Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable. The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.” 

 

The ruling from the Supreme Court was 6-3, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, on a straight party-line vote, with all the Republican-appointed justices joining to give the president the power of a king. While some parts of the federal indictment against Trump will be remanded back down to the district-court trial judge to determine whether any of Trump’s actions were “unofficial” (“unofficial” acts, the court says are not entitled to immunity), Trump’s victory in front of the Supreme Court is total. Essentially, all he has to do is claim that everything he did to plot a coup was part of his “official” duties, and the Supreme Court provided no clear method or evidentiary standard that can be used to challenge that presumption.

 

Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here:

• The immunity is absolute
• There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given

 

On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts.

 

Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.

 

Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

 

And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office.

 

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires. 

 

There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn’t as bad as all that. These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” and so they will say that everything is fine.

 

But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says “unofficial” acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially”?

 

Credit: The Nation 2024-07-03

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

As a Brit looking in from the outside, sometimes I wonder if the US is a glitch in The Matrix! 

 

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable

Now there's a way to get rid of Trump once and for all! Get him in Joe, pull that trigger, do the world a favor and live happily ever after!

Sigh. If a lower court rules it was not an "official act" it's a crime and they can be prosecuted.

Unfortunately it would probably give presidents like Bush the younger immunity for taking America to war against Iraq on a lie, though they seem to have been acting as though that were always the situation.

So nothing has changed. Ask Obama. I hope in the future the editorial content here isn't so murky and desperate.

11 minutes ago, 2baht said:

Now there's a way to get rid of Trump once and for all! Get him in Joe, pull that trigger, do the world a favor and live happily ever after!

You dreamer you.

16 minutes ago, 2baht said:

Now there's a way to get rid of Trump once and for all! Get him in Joe, pull that trigger, do the world a favor and live happily ever after!

 

now that you say that i seem to recall Joe is an expert marksman. I would give him ten shots at 50 feet and bet he wouldn't be able to even graze Trump.

Edited July 2, 20242 yr by Cryingdick

3 hours ago, Social Media said:

If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t?

I wasn't aware that Trump has been found guilty of trying to overthrow the government. Any facts from a reputable source to back that up? They've had 3 years to convict him on that, but they haven't, have they?

You might want to start reading news and stop reading The Nation. 

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

You might want to start reading news and stop reading The Nation. 

 

Do you have a link to a reputable news site please?

1 hour ago, 2baht said:

Now there's a way to get rid of Trump once and for all! Get him in Joe, pull that trigger, do the world a favor and live happily ever after!

 

Given such action would involve picking up a gun weighing several pounds and holding it steady enough to hit a target 2 metres away, highly unlikely. 

While the Secret Service is supposed to protect the president from harm, the rules could be amended to prevent the president from harming anyone without justification.  I am not familiar with their protocol, but why would this be out of the question?  I think this should be given serious consideration.

Can't wait for the naysayers to shoot down this suggestion. 

Edited July 3, 20242 yr by Hawaiian

29 minutes ago, Crossy said:

 

Do you have a link to a reputable news site please?

They are all opinionated, leaning either right or left, some more extreme than others.

The USA has lost the plot.

As DJ (Delay Justice) Trump awaits his anointing as King Donald, he will presumably adopt the title 'Prince of Wails', (It's a witch hunt, its so unfair, the FBI are out to get me, the left are out to get me. Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me! 

Ever wondered why you think the "other side" are so extreme in their social and political views, but never considered that you might be (or might not be) the problem?

 

I encourage everybody to take this simple three-minute test to measure how far left, right, libertarian or authoritarian you are.  Some posters might be surprised how extreme their views are.

 

The Political Compass

 

Most of the people I interact with would define me as a dyed in the wool right-wing authoritarian.  On this test I am just right of centre, and bang in the middle of authoritarianism versus liberalism.

 

My views haven't really changed in 50 years and I am, and always have been a little to the left or right on most issues. I haven't changed, but society now defines me as a Neo-Nazi - go figure.

Edited July 3, 20242 yr by Gsxrnz

3 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Given such action would involve picking up a gun weighing several pounds and holding it steady enough to hit a target 2 metres away, highly unlikely. 

get an assault rifle with a bump stock. Accuracy problem solved

3 hours ago, Gsxrnz said:

Ever wondered why you think the "other side" are so extreme in their social and political views, but never considered that you might be (or might not be) the problem?

 

I encourage everybody to take this simple three-minute test to measure how far left, right, libertarian or authoritarian you are.  Some posters might be surprised how extreme their views are.

 

The Political Compass

 

Most of the people I interact with would define me as a dyed in the wool right-wing authoritarian.  On this test I am just right of centre, and bang in the middle of authoritarianism versus liberalism.

 

My views haven't really changed in 50 years and I am, and always have been a little to the left or right on most issues. I haven't changed, but society now defines me as a Neo-Nazi - go figure.

I took it but stopped when I read this proposition

"Almost all politicians promise economic growth, but we should heed the warnings of climate science that growth is detrimental to our efforts to curb global warming."

A right wing caricature.

Also, there are no names of people or organizations behind this website.

Again, the highest court in the land, has proven they prefer to be a kingmaker, over an impartial judiciary. Nobody can doubt where their loyalties lie, nor their allegiance. History may show this court to be one of the least impartial, and one of the most morally bankrupt, in our nation's history. This is a sad moment for America, when the court becomes the hand of the king. The Supreme Court's liberal bloc issued blistering dissents Monday in the Trump immunity ruling, arguing that it "reshapes the institution of the presidency" and "makes a mockery" of the constitutional principle that no man is above the law.

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench, said that "relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom ... the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."

 

She added that "because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent." Sotomayor said that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invents "an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law."

 

Their ruling, she went on, makes three moves that she said "completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability." Sotomayor said the court creates absolute immunity for the president's exercise of "core constitutional powers," creates "expansive immunity for all 'official acts,'" and "declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him."

 

Sotomayor warned that the ruling "will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy" and that it sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.”

 

She added, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

 

In her own written dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the majority's ruling "breaks new and dangerous ground." "Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law — applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government," she wrote.

 

Jackson warned that under the majority's "new Presidential accountability mode," a hypothetical president "who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics...or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup...has a fair shot at getting immunity."

 

The chief justice dismissed the dissents, suggesting that his three liberal colleagues had misinterpreted the majority's opinion and were engaging in "fear mongering." Roberts argued that they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today." He wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity."

 

He also appeared to scoff at Sotomayor for what she included in her dissent, saying that her "most compelling piece of evidence consists of excerpted statements of Charles Pinckney from an 1800 Senate debate." He continued, "But those statements reflect only the now-discredited argument that any immunity not expressly mentioned in the Constitution must not exist."

 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion that she agreed with some of the majority opinion but not all of it. Notably, she said she agreed with Sotomayor that Trump’s immune conduct should still be allowed to be used as evidence in his trial.

 

“The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” she said.

6 hours ago, 2baht said:

Now there's a way to get rid of Trump once and for all! Get him in Joe, pull that trigger, do the world a favor and live happily ever after!

While you at it Joe  get rid of the human sc m in the shape of repulsive specimens like Ted Cruz, de Sanctimonious , JJ the wrestler, Lindsey puke Graham.   Marjorie Toilet Green....

Spare Lauren Boebert, have her shipped to Pattaya, she can do her hand routine on Soi 6.

10 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable. The Supreme Court today ruled that presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts, then contended that pressuring the vice president and the Department of Justice to overthrow the government was an “official act,” then said that talking to advisers or making public statements are “official acts” as well, and then determined that evidence of what presidents say and do cannot be used against them to establish that their acts are “unofficial.” 

 

The ruling from the Supreme Court was 6-3, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, on a straight party-line vote, with all the Republican-appointed justices joining to give the president the power of a king. While some parts of the federal indictment against Trump will be remanded back down to the district-court trial judge to determine whether any of Trump’s actions were “unofficial” (“unofficial” acts, the court says are not entitled to immunity), Trump’s victory in front of the Supreme Court is total. Essentially, all he has to do is claim that everything he did to plot a coup was part of his “official” duties, and the Supreme Court provided no clear method or evidentiary standard that can be used to challenge that presumption.

 

Legally, there are two critical things to understand about the totality of the court’s ruling here:

• The immunity is absolute
• There is no legislative way to get rid of what the court has given

 

On the first point, the immunity granted to Trump in this case far exceeds the immunity granted to, say, police officers or other government officials, when they act in their official capacities. Those officials are granted “qualified” immunity from civil penalties. Because the immunity is “qualified” it can be taken away (“pierced” is the legal jargon for taking away an official’s qualified immunity). People can bring evidence against officials and argue that they shouldn’t be given immunity because of the gravity or depravity of their acts.

 

Not so with Trump. Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear.

 

Moreover, unlike other officials, presidents are now entitled to absolute immunity from criminal charges. Even a cop can be charged with, say, murder, even if they argue that killing people is part of their jobs. But not presidents. Presidents can murder, rape, steal, and pretty much do whatever they want, so long as they argue that murdering, raping, or stealing is part of the official job of the president of the United States. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.

 

And there is essentially nothing we can do to change it. The courts created qualified immunity for public officials, but it can be undone by state or federal legislatures if they pass a law removing that protection. Not so with absolute presidential immunity. The court here says that absolute immunity is required by the separation of powers inherent in the Constitution, meaning that Congress cannot take it away. Congress, according to the Supreme Court, does not have the power to pass legislation saying “the president can be prosecuted for crimes.” Impeachment, and only impeachment, is the only way to punish presidents, and, somewhat obviously, impeachment does nothing to a president who is already no longer in office.

 

Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree, steal all the money and murder all the people they can get their hands on, all under guise of presumptive “official” behavior, and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable for their crimes while in office. That, according to the court, is what the Constitution requires. 

 

There will be Republicans and legal academics and whatever the hell job Jonathan Turley has who will go into overdrive arguing that the decision isn’t as bad as all that. These bad-faith actors will be quoted or even published in The Washington Post and The New York Times. They will argue that presidents can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts,” and so they will say that everything is fine.

 

But they will be wrong, because while the Supreme Court says “unofficial” acts are still prosecutable, the court has left nearly no sphere in which the president can be said to be acting “unofficially.” And more importantly, the court has left virtually no vector of evidence that can be deployed against a president to prove that their acts were “unofficial.” If trying to overthrow the government is “official,” then what isn’t? And if we can’t use the evidence of what the president says or does, because communications with their advisers, other government officials, and the public is “official,” then how can we ever show that an act was taken “unofficially”?

 

Credit: The Nation 2024-07-03

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

Not a country to be proud of😳

7 hours ago, 2baht said:

Now there's a way to get rid of Trump once and for all! Get him in Joe, pull that trigger, do the world a favor and live happily ever after!

LMAO! I was thinking the same! Biden! Send the CIA to assasinate Trump! Its OK, the Supreme Court has given you the GO AHEAD!!

1 hour ago, spidermike007 said:

Again, the highest court in the land, has proven they prefer to be a kingmaker, over an impartial judiciary. Nobody can doubt where their loyalties lie, nor their allegiance. History may show this court to be one of the least impartial, and one of the most morally bankrupt, in our nation's history. This is a sad moment for America, when the court becomes the hand of the king. The Supreme Court's liberal bloc issued blistering dissents Monday in the Trump immunity ruling, arguing that it "reshapes the institution of the presidency" and "makes a mockery" of the constitutional principle that no man is above the law.

 

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reading her dissent from the bench, said that "relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom ... the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more."

 

She added that "because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent." Sotomayor said that the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, invents "an atextual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law."

 

Their ruling, she went on, makes three moves that she said "completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability." Sotomayor said the court creates absolute immunity for the president's exercise of "core constitutional powers," creates "expansive immunity for all 'official acts,'" and "declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him."

 

Sotomayor warned that the ruling "will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy" and that it sends the message: “Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends.”

 

She added, “Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

 

In her own written dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the majority's ruling "breaks new and dangerous ground." "Departing from the traditional model of individual accountability, the majority has concocted something entirely different: a Presidential accountability model that creates immunity—an exemption from criminal law — applicable only to the most powerful official in our Government," she wrote.

 

Jackson warned that under the majority's "new Presidential accountability mode," a hypothetical president "who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics...or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup...has a fair shot at getting immunity."

 

The chief justice dismissed the dissents, suggesting that his three liberal colleagues had misinterpreted the majority's opinion and were engaging in "fear mongering." Roberts argued that they "strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually does today." He wrote that "like everyone else, the President is subject to prosecution in his unofficial capacity."

 

He also appeared to scoff at Sotomayor for what she included in her dissent, saying that her "most compelling piece of evidence consists of excerpted statements of Charles Pinckney from an 1800 Senate debate." He continued, "But those statements reflect only the now-discredited argument that any immunity not expressly mentioned in the Constitution must not exist."

 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in a concurring opinion that she agreed with some of the majority opinion but not all of it. Notably, she said she agreed with Sotomayor that Trump’s immune conduct should still be allowed to be used as evidence in his trial.

 

“The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable,” she said.

Seems like America is going down the drain! Are these Judges mentally sane?? Now Biden can shoot Trump! Go ahead Biden, you have permission!

Well; Trump has been threatening to destroy all his Political Opponents if he wins and now he has the legal tools to do it.   God save the USA and Vote for Biden.    And i'm not even American !

Edited July 3, 20242 yr by trainman34014

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Given such action would involve picking up a gun weighing several pounds and holding it steady enough to hit a target 2 metres away, highly unlikely. 

 

Being POTUS ,  Biden could officially order some of his service men to assassinate Trump ?

Just jokin' ...

Time to take out the trash.  Before november.  The rules changed and time to save the country and world from a disgusting POS that will bring it all down. 

I remember when Chump said he could shoot someone in the street and walk free. Please someone turn the tables. Maybe we should do a "fund-me".

Joe can send in Seal team 6 and the extremist supreme court has him covered.  Take heir Drumpf  and his entire family out. 

 

Way better than WW3. 

Edited July 3, 20242 yr by YouAgain

7 hours ago, Cryingdick said:

So nothing has changed. Ask Obama. I hope in the future the editorial content here isn't so murky and desperate.

Yep, don't even have to be a terrorist or an adult.   Specific target or collateral damage.

6 hours ago, Hawaiian said:

why would this be out of the question

 

The supreme court has ultimate control in the U.S.  Guess you didn't realize that.