Supreme Court Anyone?

printer

Well-Known Member
Supreme Court appears open to some presidential immunity for Trump, risking delays
Justices on the Supreme Court voiced skepticism Thursday to assertions from former President Trump’s attorneys that presidential immunity could extend to an attempted coup or the assassination of a political rival, even as they seemed ready to offer some protections from criminal prosecution.

Such a ruling could create a new cycle of legal battles that in turn could delay Trump’s federal election subversion trial and his other trials past the election.

Conservative and liberal justices alike peppered Trump’s counsel with hypothetical situations, asking how far the former president’s claim of sweeping immunity protections would go.

Chief Justice John Roberts asked whether a president could be prosecuted for accepting a bribe for appointing someone to an ambassador post, while liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked whether a president selling nuclear secrets would have immunity.

Fellow liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked if “fundamentally evil” actions such as ordering the military to take out a political rival would be protected by presidential immunity.

D. John Sauer, who argued the case on behalf of Trump, said most of the hypotheticals could plausibly fall under the standard for presidential immunity.

“That well could be an official act,” Sauer responded to Sotomayor’s scenario.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the third liberal justice on the court, questioned whether Trump’s arguments would essentially make the presidency a lawless office.

“I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country,” Jackson said.

Trump is asserting that a president has absolute immunity for official acts while in office, and that this immunity applies after leaving office. He and his counsel argue the protections cover his efforts to prevent the transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election.

If the court agrees with Trump, many of his criminal indictments could unwind. Even if the court does not go that far, its decision could delay actions in several of Trump’s cases beyond the presidential election.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who attended Thursday’s argument, has argued only sitting presidents enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution, and that the broad scope Trump proposes would give a free pass for criminal conduct.

“The entire corpus of federal criminal law, including bribery offenses, sedition, murder would all be off limits if it were taken to the total to the extent that some of the questions have suggested,” said Michael Dreeben, a counselor for Smith’s team.

Smith sat alongside Dreeben at the counsel table, but some other lawyers involved in the case sat in the second row of the packed courtroom gallery. Gregory Singer, an attorney on Trump’s trial team, was seen chatting and laughing with prosecutors Molly Gaston and Thomas Windom as they waited for the proceedings to begin.

The justices over the course of more than two hours explored the bounds of presidential immunity — with some seeming to embrace Trump’s theory that presidents cannot be prosecuted for some actions even after they leave office.

The justices did so without invoking Trump by name, referring to him as the “defendant,” the “petitioner” or even the “former president,” as many of them portrayed the case as being about the presidential powers in general and not just Trump.

“This case has huge implications for the presidency, for the future of the presidency, for the future of the country,” noted Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The justices spent ample time questioning what actions would qualify as official ones, for which a president might enjoy immunity, versus personal actions, for which they would not.

Embracing such an argument could have multiple benefits for Trump — if the justices in part side with Trump, the case could be remanded back to the district court for further consideration, likely delaying Trump’s trial until after the election. If Trump wins reelection, his Justice Department would almost assuredly drop the charges.

A decision in the case, Trump v. United States, is expected by the end of June, though the special counsel has urged the high court to act expeditiously.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett probed whether prosecutors after the court’s decision could simply drop any allegations deemed covered by immunity while moving ahead “just on the private conduct.”

Kavanaugh and Justice Neil Gorsuch suggested a more nuanced framework in which “core,” official functions of the presidency would be protected entirely, while other official acts could be subject to prosecution if Congress speaks clearly that a given crime applies to ex-presidents.

“There does seem to be some common ground between you and your colleagues on the other side, that no man is above the law and the president can be prosecuted after he leaves office for his private conduct,” Gorsuch said to Sauer.

“Then the question becomes, as we’ve been exploring here today, a little bit about how to segregate private from official conduct that may or may not enjoy some immunity.”

Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were all nominated to the court by Trump.

Prosecutors said Trump was not being charged for any conduct that could be considered a presidential action.

“We’re not seeking to impose criminal liability on the president for exercising or talking about exercising the appointment and removal power — no,” Dreeben said.

“What we’re seeking to impose criminal liability for is a conspiracy to use fraud to subvert the election, one means of which was to try to get the Justice Department to be complicit in this. The case would have been no different if petitioner were successful.”

Jackson expressed frustration her colleagues were embracing the “underlying assumption” some official acts had immunity, noting that presidents have access to “the best attorneys in the world” to determine whether any of their actions are lawful.

“Why would we have a situation in which we would say that the president should be making official acts without any responsibility for following the law?” she asked.

She said broad immunity could “embolden” presidents to commit crimes, rejecting claims from Trump’s attorneys that risk of prosecution would “chill” presidents while in office.

“I think that we would have a really significant opposite problem if … someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes,” Jackson said.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
He's calling well documented reports "nastiness and lies". This guy is going to decide on the claim that presidents order a team of assassins to murder political enemies and anybody else who gets in their way without fear of prosecution and he's calling facts based reports "lies". Because, I guess, they say things he doesn't want to be said?

Justice Clarence Thomas calls criticism of him ‘nastiness’ and ‘lies’

Justice Thomas offered some of his most extensive comments since news broke last year of travel and real estate deals paid for by businessman Harlan Crow.

POINT CLEAR, ALA. — After facing harsh questions about his judicial decisions and acceptance of lavish gifts from a billionaire, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas forcefully pushed back at his critics Friday — saying he and his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, have endured “nastiness” and “lies.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/10/kavanaugh-thomas-alito-supreme-court-speeches/
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Like, perhaps, he is a corrupt moral coward in the pocket of Heritage Foundation billionaires married to an unmitigated seditionist?

It is to say hmmm.
Judges look for contrition and acceptance of guilt when setting sentences. What Thomas is doing should cause consideration of removal from office.

He knows what he did. He simply refuses to admit he was wrong. That's not who we want on the SCOTUS.

Just another whacko extremist right wing authoritarian.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
When somebody tells you who they are the first time, listen to them.

Justice Kavanaugh says unpopular rulings can later become ‘fabric of American constitutional law’

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Friday that U.S. history shows c ourt decisions unpopular in their time later can become part of the “fabric of American constitutional law.”


Really? The court that rolled back civil rights of women and put voting rights at risk for tens of millions of people compare themselves to the one that broke the system of southern segregation in the 1960's?
 

OldMedUser

Well-Known Member

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
An inverted flag is a maritime signal of a ship in distress so a very fitting symbol for the floundering republican ship of fools.

:peace:
It has also been used on land-based forts to signal similar severe distress.

It tars Alito with the brush of fascism. The playbook uses fabricated emergencies to get “temporary” and draconian measures implemented as a springboard for the imminent planned coup. It would be fascinating to find out if he communicated with Ginni Q. Thomas during that time.

I speak a curse upon the totalibertarian justices’ billionaire neoliberal activists.
 

BudmanTX

Well-Known Member
and the asshole did it again....

 

Bagginski

Well-Known Member
Wasn't sure if I should put this here or in "GOP leadership". Sticking it here.
Poor Lindsey…it’s not like no-one knows he’s gay, he should unshrivel his grapes & be a real person for a change.

wait, maybe that’s asking too much
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Poor Lindsey…it’s not like no-one knows he’s gay, he should unshrivel his grapes & be a real person for a change.

wait, maybe that’s asking too much
Never mind his demons. Lindsey Graham is the face of Republican antigovernance. I remember reading that he has spent his career on the Hill obstructing every Democrat initiative he could. It’s his default action.

His example has drawn many other Republicans on the Hill to join in on the rejection of anything bipartisan as a sort of surrender. He’s the weaponization OG right behind his mentor.

1718210136501.gif
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Never mind his demons. Lindsey Graham is the face of Republican antigovernance. I remember reading that he has spent his career on the Hill obstructing every Democrat initiative he could. It’s his default action.

His example has drawn many other Republicans on the Hill to join in on the rejection of anything bipartisan as a sort of surrender. He’s the weaponization OG right behind his mentor.

View attachment 5399571
 

topcat

Well-Known Member
I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it
No matter what it is, or who commenced it
I'm against it

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whaterver it is, I'm against it
And even when you've changed it, or condensed it
I'm against it

Trump part:
For months before my son was born
I used to yell from night to morn
Whatever it is, I'm against it
And I've been yelling since I first commenced it
I'm against it
-Groucho, Horse Feathers
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it
No matter what it is, or who commenced it
I'm against it

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whaterver it is, I'm against it
And even when you've changed it, or condensed it
I'm against it


Trump part:
For months before my son was born
I used to yell from night to morn
Whatever it is, I'm against it
And I've been yelling since I first commenced it
I'm against it
-Groucho, Horse Feathers
I feel the need to find that movie and make an evening of it.
 
Top