The Supreme Court discussion thread
7 States have passed bills this year which place new restrictions on abortion. Alabama's new law, in particular, is a ne
I haven't read it closely yet, but the SCOTUS decision on presidential immunity goes further than I expected. It states that the president (i) has absolute immunity for acts that fall within the president's core constitutional power, (ii) presumptive immunity for official acts, and (iii) no immunity for unofficial acts. This is more or less the framework that I expected, but
Hi, do you know what “presumptive immunity” means in practice in this context? Googling hasn’t helped me at all.
Hi, do you know what “presumptive immunity” means in practice in this context? Googling hasn’t helped me at all.
No one knows what it means because they they made it up just now and it’s only a standard that applies in the specific context of a President being prosecuted.
As stated in the opinion, it means that the president is immune for all official acts unless the prosecution can show that charging the president for those actions would not “intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch.”
Again, no one knows what that means yet.
So, as I read it, in order to charge the President you need to show that the action is either an “unofficial act” or an official act that is not specifically written in the constitution AND that prosecution for that act would no “ intrude on the power and operation of the executive branch”.
Bottom line - this case is going nowhere fast. 0 chance it happens before election.
and most people don't know that "champion of the left" RBG said in one of her rulings against indigenous sovereignty(against the victims of USA genocide)
"Thus the Court must prevent 'the Tribe from rekindling the embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold.'”
and she was pro eugenics. and racist
Hi, do you know what “presumptive immunity” means in practice in this context? Googling hasn’t helped me at all.
What GTO said. But in practice, I think it would be a presumption that was impossible to overcome with this court.
i'm trying to think of a way you would attempt to prosecute a money for pardons scheme, where the president was just selling pardons for a million dollars each out in the open. and i'm not sure you could.
pardons are official acts, discussions about pardons are official acts, motives are not allowed to be considered, the fact that a pardon was issued is an official act, so you might have money entering an account? but nothing can be used to show what that money was for without encroaching on official acts.
and most people don't know that "champion of the left" RBG said in one of her rulings against indigenous sovereignty(against the victims of USA genocide)
"Thus the Court must prevent 'the Tribe from rekindling the embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold.'”
and she was pro eugenics. and racist
This is a misquote from City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY.
The land in question was part of a 300,000 acre area has been designated as an Oneida reservation pursuant to a treaty between the U.S. government and the Oneida nation in 1788. In 1807, a member of the OIN sold the land in question (which later became Sherrill) to a non-Native American. The OIN repurchased the land nearly two hundred years later in the late 1990s and then refused to pay property taxes on the theory that it was OIN land.
Writing for an 8-1 majority, Ginsberg said:
We now reject the unification theory of OIN and the United States and hold that “standards of federal Indian law and federal equity practice” preclude the Tribe from rekindling embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold.
U.S. treatment of Native Americans is undeniably shameful, but your misquote makes it sounds as if the Court affirmatively stated that it was important to preclude the OIN from exercising sovereignty over OIN land, which isn't what this case was about at all.
This is what happens when you read tweets about opinions rather than the opinions themselves.
i'm trying to think of a way you would attempt to prosecute a money for pardons scheme, where the president was just selling pardons for a million dollars each out in the open. and i'm not sure you could.pardons are official acts, discussions about pardons are official acts, motives are not allowed to be considered, the fact that a pardon was issued is an official act, so you m
Correct. Sotomayor made this exact point in her dissent.
i'm trying to think of a way you would attempt to prosecute a money for pardons scheme, where the president was just selling pardons for a million dollars each out in the open. and i'm not sure you could.pardons are official acts, discussions about pardons are official acts, motives are not allowed to be considered, the fact that a pardon was issued is an official act, so you m
There was a bribery decision a couple days before that basically said this isn’t a crime for anyone under the theft of funds statute unless you specifically agree to do the pardon in exchange for the money afterwards. Which is practically impossible to prove unless you’re really really stupid
This is a misquote from City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of NY. The land in question was part of a 300,000 acre area has been designated as an Oneida reservation pursuant to a treaty between the U.S. government and the Oneida nation in 1788. In 1807, a member of the OIN sold the land in question (which later became Sherrill) to a non-Native American. The OIN repurc
so you're saying the United States committed genocide, stealing OIN land, then OIN got the land back, and Ginsberg said basically "no, you have to pay the people who stole your land, cuz we say so"? right?
and what do you mean the "theory" that it was OIN land?
it seems to me the court was precisely stating it's important to preclude OIN from exercising sovereignty over their own land.
or maybe I'm totally not understanding what you're saying lol
like if have sovereignty over your own land, why do you have to pay a foreign invading govt tax?
and that quote... it sounds to me like "... rekindling the embers of sovereignty that long ago grew cold"... it sounds like the unspoken part at the end is like "cuz you lost bitch lol. we genocided your ass. now pay up"
how does that quote mean anything other than, "you have no power. we have all the power. we took it. you can't have it back"?
and I'm genuinely asking. cuz I can't see it meaning anything else, but you seem to think I misunderstood, and she is saying something else.
what is she saying there?
so you're saying the United States committed genocide, stealing OIN land, then OIN got the land back, and Ginsberg said basically "no, you have to pay the people who stole your land, cuz we say so"? right?
I know nothing about this case whatsoever, but Rococo clearly explained in his post that OIN sold some of the land and later bought it back. That is the land in question, not the rest. Do you disagree that these are the facts underlying the case?
So trump acting officially to steal the election through a Georgia call was an official , so trump his immune even tho it goes against the constitution?
So the president end up higher then the constitution and can contradict his oath of defending the constitution ?
so you're saying the United States committed genocide, stealing OIN land, then OIN got the land back, and Ginsberg said basically "no, you have to pay the people who stole your land, cuz we say so"? right?and what do you mean the "theory" that it was OIN land? it seems to me the court was precisely stating it's important to preclude OIN from exercising sovereignty over their ow
If you want to understand the decision better, read the majority opinion and the dissent by John Paul Stevens. I am neither defending the decision nor criticizing it. It was obvious to me from your initial comment about the decision that you hadn't read the opinion. And you still haven't.
I was coming here for the Supreme Court ruling on the Office of the President... but instead, all I found was Trump talk.
So trump acting officially to steal the election through a Georgia call was an official , so trump his immune even tho it goes against the constitution?
So the president end up higher then the constitution and can contradict his oath of defending the constitution ?
I don't know that this is the case. I'm certainly not a legal expert, but my read on this is the supreme court is saying "some things" trigger the immunity. It seems sort of vague and those "some things" will surely be litigated. I don't think they are saying you can't bring a case against a former president. I'm guessing it will take decades to sort this decision out.
i'm trying to think of a way you would attempt to prosecute a money for pardons scheme, where the president was just selling pardons for a million dollars each out in the open. and i'm not sure you could.pardons are official acts, discussions about pardons are official acts, motives are not allowed to be considered, the fact that a pardon was issued is an official act, so you m
Not really a comment on the legal side but there is a neccesary vital role for democracy in 'guarding the guardians'.
'We the people' have to support those who reflect our values and demand action backed with our votes. If we dont really care then why should they?
The ruling is madness and just openly counting on the Democrats to be spineless.
Just direct the DoJ to arrest Trump tomorrow for questioning for the billion tax frauds he’s undoubtedly committed.
“As per the power SCOTUS just granted me. -Biden”
Let’s arrest the Republican Congressmen and Justices while we are at it.
All official acts.
Just FFS
The ruling is madness and just openly counting on the Democrats to be spineless.
Just direct the DoJ to arrest Trump tomorrow for questioning for the billion tax frauds heÂ’s undoubtedly committed.
“As per the power SCOTUS just granted me. -Biden”
No. That is not nearly enough. We need an immediate test-case that gets fast-tracked to SCOTUS.
Biden needs to order Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. (No motivation for this action need be given, as SCOTUS just ruled. But lying about the integrity of the 2020 election, and then using that lie to incite a violent storming of the Capital that would stop the certification of said election is not a bad motive for those who demand one.)
The mental midgets who are applauding this ruling will then have to eat the **** that they produced. It would be perfect.
The current court would, most likely, rule hypocritically against Biden. Fine. AS THEY SHOULD. But at least we then have legal precedent that POTUS cannot have a political rival assassinated. That arrow needs to be out of the quiver before Trump is elected. Or he will use it. 100%. (The dumb mother****er is already calling for televised military tribunals for “traitors” like Liz Cheney. Jesus****ingChrist.)
I'm sure many people are thinking, "No one as POTUS would order the assassination of a political rival, so it's never gonna matter." (Which is basically what dumbass Roberts wrote lambasting the dissent as “fear-mongering”. That idiot clearly does not understand the pathology that afflicts and drives Trump.)
Just like happened on 9/11, they (the 6 idiots on the SCOTUS) are suffering from a failure of imagination and are projecting their own morality onto Trump. "No one would ever fly a plane into a building to their fiery death. That would be crazy!" "No one woujd ever order the murder of a political rival. That would be crazy!" Trump would absolutely have a threat to his office killed, and dress it up as something that had to be done to save the country. 100%. That is who he is. He has been telling the world this in no uncertain terms for the past 8 years. And millions of his ******* supporters expect exactly that from him. It is a very dangerous time.
MrDavitWilliam is arrive.
Just like happened on 9/11, they (the 6 idiots on the SCOTUS) are suffering from a failure of imagination and are projecting their own morality onto Trump. "No one would ever fly a plane into a building to their fiery death. That would be crazy!" "No one woujd ever order the murder of a political rival. That would be crazy!"
Thanks to this idiot the DroolTards at FoxNews have paraded out for their simps to listen to, we can add “No one would ever claim a bribe is an official act, that would be crazy!”
At about the 3:50 mark she’s says, “I cannot imagine a POTUS would claim a bribe is an official act”. Just because you cannot imagine it doesn’t mean it won’t happen, idiot. Would you have ever imagined a POTUS would refuse to accept the results of an election and send an angry, armed mob to the Capitol to stop the certification of said election? Of course not. But that’s where we are with a pathological monster like Trump you ****ing moron.
MrDavitWilliam is arrive.
People who cannot imagine such easily imaginable things should never have been allowed to write a consitution that is still being worshiped centuries later.
Thanks to this idiot the DroolTards at FoxNews have paraded out for their simps to listen to, we can add “No one would ever claim a bribe is an official act, that would be crazy!”
At about the 3:50 mark she’s says, “I cannot imagine a POTUS would claim a bribe is an official act”. Just because you cannot imagine it doesn’t mean it won’The pardon, or the veto, or the whatever would be the official act. The bribe would be the motive, which according to this opinion can't be considered.
The pardon, or the veto, or the whatever would be the official act. The bribe would be the motive, which according to this opinion can't be considered.
The act of accepting money as consideration for performing an official act would not itself be an official act. So the prosecution would be for accepting the bribe, not for granting the pardon.
For the case of ordering assassination of a political rival, that wouldn't be a lawful order so the military wouldn't carry it out. And if the president had a private army loyal to him that would carry out such orders, that would be clearly outside his official capacity as president, so not subject to immunity.
