Supreme Court Immunity Decision

wing2000 said:

I have not read the ruling yet, but be honest, does anyone think a President should be immune from carrying out acts that are crimes under criminal law?

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Click to expand...

Being "Commander in Chief" and having the power to pardon are clearly "core constitutional powers" of the presidency. Per the ruling, these have absolute immunity. Absolute. No point inquiring into whether a president's motives are corrupt. Absolutely immune.

In the first two cases, we'll have to rely on our military to refuse illegal orders in order to avoid the worst outcomes, but whether they do or don't, the president is absolutely immune.

Obviously, the Congress still has recourse to impeachment, but we've seen how times have changed since Nixon. Impeachment has become a very theoretical check on the presidency. Even then, the penalty is removal from office. The ex-president would still be immune to prosecution and criminal penalties.

It would have been nice if they'd defined "official acts".

probinson said:

And why didn't he believe a jury would convict him? Because he would be viewed as a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory" and to be convicted of a serious felony "requires a mental state of willfulness".

We have also considered that, at trial, Mr. Biden would likely present himself​

to a jury, as he did during our interview of him, as a sympathetic, well-meaning,​

elderly man with a poor memory. Based on our direct interactions with and​

observations of him, he is someone for whom many jurors will want to identify​

reasonable doubt. It would be difficult to convince a jury that they should convict​

him-by then a former president well into his eighties-of a serious felony that​

requires a mental state of willfulness.​

We conclude the evidence is not sufficient to convict, and we decline to​

recommend prosecution of Mr. Biden for his retention of the classified Afghanistan​

documents.​

It is abundantly clear that Biden's cognitive state was a considerable factor in the decision to not prosecute him, just to be clear on the facts.

Click to expand...

Only insofar as it would create reasonable doubt. Not to the point where he is "cognitively unfit to stand trial," which was the erroneous claim in question.

At no point did Special Counsel Hur say President Biden was "cognitively unfit to stand trial." He didn't even imply it.

-- A2SG, though a great many still chose to infer it....

wing2000 said:

Trump will probably die naturally before this case is adjudicated (assuming he doesn't become President and pardons himself). The court has opened the door for years of appeals.

Click to expand...

Perhaps history will repeat when Trump becomes President again…as Grover Cleveland did in the late nineteenth century…and then when he appoints himself to be Chief Justice, à la Taft?

A2SG said:

Only insofar as it would create reasonable doubt. Not to the point where he is "cognitively unfit to stand trial," which was the erroneous claim in question.

At no point did Special Counsel Hur say President Biden was "cognitively unfit to stand trial." He didn't even imply it.

Click to expand...

He stated that in order to be convicted of the felony required a "mental state of willfulness", which he very strongly implied that Biden did not possess with his explanation that he presents himself as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory". There's no doubt that the special counsel's decision was based on the fact that he thought a jury would not see his crimes as willful, bur rather the innocent, bumbling mistakes of an aging man with memory issues.

So you are correct that he did not state that Biden was "cognitively unfit to stand trial", but he strongly implied that felt that his cognitive state would give him a pass to a jury who would just feel sorry for him.

probinson said:

He stated that in order to be convicted of the felony required a "mental state of willfulness", which he very strongly implied that Biden did not possess with his explanation that he presents himself as "a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory". There's no doubt that the special counsel's decision was based on the fact that he thought a jury would not see his crimes as willful, bur rather the innocent, bumbling mistakes of an aging man with memory issues.

Click to expand...

Or that he lacked criminal intent, a major component of guilt. Thus, reasonable doubt.

He said nothing about Biden being cognitively unfit to stand trial.

probinson said:

So you are correct that he did not state that Biden was "cognitively unfit to stand trial", but he strongly implied that felt that his cognitive state would give him a pass to a jury who would just feel sorry for him.

Click to expand...

You may prefer to infer that, but his actual words say he felt there was "reasonable doubt."

-- A2SG, but feel free to make any assumptions you want to...

A2SG said:

-- A2SG, but feel free to make any assumptions you want to...

Click to expand...

You do the same. But please don't pretend like Biden's cognitive state wasn't a considerable factor in the decision not to bring charges against him. That's just disinformation.

wing2000 said:

I have not read the ruling yet, but be honest, does anyone think a President should be immune from carrying out acts that are crimes under criminal law?

<excerpt from the dissent opinions>

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Sotomayor added: “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was more measured, warning only that a president could now be immune from such charges.
“Thus, even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics … or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup … has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model,” Jackson wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/4-takeaways-supreme-courts-trump-immunity-decision/

Click to expand...

Good day, Wing

Clearly Sotomayor need to go back and read slowly as to understand the legal distinction made here by the chief justice Roberts.

Nothing has changed with this ruling as it is in line with the Constitutional realities of our republic..

"We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President's exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity."

Click to expand...

— Chief Justice John Roberts

In Him

Bill

probinson said:

You do the same. But please don't pretend like Biden's cognitive state wasn't a considerable factor in the decision not to bring charges against him. That's just disinformation.

Click to expand...

I can only go by what the special counsel said. And that isn't what he said.

-- A2SG, no assumptions on my part....

probinson said:

the fact that he thought a jury would not see

Click to expand...

A jury presupposes a trial is taking place. Ipso facto Biden is competent to stand trial in this scenario. Quod erat demonstrandum.

essentialsaltes said:

A jury presupposes a trial is taking place. Ipso facto Biden is competent to stand trial in this scenario. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Click to expand...

It's almost like people don't read what was written. I said...

essentialsaltes said:

Being "Commander in Chief" and having the power to pardon are clearly "core constitutional powers" of the presidency. Per the ruling, these have absolute immunity. Absolute. No point inquiring into whether a president's motives are corrupt. Absolutely immune.

In the first two cases, we'll have to rely on our military to refuse illegal orders in order to avoid the worst outcomes, but whether they do or don't, the president is absolutely immune.

Obviously, the Congress still has recourse to impeachment, but we've seen how times have changed since Nixon. Impeachment has become a very theoretical check on the presidency. Even then, the penalty is removal from office. The ex-president would still be immune to prosecution and criminal penalties.

Click to expand...

...a divided Congress with one party that has demonstrated repreatedly that it has no interest whatsoever in holding a President Trump accountable. And thanks to the USSC' decision handed down yesterday, I have little reason to believe Trump will ever be held accountable by our courts.

Another guardrail is nearly gone....

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor summed it up this way: “The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.”

We don’t need to imagine the threats that Sotomayor is foreshadowing here. We lived through a president who acted with the mindset of a tyrant, one who stoked a bloody insurrection after other machinations to steal an election failed. At the end, even the Republicans who had tired of Trump were making the case that the legal system would serve as a check on him.

Now, that guardrail has been significantly diminished. And the American people will be left to rely on the delusional belief that future presidents will choose to act in good faith with their own conscience as a guide rather than abuse the virtually unlimited power the radical majority just gave them.

So we give this guy all these powers.

And then we tell him as long as he is using those powers he can direct them to any criminal end.

Thats pretty smart, America.

“We conclude that under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of presidential power requires that a former president have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office,” Roberts wrote. “At least with respect to the president’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute.”


But, the chief added, not everything is official.


“The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law,” Roberts wrote.

============================================

Examples of immunity:


======================================
As for the idea of private citizens burying every US President in lawsuits, who takes office and is part of an unfavored political party...


"The Federal Tort Claims Act sets the process and rules for suing the government. The statute of limitations on most government claims is typically two years. So, you need to submit your claim within two years of the situation. Once you submit your claim to the proper agency, the government has six months to act."

=====================================

weaponizing the court system, just to hobble a political opponent and prevent them from campaigning or getting anything done while in public office, is not a trick that is as hard to see in broad daylight as some would like to imagine to themselves.

durangodawood said:

So we give this guy all these powers.

And then we tell him as long as he is using those powers he can direct them to any criminal end.

Thats pretty smart, America.

Click to expand...

Funny the originalists in the Court didn't pick up on what the Founders explicitly allowed for:

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

I guess that's only applicable if the president unofficially commits a high crime or misdemeanor.

wing2000 said:

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Sotomayor added: “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was more measured, warning only that a president could now be immune from such charges.
“Thus, even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics … or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup … has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model,” Jackson wrote.

Click to expand...

Sorry but where in the Constitution, or established law/precedent, is any of this permissible?.......by anyone?....for any reason?
These 2 are sorry excuses for SCOTUS members.

civilwarbuff said:

Sorry but where in the Constitution, or established law/precedent, is any of this permissible?.......by anyone?....for any reason?
These 2 are sorry excuses for SCOTUS members.

Click to expand...

I agree, it has been the understanding that a POTUS can be prosecuted for illegal actions while he is on office. That no longer is the assumption if those actions are deemed "official acts." So in practice, a president Trump could order the Justice department to arrest his political opponet and merely related to his official duties. His action could be reviewed by the Supreme Court....months after the fact.

civilwarbuff said:

Sorry but where in the Constitution, or established law/precedent, is any of this permissible?.......by anyone?....for any reason?
These 2 are sorry excuses for SCOTUS members.

Click to expand...

I thought that they were pointing out the implications of the majority’s ruling:
so long as a President makes a case for acting within their official duties, then any action that they take must be regarded as ”off-limits” as to whether or not that President can be held accountable before the law.

In the D.C. case Mister Trump’s lawyers could proffer the notion that, (in the President’s mind), the 2020 election result certification had to be stopped by any means necessary, so as to defend the Constitution as per his Oath of Office.

This is the crux of the matter: was Trump’s call for supporters to come and protest at the “Stop the Steal” rally a part of his “official duties”?

essentialsaltes said:

Funny the originalists in the Court didn't pick up on what the Founders explicitly allowed for:

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

I guess that's only applicable if the president unofficially commits a high crime or misdemeanor.

Click to expand...

I have no problem believing that Trump justices, and Trump voters, will gloss right over this in favor of anything that will advantage their man.

wing2000 said:

I agree, it has been the understanding that a POTUS can be prosecuted for illegal actions while he is on office.

Click to expand...

That is incorrect. A POTUS can only be impeached and removed from office, nothing more. Any prosecution must come afterward.

wing2000 said:

So in practice, a president Trump could order the Justice department to arrest his political opponet and merely related to his official duties. His action could be reviewed by the Supreme Court....months after the fact.

Click to expand...

Not in practice but definitely in theory. Of course attempting to get a bureaucratic department like the DOJ to actually comply as well as finding a judge to sign off on the warrant......good luck with that. There is, however, a precedent for your suggestion. Lincoln had newspaper editors arrested and imprisoned without warrants, ignored habeas corpus, and even had an Ohio US Rep exiled to the CSA.

He served two terms for Ohio's 3rd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives. In 1863, he was convicted by an Army court martial for publicly expressing opposition to the war and exiled to the Confederate States of America. He ran for governor of Ohio in 1863 from exile in Canada, but was defeated.

Vallandigham died in 1871 in Lebanon, Ohio, after accidentally shooting himself in the abdomen with a pistol, while representing a defendant in a murder case for killing a man in a barroom brawl in Hamilton.