with today's shitstorm I'm starting to realize it's really NERF who is the main shitstirrer . . . it was really a lot quieter and more respectful while he was down with the flu last week
Hopefully Judge Chutkan will schedule this "trial before the trial" soon... since it will likely be the only trial before the November elections. trump's lawyers can bring julie kelly in as an expert witness... since she has no legal background (instead, a food critic and right wing political muckraker), she will be a perfect choice.
A Supreme Court putting on the MAGA hats. I knew in my heart of hearts it would come down to this but it's still breathtakingly corrupt. Well, as long as Ole Joe Biden doesn't die on us, he can have an official insurrection and stay in office. Right, Alito? Right? Right? Right?
https://www.scotusblog.com/author/amy-howe/ Amy Howe, Independent Contractor and Reporter Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and a reporter for SCOTUSblog; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. She primarily writes for her eponymous blog, Howe on the Court. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
What's even worse is that they had previously decided to give judges, prosecutors, and legislators immunity for their official acts, but they were so sneaky about it that none of you noticed. Judicial immunity - Wikipedia Absolute immunity - Wikipedia Parliamentary immunity - Wikipedia
What the graphic doesn't represent... the delay applied by the maga supreme court that will make it impossible for trump to be prosecuted (pre-election) and should he win, post-election.
I don’t know what we’re doing here anymore. We completely lost the plot. People pretending to be conservatives supporting this level of immunity for a president isn’t surprising given the polarized “team sports” nature of politics and allegiance to party above all at this point….but it is disappointing to me, nonetheless. Those who cite to the Founding Fathers repeatedly will find no support for this level of immunity among those who were resisting a King. It’s just sad to me, honestly.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spenc...nting-opinion-in-trump-immunity-case-n2641195 But Thomas slapped it down. Smith did not work under the imprimatur of the Department of Justice when he took the job as special counsel. Thomas wrote, "A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President. No former President has faced criminal prosecution for his acts while in office in the more than 200 years since the founding of our country." "If this unprecedented prosecution is to proceed, it must be conducted by someone duly authorized to do so by the American people," Thomas explained. "The lower courts [New York, Georgia, D.C. Circuit, Florida] should thus answer these essential questions concerning the Special Counsel’s appointment before proceeding." He lectured, "None of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose." Thomas continued, "Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.” He also noted, "By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist" [emphasis added].
https://amylhowe.com Amy L Howe Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
difficult to find much objective or detached info in the other thread. I know D&D posters don't care for the Wall Street Journal, but having read through the NYT and Washington Post offerings, I find once again WSJ strives to be fair. link should work for everyone https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-...4ygq4z8t7l7&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink The Supreme Court Protects the Presidency in Trump v. U.S. A 6-3 majority rules that Presidents have ‘presumptive immunity’ from criminal prosecution for their official acts. By The Editorial Board July 1, 2024 at 5:47 pm ET Partisans on the left and right are reacting to Monday’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity based on how it affects the fate of Donald Trump. That’s a blinkered view that ignores the long-run implications for the American republic. The 6-3 Court majority rightly focuses on the institution of the Presidency, and the ability of all Presidents—not merely the last one—to act in the national interest free from prosecution for official acts. *** The opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts in Trump v. U.S. is a landmark on executive power. It was also predictable based on the Court’s 1982 opinion in Nixon v. Fitzgerald, which said a President has absolute immunity from civil suits for acts within the “outer perimeter” of his duties. The Court ruled on Monday that the threat of criminal prosecution for official acts would be even more debilitating to executive power. “A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” writes the Chief for the six conservative Justices. “And if a former President’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, ‘the independence of the Executive Branch’ may be significantly undermined.” The Chief goes on to provide a nuanced ruling that is far from a total victory for Mr. Trump. The Court properly reads the Constitution to offer absolute immunity for actions within the core plenary powers of the executive. This means that a President can’t be prosecuted for actions related to national security, intelligence, or foreign policy. He can’t be prosecuted, for example, for deaths that occur from ordering a drone strike. And he can’t be prosecuted for his communications with the Attorney General on his investigative decisions. This disqualifies part of special counsel Jack Smith’s narrative against Mr. Trump in the Jan. 6 indictment. But the Court rejected Mr. Trump’s claim that all presidential acts have absolute immunity. The Chief writes that a President has only “presumptive immunity” from prosecution for official acts outside of his core constitutional powers, and that unofficial acts have no immunity. Mr. Trump couldn’t shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, as he once joked, and be immune. The most important question is what defines an official act that warrants presumptive immunity. The Chief offers guidance to lower courts and Congress that will shield most official presidential acts. One principle is that a prosecutor and Congress cannot investigate a President’s motive in making a decision. This makes sense because such an investigation would be an enormous and disruptive intrusion into presidential decision-making. Another principle is that the burden is on the prosecutor to show that an official act doesn’t deserve immunity. “At a minimum, the President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no ‘dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch,’” the Chief writes. The Court doesn’t rule on the other evidence in Mr. Smith’s indictment. Instead it remands the case back to the trial judge to decide if the acts charged are official and deserve immunity. But the Chief does suggest that Mr. Trump’s pressure on Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify the Electoral College votes is probably an official act. “Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct,” writes the Chief. “Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President.” But the Court doesn’t offer guidance on immunity for Mr. Trump’s lobbying of state officials to file pro-Trump slates of electors. Instead it remands the question, and other details in Mr. Smith’s indictment, to the trial judge for fact-finding and application of the new immunity principles. *** The main dissent, by Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the three liberals, focuses on the indictment against Mr. Trump and the particular peril they say he poses to democracy. She offers a parade of potential horribles that Presidents might commit in the future. “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done,” she writes. “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.” But is he really? Congress and the judiciary still exist as checks, as the Supreme Court has shown this term on numerous occasions. The impeachment power exists, and elections are the ultimate check on abusive Presidents. The Chief calls out the dissents for “fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals.” And he says they “overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next.” Democrats on Monday denounced the Court for favoring Mr. Trump and complicating Mr. Smith’s prosecution. But the Court is doing its job of protecting the constitutional order. If they’d take a breath, Democrats would notice that the Justices made it more difficult for Mr. Trump to prosecute Mr. Biden. The immunity ruling underscores the mistake Democrats have made in using lawfare to disqualify a presidential candidate. They should have put more trust in the voters. Appeared in the July 2, 2024, print edition as 'The Court Protects the Presidency'.
