jdeluise kirjoitti 5.7.2024 klo 0.48:
The Iceberg <iceberg.rules@gmail.com> writes:
On 03/07/2024 04:50, Sawfish wrote:
On 7/2/24 4:08 PM, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/2/24 10:08 AM, jdeluise wrote:
Sawfish <sawfish666@gmail.com> writes:
On 7/2/24 5:21 AM, The Iceberg wrote:
oh no vox are very upset at the SCOTUS decision! they write
articles
how rapists shouldn't be put on sex offenders list, pedofiles are >>>>>>>> misunderstood and there should be more violent/murdering CHAZ
zones,
but this ruling!
https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immunity-dictatorship
The Supreme Court’s disastrous Trump immunity decision, explained >>>>>>>>
The Court’s Trump immunity decision is a blueprint for
dictatorship.
The Court’s six Republicans handed down a decision on Monday that >>>>>>>> gives Donald Trump such sweeping immunity from prosecution that >>>>>>>> there are unlikely to be any legal checks on his behavior if he >>>>>>>> returns to the White House. The Court’s three Democrats dissented. >>>>>>>>
Trump v. United States is an astonishing opinion. It holds that >>>>>>>> presidents have broad immunity from criminal prosecution —
essentially, a license to commit crimes — so long as they use the >>>>>>>> official powers of their office to do so.
Broadly speaking, Chief Justice John Roberts’s majority opinion >>>>>>>> reaches three conclusions. The first is that when the president >>>>>>>> takes any action under the authority given to him by the
Constitution itself, his authority is “conclusive and preclusive” >>>>>>>> and thus he cannot be prosecuted. Thus, for example, a president >>>>>>>> could not be prosecuted for pardoning someone, because the
Constitution explicitly gives the chief executive the “Power to >>>>>>>> Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United
States.”
One question that has loomed over this case for months is whether >>>>>>>> presidential immunity is so broad that the president could order >>>>>>>> the
military to assassinate a political rival. While this case was >>>>>>>> before a lower court, one judge asked if Trump could be prosecuted >>>>>>>> if he’d ordered “SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival” and
Trump’s lawyer answered that he could not unless Trump had
previously been successfully impeached and convicted for doing so. >>>>>>>>
Roberts’s opinion in Trump, however, seems to go even further than >>>>>>>> Trump’s lawyer did. The Constitution, after all, states that the >>>>>>>> president “shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the >>>>>>>> United States.” So, if presidential authority is “conclusive and >>>>>>>> preclusive” when presidents exercise their constitutionally granted >>>>>>>> powers, the Court appears to have ruled that yes, Trump could order >>>>>>>> the military to assassinate one of his political opponents. And >>>>>>>> nothing can be done to him for it.
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writes in dissent, “from this day >>>>>>>> forward, Presidents of tomorrow will be free to exercise the
Commander-in-Chief powers, the foreign-affairs powers, and all the >>>>>>>> vast law enforcement powers enshrined in Article II however they >>>>>>>> please — including in ways that Congress has deemed criminal and >>>>>>>> that have potentially grave consequences for the rights and
liberties of Americans.”
Roberts’s second conclusion is that presidents also enjoy “at least
a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s >>>>>>>> acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” >>>>>>>> Thus, if a president’s action even touches on his official
authority
(the “outer perimeter” of that authority), then the president >>>>>>>> enjoys
a strong presumption of immunity from prosecution.
This second form of immunity applies when the president uses
authority that is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, >>>>>>>> and it is quite broad — most likely extending even to mere
conversations between the president and one of his subordinates. >>>>>>>>
The Court also says that this second form of immunity is
exceptionally strong. As Roberts writes, “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.’”
Much of Roberts’s opinion, moreover, details just how broad this >>>>>>>> immunity will be in practice. Roberts claims, for example, that >>>>>>>> Trump is immune from prosecution for conversations between himself >>>>>>>> and high-ranking Justice Department officials, where he allegedly >>>>>>>> urged them to pressure states to “replace their legitimate
electors”
with fraudulent members of the Electoral College who would vote to >>>>>>>> install Trump for a second term.
Roberts writes that “the Executive Branch has ‘exclusive authority >>>>>>>> and absolute discretion’ to decide which crimes to investigate and >>>>>>>> prosecute,” and thus Trump’s conversations with Justice Department >>>>>>>> officials fall within his “conclusive and preclusive authority.” >>>>>>>> Following that logic, Trump could not have been charged with a >>>>>>>> crime
if he had ordered the Justice Department to arrest every Democrat >>>>>>>> who holds elective office.
Elsewhere in his opinion, moreover, Roberts suggests that any
conversation between Trump and one of his advisers or subordinates >>>>>>>> could not be the basis for a prosecution. In explaining why Trump’s >>>>>>>> attempts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to “fraudulently >>>>>>>> alter the election results” likely cannot be prosecuted, for >>>>>>>> example, Roberts points to the fact that the vice president
frequently serves “as one of the President’s closest advisers.” >>>>>>>>
Finally, Roberts does concede that the president may be prosecuted >>>>>>>> for “unofficial” acts. So, for example, if Trump had personally >>>>>>>> attempted to shoot and kill then-presidential candidate Joe
Biden in
the lead-up to the 2020 election, rather than ordering a
subordinate
to do so, then Trump could probably be prosecuted for murder.
But even this caveat to Roberts’s sweeping immunity decision is not >>>>>>>> very strong. Roberts writes that “in dividing official from
unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s >>>>>>>> motives.” And Roberts even limits the ability of prosecutors to >>>>>>>> pursue a president who accepts a bribe in return for committing an >>>>>>>> official act, such as pardoning a criminal who pays off the
president. In Roberts’s words, a prosecutor may not “admit >>>>>>>> testimony
or private records of the President or his advisers probing the >>>>>>>> official act itself.”
That means that, while the president can be prosecuted for an
“unofficial” act, the prosecutors may not prove that he committed >>>>>>>> this crime using evidence drawn from the president’s “official” >>>>>>>> actions.
The practical implications of this ruling are astounding. As
Justice
Sonia Sotomayor writes in a dissenting opinion, “imagine a
President
states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political >>>>>>>> rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it >>>>>>>> takes to do so,” it follows from Roberts’s opinion that the ensuing
murder indictment “could include no allegation of the President’s >>>>>>>> public admission of premeditated intent to support” the proposition >>>>>>>> that the president intended to commit murder.
Monday’s decision, in other words, ensures that, should Trump >>>>>>>> return
to power, he will do so with hardly any legal checks. Under the >>>>>>>> Republican justices’ decision in Trump, a future president can >>>>>>>> almost certainly order the assassination of his rivals. He can >>>>>>>> wield
the authority of the presidency to commit countless crimes. And he >>>>>>>> can order a subordinate to do virtually anything.
And nothing can be done to him.
I read about half the decision last night. It's a fairly easy read. >>>>>>>
3/4s of it is that they punted back to the lower court because the >>>>>>> lower court made no distinction between which of the charges is an >>>>>>> official act and which is an unofficial act. A large part of they >>>>>>> decision seems to imply that they felt that the case had been rushed >>>>>>> thru without adequate fact-finding.
We'll see this again. It's not done.
Do you feel they provided any justification *rooted in the US
constitution* that the president is in fact absolutely immune from >>>>>> prosecution, even for official acts?
No. It is custom and case law. Not constitutional, not statutory.
The most dangerous part of this, I think, is that they've also
raised the bar in determining what is and isn't an official act.
It's now pretty much up to the President to determine this... and/or >>>>>> couching an illegal act in an official function now makes it legal. >>>>>> I see no constitutional basis for this, in fact it seems explicitly >>>>>> anathema to the constitution.
Explicitly? I'd agree if you'd said "implicitly".
Hyperbole is for fun and games, but not to portray factual points.
What do you mean it's not a constitutional issue?
In response to your question:
"Do you feel they provided any justification *rooted in the US
constitution*"
and I said:
"No. It is custom and case law. Not constitutional, not statutory."
I was replying that no, they did not provide support derived from
the constitution. I said that it appeared to me to be rooted in
custom and case law *but not a constitutional basis, nor a statutory
basis*.
The president's powers are rooted in and derived from the
constitution. To quote from article II sec. 3, the constitution
states of the president "he shall take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed". It does not state, nor imply that the
president can violate the laws with impunity as long as they are
self-described
I don't think it hinges on "self-described"; I didn't see where the
opinion said that. It basically gave examples of what might be
considered official acts--even delineated the obvious and the less
obvious--argued that some of Trump's actions *might* have been
official, and why, but said that the lower court did not explore
each action in context and give an opinion if it was
official/unofficial.
as "official acts". I find there to be tenuous justification for
the perspective presented in this ruling, and it certainly doesn't
come from the constitution.
That's what I said.
It seems to me that the current conservative supreme court
oscillates between being "textualist", "originalist", and
"intentionalist" depending on what best supports the jurist'
personally desired outcome.
Yes. They are do not strictly adhere to a school of constitutional
interpretation, which is pretty much like most other supreme court
benches.
It's very much like Roe v Wade was, except Roe v Wade pretended to
find a basis in the constitution for an implied right to
abortion. This was good public policy, but bad law.
This one too. Bad law.
So far as policy, what they seem like they wanted to establish for
all presidents going forth is that the pres is the biggest swinging
dick in the room--any room they are in.
Let's see what happens in the lower court. Right now it is scary as
hell.
yes and that's what the constitution provides for, the President is
the executive. The idea has always been to protect the president from
being afraid to make difficult decisions regarding war etc without
fear of prosecution afterwards.
It absolutely does *not* say that in the Constitution. That's the
point. Additionally, I don't think it's "bold" for a president to
commit an illegal act under the cover of immunity. Bold would be a president acting for what they believed was right regardless of the
personal consequences. This ruling does nothing more than make
presidents lazy and not bold, they'll just do whatever is easiest which
is typically crime and never, ever have to face the music. It's about
as close to "papal infallibility" as we've come in this nation.
Well, hopefully something good comes from this... such as Trump giving
half of Ukraine to Russia... and gets bought - this time around - by
Putin and Xi. Then my China stocks explode through the roof and I become
a rich rich man. Happy ending.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)