US Politics Thread

[MillionMilesAway]

SCOTUS HEARING
I only listened fitfully, but it is pretty clear that the ruling will be a fudge:
1. Private Acts can never be immune.
2. Presidential official acts may be immune but may not depending on the circs.
3. There needs to be a clear test to determine which are personal and which are presidential acts. In this case we need to hear further argument on this point. The case remains stayed until this question is resolved.

So "as you were"?

The govt lawyer pretty much said that - there isn't a way to rule that improves anything.

 

[Blue Maverick]

If they rule a president should be immune from prosecution you can end up with Hitler and no Nuremberg trial.

 

[KS55]

If they rule a president should be immune from prosecution you can end up with Hitler and no Nuremberg trial.

Yes, it’s very strange. One of the justices asked what was meant by ’depending on the circumstances’ but Trumps lawyer had no answer. In answer to scenarios that might give rise to immunity he kept falling back on the idea that he had to be impeached and found guilty first.
Ultimately if there are any circs where he is immune, that is the end of democracy as defined in US; the president is above the law. The conservative justices seemed quite ok with that. Bonkers imho.

 

[KS55]

So "as you were"?

The govt lawyer pretty much said that - there isn't a way to rule that improves anything.

There is. They could simply rule that the president never has immunity. Nothing in the constitution provides for immunity.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

So "as you were"?

The govt lawyer pretty much said that - there isn't a way to rule that improves anything.

They have to issue some sort of ruling as they have taken the case. But its clearly bonkers that it needs anything further. The Trump lawyers were trying to argue that some illegal things might be legal if done as an official act. But the doj were countering with examples were it would be insane to suggest act could be legal. Staging a military coup was one example offered and put to Trump's lawyers and they said yes we think that could be legal.

That exchange is all you need to know about this case. If the SCOTUS agree with trump's lawyers all credibility of the court is gone.

Biden should have them rounded up and shot. As an official act of course. So as long as its done in the oval office in business hours he's free to do it. Just not on weekends.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

There is. They could simply rule that the president never has immunity. Nothing in the constitution provides for immunity.

So just codifying the current state?

They're not going to codify immunity from prosecution while in office, which seems to be the working basis.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

They have to issue some sort of ruling as they have taken the case. But its clearly bonkers that it needs anything further. The Trump lawyers were trying to argue that some illegal things might be legal if done as an official act. But the doj were countering with examples were it would be insane to suggest act could be legal. Staging a military coup was one example offered and put to Trump's lawyers and they said yes we think that could be legal.

That exchange is all you need to know about this case. If the SCOTUS agree with trump's lawyers all credibility of the court is gone.

Biden should have them rounded up and shot. As an official act of course. So as long as its done in the oval office in business hours he's free to do it. Just not on weekends.

Ah, I hadn't realised that they had to make a ruling as such.

I did think that someone should have raised that it would allow removal of all SCOTUS members. That might have been a bit provocative!

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Ah, I hadn't realised that they had to make a ruling as such.

I did think that someone should have raised that it would allow removal of all SCOTUS members. That might have been a bit provocative!

Hopefully they just issue something meaningless and take the delay as a win. But the actual arguments in court where a clear threat to the constitution.

 

[SebastianBlue]

There is. They could simply rule that the president never has immunity. Nothing in the constitution provides for immunity.

They have to issue some sort of ruling as they have taken the case. But its clearly bonkers that it needs anything further. The Trump lawyers were trying to argue that some illegal things might be legal if done as an official act. But the doj were countering with examples were it would be insane to suggest act could be legal. Staging a military coup was one example offered and put to Trump's lawyers and they said yes we think that could be legal.

That exchange is all you need to know about this case. If the SCOTUS agree with trump's lawyers all credibility of the court is gone.

Biden should have them rounded up and shot. As an official act of course. So as long as its done in the oval office in business hours he's free to do it. Just not on weekends.

Ah, I hadn't realised that they had to make a ruling as such.

I did think that someone should have raised that it would allow removal of all SCOTUS members. That might have been a bit provocative!

Based on the transcript of proceedings, and expert analysis I have read, it seems more likely that they’ll remand the case back the Court of Appeals to create a test for “private vs official acts” before it then again ascends to SCOTUS for further arguments and ruling.

Which is designed to delay any actual ruling until after the 2024 presidential election. The far-right super majority is destroying the legitimacy of the one brand of government Americans once actually trusted.

By the way, the sheer audacity and obviousness of the supposed conservative “originalist” judges rejecting the universally agreed reality that the founding fathers of the US specifically crafted the office of the presidency to not be a king by another name (i.e. a leader on high above the law) is truly breathtaking. This is not the first time they have cast aside the basic tenets of their own insane originalist ideology to argue for even more crazy breaks from precedent that align with far-right aspirations, but it is probably the most egregious.

These judges are not only undermining the public trust in SCOTUS—which is very dangerous given that is literally the only actual power SCOTUS has—but also in the legal system more broadly.

The US is creeping toward a situation where states will begin to regularly ignore SCOTUS or Federal Appeals Court rulings. It has already happened in isolated cases in Texas and Alabama. But soon they could see it in other jurisdictions, including blue states.

So much for the party of ‘law and order’.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Based on the transcript of proceedings, and expert analysis I have read, it seems more likely that they’ll remand the case back the Court of Appeals to create a test for “private vs official acts” before it then again ascends to SCOTUS for further arguments and ruling.

Which is designed to delay any actual ruling until after the 2024 presidential election. The far-right super majority is destroying the legitimacy of the one brand of government Americans once actually trusted.

By the way, the sheer audacity and obviousness of the supposed conservative “originalist” judges rejecting the universally agreed reality that the founding fathers of the US specifically crafted the office of the presidency to not be a king by another name (i.e. a leader on high above the law) is truly breathtaking. This is not the first time they have cast aside the basic tenets of their own insane originalist ideology to argue for even more crazy breaks from precedent that align with far-right aspirations, but it is probably the most egregious.

These judges are not only undermining the public trust in SCOTUS—which is very dangerous given that is literally the only actual power SCOTUS has—but also in the legal system more broadly.

The US is creeping toward a situation where states will begin to regularly ignore SCOTUS or Federal Appeals Court rulings. It has already happened in isolated cases in Texas and Alabama. But soon they could see it in other jurisdictions, including blue states.

So much for the party of ‘law and order’.

The whole idea that you are immune for any official acts is just as batshit to me. If they try and do some fucky categorisation then that tells me the whole thing is broken.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the whole point of a judiciary/legislative/executive system is that the three keep eachother in check. There is no official act in my book that should justify breaking well-established laws. The idea is insane. What are the examples of an illegal official act that we should all get comfortable with and allow an executive to carry out? Shooting people? Stealing people’s property?

This whole thing is basically because they know that their Presidents have an embarrassing history of being total cunts. It probably started with Andrew Jackson genociding natives and everybody seems to be thinking “oh well it would be awkward to go back and punish him for it now”. So no let’s just say that these things are all okay as long as you’re acting in the capacity of Chief ****. That’s easier.

Our Prime Minister got slapped for not wearing a fucking seatbelt. That’s how it should be.

 

[SebastianBlue]

The whole idea that you are immune for any official acts is just as batshit to me. If they try and do some fucky categorisation then that tells me the whole thing is broken.

I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that the whole point of a judiciary/legislative/executive system is that the three keep eachother in check. There is no official act in my book that should justify breaking well-established laws. The idea is insane. What are the examples of an illegal official act that we should all get comfortable with and allow an executive to carry out? Shooting people? Stealing people’s property?

This whole thing is basically because they know that their Presidents have an embarrassing history of being total cunts. It probably started with Andrew Jackson genociding natives and everybody seems to be thinking “oh well it would be awkward to go back and punish him for it now”. So no let’s just say that these things are all okay as long as you’re acting in the capacity of Chief ****. That’s easier.

Our Prime Minister got slapped for not wearing a fucking seatbelt. That’s how it should be.

When you get down to the root of it, all of the “originalism”, “conservatism”, “anti-wokeness”, and other right/far-right ideology and rhetoric are merely a very thinly veil for theocratic, patriarchal, white nationalism.

And those espousing and acting on those beliefs, including the SCOTUS far-right super majority, know full well that astute observers see that.

They just don’t care because they are either megalomaniacs that only care about attaining and retaining absolute power or religious zealots that see themselves as god-chosen prophets on earth.

If SCOTUS does eventually rule that the president has any sort of immunity when committing criminal acts whilst in an “official capacity” (whatever asinine definition SCOTUS accepts from the the Court of Appeals), likely coming well after the 2024 presidential election, then it will be the end of the republic. Because even if Biden wins the election, and doesn’t choose to avail himself of that new found near absolute power to kick the super majority to the curb in front of the Supreme Court steps, all legitimacy of the SCOTUS will have been destroyed, red states will begin to ignore federal policy and court rulings, and the next conservative candidate who is “elected” will make full use of being the American King, likely ending any semblance that remains of the democratic republic.

And racist idiots at home will be looking on taking notes and scheming about how they too can get rid of this pesky democracy nonsense so King William can get on with making Britain great again.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Woke to the left of me, maga on the right....

 

[SebastianBlue]

Woke to the left of me, maga on the right....

Ah, yes, the famously enlightened centrists of Egan and Rafferty. ;-)

 

[KS55]

Based on the transcript of proceedings, and expert analysis I have read, it seems more likely that they’ll remand the case back the Court of Appeals to create a test for “private vs official acts” before it then again ascends to SCOTUS for further arguments and ruling.

Which is designed to delay any actual ruling until after the 2024 presidential election. The far-right super majority is destroying the legitimacy of the one brand of government Americans once actually trusted.

By the way, the sheer audacity and obviousness of the supposed conservative “originalist” judges rejecting the universally agreed reality that the founding fathers of the US specifically crafted the office of the presidency to not be a king by another name (i.e. a leader on high above the law) is truly breathtaking. This is not the first time they have cast aside the basic tenets of their own insane originalist ideology to argue for even more crazy breaks from precedent that align with far-right aspirations, but it is probably the most egregious.

These judges are not only undermining the public trust in SCOTUS—which is very dangerous given that is literally the only actual power SCOTUS has—but also in the legal system more broadly.

The US is creeping toward a situation where states will begin to regularly ignore SCOTUS or Federal Appeals Court rulings. It has already happened in isolated cases in Texas and Alabama. But soon they could see it in other jurisdictions, including blue states.

So much for the party of ‘law and order’.

Could not agree with you more. All your points are just right.
At least we can hope that when it comes back to SCOTUS and Trump is long gone, the maga justices come to their senses and rule against immunity.
In the meantime, writers, lawyers and others must pressure the court with articles, letters, TV programmes etc ensuring that they are aware of the huge weight of feeling that what they doing is just wrong.
I am British but a Republican. I always cite the US and We The People as the shining example of a constitution. Thus, I am very cross with SCOTUS entertaining the idea of immunity.

 

[Delboy352]

I’m sure I heard a few years ago that Biden was rumoured to be considering an increase to the members of SCOTUS to ward off the many conservatives, or am I wrong??

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

I’m sure I heard a few years ago that Biden was rumoured to be considering an increase to the members of SCOTUS to ward off the many conservatives, or am I wrong??

It's an option but the problem is that once you go down ghat Rd nothing to stop the Republicans upping the numbers again when they have power and it will decend into a shit show.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

I’m sure I heard a few years ago that Biden was rumoured to be considering an increase to the members of SCOTUS to ward off the many conservatives, or am I wrong??

It's not without precedent, the number of sitting justices was changed seven times in the first century of the US' independence. Since then it has been static at 9, and any attempts to change it have been strongly rebuked.

That's because, while legal, it previously generated a stupid tit-for-tat that ultimately benefited nobody. It destroys the independence and the point of having a SCOTUS if you can just change it to suit every time the President changes.

 

[Vic]

It's not without precedent, the number of sitting justices was changed seven times in the first century of the US' independence. Since then it has been static at 9, and any attempts to change it have been strongly rebuked.

That's because, while legal, it previously generated a stupid tit-for-tat that ultimately benefited nobody. It destroys the independence and the point of having a SCOTUS if you can just change it to suit every time the President changes.

Perhaps then there is no point to a SCOTUS where the separation of powers has been subverted by partisan appointments by the other branches of the balance of power.

 

[Uncle Wally One Ball]

Could not agree with you more. All your points are just right.
At least we can hope that when it comes back to SCOTUS and Trump is long gone, the maga justices come to their senses and rule against immunity.
In the meantime, writers, lawyers and others must pressure the court with articles, letters, TV programmes etc ensuring that they are aware of the huge weight of feeling that what they doing is just wrong.
I am British but a Republican. I always cite the US and We The People as the shining example of a constitution. Thus, I am very cross with SCOTUS entertaining the idea of immunity.

That feeling should have gone in 2000 when the SC stole the election from Gore. The rot set in then

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Perhaps then there is no point to a SCOTUS where the separation of powers has been subverted by partisan appointments by the other branches of the balance of power.

You won't find me disagreeing with that.