Trump to aides: Can one of you guys write this list down for future reference?
Wasn’t the criticism of Roe and Obergefell that they invented a right that wasn’t in the constitution? Isn’t that the conservative view, that if you can’t quote it, it isn’t in there?
If I’m understanding that correctly (and I may not be), how is this not inventing a protection that isn’t in there? Is there a legit difference? Or just politics?
Maybe.
The possible exception is that appointments for ambassadors require Congressional approval, so this may not fall under what SCOTUS called the Presidents “conclusive and preclusive” authority.
For these areas of shared authority, SCOTUS ruled that there is a presumption of immunity but it could be overcome if the Government could show that criminal liability “would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.””
I could see a court ruling that while the POTUS has the authority to appoint ambassadors, requiring him to comply with federal bribery laws would not in any way inhibit his ability to appoint ambassadors in an effective manner.
Trump could, and undoubtedly will, argue that any action taken from the oval office is official. He calls the Georgia Secretary of State and asks him to create 12,000 votes… He’s just investigating election fraud.
How do we fix this?
Does it require a constitutional amendment to define what is and isn’t “official”; or will an act of Congress suffice?
This comes across like the proverbial hypothetical about unlawful orders. You must not obey an unlawful order BUT the burden of proof that it was unlawful will be on you.
So now you first have to prove to the trial court that the action was taken entirely in the man’s personal, unofficial character, or that it involved faculties or authorities that are not exclusive or inherent to his post as POTUS.
The problem with this particular case is that the defendant argues that Every. Last. Single. word, writ, gesture, act or thought of the person happens “in my very official capacity as President, very completely official, no one has ever been this official” no matter what it’s about. So in the best of circumstances the case can now potentially take years as he litigates the officiality of every single word or act.
Sure. But along with rejecting Chevron, the Supremes apparently feel the best folk to make these determinations are the indicvidual district courts. Wouldn’t be my personal choice…
When things have calmed down (probably after Trump has passed away) could this lead to an amendment?
As I understand it if Trump wins the election (and has enough Republicans in congress and the senate not to be impeached) he could make an executive order that any member of democratic party should be executed without trial as an enemy of the state. This would be an “official act” so he would be immune from prosecution, those that carry out the orders might not be immune from prosecutuion at some point in the future but could also be executed for treason.
Presidential immunity is frightening if / when the wrong person becomes president, it relies on Senate / Congress impeaching a president who acts improperly but these days very few politicians will vote against their party for any reason at all and a 2/3 majority is almost impossible to achieve.
In this particular case, Trump and Smith will go back to the lower court. Smith will argue that all the acts in the indictment were unofficial; Trump will say they were official. The judge will rule, Trump will appeal and it will go back to the SCOTUS.
Clarence, in his infinite partisan bullshit, concurred, while arguing about the constitutionality of the special counsel. Looks like he just gave Biden an easy way to get his son off the hook.
Roberts little “The President is not above the law.” is exactly what the lower court ruled. The rest of the opinion, including referring to Washington in their gambit to EXPAND Presidential powers, is fucking horseshit of the most galling degree.
Which would of course be a terrible idea, and possibly why Thomas said it. Or perhaps I’m giving him too much sneaky credit.
Accusing Republicans of hypocrisy is like accusing them of having brown hair or wearing a tie. They don’t even defend against it any more.
I encourage everyone to read the dissents if you haven’t yet. This is huge and it’s horrible. The dissents dissect the weasel language in the majority opinion, which has provided an excellent blueprint for a corrupt president. Just frame any action as an official act, you’re good.
But, if a Democratic president actually did something bad, they would use their reasoning that they did with the recent guns for domestic abusers ruling – “No, we didn’t mean it like that. Can’t you read our minds??”
Unofficial corruption is bad, while official corruption is good.
Got it.
It’s the same trick they used in the Snyder case. Just call it a gratuity, deliver the kickback after the act, and you’re good.
This immunity decision is devastating for the rule of law.
No.
Bingo.
The GOP Six are barely even pretending anymore to have Reasons for their rulings. As Stratocaster wrote:
Whatever result the GOP Six want, they come up with some weasel language that purports to be legitimate judicial analysis. If they completely contradict that in their next decision, they don’t care. It’s all about getting the result they want–they’ve gleefully abandoned the idea of applying consistent principles to decision-crafting.
Of course they won’t stand for anyone pointing this out. RESPECT US!1!!
Has the ruling changed at all who decides what an “official act” is? And having not read the ruling yet, how does the majority address the SEAL argument?
Order of business (which will never happen):
- Impeach the present two SCOTUS criminals and indict them.
- Establish strict limits on gifts.
- Establish term limits for SCOTUS.
According to this sentence from the majority opinion:
“In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.”
I am assuming that each court on its own makes that determination.
If it isn’t put into the Constitution, it will be overruled by SCOTUS.