Supreme Court Immunity Thread

[mrshandy]

Who's listening?

Sotomayor is kicking ass and taking names...

[DotAndBuzz]

I just tuned in

[DotAndBuzz]

did he seriously just argue that the president ordering the army to stage a coup, to keep him in power, would be an official (thus immune) act? And that if we didn't like it, we'd have to impeach/convict him in CONGRESS!?

[UMaineTeach]

Apr 25, 2024 9:41:15 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

did he seriously just argue that the president ordering the army to stage a coup, to keep him in power, would be an official (thus immune) act? And that if we didn't like it, we'd have to impeach/convict him in CONGRESS!?

I’m pretty sure that is the whole case. The only body who can discipline a president is congress and the only punishment is removal from office.

Other than that, presidents can do whatever they want without criminal or civil prosecution.

[basilosaurus]

Apr 25, 2024 10:01:59 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

Apr 25, 2024 9:41:15 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

did he seriously just argue that the president ordering the army to stage a coup, to keep him in power, would be an official (thus immune) act? And that if we didn't like it, we'd have to impeach/convict him in CONGRESS!?

I’m pretty sure that is the whole case. The only body who can discipline a president is congress and the only punishment is removal from office.

Other than that, presidents can do whatever they want without criminal or civil prosecution.

dafuq?

[DotAndBuzz]

I'm obviously not a lawyer, but I did appreciate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's line of questioning and calling him out for the circular arguments without actually answering her question

[icedcoffee]

I watched briefly. Brown was nailing it and Trumps lawyers voice made me want to pluck my eyelashes.

[UMaineTeach]

Apr 25, 2024 10:03:44 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

Apr 25, 2024 10:01:59 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

I’m pretty sure that is the whole case. The only body who can discipline a president is congress and the only punishment is removal from office.

Other than that, presidents can do whatever they want without criminal or civil prosecution.

dafuq?

I got a detail wrong, but not far off. He actually says the only way criminal prosecution could occur would be if removal from office happened first. Congress must impeach, convict, and remove before courts and justice system can do anything.

“Trump is making a far broader argument for immunity. He contends that he cannot be prosecuted — ever — for his "official acts" as president unless he is first impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from office. He was impeached twice, but the Senate failed to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict. So, were the Supreme Court to embrace Trump's argument, it would mean, given modern political realities, that he and future presidents would likely be immune from prosecution after leaving office.”
www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1246376720/donald-trump-supreme-court-immunity

[basilosaurus]

Apr 25, 2024 10:44:43 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

Apr 25, 2024 10:03:44 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

dafuq?

I got a detail wrong, but not far off. He actually says the only way criminal prosecution could occur would be if removal from office happened first. Congress must impeach, convict, and remove before courts and justice system can do anything.

“Trump is making a far broader argument for immunity. He contends that he cannot be prosecuted — ever — for his "official acts" as president unless he is first impeached, convicted by the Senate and removed from office. He was impeached twice, but the Senate failed to muster the two-thirds vote needed to convict. So, were the Supreme Court to embrace Trump's argument, it would mean, given modern political realities, that he and future presidents would likely be immune from prosecution after leaving office.”
www.npr.org/2024/04/25/1246376720/donald-trump-supreme-court-immunity

I'll repeat dafuq?

He really meant it when he said he could shoot someone on 5th Ave and get away with it.

[basilosaurus]

Also his current case was for what he did before he was president. It is baffling how this works on people

[taratru]

I am so annoyed by Alito's simplistic bullshit. Prosecution undermines democracy?! Go home, asshole.

[livinitup]

Apr 25, 2024 10:01:59 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

Apr 25, 2024 9:41:15 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

did he seriously just argue that the president ordering the army to stage a coup, to keep him in power, would be an official (thus immune) act? And that if we didn't like it, we'd have to impeach/convict him in CONGRESS!?

I’m pretty sure that is the whole case. The only body who can discipline a president is congress and the only punishment is removal from office.

Other than that, presidents can do whatever they want without criminal or civil prosecution.

And when Justice Brown asked “what if evidence does not come to light until after the president leaves office?” The answer/argument was - oh well, that may happen, it’s still better because of liberty and all that. Founding fathers.… better to let a guilty man go free, than convict an innocent one.

[DotAndBuzz]

Apr 25, 2024 13:22:15 GMT -5 livinitup said:

Apr 25, 2024 10:01:59 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

I’m pretty sure that is the whole case. The only body who can discipline a president is congress and the only punishment is removal from office.

Other than that, presidents can do whatever they want without criminal or civil prosecution.

And when Justice Brown asked “what if evidence does not come to light until after the president leaves office?” The answer/argument was - oh well, that may happen, it’s still better because of liberty and all that. Founding fathers.… better to let a guilty man go free, than convict an innocent one.

Was this the question where Trump's atty replied with these exact words: "well, it certainly sounds very bad!" ?

Because...um, YEAH.

[erbear]

How the fuck is Thomas allowed to be part of this decision?!

[taratru]

Apr 25, 2024 16:43:50 GMT -5 erbear said:

How the fuck is Thomas allowed to be part of this decision?!

This whole proceeding has really driven home for me how corrupted this Court is. It is setting us up for decades of harm, and I don't think I'm being hyperbolic.

[lilac05]

Apr 25, 2024 13:41:40 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

Apr 25, 2024 13:22:15 GMT -5 livinitup said:

And when Justice Brown asked “what if evidence does not come to light until after the president leaves office?” The answer/argument was - oh well, that may happen, it’s still better because of liberty and all that. Founding fathers.… better to let a guilty man go free, than convict an innocent one.

Was this the question where Trump's atty replied with these exact words: "well, it certainly sounds very bad!" ?

Because...um, YEAH.

No, I don’t think it was exactly that one! There was another question that this response also applied to. What a hot mess.

@sharonsaysso on IG is doing a really good job covering this.

[bkseller13]

Interesting how a bunch of "originalists" are suddenly all about the hypothetical of future Presidential actions. Heather Cox Richardson's post (fb and substack) from last night was wicked sobering.

[livinitup]

I read a take that it’s the women Justices who are asking the good questions and really drilling down to the issues, case law, and implications (including ACB). While the men Justices seem offended that Trump is being held accountable at all.

[fortnightlily]

Apr 27, 2024 16:45:00 GMT -5 livinitup said:

I read a take that it’s the women Justices who are asking the good questions and really drilling down to the issues, case law, and implications (including ACB). While the men Justices seem offended that Trump is being held accountable at all.

I'd be curious to read that if you have a link.

[livinitup]

Apr 27, 2024 17:13:30 GMT -5 fortnightlily said:

Apr 27, 2024 16:45:00 GMT -5 livinitup said:

I read a take that it’s the women Justices who are asking the good questions and really drilling down to the issues, case law, and implications (including ACB). While the men Justices seem offended that Trump is being held accountable at all.

I'd be curious to read that if you have a link.

I don’t have a link. I would share if I did.

[DotAndBuzz]

Apr 27, 2024 16:45:00 GMT -5 livinitup said:

I read a take that it’s the women Justices who are asking the good questions and really drilling down to the issues, case law, and implications (including ACB). While the men Justices seem offended that Trump is being held accountable at all.

I'd agree with that. With what I remember/understood (again, I'm not a lawyer) I was really surprised at ACB's questions. Didn't expect that direction from her at all.