“Oh, well, pardon me!”
According to the NY Times live updates, those of us who think this is a slam dunk 9-0 beat down of Trump’s argument are going to be mightily disappointed. Alito and others appear to be favoring some form of Presidential Immunity.
Yeah, for sure. If this goes 5-4, then we’re basically that close to having a generalissimo as president. This is insane.
The SC is unlikely to make this determination vis-a-vis Trump’s Jan 6 conduct. If they find he’s immunized for official acts, it would likely be sent back down to the lower court to determine that question.
Maybe Trump should have had Charles I as his attorney.
This was a big part of the Amicus Brief filed by a fair number of US military flag officers:
Former top military officers push back on Trump immunity claim
The group said Trump’s claims “would threaten the military’s role in American society, our nation’s constitutional order, and our national security,” and would have a “profoundly negative effects on military service members.”
I simply put them down as “not in favor.”
The very cynical part of myself interjects here that your political opponents would resist that formulation. “It was not a ‘coup against the US,’” they’ll say, “it was armed resistance to mass election fraud, in defense of the United States and its glorious Constitution, hosanna. Sure, maybe it wasn’t a great plan, but it was absolutely intended to preserve the properly elected government. So, an official act, and therefore all the dumb and illegal parts of it get thrown out.”
At that point you’re in a semantic quagmire, and the debate is lost. Better to draw the line much, much further back.
Just heard Nina Totenbrrg on NPR, who undertanding of the Supreme Court is unparalleled. According to her count there is a 5-4 count that will let Trump skate until at least after the election, and although less clear, the same 5-4 might give the president very broad powers to do what he wants.
So the worst of both worlds. Biden doesn’t get any expanded power, but after the election when they see who won, they can decide whether or not they want him to be their dictator. 
I was listening to the radio and so I’m not sure whether it was Alito or Kavanaugh who made the argument, but it was that if the president was subject to the law then it would disrupt the peaceful transition of power because the fear of prosecution after he left would motivate him to stay in office.
Listen Sherlock, any president already has the motivation to stay in office beyond his term. The only thing your immunity would do is give him is the ability!
That was Alito’s ridiculous claim:
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said that a ruling for Mr. Trump could enhance democratic values. “A stable, democratic society requires that a candidate who loses an election, even a close one, even a hotly contested one, leave office peacefully,” he said, adding that the prospect of criminal prosecution would make that less likely.
Hey, Justice Dumbass, we just had a president who thought he was immune and also didn’t leave office peacefully. What a dumbass. There’s no way he made that statement in good faith.
Yup, current headline on NY Times is: “Supreme Court Majority Seems Ready to Limit Election Case Against Trump”
Seems like they are gonna defenestrate any chance of accountability like someone out of favor with Putin.
The good news, I suppose, is that I didn’t have to wait for the legal moonbat logic.
neal katyal just explained it this way, paraphrasing of course, which president do you want. one that is above the law or one that is under the law.
his thinking is that more justices will want the one that is under the law.
he believes that team us had the better argument and spoke the justice’s language.
A president cannot be prosecuted while in office, as I understand it. He must be impeached (then presumably can be prosecuted). So if Biden shoots someone on Fifth Avenue, they’d need to impeach him and then he could be tried for murder.
Is that about right? Could Biden be tried for that murder after he leaves the White House (in 2025 or 2029)?
So by that argument, Trump was NOT successfully impeached. Therefore, he was not found liable by Congress. So he may, horrifyingly, have a leg to stand on.
I hope the Supreme Court gives this argument the respect it deserves (i.e. zero); I’d like to see the Cheeto broke and alone, and incarcerated.
That’s not actually a law. It just an opinion produced by political appointees at DOJ. Presidents are highly motivated to maintain the status quo so I wouldn’t expect any changes to that.
Perhaps there should be a law that presidents cannot be prosecuted for crimes while still in office, but all statutes of limitations and speedy trial considerations can be put on hold until the president is out of office.
Let’s say he orders someone to be croaked, and the act is carried out. Then he resigns. Since he’s no longer President, he can’t be impeached.
I was of the opinion that the court granted cert for the sole purpose of giving DJT enough of a delay so that the federal election trial could not be held before the election. I thought it would be 8-1 that the idea of total immunity was preposterous, with only Thomas in his dissent stating that Republican presidents are bound by no rules or laws whatsoever. Now, I fear that they will find that questioning the results of an election are enough of a pretense to hide behind the fig leaf of official duties that they will rule in his favor. This will mark the end of the Great American Experiment.
No, he doesn’t. That argument is based on fundamentally flawed logic, inverting the wording of the Constitution. Which says: if a president is impeached, he may then be also face criminal charges. That doesn’t mean the opposite is true (if he’s not impeached, he’s immune) which is what Trump is arguing.
If all men are mortal, and Socrates is a man, therefore Socrates is mortal. Trump is arguing that if Socrates is not a man, Socrates is immortal. Bzzzzt. Wrong. Socrates could be a goldfish.
Good point.
I took a symbolic logic class in college (counted as math; easiest A ever!).
IF A → B, !B → !A.
!A does NOT → !B.
Or, as I prefer it, all kittens are cats but not all cats are kittens.
Your scenario raises an interesting question. Under the 10th Amendment, even if the President has to be impeached/convicted/removed from office before being prosecuted for a federal crime does the same apply to a state prosecuting him for a state crime?