Everyone knew that the Spring 2024 session of the Supreme Court’s docket was going to yield some truly god-awful decisions, but it feel like we’re being inundated every single day with some new SCOTUS travesty. Last week, SCOTUS basically overturned the Chevron doctrine, a 40-year legal principle which effectively allowed government agencies to regulate businesses in good faith within ambiguous laws and statutes. Last week, SCOTUS also gave a wide berth to local authorities who want to arrest homeless people for sleeping on the streets. On the same day, the Court basically questioned whether insurrectionists could be or should be charged with obstruction. On Monday, SCOTUS released their decision on presidential immunity. This is Donald Trump’s case, where Trump is basically arguing that as president, he has criminal immunity across the board and he can commit criminal acts in an official capacity. The court agreed with Trump, in that they also believe he is immune from prosecution for all of the crimes he committed during his presidency, up to and including inciting an insurrection.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, ruled that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers — and is entitled to a presumption of immunity for his official acts, but lacks immunity for unofficial acts. But at the same time, the court sent the case back to the trial judge to determine which, if any of former President Donald Trump’s actions, were part of his official duties and thus were protected from prosecution.
That part of the court’s decision likely ensures that the case against Trump won’t be tried before the election, and then only if he is not reelected. If he is reelected, Trump could order the Justice Department to drop the charges against him, or he might try to pardon himself in the two pending federal cases.
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s decision, joined by his fellow conservatives. Dissenting were the three liberals, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Roberts acknowledged that the case was unprecedented.
“No court has thus far considered how to distinguish between official and unofficial acts,” he wrote, while chiding the lower courts for rendering “their decisions on a highly expedited basis.” He said the lower courts “did not analyze the conduct alleged in the indictment to decide which of it should be categorized as official and which unofficial.” Roberts wrote that “Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized,” but the opinion also undermined some of the key charges against the former president.
“Certain allegations — such as those involving Trump’s discussions with the Acting Attorney General — are readily categorized in light of the nature of the President’s official relationship to the office held by that individual,” he wrote. In other words, “Trump is … absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.”
Monday’s decision to send the case back to trial Judge Tanya Chutkan all but guarantees that there will be no Trump trial on the election interference charges for months. Even before the immunity case, Judge Chutkan indicated that trial preparations would likely take three months. Now, she will also have to decide which of the charges in the Trump indictment should remain and which involve official acts that under the Supreme Court ruling are protected from prosecution.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the majority “in effect, completely insulate[s] Presidents from criminal liability.”
“Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law,” she wrote. “Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, … the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more.”
While the entire decision is a sh-tshow, this is especially galling: “Trump is … absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.” As in, Trump – or any president?? – can order the Attorney General to drop prosecutions of his cronies, Trump and the AG can collude on criminal acts and the AG can basically act as Trump’s in-house mob lawyer. That’s not how any of this is supposed to work. As many have said, the right-wing justices have left such a broad interpretation for presidential immunity, it would be funny if President Biden tried to test out the ruling. I mean, SCOTUS just said that the president can commit all manner of crimes if he cloaks them as “official, presidential acts.” President Biden could dismantle the Supreme Court, imprison those six justices without due process and say that it’s an official act – it’s his duty as president to save the republic from a fascist reactionary court.
joe biden now has the opportunity to create several scotus vacancies in the funniest ways possible
— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) July 1, 2024
Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red.
-
- President Donald Trump gives a thumbs up to supporters lined up along the street at the Jupiter Inlet Lighthouse and Museum in Jupiter, Florida after appearing a campaign rally on Tuesday, Sept. 8, 2020. (Mike Stocker/Sun Sentinel/TNS) Photo via Newscom
-
- Justices of the United States Supreme Court during a formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. The court opened its new term Monday with a calendar already full of high-profile clashes, including two cases that could end the use of race in college admissions. Featuring: Amy Coney Barrett, Brett M Kavanaugh, Samuel Anthony Alito Jr, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, John Glover Roberts Jr, Neil McGill Gorsuch, Sonia M Sotomayor Where: Washington, District of Columbia, United States When: 07 Oct 2022 Credit: Eric Lee/POOL/CNP/startraksphoto.com/Cover Images
-
- Justices of the United States Supreme Court during a formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. The court opened its new term Monday with a calendar already full of high-profile clashes, including two cases that could end the use of race in college admissions. Featuring: Sonia Sotomayor, Clarence Thomas Where: Washington, District of Columbia, United States When: 07 Oct 2022 Credit: Eric Lee/POOL/CNP/startraksphoto.com/Cover Images
-
- Justices of the United States Supreme Court during a formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Friday, Oct. 7, 2022. The court opened its new term Monday with a calendar already full of high-profile clashes, including two cases that could end the use of race in college admissions. Featuring: Amy Coney Barrett, Brett M Kavanaugh, Samuel Anthony Alito Jr, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, John Glover Roberts Jr, Neil McGill Gorsuch, Sonia M Sotomayor Where: Washington, District of Columbia, United States When: 07 Oct 2022 Credit: Eric Lee/POOL/CNP/startraksphoto.com/Cover Images
-
- Former President Donald J. Trump appears in court for his arraignment, in New York City. According to CNN: Former President Donald Trump personally pleaded not guilty to 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in a Manhattan court after hearing charges against him. The charges stem from an investigation into a hush money payment made to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 presidential campaign. Featuring: Donald Trump Where: New York, New York, United States When: 04 Apr 2023 Credit: POOL via CNP/startraksphoto.com
-
- Pray Vote Stand Summit at the Omni Shoreham Hotel. Featuring: Donald J. Trump Where: Washington, District Of Columbia, United States When: 15 Sep 2023 Credit: Rod Lamkey/CNP/startraksphoto.com
It’s a dark day. We’re bringing back King George, just in time for Independence Day. Expand the Court!
Right? Happy freaking Fourth of July, jeez. Scary af.
The timing, right?
Yesterday was crazy with all the Supreme Court verdicts and the Karen Read trial (maybe this isn’t big outside of Massachusetts but it is HUGE here)–had my head spinning.
And yeah, with the exception of that tech ruling being kicked back to the lower courts, it was all terrible news. And while Karen walked (as we knew she would) the the DA is still promising to prosecute again which makes me sick to my stomach.
These are just such dark days and I cannot imagine how worse it will get if Trump wins…thinking of Project 2025 coming to fruition and Canada has never looked better.
Not so fast. A Trumpy wannabe is currently favored to win the 2025 general election in Canada 😓
This is basically what happened in Nazi Germany. Being excempt from the law and immune to any kind of prosecution is more or less exactly what happened.
When only one party plays by the rules, the winner is going to be the unethical one.
Should have expanded the court a long time ago, everyone knew what those fools would eventually do. What a mistake.
We all knew expanding the SC would NEVER happen under a Biden administration. He explicitly said that it would be dangerous to permanently “politicize” the SC, which is hilarious considering what we currently have, which is an insanely politicized, right-wing extremist court. Candidates like Elizabeth Warren ran on expanding the court, but Dems wanted the same ol’ same ol’ so alas, here we are.
We did not have a filibuster proof blue senate. Plus dark money has been paying blue senators big money to go rogue. Bye Felicia Manchin and Sinema.
@ Kitten your mention of Elizabeth Warren … imagine if she’d been the nominee, and won. Her first move would have been to secure voting rights so far-right minorities of the popular vote wouldn’t have a stranglehold on elected office.
If only …
@ Oh come on–I think about it every day. I know she never gained the popularity she needed to secure the nom, but I truly believe she would have been an transformative president. Sigh 🙁
When Obama was president he should have put in more judges. It’s selfish for those old judges to not step down and retire to give democrats new younger judges that will vote left. Trump was smart enough to know this and out in his judges.
This is not surprising at all. The Supreme Court needs to be expanded and there should be an end to lifetime appointments.
This. No lifetime appointments.
There should also be more stringent rules about what they’re allowed to do, with automatic punishments or being stripped of their role.
And who /what entity do you expect to enforce these rules? They don’t seem to be all that stringent about policing themselves.
At this point, over half of the Supreme Court, and countless politicians have been bought and paid for. I don’t think our checks-and -balances system really has an effective plan for this.
@ Blithe–I mean, Congress created the Supreme Court–I don’t see why they can’t enforce the rules that SussexWatcher is asking for.
But to your second paragraph, Congress is so effin broken that maybe they just don’t care to do so.
We need a blue senate large enough to end the filibuster, then rein in the justices. It’s possible, just really hard.
Gobsmacked by this decision.
As the rest of the sane world. No one, not a single person, thought they would be so obvious. I hope NY Judge locks orange monster but I dems don’t play dirty…
This court is not representative of all US citizens and are giving DT the path to declare himself monarch or dictator if elected. People need to take this seriously and vote and then some new measures need to be put in place to limit SCOTUS power and terms and presidential powers. I don’t care if Biden is rolled out on a gurney drooling and mumbling incoherently, I’ll still vote for him over DT.
I’m with you, TEAM BIDEN ANY DAY 🙏🙏
With you all the way, @ Equality.
Not American but I know what I’d be doing. SCOTUS think they’re immune then? Might change their mind with this appalling decision.
I realised my thoughts didn’t translate (adhd brain). Until SCOTUS are under threat themselves from a hit squad. If they think they’re immune, dream on. Privilege doesn’t have the immunity they just delivered to a psychopath.
The justices who granted immunity aren’t the same ones who are in the psychopath’s crosshairs. So they feel fine about their personal safety.
At the moment. Given he’s a psychopath, all bets are off. One wrong eyebrow twitch…
Who is going to define “official acts” now? Is inciting an insurrection an official act? Is stealing and withholding classified documents ON PURPOSE in your bathroom an official act?
It’s mind boggling! I’m only glad that the Orange Menace was committing crimes before he took office, after he took office, and on the state level. Lock his ass up for all of those crimes.
I would also love to see Biden start fcuking around with this ruling. I know he never would, because he’s a decent person who respects the office, but I’d love him to just start saying he’ll be making some official Presidential acts, starting with changing the Supreme Court.
It is a way to buy him more time. Every charge has to be reconsidered, cos they hope he will win the elections. Meanwhile, 2/3 of American voters wanted to see at least one more trial before the elections.
His lawyers already filed to have the NY conviction overturned. I guess he was *officially* paying hush money. We are not in a good place.
Exactly!
Is trying to extort the president of Ukraine an official act? What’s the point of impeachment if everything is above board.
@LOL86LF: SCOTUS decides. They, the unelected tribunal of self-declared kings, get to decide which crimes the President was authorized to commit.
All I’m going to say is I hope people take this seriously. Hillary Clinton stood on a debate stage and told you this was going to happen verbatim in 2016, but people” didn’t like” her, and weren’t going to be bullied into voting. Then they had surprise Pikachu face when the Dodd’s decision came down. They just criminalized being homeless, there’s not going to be an opportunity for marches and pink hats. I really hope people who aren’t feeling ” motivated” to vote because of the candidate selection are thinking long and hard about that.
This all day long. It just shows how much sexism and racism and righteousness keep people distracted and voting in their best interest.
Hillary was right all along about EVERYTHING.
She knows him from way back. She knows what kind of person he is. She knew that he hadn’t changed for the better. He only got worse.
I say “all of the above”! I Also, l see actual merit in the idea of clearing Judge Chutkan’s docket of other cases and postponing the election afteruntil Trump’ s cases have been decided.
It doesn’t matter. Even if Chutkan has all the time in the world, he’ll appeal any decision she makes about the scope of his “official acts.” No matter how fast the appeals court responds, SCOTUS will drag it out.
I’m sorry but F NO. Someone please explain to me how does this ruling make sense? This gives Trump’s legal team and the courts more leeway in arguing what is considered “official” and “unofficial.” This is why the U.S Courts are a fricken joke. He will do everything in his power to delay, delay, and tie up this case in court. I can hear all the screaming against this across social, but NOTHING at this point is going to stop Trump from getting away with it. This will embolden the Republicans, his fanatic base, and his ego in thinking he’s untouchable. Meanwhile we’re arresting homeless people and women trying to get abortions. I hate my country right now, I really do.
Appalling and scary, but not surprising. The worst is watching the MAGAts cheerfully lining up to vote against their best interests. 2024, the year we were passengers in school bus being driven off a cliff…
If you haven’t seen the Rachel M video going around, watch it.. She’s talking death squads basically.
I watched it and it’s bone chilling
This is shocking but not surprising – this decision is what Trump and his backers paid for. The Supreme Court is compromised and they don’t care to hide it. They’ve said Trump is immune, does that stretch to then as well? Do they think they are immune from prosecution as well (and are they)?
Biden really needs to do something about the decisions the SC are making as they are not in the interest of the American people – and yeah they have totally paved the way for Trump to destroy American democracy regardless if he gets elected or not. He’s already said he’s going to burn it all down if he doesn’t win.
Jan 6 was a trial run – the next attempt is going to be more organised and lethal.
I am seriously hoping that Biden takes advantage of these next few months of guaranteed immunity. The invaluable opportunity to reshape the country in positive ways thanks to the heinous interventions of the majority of the Supreme Court is one that should not be ignored.
I guess we’ll be hearing about Clarence Thomas’s bought and paid for summer vacation plans soon.
Biden’s stated desire to play by the old rules (he’s an institutionalist) is frustrating. I’m still 💯 ridin’ with Biden, just wishing he’d use his Official Acts immunity to get creative with a court that is a threatening us all. I’d love to wake up and find justices prosecuted for bribery.
Canadian here, serious question. How is it in a country of 333 million that these 2 are the choice for president. Is there not younger people who would be better choices? I have never understood the US party process but it seems overly complicated
Because 333 million people don’t vote in primaries. There were at least 15 people running for the Republican nomination in 2016, and the same amount in a democratic nomination. Same thing happened in 2019 for the Democratic nomination after the Republicans won the presidency in 2016. The person who wins the most primaries wins. So if people don’t vote the people who do vote get to pick. And the two people who are currently up to be the president in November are who the people who bother to vote voted for.
These two men won all the state primaries. Anyone was free to enter those primaries. Now that the primaries are over you can’t unring that bell.
There isn’t a deus ex machina god-like mechanism to overrule the people’s choice during those primaries. We haven’t used conventions to broker deals since the 1950s, it’s non-democratic.
True, but the Electoral College is non-democratic — and we’re still, unfortunately, using that to amplify the power of particular favored voting blocs.
The electoral college is set in stone and would take legislation to remove. The convention doesn’t have mechanisms to remove the vote winner and we don’t want them to have processes like that.
I guess the only way it could happen would be for Biden to step down after the first vote at the convention. I don’t think that would be a good idea! But that’s what would have to happen theoretically. What would happen though if a candidate became unable to do the job between the convention and election? We’ve never had that happen.
This is our call to get out and vote for Biden. It doesn’t matter if he’s old or you disagree with his Israel policy. You vote Biden.
This is all that matters. Vote for Biden-Harris and blue down the ticket.
Phone bank (virtual or call center)
Canvas
Post card campaign
We can do this, because we MUST do this.
Trump is tweeting about holding televised military tribunals for treason against Biden, Harris. Pelosi, Schumer, ,Cheney, McConnell and Pence. He is gleeful to be given carte blanche..
What? He left out Hillary? I thought she would be his first choice.
Chilling. He’s thinking about actually doing it.
And how could he have forgotten Obama? He lives in his wormhole brain 24/7. He made fun of him at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner and that is supposedly why he ran for president in the first place.
They actually give the president more immunity than Charles has as a king. Sure Charles can’t be charged with a crime, but he also doesn’t have the power to order the military to assassinate anyone or drop nuclear bombs.
Roberts can’t pretend he’s a rational conservative with this. It is a radical decision that essentially reverses watergate. Nixon said 50 years ago that whatever a president does is legal and these six radical federalist tools have just enshrined it in case law.
Justice Roberts has always been a partisan hack, trying to look like he’s not. Plus his wife was was a legal headhunter who earned $10M in 7 years. Did some of the firms paying her have business before the Supreme Court? Yes, what a coincidence.
And he lied during his interviews with the senate before his appointment, like the other conservatives.
And this is why I will vote straight party Democrat in November. If we think our rights are being eroded now just wait until we have another Trump Presidency and Project 25 comes down the pipeline. I predict at least one SCOTUS vacancy under this next Presidency. If Trump is elected and fills these seats it will be with young conservatives who will be on the court 40 plus years. The ramifications of a Trump Presidency cannot be stressed enough.
I wish I could move out of the U.S. This is depressing.
I wish I was only depressed. It’s terrifying.
If I could leave the US where would I go? What country would take me?
I live in a very blue area (small city within a small county) of a very blue state and I’ve been thinking about where can I hide within the US? The rural areas are full of MAGA. I guess I could disappear into a big blue city? Keep moving?
I can’t believe that I’m even having to think about this. I would not have believed it even ten years ago. I’m too old for this. And I have pets.
Make sure that you tell EVERYONE you know about Project 2025 and encourage them to explore it. Enough hasn’t been put out there about it and everyone needs to know what is in it and also who the players are – especially those that are still on the fence. I don’t know how you can still be on the fence at this point.
I truly hope this is a wake up call for all of the undecideds and the people still whining about Biden’s debate performance. This election isn’t about his age. Its about the threat to our democracy by a MAGA right wing govt determined to pass laws that eliminate civil rights while protecting businesses and the wealthy. Im glad to hear that the Dems are still fighting and AOC is planning on filing Articles of Impeachment against some of the obviously corrupt Supreme Court Justices when the govt returns from their 4th of July holiday next week. It will be extremely hard to do with this MAGA majority led Congress but if voters deliver control of the Presidency and hopefully both houses of Congress this election, then the Dems could definitely file and pass the Articles in January and start undoing some of the damage the Repubs have caused. Filing Articles against judges hasn’t happened in our young republic in centuries but AOC is on the House Oversight Committee and unlike most of her Republican colleagues, I’m sure she knows what she’s doing. Repub govt business as usual is a total sh*tshow and the Repub Project 2025 is horrific and alarming. So please VOTE BLUE!!
Yes. I got so many texts from family and friends about the debate, worrying over it. I had determined not to watch it or watch the coverage at all. It doesn’t matter if Biden was faltering. There is nothing he could do or not do that would keep me from voting for him.
If we want to save this country from their f**ked up agenda and criminal nominee, we just need to take off our earrings, roll up our sleeves and vote. Stop the hand-wringing and back the guy who isn’t a crazed authoritarian menace. It’s not that complicated.
I know how this looks.
This decision is written by judges who have absolute immunity. The judges who signed the majority decision have absolute immunity; the judges who dissented have absolute immunity. Senators also have absolute immunity. House members also have absolute immunity. The president gets the same kind of immunity as all our other top government officials.
Absolute immunity doesn’t mean: anything you do, in your work life or personal life, is protected. It does mean: anything you do within your official duties is protected.
The idea is that we want our top government officials to be able to do what they think is right, without worrying about getting sued or criminally charged. Lots of people sue judges, for example, because they are mad that the judge didn’t give them a win. Our judges can just do their jobs, knowing that they are protected from lawsuits.
Of course, sometimes our judges and legislators and presidents don’t do the right thing. Then we have other things in place, like voting them out of office (the people) or impeaching them (Congress) or enjoining their actions (the courts).
In Trump’s case, of course, he has managed to be fine on all these fronts. The courts have actually ruled against a number of his policy decisions, but that’s not what’s at stake here.
No, that’s not accurate. If a judge breaks the law and commits a crime in the course of his or her job, such as assaulting a defendant or taking a bribe for a ruling, he or she is liable for that crime. We’re not talking about silly lawsuits from people who didn’t like the way a trial went, we’re talking about breaking criminal laws. No one until yesterday was immune from the criminal law. This has nothing to do with empowering people to do their jobs, as no one’s job is to break the law and commit crimes, not a judge and not the president. Otherwise what is the law for? What this ruling says is that the president can now commit a crime and not be charged for it if he does it in his official duties, and the definition of official duties is left to the courts to decide in each case. This is a wild change from the entire history of our country, when no person was above the criminal legal system. It also centralizes an extreme amount of power to decide what is and isn’t an official duty in the court system, and this stuff by default will end up in the supreme court, so the court gave themselves absolute power to assess a president’s immunity from the law. This is groundbreaking and terrifying power.
Laurielee, oh, I totally see your point. I’ll have to think about this more. Thanks!
Laurilee, I’ll have to do a deeper dive on this later, but I think there is criminal immunity for legislators. This is from Article I of the Constitution:
“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.”
The Supreme Court has interpreted this Speech and Debate Clause pretty broadly, in terms of how it protects legislators, and legislators haven’t balked. Arguably, accepting a bribe (for example) would be outside the scope of a legislator’s or judge’s job. But even criminal activity inside the scope of that job could be protected.
I used to advise federal judges on immunity law, so I tend to think that I have a pretty good general grasp of the topic. 🙂 But I do need to think about this more.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never voted for Trump and never will. Just honestly trying to think through an area of law that I used to work in quite a bit.
Impeaching justices is fair game. We just have to elect majorities that will do it. Keeping the senate looks really really rough, the answer is still to vote like our lives depend on it.
Voting is important. At the end of the day, we collectively get the politicians we collectively choose. In Trump’s case, we have a former president who tried to mess with the proper and peaceful transfer of power. That’s bad. Clearly.
I was quickly reviewing some immunity doctrine—and it really is black-letter law that judges and legislators get absolute immunity when they act within specific functions. (Black-letter law is law that is clearly and strongly established.) Absolute immunity covers both civil and criminal suits. I haven’t read the Supreme Court’s full opinion here, so I’m certainly open to changing my mind. Again, based on years of advising federal judges about immunity laws, I think this ruling is legally predictable. It’s predictable regardless of whether the president being discussed is a Republican or Democrat.
As Kristen suggests below, the play in the joints here is with regard to the facts, not the law. In other words, can we factually describe Trump’s actions as falling within the scope of his official duties? If the factual answer is yes, he was acting in an official capacity, then he has absolute immunity. If the factual answer is no, he wasn’t acting in an official capacity, then he doesn’t have absolute immunity.
The Supreme Court doesn’t do fact finding. That’s a job for either the judge or the jury in a trial court, depending on whether there is a bench trial (judge decides the facts) or a jury trial (jury decides the facts). In the federal system, we call the trial court a district court.
I am sympathetic to why people who aren’t familiar with immunity law—people entering the conversation here, at the point of this specific Supreme Court ruling—think this ruling is nuts.
What makes me sad is that, when we look at the courts now, we often expect the courts to deliver a specific outcome. If courts apply the law in the standard and proper way, and the law doesn’t deliver the outcome we reasonably want, we think the courts have failed. As a society, we seem to have forgotten that, sometimes, applying the law accurately means we won’t get what we want. Courts are created to give us justice; they aren’t created to give us fairness. Sometimes that’s hard to live with, but it is how things are supposed to work.
Skyline, are you that naive. FFS
Jananell, I’ve been very lucky to get some of the best legal training and legal jobs this country can offer. I’m not writing with naïveté. If you have a different understanding of immunity doctrine, I’ll be curious about your thoughts. I am nerdy enough to talk about this stuff for fun. If you are simply disappointed with the outcome of this Supreme Court ruling, then I am sympathetic to you, but I’d also suggest that rudeness doesn’t help us. If you’re an American like I am, we’re ultimately all in this American thing together.
Went down the rabbit hole of White People Twitter sub-Reddit last night because I needed the laugh and my favorite comments were (the post was about Biden’s speech on the SCOTUS decision):
“Issue and Executive Order barring anyone with 32 felonies from New York from running for President” (this would actually be my solution).
“The Supreme Court has one month to undo this decision. Otherwise I won’t be accountable for my actions”
“which is why I’ll be ordering a preemptive strike on Mar-A-Lago”
The entire thread is epic. But reading it I was thinking yes FFS DO SOMETHING! Stop bringing friendship bracelets to gun fights. This when they go low we go high stuff DOESN’T WORK. There is a clear and present danger to this country right now from MAGA domestic terrorists – we’re past the just go out and vote stage here! (For the record I vote Democrat in every election it could be a dead hamster on the ticket I don’t care)
What is the sitting president going to do? The SC just gave him permission to handle the threat to democracy. Stop with this go high when they go low stuff. We don’t even go high! We just roll over and then whine they are cheating! Or we both sides everything. As if being old and feeble is the equivalent to being a nazi dictator or the Anti-Christ. We can’t get out of our own way.
If the sitting president doesn’t do something soon none of our votes will even count!
Sorry to be such a Debbie Downer this morning But yeah…we’re screwed.
I’m white and I’ve been shaking my head at the reactions I’ve been getting. Texts mid debate saying “This is baaaad! They need to replace him yesterday!” As if it’s that simple. A weird combination of over-reaction and helpless squirming.
I hope Biden does do something, but I am going to vote for him regardless. Donating, calling, voting are my weapons right now, before the November election. I am going to play by the Republican handbook, which is to back our candidate no matter what. No matter that he is old, or coughs on stage, or walks stiffly. It’s his policies, the judges he’ll appoint, that matter.
I am so tired of people playing nice about politics, not wanting to be confrontational, or thinking that you should get your perfect candidate or you shouldn’t have to vote. It’s a rough game, but you have to play it or you’re screwed. And anyone who doesn’t vote this time? They better not complain to me, because they’ll be the ones to blame if Trump wins again.
I am right there with you!
Not a Debbie Downer at all actually–just a whole lotta truth that some people need to hear.
Thank you Kitten! Ooof what a rough day with many more on the horizon.
Fifty years after Nixon said, “If the president does it, it’s not a crime”, his dream has finally come true.
There are parts of this ruling that are SIGNIFICANTLY problematic, but the actual ruling does not say that Trump is immune from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed in office. It does not say that a sitting president has absolute immunity while in office.
I agree, but it looks like conversations Trump had with his own DOJ officials (Jeffrey Clark for example), and conversations he had with VP Mike Pence (all of which are evidence of his crimes in the election subversion case) appear to be protected by immunity as they are “official acts.” This isn’t good.
Indeed, prosecution for the false elector scheme and the ellipse speech are free to go on, go gangbusters.
There’s a really chilling sentence around page 30-32 prohibiting use of the president’s testimony, his records AND HIS ADVISOR’S RECORDS. Jack Smith got handcuffed a bit right there. For example evidence showing Ginnie Thomas blowing up Mark Meadow’s phone with instructions does not look admissable.
Thank you for saying so, I thought it was just me.
This has just become a fact question, which is unfortunately very slow. It’s time he wanted, it’s time he got, but this is how the SCOTUS works. They don’t decide which act is official and which isn’t. But you can bet some law clerk at the district level is busting their ass to create an airtight test for what a core power is, what it isn’t, and what acts fall outside that scope.
The District Court is also going to have to be absolutely meticulous in how they define official and unofficial acts and what evidence they use to support those determinations. Because while the DC sided against Trump you can be sure that any ruling is going to be appealed back up to the SC who did say that they are not the first verdict but the final.
The supreme court and the republican party have just announced a war on Democracy.
I guess Richard Nixon wishes this unhinged MAGA Supreme Court was around back in his Watergate days so he would have been immune from his crimes during his Presidency. 🙄
FFS, the Supreme Court rules that Trump has immunity for “official” acts as President and now this has to go back to the lower court to decide which of Jack Smith’s charges in the election interference case are official or not. I am deeply horrified, not only for what this means for the upcoming Trump cases, and the 2024 election, but for the future of Democracy in this country.
This malignant narcissistic sociopath created a fake elector scheme to stay in power after he lost the 2020 election, pressured government officials (and his own VP), and instigated the violence on Jan 6th by spreading the Big Lie to all his MAGA cultists and sycophants. How is this monster (who is NOW a convicted felon in NY, and a civilly liable rapist) able to run for President????? Make it make sense
There is a straight line connecting Nixon/Watergate to MAGA world. Conservatives were frustrated over the Watergate loss so they started Fox News to flood the airwaves with biased and false information. The concept took off.
I’m not trying to discourage anyone from voting for Biden–I know I will be. But this idea that if we just vote hard enough we can change everything is magical thinking. The supreme court will still exist as it is, we will still be fighting to protect women’s right to bodily autonomy, we will still be beholden to gerrymandered voting districts…I could go and on.
Voting for Biden is literally the bare minimum. The BARE. MINIMUM.
We need a commitment to structural change; we need members of Congress and Biden’s administration to start thinking outside of the box and getting creative with how they achieve their agenda. We need sweeping reforms, not halfway measures. And FFS we need money out of politics–overturn Citizens United already—Issue a constitutional amendment I don’t care but just DO something or our current hellscape will never change in any meaningful way.
Voting for Biden doesn’t reverse the damage that has already been done and will continue to be done as long as the GOP exists. There is a whole lot of work that needs to be done to effectively change our current circumstances and LORD do I hope Biden and the Dems are up for the challenge because I do have my doubts.
Feeling helpless fury and totally bleak about this.
We need political reform in the US, though I have no idea how to go about it. If most European elections start to finish can be organized and accomplished in about six weeks, we should be able to be far more efficient in the States. Lobbyists and millionaires have far too much influence in US politics as well. It’s akin to buying votes.
Not just the presidency, but also the other branches of government need term limits and (personally, I believe that they need) age limits as well. The judiciary is out of control.
Further, I agree with what you said, Kitten.
It’s an awful feeling that I share with you. I really do recommend voting in every local election, regardless of how inconsequential it might seem. We might not be able to do much about the Executive or Congress but we can change what happens in our town or city if we show up to every election. That’s what empowers me and gives me a feeling of changing my current circumstances, at least on a micro level if not a macro one.
PS-just saw that Giuliani was disbarred. At least that’s one decent thing….
They tried to think outside of the box on student loan forgiveness, while senators were tweeting everyday that all it took was a “stroke of a pen ” and that got knocked down by the Supreme Court. What people need to realize is that voting in presidential elections is the bare minimum. Republicans have been working this game for 40 years. They have slowly but surely gotten into local school boards, state representative offices, state legislatures, placement in the DOJ the FBI, the post office, the IRS and many other structural institutional supports because they don’t abandon their candidates and don’t let perfect or honestly even decent get in the way of their goals. Meanwhile Democrats don’t want to vote if the candidate doesn’t have sparklers shooting out their butt while they’re doing cartwheels. I’m not saying we need to have zero standards but we need to be just as invested in voting in every single election for every single person and actually using Howard Dean’s 50 states strategy if we want to change the trajectory of this country is on. And even if we did it’s still going to take generations because it took generations to get us here. People don’t want to accept that they bear some responsibility for where we are because of their lack of Civic engagement, but it’s true.
I don’t want to get into a back-and-forth about why people vote or not because it never ends in agreement here.
So I’ll just say this: the false notion that people on the left, independent, non-voters or whatever are looking for perfection is very much belied by the reality that Biden broke Obama’s previous record of 70M votes by over 12M. I am a registered independent and a progressive and I don’t know a single progressive who didn’t hold their nose and vote for Biden.
I’ve come to realize that the attitude of “don’t let perfection be the enemy of good” has really just become a way to effectively shut down the important conversation about who should represent the Dem party. It’s very, very Republican-y to me: “Don’t strive for better, just STFU and kiss the ring”.
The Dem party has ALWAYS been a party of sharing ideas and thoughts and sometimes and that includes self-reflection AND criticisms, even if certain folks don’t want to hear it. You cannot FORCE people to vote–you have to inspire them. Obama got a coalition of voters from every race, class, creed to come out for him. He got people who had literally never voted before voting for the first time in their lives and he didn’t do it by running on the “Lesser Evil” platform–he did it by engaging and inspiring voters in a way that they had never experienced up until his candidacy. He was young, thoughtful, charismatic, a phenomenal orator, and a highly intelligent guy. I don’t really believe that Joe checks those boxes, even if he is “fundamentally decent” or whatever. And Obama was a WHOLLY imperfect man who made mistakes during his administration and in my mind, didn’t really go far enough. Yet I was SO excited to vote for him both times. It CAN be done–we CAN choose inspiring, capable candidates who will galvanize the youth vote, independents, and non-voters alike. Biden is not that, I’m sorry to say.
I don’t want to get into a back and forth either, but what I will say is that I think that the onus for inspiration to vote should not be necessarily on the candidates. I’m not trying to have dinner with them, I’m not trying to date them. I want to know when I go to CVS to refill my birth control that they won’t ask for a marriage certificate. If the candidate that I voted for is going to work their ass off to make sure that doesn’t happen that’s all I care about. I know that that is not what brings out a lot of other people, and to me that is the biggest issue we have completely taken the onus of Civic engagement and put it on being inspired, and messaging rather than this democracy as it is is a collective agreement that we will not ever have consensus on but we need to be striving towards a common goal. People seem to just be striving towards the goal that they want and saying if things fall apart it’s because you didn’t give me enough reasons to save it.
“I’m not trying to have dinner with them, I’m not trying to date them.”
Well on that I agree. I mean, Bernie Sanders is not very likable IMO but he HAS managed to galvanize and excite the youth vote in a way that I haven’t seen since Obama. And in some obvious ways, Bernie is more like Biden than Obama. But he HAS managed to create a working class coalition from a largely disaffected group of voters by speaking to the issues that they most care about and convincing them of his policy platform.
I don’t need to love the nominee, but I do need to believe and trust in the nominee and 4 years ago, I can’t say that Biden had earned that from me given his chummy background with credit card companies and his record in the senate. That being said it’s now 4 years later and to your other point, he did pass that infrastructure bill, which was phenomenal, even after the GOP watered it down. To me, that’s an example of what you reference here: we got lead pipes removed, new sidewalks, new roads and other very much-needed infrastructure repairs. That’s the kind of change that really makes me people happy–something that directly improves their quality of life. I just want more of that from Biden.
But regardless, he’s getting my vote and I really hope others do the same because 4 years of the worst president our country has ever seen is looing on the horizon and seeing what just happened with the French elections (and the rise of fascism in western democracies) has me terrified.
Kitten,
We agree again. I am disheartened by the lack of balls shown by the democrats over and over again.
I agree, I don’t have to love the candidate to vote for them but being continually shut down over genuine criticism is very kiss the ring Republican and getting really old.
I’m voting blue, but within the party, we have got to start having hard and important conversations.
Tl;dr: The POTUS can’t be prosecuted for any crimes he commits while in office, and the crimes he commits while in office can’t be mentioned in court, unless SCOTUS says so.
Good thing Trump would never dream of committing crimes while in office 😳
The ruling does not say this.
We aren’t going to be able to “relax” after this election (if we survive this election) for a very long time. It’s going to have to be fight, fight, fight for decades.
I rarely ever cry from sadness, but I cried yesterday. As low as my expectations were, I still was shocked. This country is heading straight to dictatorship and fascism. Why are more people not horrified by this? I, personally, am terrified. I love Michele Obama, and her words, “When they go low, we go high,” so impressed me at the time. Unfortunately, time has shown that doesn’t work in this instance. Am I saying Democrats need to be dishonest scumbags? Of course not. But they have to get smarter and tougher. It might already be too late for this.
Lawyer here. SCOTUS did not give a full pass to Trump…and don’t jump at me. The decision is reasonable. What acts were done OUTSIDE of official acts are NOT subject to immunity. That roiling up of people on January 6 for example, cannot be deemed to be “official acts” He was campaigning and inciting. The lower courts will have to acknowledge that.
Yes, this is correct: it wasn’t a full pass. The Supreme Court issued a decision telling the legal system to proceed as it would for any other highest-level government official. I’m writing as another lawyer here.
Wow, where did all these internet lawyers come from?
If someone commented on a thread, “teacher here,” on an article that hinged on an educational issue, would you say, “wow, where did all these internet teachers come from?”
Lawyers use the internet too.
CherBear, Please read an excerpt of Justice Ketanji Jackson’s dissent pasted below, she disagrees, it’s not reasonable.
Jackson: “The official-versus-unofficial act distinction seems both arbitrary and irrational, for it suggests that the unofficial criminal acts of a President are the only ones worthy of prosecution. Quite to the contrary, it is when the President commits crimes using his unparalleled official powers that the risks of abuse and autocracy will be most dire.”
As a member of the Supreme Court, Justice Jackson is entitled to disagree with the clearly established law. In dissenting, she exercises her prerogative.
The J6 case before Judge Chutkin is not about immunity from Official Acts. Trump wants to cloak Official/Not Official together to give him cover/absolute immunity. The False Elector Scheme and the Ellipse speech are Not Official.
Trump wants to selectively prosecute political opponents through the Atty General/DOJ and have immunity for it since oh hey, it’s the Executive branch, I’m at the top of that branch, IT’S ALL OFFICIAL. Scotus just helped muddy the waters when they could have said “that J6 isht isn’t an Official Act, there’s not immunity for that bro” like we saw in Watergate. It was fast back then! And they waste our time talking about the the need for a “vigorous, not feeble” president. Vigorous, not feeble, wtf that’s a goal now? https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Problematic :”What the prosecutor may not do,however, is admit testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing the official act itself.” We’re wasting daylight on people muddying the distinction of Official/Not so that Trump’s case is delayed past November! Mark Meadows, Ginnie Thomas, and Ginnie’s “best friend” (husband) are just 3 of the extra people discussed by the J6 committee long ago needing to skate away here from what was never Official.
Warpowers/military acts are Official and immune, right? Trump wants to use military acts against us, the domestic population. This is is now immune :
Donald Trump’s former Sec. Def. Mark Esper on 60 Minutes: “[Trump] was suggesting that…we should bring in the troops and shoot the protesters.”
Q: “The commander-in-chief was suggesting that the U.S. military shoot protesters?”
Esper: “Yes, in the streets of our nation’s capital.”
Would President Biden have immunity if he had a certain individual who has been treasonous and tried to start an insurrection taken out?