damn texxx! sounds like you have cracked the case wide open! you should have let trumps lawyers know about this before they got 60 lawsuits tossed out. and also trumps election security chief who said the 2020 election was the most secure in our nations history. LOL. FACT: there is zero evidence that there was election fraud that would have resulted in a different outcome. trump lost fair and square and almost four years later yall cannot accept reality. i think even you know that youre lying here. we all know what we saw that day and who incited them. more lies from you dude... “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump said. “Because we won the state.” its always projection from the right-wingers.
https://thehill.com/opinion/4760751-justice-sotomayor-executive-power/ an hour ago Justice Sotomayor dangerously misunderstands our military by Elizabeth Robbins, opinion contributor 07/09/24 7:45 AM ET Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor may be a constitutional law expert, but she apparently is unaware of a key limitation on executive power: our American troops. In her dissent to the Supreme Court’s July 1 ruling in Trump v. United States, Sotomayor raised a hypothetical scenario regarding presidential immunity. Specifically, she warned that the decision meant that a commander-in-chief could order U.S. troops to murder an opponent, then sidestep criminal prosecution. She wrote: “[The president] orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.” Someone needs to explain to her that’s not how it works. Sotomayor wrote, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law” who in her view can simply execute opponents. But where are the willing executioners? I served for more than 20 years as an Army officer. I can tell you that they are not in uniform. Our armed forces are comprised of bright and principled fellow citizens who understand their duty to follow only lawful orders. An assassination order against an American citizen would not be lawful — in fact, it would be an impeachable offense. Each service member swears an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Further, enlistees vow to “obey the orders of the president of the United States” and other officers “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” The Uniform Code of Military Justice was established by Congress under its Constitutional powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and establish rules and regulations for these forces. Accordingly, U.S. service members receive legal and ethical training to fulfill Congress’s directives as codified and implemented and enforced by commanders and the Judge Advocate General’s Corps. This is deadly serious — the U.S. government provides its military a license to kill and the means to do so on its behalf, but with deep and meaningful constraints upon that power. Beyond these legal boundaries, another reason that Sotomayor’s contention is nonsense is the diverse composition of our military. The ranks are filled with individuals from across the social, ethnic and political spectrum. No common military perspective exists on domestic politics. Multiple studies reveal that the troops do not predominantly support one party or another. Accordingly, if a president were to give an illegal order to murder or enact a coup, the troops would not simply fall into line. As I have written previously, it is laughable to think that service members could agree on taking an unlawful course of action; mobilize sympathetic service members across various branches and locations to provide illicit combat and service support; and keep the planning and execution of these criminal schemes from other troops, civilian law enforcement personnel, their families and their neighbors. If a coup plot were brewing, it would not remain a secret — and once revealed, the plotters would be swiftly caught. A rogue president who “fires” generals in an attempt to compel compliance would only succeed in providing Congress the exact evidence needed to impeach. Our legislators enjoy strong and direct ties with the military, which they fund and oversee. The idea that hypothetical assassins would be shielded by presidential pardons is also nonsense. A chief executive who boldly orders such killings and then frees the assassins would be impeached and removed from office. Sotomayor’s tortured scenario reads more like a bad movie script than a realistic appraisal of the American political dynamic. Our troops are not trigger-men for a tyrant, but the bulwark of democracy. In these difficult times, when trust is strained between citizens and their government, the majority of Americans continue to express “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the U.S. military. Sotomayor’s misinformed Hail Mary of a dissent was inappropriate and harmful to this trust. It ignored the principled behavior of our military and inaccurately politicized its members. Sotomayor fears for our democracy, but she should look elsewhere for true threats to our republic. Elizabeth Robbins, a retired Army officer, is vice president for communications at Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy.
Guess she missed Unitary Executive years John Yoo crafted during Bush, which allowed Obama to order a drone strike at an American citizen on foreign soil without even a peep.
You won't make the big time with your homophobic slurs. Still have not seen you address why you would say such a thing. A true champion of the LGBT community but uses "Butt Buddy" without hesitation. Hypocrite. Closet Homophobe.
This is a joke right? This has to be a joke, this writer cannot be this delusional or out of touch with reality.
Yes, the assassination hypo has difficulties, but also the 20 year Army vet writer is out of touch. As someone who is close to many current and ex enlisted and officers, it's a hodgepodge. You'll find many honorable mixed in with numerous man-children in constant need of adult supervision. The easier hypo is bribes for pardons. It doesn't help that Roberts doesn't address it head on. He was being intentionally vague because he's very bright and knows better. This was 5 justices making policy decision vs 3.5 justices and they differed over which worst case scenarios are more dangerous in the long-run. But also, the dissent has more textual support. Originalism, when it suits you. All the justices are Breyer like, but don't want to admit it.
As someone that is close to a number or family members and friends that were in the military, in combat situations - the reality is that a good number of "honorable" soldiers and military people would take a direct order from a superior and execute that order, regardless - and would not feel that they were acting unethically or otherwise - because it was a direct order from a superior. The Sotomayor example is purposely simple - but there are a lot of soldiers that would "follow orders", and there are some soldiers that would loot, rape and everything in between. It isn't that US soldiers are worse than any other group, it is the reality of being in a war zone and attempting to survive. This writer doesn't live in the real world if she believes that all soldiers would disobey a direct order. We are at a point that we cannot even agree what an actual "fact" is when it comes to the SCOTUS - to expect 20 year old Marines to do better is absurd.
What war zone would Seal Team 6 be attempting to survive by obeying an order to assassinate Donald Trump? Mar-a-Lago?
Your argument is one of a practical nature, where norms would dictate expected behavior. The legitimate criticism of the SCOTUS ruling is that from an interpreted rules perspective, the extreme scenario is arguably allowed under the Constitution. I believe that interpretation to be wrong, for textual and historical reasons. Instead of having 3 categories, Roberts could have just had 2, which would make me sense. Again, the better extreme example is bribes for pardons. That should have been addressed. Pardons are a core executive power. Pardons cannot be removed by laws passed by the legislature. Why are bribes for pardons not allowed under your new 3 category analysis? Roberts knows he cannot defend this, so he side steps it, because he's making the policy choice that bribes for pardons aren't as bad as crazy prosecutions of past presidents. Again, I don't think that's a terrible policy choice - it's just not based on text, as the French column points out.
Senators seek special counsel probe of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Two Democratic Senate committee leaders asked the Department of Justice to appoint a special counsel to investigate whether Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas broke federal tax and ethics laws, the senators said Tuesday. “We do not make this request lightly,” said Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who leads a subcommittee on federal courts, in a letter sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland last week. “The evidence assembled thus far plainly suggests that Justice Thomas has committed numerous willful violations of federal ethics and false-statement laws,” the senators alleged in the letter. It also “raises significant questions about whether he and his wealthy benefactors have complied with their federal tax obligations,” Wyden and Whitehouse wrote. That evidence, they wrote, suggests that Thomas “likely violated federal law by accepting lavish gifts from wealthy benefactors and failing to report them” in violation of the Ethics in Government Act. They pointed to public reporting from ProPublica and other sources, as well as their own Senate investigation, in alleging that Thomas has “secretly accepted gifts and income potentially worth millions of dollars” since he joined the high court in 1991. The Supreme Court did not immediately respond to CNBC’s request for comment on the letter, which is dated July 3. Two days before it was written, Thomas in a pivotal court ruling questioned whether the DOJ has the power to even appoint a special counsel. Thomas’ skepticism came in a statement concurring with a majority ruling that former presidents hold absolute immunity for some of their core actions while in office, and “at least presumptive immunity” for all other official acts. The 6-3 ruling was touted as a win by former President Donald Trump, who had argued that he was immune from prosecution in the federal election interference case being prosecuted by special counsel Jack Smith. Thomas wrote in his concurrence, “If there is no law establishing the office that the Special Counsel occupies, then he cannot proceed with this prosecution. A private citizen cannot criminally prosecute anyone, let alone a former President.” The court’s ruling, which was vehemently opposed by the court’s three liberal justices, and Thomas’ concurrence threatened to delay or weaken both of Smith’s active criminal cases against Trump. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/07/09/justice-clarence-thomas-senate-special-counsel-probe-sought.html
My argument in the quoted post is only that I think @Nook is mistaken about how much of a warzone Mar-a-Lago is. To address the bribes for pardons question, my argument would be that accepting bribes is not an official act, whether a core function or the presidency or not. Giving pardons is an official act. So, you could punish the bribe but not the pardon. The President already has a praetorian guard. They are called the Presidential Protection Detail of the United States Secret Service.
Except that under this ruling a prosecutor might not even be able to use the evidence that a bribe was offered and taken since it was for an official action.
I think you have the ruling backward. A prosecutor would not be able to use the evidence that a pardon was given, since it was an official action. The evidence of the bribe would still be admissible.
That is one possible reading, but it's not clear. These written opinions are read, re-read, edited, and re-edited. Roberts knows what Sotomayor is writing and knows what ACB is writing. Roberts could be clear and has the last word, but he simply isn't. Again, I think there should be 2 buckets, not 3, given that these buckets were created from the bench and not the text, but if there are 3 buckets, at least adopt the ACB standard. Here's the relevant exchange. ACB agreeing with the majority in part and agreeing with the dissent in part (with citations removed for ease of reading): The Constitution, of course, does not authorize a President to seek or accept bribes, so the Government may prosecute him if he does so. Yet excluding from trial any mention of the official act connected to the bribe would hamstring the prosecution. To make sense of charges alleging a quid pro quo, the jury must be allowed to hear about both the quid and the quo, even if the quo, standing alone, could not be a basis for the President’s criminal liability. I appreciate the Court’s concern that allowing into evidence official acts for which the President cannot be held criminally liable may prejudice the jury. But the rules of evidence are equipped to handle that concern on a case-by-case basis. Most importantly, a trial court can exclude evidence of the President’s protected conduct “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of . . . unfair prejudice” or “confusing the issues.” Here is Roberts (citations removed): But of course the prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of the act. What the prosecutor may not do, however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself. Allowing that sort of evidence would invite the jury to inspect the President’s motivations for his official actions and to second-guess their propriety. As we have explained, such inspection would be “highly intrusive” and would “ ‘seriously cripple’ ” the President’s exercise of his official duties. So instead of taking this head-on with the dissent by saying "bribes for pardons not allowed", the Chief is obfuscating and getting people to defend it from your view as one way of reading it. But read the whole opinion and square it with the following issues: - under these new rules, is Roberts referring to the person who bribes or the president? - pardons (a core function) are not referred to here, so is bribery evidence okay in some circumstances for core functions or not? Core function would seem to win out unless otherwise stated, and it's not otherwise stated. - you can't probe the act, but you can admit evidence in performance of the act, but if the act is a pardon, then what? This is not a clear opinion, and it's intentional because Roberts is smarter than all of us when it comes to Constitutional law. Those rules do not clearly say, this is how you prosecute bribery for pardons for the briber and bribee. The rules say, sometimes, you can prosecute bribery in some circumstances based on some evidence that's allowed, but be careful not to try to get other evidence, because it's more important to leave the president to do president crap without the threat of prosecution. Again, the majority is valuing one set of outcomes over another, which isn't terrible, but is not textual. I haven't finished the dissent yet. I'm guessing they don't care for any categories/buckets, but I'll get to it. I think there's more logic behind just dividing between official and unofficial, but we have 3 buckets now, with one of them being pretty difficult, if not impossible, to ever prosecute. I'm just going to steal French's conclusion from the posted link and repeat it since I'm on board with this: I disagree with the conservative majority in both Trump cases, but not because I think the court is trying to do Trump favors or because I think its policy concerns are frivolous. There are legitimate reasons to worry about rogue prosecutions or rogue efforts to knock candidates from ballots. I disagree with the Supreme Court’s rulings for the most basic reason of all — they do not square with the text of the document the justices are supposed to interpret, and that means they’re granting the presidency a degree of autonomy and impunity that’s contrary to the structure and spirit of American government. In both Trump cases, the liberal minority was more originalist than the conservative majority. This time, it was the conservatives who created a living constitution. Like I said, they're all Stephen Breyers, but just won't admit it. At least he's open about it.
@Kim has responded in more detail than I can but to sum up this ruling doesn’t make bribes legal but it makes it difficult to present evidence of bribes around official acts.
