29 Comments

Justice Sonia Sotomayor: "If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?"

TFGโ€™s attorney John Sauer: "It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that would well be an official act."

uh, what? I'm having massive trouble wrapping my head around the fact that this was an actual argument in SCOTUS today and the court majority seemed to entertain it. What world are living in?

Expand full comment

Great, concise summary of todayโ€™s consequential argument. Thank you.

Expand full comment

Evan Hurst, Wonkette, called Alito a" Limp-brained, airheaded fascist cumsack". ๐Ÿคฃ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿคฃ He nailed it๐Ÿคฃ

Expand full comment
Apr 25Liked by Chris Geidner

"this was was we got" duplicate word, second was should be "what"

Expand full comment
author

Got it!

Expand full comment

One more thing to toss out there.

I appreciate the "color commentary" provided by various court watchers who are able to be there, including Chris Geidner. For instance, there was a reference to how Alito appeared to check the reaction of his colleagues to his questions.

The public at large should be able to view this via videotaped oral arguments. C-SPAN TV (not just online) -- which often does not do -- had a live telecast. They should do this for each oral argument in my view. They have three t.v. channels. They can use the others if they have to show congressional coverage, which is part of their contract.

Expand full comment

If the question is what counts as an official act and what does not, and the President may not be proscuted for official acts while in office, what is "abuse of power"? Isn't it a crime for a President to use the power of his office for personal gain? We have bribery statutes (an example used frequently in today's arguments) and we have the emoluments clause, and other impeachable offenses. Wouldn't it be impossible to impeach a President for high crimes and misdemeanors if there is no such thing as a high crime or misdemeanor when it comes to the President?

Expand full comment

Yes. I forget who raised that point but it was one of the female justices.

Expand full comment

NAILED IT, Kristen!

This so-called scotus has ruined my brain power to the nth degree of horror. But forward we keeping truckinโ€™

Expand full comment

Various liberals were okay with the 14A sec. 3 case but think this case is ridiculous.

They oppose expanding the Court since it will "politicize" it. Try to be "reasonable." Blah blah. At some point, come off as suckers.

Like Dobbs, this is a moment. It underlines the importance of control of the Senate. Republican control of the Senate (even with Obama -- see Garland) is a prime reason we are at this point.

Ditto their refusal to vote to remove Trump. So, first thing to do -- and it's tough this year -- is not to let them control the Senate. They ranted and raved about even subpoena-ing Leo and Harlan Crow.

Expand full comment

After this and the insurrection clause decision, the commentariat needs to stop referring to any of the right wingers as textualists or originalists. You canโ€™t be a textualist or an originalist when it only serves your preferred outcome. Theyโ€™re political activists and we need to stop letting them disguise that behind their robes and their bullshit speeches about balls and strikes.

Expand full comment

Possibly the worst day at SCOTUS since Dobbs, or maybe Bush v Gore.

Just horrifying for our democracy, already on life support and now these John Roberts pet pig-justices pull the cord. Sad to watch, sad to live through. Wondering where they'll take us?

Expand full comment

If this is how they want to play it, then I strongly suggest that should President Biden lose the election in November to Mr. Trump, and the Republican party be in position to install its post-democratic regime, per Project 2025 and other policy documents, that President Biden take any and all actions to prevent the transfer of power and save the country, as those would now appear to be the rules of the game.

Expand full comment

Democrats always play โ€œfairโ€. Itโ€™s a nice thought though.

Expand full comment

Until they donโ€™t.

Expand full comment

SEAL Team Six stand back and stand by!

Expand full comment

This may be a dumb question but why isnโ€™t the answer to Alito, โ€œIf we need to have some degree of presidential immunity, let Congress enact itโ€?

Expand full comment

That's a good question, but

not this particular congress.

Wait until it's a majority blue

color in house and senate.๐Ÿ˜‰

Expand full comment

Because his argument is that it is a constitutional right of presidents not something for Congress to at their pleasure (while battling with presidents) decide to supply when they feel like it. See also, the importance of free speech or something.

Expand full comment

I hate this corrupt SCOTUS......6 of them. Fucking arrogant fascists, who want to revise, bend, twist laws and morality at their will to maintain their own power structure. This is what happens when you have the same job for life with zero risk of ever being fired or arrested....you become corrupt, conflict of interest.

We need term limits.

Why hasn't Biden expanded the court ???

Expand full comment

It requires an act of Congress.

Expand full comment

Which is exactly why the corrupt scotus did it. trump gets what he wants & their help isn't obvious.

Expand full comment

This conservative majority is doing everything they can, and as much as any group of justices have done in history, to make the argument for getting rid of the Supreme Court.

Expand full comment

I am sickened by the fall of SCOTUS.

If we, my fellow DEMS, win the election in 2024, I feel we need to look to impeach a few of the justices on SCOTUS for failure to uphold their oath of office.

Expand full comment

This is exactly what happened with the Affordable Care Act case. Justices changed the metrics to get the outcome they wanted.

I am also confused on how you apply criminal acts to presidents. If a president knowingly drone strikes a terrorist and his innocent family, in a nation we are not in war with, is that not conspiracy to commit murder? Why would every sitting president not be prosecuted for that? Seems like an "official acts" standard is the only logical way any immunity could be analyzed, rather than a conservative torsion of law.

Expand full comment

Fingers crossed for Barrett. If so, Roberts providing then5th vote for Trump means Thomas was needed for Trump to prevail, which seems like an untenable outcome for Roberts. So he votes โ€œagainstโ€ Trump but writes a controlling decision that eats up more clock.

Alternatively, there are 5 votes to affirm but they wanted to let the 4 troglodytes have a chance to vent.

Expand full comment