Although Trump appeared likely to lose his argument for absolute immunity, the court's handling of the case will likely give him something else he desperately wants: Delay.
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?"
TFG’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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 “against” 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.
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?"
TFG’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?
Great, concise summary of today’s consequential argument. Thank you.
Evan Hurst, Wonkette, called Alito a" Limp-brained, airheaded fascist cumsack". 🤣😂🤣 He nailed it🤣
"this was was we got" duplicate word, second was should be "what"
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
This may be a dumb question but why isn’t the answer to Alito, “If we need to have some degree of presidential immunity, let Congress enact it”?
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 ???
Which is exactly why the corrupt scotus did it. trump gets what he wants & their help isn't obvious.
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.
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.
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.
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 “against” 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.