Trump immunity case

[seer]

At the same time, so is the rationale for hiding them.

Right because they want to hide his serious mental decline - that seems evil...

[Sam]

The Hur tapes are far less relevant now that Biden exposed his cognitive decline for the whole country to see.

How would you have felt three weeks ago if news outlets reported that Biden had done just this? What if Biden had claimed an official purpose for doing so?

Would "Oh, that's presumptively legal, no big deal?" have travelled through your mind at all?

-Sam

[Stoic]

Really Stoic, you are unhinged - not like you...

I'm accused of being unhinged by someone who is unhinged. Go figure.

[seer]

I'm accused of being unhinged by someone who is unhinged. Go figure.

How am I unhinged - you guys think Trump is going to go around shooting people!

[RumTumTugger]

According to the Roberts majority, Biden can order the destruction of all the material relating to Hur's investigation and Garland can't be subpoenaed to testify that he warned Biden this would be illegal. Total immunity now, presumptive immunity with a strong shield of protection after Biden's term ends. DOJ can respond to this subpoena by saying "the audio files have been destroyed, nothing we can do".

Great system y'all are caping for here.

ScreenShot00058.png

-Sam

Folks from the above scenario, and the Two from his previous post I can only assume that Sam thinks the job description of POTUS is sending some one to kill a U.S. Citizen, taking a bribe, and ordering some one to destroy evidence needed for an investigation are all part of the job description of the POTUS.

[Terraceth]

Sotomayor is beside herself, declaring that the decision "gives Trump 'all the immunity he asked for and more" and this makes a president a king.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Roberts explains, OMB asserted far broader immunity than the limited one that the court recognized.

I'll note that the left's attempt to get Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves would have still resulted in the same verdict although by a 4-3 margin rather than a 6-3 one.

Not necessarily. If someone recuses themselves, it means they don't participate in arguments. And justices may be able to persuade other justices by participating.

Here's an example. Brown v. Board of Education was originally going to be a 5-4 decision (same result though), but it got held over for reargument the next term. In the meantime, one of the dissenters died and another justice was appointed. The new justice was able to persuade the remaining dissenters to join the majority opinion. So by replacing one justice, a 5-4 turned into a 9-0. This is obviously an extreme case, but it shows the influence that a justice can have influence on the voting beyond just their own.

[Sam]

Not necessarily. If someone recuses themselves, it means they don't participate in arguments. And justices may be able to persuade other justices by participating.

Here's an example. Brown v. Board of Education was originally going to be a 5-4 decision (same result though), but it got held over for reargument the next term. In the meantime, one of the dissenters died and another justice was appointed. The new justice was able to persuade the remaining dissenters to join the majority opinion. So by replacing one justice, a 5-4 turned into a 9-0. This is obviously an extreme case, but it shows the influence that a justice can have influence on the voting beyond just their own.

If Alito and Thomas recuse, Barrett's vote becomes necessary and therefore Barrett's opinion (that witness testimony from WH advisors & aides is permissible) becomes the majority opinion. Recusal here would have had a considerable impact on the ruling itself, not just the element of persuasion.

-Sam

[Stoic]

How am I unhinged - you guys think Trump is going to go around shooting people!

No one in this thread has said they think Trump himself will shoot anyone.

But he could have someone killed, and get away with it. Given the Supreme Court ruling, the only things keeping the President in line are his conscience, and his party. So a president without a conscience, whose party leaders have demonstrated that they don't have the backbone to keep him in line, would be extremely dangerous to the country and all of its citizens.

[Sam]

Folks from the above scenario, and the Two from his previous post I can only assume that Sam thinks the job description of POTUS is sending some one to kill a U.S. Citizen, taking a bribe, and ordering some one to destroy evidence needed for an investigation are all part of the job description of the POTUS.

These are things a president now has the power to do without fear of criminal prosecution after their term ends. "Job description" has nothing to do the concept.

-Sam

[Terraceth]

If Alito and Thomas recuse, Barrett's vote becomes necessary and therefore Barrett's opinion (that witness testimony from WH advisors & aides is permissible) becomes the majority opinion. Recusal here would have had a considerable impact on the ruling itself, not just the element of persuasion.

-Sam

Fair enough.

That said, I don't think Alito or Thomas had to recuse in this case.

[Sam]

Fair enough.

That said, I don't think Alito or Thomas had to recuse in this case.

I think Thomas absolutely had to recuse, given his wife's direct involvement in Jan 6-related events. Alito not so much (I'd argue it's on the bubble but leans in favor of not).

But Roberts wanted to write that opinion his way and I think odds are more than fair he would have leveraged something of value for Barrett to get her concession rather than vice versa.

-Sam

[Mountain Man]

Folks from the above scenario, and the Two from his previous post I can only assume that Sam thinks the job description of POTUS is sending some one to kill a U.S. Citizen, taking a bribe, and ordering some one to destroy evidence needed for an investigation are all part of the job description of the POTUS.

Yes, liberals are spinning this decision as saying that anything the president does can be arbitrarily declared an official duty and shield him from all consequences, when that's not what the decision says at all. But watching their little heads explode is amusing.

[Ronson]

How would you have felt three weeks ago if news outlets reported that Biden had done just this? What if Biden had claimed an official purpose for doing so?

Would "Oh, that's presumptively legal, no big deal?" have travelled through your mind at all?

He claimed executive privilege. I didn't really care.

[Sam]

He claimed executive privilege. I didn't really care.

You wouldn't have cared if the president ordered the illegal destruction of government-owned documentary evidence that allegedly painted him in a bad light?

-Sam

[RumTumTugger]

These are things a president now has the power to do without fear of criminal prosecution after their term ends. "Job description" has nothing to do the concept.

-Sam

Roberts said the POTUS can only be immune to prosecution if it is an official, i.e Presidential duty, i.e job description; the Job Description of the office of POTUS has every thing to do with this you and Sotomeyer are saying that having a U.S. Citizen killed, taking a bribe, and destroying evidence needed for a legal investigation are official duties of the POTUS i.e his job description.

You seem to be under the impression that the court ruled completely in Trumps favor on the contrary SCOTUS ruled against the extreme of both sides on Trumps side they ruled against extreme view of complete immunity from prosecution of any act of the President not just the official acts i.e job description while he is in office; and the extreme view of Jack Smith that once the President leaves office he can be can be prosecuted for any thing even the acts that are a part of the POTUS official duties. What Roberts concurrence said only the official acts in performance of his duty as POTUS i.e. job description found in the Constitution, are immune from prosecution, any unofficial act not part of the job description have no such immunity.

Sotomeyer's dissenting opinion was dishonest her examples do not fit the limited criteria of official duties only, in fact they fit in with unofficial duties which does not have immunity.