Supreme Court (finally) takes up Presidential Immunity

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2024, 01:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: People expecting this to be a quick or simple matter aren't comprehending the unbelievably complex and seriousness of the key question.  I think most people would agree the POTUS has some degree of LIMITED immunity, particularly as commander-in-chief (and this question arises primarily from Trump's actions, IMO, as a campaigner/candidate).  And then the more nuanced issue is precisely what role & responsibility the SCOTUS has in defining this, and what role the legislative body holds.

Yeah, I don't think most people understand the complexity of this. What we are going to see out of this most likely is a remand to Chutkin with as test to apply with regard to whether the actions in the indictment were official or not and how to handle that. Of course, there even seems to be some skepticism about ALL official actions being immune among the Justices. There was a lot of discussion about the relation to the "core executive powers" as expressed in Article II.

(04-26-2024, 01:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And correct me if I'm wrong, but military have a DUTY not to follow an unlawful order.  So while POTUS might theoretically have immunity, the person pulling the trigger would not.  And since the state could also charge them with murder, POTUS can't keep them out of jail with a pardon.

They actually talked about this in the court and how that interplay worked. Discussing how members of the military would be liable if they followed an unlawful order but POTUS would not be liable for giving such an order. That discussion was never really resolved (at least to the point I have listened) but I am going to guess it will be used in at least one of the opinions we see from this case.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2024, 01:53 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Not sure if that was the same exchange, but I thought I saw a response about Congress having to confirm appointees, servings as a checks-and-balance.

People expecting this to be a quick or simple matter aren't comprehending the unbelievably complex and seriousness of the key question.  I think most people would agree the POTUS has some degree of LIMITED immunity, particularly as commander-in-chief (and this question arises primarily from Trump's actions, IMO, as a campaigner/candidate).  And then the more nuanced issue is precisely what role & responsibility the SCOTUS has in defining this, and what role the legislative body holds.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but military have a DUTY not to follow an unlawful order.  So while POTUS might theoretically have immunity, the person pulling the trigger would not.  And since the state could also charge them with murder, POTUS can't keep them out of jail with a pardon.

There's a reason the DOJ and courts have avoided weighing in on this for, well, a very long time.  But in the hyperbolic get-Trump media, these complexities are glossed over or ignored to impune the integrity of the SCOTUS.  Which I thought undermining the courts was undemocratic, but I guess only when Trump does it.

What constitutes an unlawful order?  One could make the argument that Obama's drone strike against a US citizen, essentially an extrajudicial execution is an unlawful order.  Because the POTUS issued the order?  because the AG signed off on it?  Checks and balances in the form of confirmation don't mean a lot in today's partisan climate, as Bel points out below.

(04-26-2024, 03:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, the conservatives did plenty of cutting off as well. I am about 2/3rds through the whole recording at this point.

Yeah, that's why I issued my disclaimer.

Quote:I think Dreeben's response to that was actually pretty good, though (not sure if you heard that part). He responded that there is a constitutional check on that through the Senate's role of "advice and consent" when it comes to the appointment of cabinet officials. Which is really how it all should work. If only we had a functioning government.

You're hinting at what you should say out loud.  That today's climate is so partisan it would be highly unusual for a friendly Congress to block the nominee of their own party's POTUS.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-26-2024, 06:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  Checks and balances in the form of confirmation don't mean a lot in today's partisan climate, as Bel points out below.

Oh wait, did I forget the Senate changed the rule that confirmation of appointees only requires a majority vote now?  Hard to keep up with the evolving partisanship.  Although I can also see the flip side, where a minority party really mucks things up refusing to confirm anyone. 

No one has done more damage to "our Democracy" than Pelosi, Reid and McConnell.  You can add Trump to that, but Congress has the real power.

[Belsnickel]

(04-26-2024, 08:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No one has done more damage to "our Democracy" than Pelosi, Reid and McConnell.  You can add Trump to that, but Congress has the real power.

Yep. I have been saying for years that as despicable as Trump is, McConnell enabled him. His political savvy made Trump more effective.

[HarleyDog]

(04-26-2024, 03:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They actually talked about this in the court and how that interplay worked. Discussing how members of the military would be liable if they followed an unlawful order but POTUS would not be liable for giving such an order. That discussion was never really resolved (at least to the point I have listened) but I am going to guess it will be used in at least one of the opinions we see from this case.

Refusal to follow an unlawful order is a slippery slope that every enlisted person loses. When serving, you are told that, but god forbid you ever apply it.

[Dill]

(04-25-2024, 05:55 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They have indicted him 91 times so the liberals and Biden D.O.J. passed the threshold a long time ago attempting to put Trump in jail. 
Why didn't Smith, Bragg or Fani indict him in 2021 or 2022?
Simple, they can't win the legal cases, this is about trying to tarnish him and keep him in a court room.

I believe the bolded is one of those items that has been explained to you before. 

In the New York case, Trump's weaponized DOJ stepped in and stopped the investigation/prosecution.
https://newrepublic.com/article/180726/trump-election-interference-prosecution-doj-bill-barr
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-reason-doj-didnt-prosecute-trumps-hush-money-case-rcna75887

(04-26-2024, 02:12 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The check and balance are Congress. It is Congress's responsibility to prosecute a POTUS. 
The example brought up about murdering someone came from left field from the liberal justices. 
Our system of Congress over seeing the POTUS (constitution) has worked for 284 years. 

And Congress failed to prosecute Trump for obstruction of justice after the Mueller investigation,
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/18/mueller-report-transcript-trump-obstruction-justice-1281245

and then failed to impeach him twice--including after he sicced a mob on the Capitol to intimidate Pence into halting
his only ritual task of confirming an election already won, in conjunction with 7 slates of false electors already
prepared as part of the effort overturn a valid election.   And after the second failed impeachment, the GOP head of the Senate, 
who agreed Trump had done something very wrong and very prosecutable, said the president could be held accountable once out of office. 
Now he says he will vote for Trump.

The current GOP is the first regime party the US has had. The framers never imagined that possibility that that check would 
someday no longer be in place--and for a president who, thanks to said GOP Majority leader's underhandedness, 
got to appoint 3 members to the Supreme Court now overseeing his appeal for IMMUNITY. 

The final check, which would ultimately preserve our democracy, would be the voters, who as you never tire
of reminding us, prefer the autocratic and lawless Trump over Biden at the moment.

(04-26-2024, 02:12 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Again, we have an example of Obama ordering a drone strike and killing US citizens on foreign soil. Should he be prosecuted by a GOP controlled AG for murder?  If no immunity, it opens a huge can of worms.

In the more normal, pre Trump era, it would have been difficult to call the Al-Awaki killing a "murder," since he declared himself an enemy of the US and was actively abetting the killing of Americans in the US. And the president is sworn to protect the US from such enemies. That's a very different act from trying to coerce the head of a foreign country to investigate a rival presidential candidate. Tying a president's hands with a murder charge in such a case would open a bigger can of worms, limiting a potential defense of the US.
 
I think there should have been Congressional hearings on the matter, which resulted in legislative checks creating more transparency and accountability in the targeting process. 

But so unstable, unpredictable and politicized is the system now that it is not impossible that GOP controlled House/Senate could re-open a case like that and charge Obama, or Clinton, because "Dems did it to Trump."  The legal guardrails are falling away as millions of Americans are fine with setting aside evidence of Trump's criminality because they are so worried Biden has "weaponized" the DOJ by upholding rule of law.

[Dill]

(04-26-2024, 08:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No one has done more damage to "our Democracy" than Pelosi, Reid and McConnell.  You can add Trump to that, but Congress has the real power.

In the wake of an attempted coup and two failed impeachments, as a right dominated SCOTUS contemplates
immunity for the coup leader who appointed three of them, thanks to machinations of McConnell

--all while the current president just dodged a GOP impeachment based on no evidence--

I just have to wonder how you are measuring "damage" here, or maybe even "democracy." 

"Both sides" are not driving the present turn to autocracy. 

[Belsnickel]

(04-29-2024, 11:17 AM)Dill Wrote: In the wake of an attempted coup and two failed impeachments, as a right dominated SCOTUS contemplates
immunity for the coup leader who appointed three of them, thanks to machinations of McConnell

--all while the current president just dodged a GOP impeachment based on no evidence--

I just have to wonder how you are measuring "damage" here, or maybe even "democracy." 

"Both sides" are not driving the present turn to autocracy. 

He also left out Gingrich, who really is to blame for so much of what we see today.

[Dill]

(04-29-2024, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He also left out Gingrich, who really is to blame for so much of what we see today.

Agreed. 

He established the precedent of calling Dems "traitors," "corrupt," "anti-child," etc. as a matter of 
rhetorical policy, regardless of issue, and pushed incoming classes of freshmen GOP to do the same.

Nothing like that on the Dem side. 

[GMDino]

(04-29-2024, 11:31 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: He also left out Gingrich, who really is to blame for so much of what we see today.

(04-29-2024, 11:48 AM)Dill Wrote: Agreed. 

He established the precedent of calling Dems "traitors," "corrupt," "anti-child," etc. as a matter of 
rhetorical policy, regardless of issue, and pushed incoming classes of freshmen GOP to do the same.

Nothing like that on the Dem side. 

And, in the end, he did the gop no favors by labeling them the party of "Family values".  They set themselves up for failure every time one of their members was charged and/or convicted of something like Hassert was, or when Newt was having his affair while his wife had cancer.

[Dill]

(04-29-2024, 12:33 PM)GMDino Wrote: And, in the end, he did the gop no favors by labeling them the party of "Family values".  They set themselves up for failure every time one of their members was charged and/or convicted of something like Hassert was, or when Newt was having his affair while his wife had cancer.

I dunno, Dino. It caught Hastert. 

But notice how impervious Trump voters are to anti-family behavior in their candidate.

Gingrich separated the nasty, anti-Dem rhetoric from specific issues and factual accountability, making it
always a valid application to Dems. 

Once rhetoric could trump facts, then we were a step closer to a world in which mere rhetoric could 
could generate "alternative' facts too--"witch hunts" and "weaponized DOJs" could become a thing 

regardless of factual support. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-29-2024, 11:06 AM)Dill Wrote: In the more normal, pre Trump era, it would have been difficult to call the Al-Awaki killing a "murder," since he declared himself an enemy of the US and was actively abetting the killing of Americans in the US. And the president is sworn to protect the US from such enemies. That's a very different act from trying to coerce the head of a foreign country to investigate a rival presidential candidate. Tying a president's hands with a murder charge in such a case would open a bigger can of worms, limiting a potential defense of the US.
 
I think there should have been Congressional hearings on the matter, which resulted in legislative checks creating more transparency and accountability in the targeting process. 

But so unstable, unpredictable and politicized is the system now that it is not impossible that GOP controlled House/Senate could re-open a case like that and charge Obama, or Clinton, because "Dems did it to Trump."  The legal guardrails are falling away as millions of Americans are fine with setting aside evidence of Trump's criminality because they are so worried Biden has "weaponized" the DOJ by upholding rule of law.

It really doesn't matter if he declared himself an enemy of the state or not. He was a USC and the POTUS ordered the death of a USC with out due process. I'm not a fan of the precedent it set. Should have been captured and tried in the US.