Trump Is Immune
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 06. 2024
- ‘You know what's so missing from both of those? Text of the Constitution.’
Sarah and David break down the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. United States.
The Agenda:
-Unanimous decision on Moody v. NetChoice
-SCOTUS stat pack
-Three buckets of immunity
-Immunity takeaways: yes, no, and maybe
-Presidential immunity and accountability
-The role of the electorate in holding presidents accountable
-Does the Constitution prevent despots and tyrants?
I really don't understand conservative jurisprudence in the Trump-era. The court just struck down Chevron to limit the power of executive agencies, then turned around gave absolute immunity to the President because we need a "vigorous" executive. I'm not really sure what to do here as someone who's thought of themselves as a conservative all my life... are we for executive power or against it? I also have to say reading the dissent, Justice Sotomayor seemed real "text, history, and tradition"-y with her appeals to the founders.... and Roberts seemed really consequentialist randomly finding presidential immunity in the Constitution... 'cause can you imagine what would happen if we actually did hold presidents accountable?
This decision is more reason why we cannot elect Trump in November.
Question: Chutkin will have to rule whether Trump was performing a non-official act. Could Trump get an interlocutory appeal if Chutkin rules against him?
I really liked the discussion at the end of how this is all ultimately on the people to keep things from going off the rails. I've been saying for a while now that in any system of governance based on the consent of the people, the maintenance of the government and ensuring that it functions properly ultimately rests on the people.
The ruling said presidential actions are immune and nonpresidential actions are not immune. It changes nothing. Instigating an insurrection isn’t a presidential action, nor are actions committed before or after the official presidential term covered by immunity. It’s why they sent it back to the DC court. Had it been full immunity, they would have just ended all the cases right there with their decision and not sent it back. This is first semester of law school stuff.
I had hoped that Sarah’s prediction of a 9-0 decision was correct. Instead we got a MAGA version of bush vs gore
With a less odious President than Trump, it would've been 9-0.
All justices are in agreement .... the Constitution is a living breathing document. On July 1, 2024, it gave birth to new law.
We love you guys too. ❤❤
Trump will be in regardless… yikes
There's no real conflict between the host of decisions stripping power from the executive branch and this decision, because they're not addressing the same issues. Think of the executive branch as a yard. This immunity decision to some extent says that the president can do what he wants in his yard; what the other decisions are doing is constricting the size of that yard.
I might be pushing it, but it seems to me that this is sort of similar to Congress's commerce power. The Court has said that the commerce power is plenary, but, since Lopez at least, the Court has been limiting what falls under the commerce power. Within the scope of their commerce powers, Congress can do what they will regardless of intent, e.g., they can give themselves police powers the Constitution otherwise does not grant them BUT the scope of those commerce powers is limited.
Regarding Trump getting elected and then having his own charges dropped, will the courts definitely allow that under the circumstances? I thought once the case is filed at the court, the judge would have to approve withdrawing it. Is it conceivable one or two courts so inclined might toll the statute of limitations and keep a case alive rather than letting the defendant drop his own charges?
Possible, but unlikely. Trump will simply order the DOJ to fire Jack Smith and not prosecute the case. Not a criminal lawyer, but perhaps it's possible for the judge to order the appointment of an independent prosecutor to keep the case alive but in hibernation, but I doubt that this SCOTUS would let that stand.
Charlie Cooke seems to have the best take on this ruling from what I can tell
Let me preface my comment with the fact that I haven't read the Immunity opinion for myself yet, so I may be missing something. However, I don't see why granting absolute immunity for the president's granting of a pardon would necessarily make it impossible to prosecute that president (after they leave office) for accepting a bribe in exchange for issuing it. The criminal act doesn't have to include granting the pardon because accepting the bribe is a criminal act all by itself. If a government official accepts a bribe but then fails to follow through with the action they agreed to take in exchange for that bribe, the failure to take the action doesn't make accepting the bribe legal, right? Accepting a bribe is not an official act, much less a core executive function. If accepting something of value in exchange for a promise to take an action is illegal, it shouldn't be necessary to enquire into the president's motivation for actually taking that action. Obviously, the fact that the president pardoned someone the day after receiving a check for $1 million from that person would be pretty strong evidence that the check was a bribe. But if this decision means the president taking an official act may not be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, even if the prosecution is for something other than that action, that doesn't mean you couldn't prove bribery.
At worst, Congress could pass a law making it a felony for the president to accept something of value (if that value is above a level set in the statute). Close family members could be exempt from that prohibition. Still, such family members could be prohibited from accepting something of value if it could be shown the gift was intended for the president. That could remove the issue of whether the gift was a bribe for taking an official action. While the vice president doesn't have many core executive functions, perhaps the same prohibition on accepting something of value should apply to the vice president as well. That would cover the case of the VP accepting a bribe to vote a certain way while breaking a Senate tie.
While I am discussing accepting things of value and the president's family, I think it would be a very good thing if a statute could be drafted that would make Hunter Biden's actions in trading on his perceived influence with his (then VP) father to "earn" millions of dollars from a position for which he was otherwise unqualified illegal. Such a statute would obviously have to be prospective, as expos facto laws are unconstitutional. I am not trying to pick on Hunter Biden. Congressional Republicans have thus far failed to prove any of the money paid to Hunter went to his father. Although Hunter's actions may have been legal, they were incredibly sleazy. It would be good if trading on perceived influence could be made illegal without unfairly interfering with a federal official's family member's ability to earn a living. I'm not sure how to draft such a law, but if it would be possible to draft one, I am sure someone out there smarter than I am could do it.
i think fetch needs to happen and Justice Thomas is right. Special counsels need to go
Everyone is equal in front of Lady Justice, except the POTUS starting with Trump. Now, listening to Sarah and David, with their ideas, I strongly believe that they are just some of the many apologists of this Court. Again, GO VOTE!.
#againstDavidFrenchism