton's mind regarding the energetic nature of the Executive.
He actually argues that THE Executive, in Federalist 69 , is subject to personal punishment and disgrace whereas the King of Britain is not. Hamilton didn't state the Executive needs to be energetic and criminal to be effective. He just argued against plurality. I like Madison's explanation of his theory of men and ambition, in Federalist 51, controlling government as if it were controlled by angels there'd be no need for government.
They all knew Trump existed, or would someday, and made many steps to avoid it but didn't go far enough, as ahead of their time as they were. They also would be aghast at this SCOTUS and their dereliction and intentional malfeasance to destroy the very thing they fought for and created.
If we can keep it, it will be on the old and the wise Executive sitting in the Oval Office, not the one trying to get back in. I'm glad that person is Biden as he will have the courage some shiny new object pulled from some fairy dust would not. Time to Biden up!
Biden May hit the pause button, or stutter on occasion. Ut Biden isn’t insane and criminal at heart. SCOTUS just gave the presidential position grrater power.
The thing though about greed , pride , power is no 2 ppl wield it simultaneously w the same strength.
When Trump turns on SCOTUS and he will… Roberts will have placed himself in hand cuffs. What’s that saying? “ what goes around comes around?”
“Can u expect to ride the back of a wild lion and not expect to fall off ?”
I can't help but suspect the Court's actions and inactions leading up to—and including—this decision were largely done to push all the hard questions of Trump's criminal conduct until after the election. If Trump loses, the Court can just affirm the lower court's fact-finding that Trump's attempt to overthrow the Republic were not, in fact, official acts. If Trump wins, then SCOTUS won't be on Trump's target list.
How can you say "It is a shocking expansion of presidential power to benefit Trump". It was definitely a shocking expansion of presidential power, but this was not to benefit Trump. I believe it was Kavanaugh who said something to the effect of - this is for future presidents not the here and now. Did Kavanaugh lie? He wouldn't do that. Its not judicial to lie. Or at least it wasn't before the Robert's Court.
In defence of Barrett I'm going to say that her theory could potentially make sense - she should have expanded on it but the gist I'm getting from her is "the President as a person isn't immune per se, but rather that just like it can't make other laws that do the same thing, Congress can't intrude into the Executive Branch by repackaging its attempts to govern the Executive into criminal laws instead."
I'm not sure if it's 100% satisfactory but that's a viable legal theory at least - read reasonably, it tests the constitutionality of the statute as applied ("Can Congress criminalise pardoning [X]") rather than creating some sort of immunity designed to make for a "vigorous" or "energetic" (viz. above the law) executive.
US Constitution:
March 9, 1790-July 1, 2024
Rhode Island ratified then but it was in force before too.
Was it? Did it take effect at the ninth state’s ratification? That must be it.
Yup—March 9th. My bad. I’m certain about the other date, unfortunately.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/our-government/the-constitution/#:~:text=After%20New%20Hampshire%20became%20the,ratify%20on%20May%2029%2C%201790.
😿
So let’s ask the average white landowner from 1800 what he thinks about bump stocks.
Now let’s ask him if the president should be a king. No? Not gonna?
It was hard to like this Chris
because of the ramifications.
You did a good job with your
analysis.
Justice Sotomayor
should get the Presidential
Medal of Freedom for her
dissent. It was superlative,
without "respectfully".
There was nothing to respect
from the majority of the court
this term.
This case shouldn't have been taken. If it was taken, it should have been decided months ago.
The basic conceit here is absurd. The Constitution provides limited immunity to members of Congress (Speech and Debate Clause). That's it.
The Impeachment Clause implies anything that can be subject to impeachment (public acts a-plenty) can be criminally punished.
Chief Justice Burger managed an 8-0 opinion within the month in U.S. v. Nixon. Roberts couldn't even retain full control of six conservatives. He should resign.
BTW, if Alito & Thomas recused, Barrett's concurrence would have been controlling, including her wider acceptance of possible criminal acts.
That means President Biden has the same immunity.
How will he use these new powers to SAVE DEMOCRACY?
Biden better kick it in the ass before we turn into Fascist US........all corrupt judges and Dumpster have us fast-tracking to dictatorship and loss of freedom & democracy.
Just when I think it can't get worse, it does!
With this Court, one can possibly argue - despite Gorsuch's "one for the ages" claim - that this decision, and Roberts' own opinion for the majority, was aimed at and tailored for tRump in particular, and that a *Republican* AG could indict a former Dem president for "criminal actions" that upon appeal to this Court, would fail the *official acts* criteria and be dumped into the prosecutable "unofficial acts" bucket. I mean, tRump and cohorts have for months talked about prosecuting Joe Biden for his "corrupt and criminal behavior", and who among us would gainsay SCOTUS greenlighting these prospective actions by the same tortuous logic?
A roadmap for authoritarian, anti-constitutional rule, folks, it's there in black and white.
If the Trump regime takes office, the federal courts will have a choice. They can either rubber stamp everything for him, or they can have their orders ignored by the branch of government responsible for executing them. So yes, either way, Democrats can be persecuted - prosecuted, I mean.
No, not Democrats, corrupt politicians*.
* Which somehow means 100% of Democrats - including (especially...?) an old man who is allegedly so senile he can't even think without taking big doses of medication, who apparently is simultaneously a machiavelical gang leader - and 0% of Republicans. How very logical.
So Robert’s send decision to
Lower courts but tied their hands literally to legislatively to strangle hold any decisions?
How does a JURY honestly litigate if all the FACTS OF THE D—- case are not admissible?
Oh right! If there is no legitimate heading or trial, isn’t this the SAME PLAY THAT CANNON DID? “ asking to hear litigants prove what the indictment said?
Because this is the play that Cannon is using and. Is Robert’s.
Good grief
Some of Biden's responses during the debate were gibberish, but the justices’ opinions over this term have been a form of legal gibberish. They’ve been contorting their collective ideological bent to make their opinions sound rational and acceptable, but it seems at some point their hubris kicked into high gear and they didn’t care if any of it made sense. It doesn’t have to. They’re lifers.
Thinking about each of their responses during their Senate hearing when each of them feigned respect for precedence is enraging. They’ve demonstrated they’re no better at truth telling than the liar they’ve chosen to protect. What about the rest of us?
I hope Chris will comment on Thomas’s concurring opinion about the special counsel.
President Biden, and, should she take office before January 20th, President Harris, now possess extensive immunity. They would be well advised to act accordingly.
But if the next six months are anything like the past several decades, they almost certainly won't be that shrewd.
And yes, that is part of why we are here, and where we will be on January 20th.
No reason for Biden to wait. He needs to utilize his expanded powers NOW.
Or, as I hinted, hand the keys over to someone who will.
So, as stated, the right gets theories, as majority decisions, and the left gets dissents because not enough case law or examples can be cited? Great job Roberts. More overreach he likes when it is in favor of his favorite things like the Grants Pass decision, written by Gorsuch, and commented by Roberts, during oral arguments, that he didn't understand that everyone doesn't have a place to live.
When I heard the answer to a question Roberts was asked about the most difficult decision, as Chief Justice, he has made, his remark, was too stunning to even acknowledge.
He stated the hardest thing he has ever had to decide was whether to put up barricades around the court house to keep out the noise of the Roe protesters. Yes, you read that right even if I may not have gotten the exact wording correct.
I wonder when deciding religious cases he cites Federalist 69 where Hamilton clearly compares the King of Britain to the Executive as the latter one having no spiritual jurisdiction versus the former being the supreme head and governor of the national church?
I'm all for one thing. I see it has been mentioned and that is no voter can execute their constitutional civic duty without knowing the two cases, indicted under Jack Smith, are tried and a jury verdict is rendered. It is too much to expect and it is not what was ever intended with representation for We The People deciding on that representation blindly. So, I agree Biden will be the only person in this dystopian nightmare that can take this decision to task and do what is necessary in his "core" duties, his official acts, his emergency powers, his extra constitutional powers, and screw Congress, to do whatever he deems necessary to enshrine our democracy and keep the threat, per his oath of office, away from destroying the country. The threats about not accepting the election results and the vigilante violence which WILL occur justifies anything over Trump demanding his acting AG, threatening the VP, inciting an insurrection where one Mrs. Thomas was directly involved, and attempting to overthrow the will of the voters by subverting more than 80M votes. This is not any official act(s). It is a conflict of interest and one where he knew he lost and has been quoted as saying as much.
Roberts is making voters go to the voting booth, not in a normal two party election decision, but in one where the country loses its constitution and its democracy. Does Roberts think an Imperial POTUS needs a SCOTUS for very long? Hitler kept them around a while but their decisions were useless as was any oversight or sentencing. No rule of law means no courts, judges, attorneys, etc.
He cites Federalist 70 as he sees fit but 70 takes aim at the difficulty of a plurality in the Executive and the muddy waters of the blame game. Hamilton argues the need for an energetic, singular Executive for the purposes of responsibility and security to THE PEOPLE. Separation of powers was not in Hamilton's mind regarding the energetic nature of the Executive.
He actually argues that THE Executive, in Federalist 69 , is subject to personal punishment and disgrace whereas the King of Britain is not. Hamilton didn't state the Executive needs to be energetic and criminal to be effective. He just argued against plurality. I like Madison's explanation of his theory of men and ambition, in Federalist 51, controlling government as if it were controlled by angels there'd be no need for government.
They all knew Trump existed, or would someday, and made many steps to avoid it but didn't go far enough, as ahead of their time as they were. They also would be aghast at this SCOTUS and their dereliction and intentional malfeasance to destroy the very thing they fought for and created.
If we can keep it, it will be on the old and the wise Executive sitting in the Oval Office, not the one trying to get back in. I'm glad that person is Biden as he will have the courage some shiny new object pulled from some fairy dust would not. Time to Biden up!
Peace to all!
Biden May hit the pause button, or stutter on occasion. Ut Biden isn’t insane and criminal at heart. SCOTUS just gave the presidential position grrater power.
The thing though about greed , pride , power is no 2 ppl wield it simultaneously w the same strength.
When Trump turns on SCOTUS and he will… Roberts will have placed himself in hand cuffs. What’s that saying? “ what goes around comes around?”
“Can u expect to ride the back of a wild lion and not expect to fall off ?”
Jfc🫤
What a cowardly decision.
I can't help but suspect the Court's actions and inactions leading up to—and including—this decision were largely done to push all the hard questions of Trump's criminal conduct until after the election. If Trump loses, the Court can just affirm the lower court's fact-finding that Trump's attempt to overthrow the Republic were not, in fact, official acts. If Trump wins, then SCOTUS won't be on Trump's target list.
Fucking cowards...
It’s now official the will of the people do not matter!
SCOTUS = MAGA
How can you say "It is a shocking expansion of presidential power to benefit Trump". It was definitely a shocking expansion of presidential power, but this was not to benefit Trump. I believe it was Kavanaugh who said something to the effect of - this is for future presidents not the here and now. Did Kavanaugh lie? He wouldn't do that. Its not judicial to lie. Or at least it wasn't before the Robert's Court.
In defence of Barrett I'm going to say that her theory could potentially make sense - she should have expanded on it but the gist I'm getting from her is "the President as a person isn't immune per se, but rather that just like it can't make other laws that do the same thing, Congress can't intrude into the Executive Branch by repackaging its attempts to govern the Executive into criminal laws instead."
I'm not sure if it's 100% satisfactory but that's a viable legal theory at least - read reasonably, it tests the constitutionality of the statute as applied ("Can Congress criminalise pardoning [X]") rather than creating some sort of immunity designed to make for a "vigorous" or "energetic" (viz. above the law) executive.