I don’t see why not.
Yes. Kagan asked specifically about ordering a coup and the lawyer hedged a bit, but eventually agreed.
I look forward to seeing what kind of legal moonbat logic Clarence Thomas uses to agree with that.
So… If this hypothetical coup included jailing opposition members of Congress (as a proper coup would), this would seem to take away this option of impeachment and conviction, yes?
How can this be a good faith argument when it is so bereft of logic or even common sense?
They aren’t taking the case to consider it. They’re taking the case to delay the trial. And they don’t have to announce a decision until the end of June, and that decision could well be the trial(s) first have to hold hearings about it because it has not been decided delaying things further.
In Nixon v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court ruled that the President is immune from civil damages lawsuits regarding his official acts committed while in office. The question now is whether that same protection extends to criminal prosecution.
No need to go full coup. Just dissolve the Supreme Court and replace the dissidents. “Nice Supreme Court you got there” would probably stop even Thomas and Alito cold.
Exactly.
They get to have the cake and eat it. Issue a ruling that limits the power and immunity of the president, eventually, giving Trump the win of delaying the trial until after the election, with the possibility that he could win that election and delay it years further.
In this case their hope is justice delayed is justice denied.
What was the lower court’s ruling? Was it that he’s not immune?
ETA: They ruled he was not immune. It’s insane that SCOTUS accepted the case. I agree that the conservative justices just took it to delay the case, not to agree that the president is immune.
IANAL but if I recall correctly, western legal theory is predicated on the principle of what a “reasonable” person would do. The problem now is that a lot of unreasonable people are now in positions of power and influence.
If the Court comes back with anything other than an unequivocal slam-down of the concept of presidential immunity, we need a constitutional amendment, stat.
The question also is surely exactly what counts as an official act; including
whether fomenting a coup counts as an official act if committed while still in office?
If we get a chance to get one; which we almost certainly only will if the Democrats take all three branches. They might then get some Republicans thinking sensibly that they don’t want to hand this to a Democratic POTUS.
I have a faint hope that that’s why the court took it – so they can declare unequivocally that it only covers acts properly part of Presidential duties, not anything at all that’s done while President. Some immunity is needed – the POTUS needs to be able to command the armed forces, which amounts to that the POTUS needs to be able, under some circumstances, to order people to go kill with the knowledge that some of them are likely to get killed themselves in the process.
Writing the thing is going to be a bit tricky.
I haven’t read every post, but wanted to be sure we don’t lose sight of this amazing bit of bullshittery:
At his Impeachment, we were told that this is “for the Courts to decide.”
In Court, we are told that “this is a matter for Impeachment.”
You literally could not make this stuff up.
I can’t think of any Democratic president in my lifetime who would have ever considering taking advantage of absolute immunity (or any Republican except Trump, and possibly Nixon in the right circumstances).
For this reason, I don’t think Republicans in Congress are worried about a Democratic president with absolute immunity.
To use a real-life example: President Obama is immune from prosecution (civil or criminal) in the death of Osama Bin Laden. Makes sense. The man declared war on the US; Obama (as commander in chief) made the order; it was exicuted. That’s an “official act”. “Fomenting a coup against The United States” would not be an official duty.
If it’s up to the impeachment process, that makes Congress a Praetorian Guard, and does in fact reduce the president to a figurehead. So long as gerrymandering, voter suppression, the electoral college can be manipulated, a dominant party leadership not held to term limits is a lock.
2hours 40 minutes, and gavel down.
The prosecution (is that the right term? The anti-immunity side) specifically says that there are areas where the president cannot be prosecuted, including his pardon powers and his powers as commander-in-chief. Those are powers specifically granted to the president in the Constitution, so actions taken under those powers are not prosecutable.
What if the POTUS commanded the armed forces to kill their opposition in Congress?
(I would not, a few years ago, have been expecting to be asking this question.)
It’s a clearly illegal order, so any generals on down who followed it would be criminally liable. I don’t know if the president would be, in that case.
Anyway, obviously Thomas and Alito will side with the president. They are hopeless. I think Kavanaugh will, too, but Barrett seems to be on the no-immunity side for now. I have to believe that Roberts will be, too, although I missed any questions he posed, if any. So, my guess is 5-4 that Trump is not immune.