SCOTUS decision on Trump's claim of absolute immunity

[Torie]

The link to the decision is here.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf

The court remanded to the district court to determine what are, and are not, within the scope of the Presidents official duties. Tn short the Court punted. It is unclear whether the district court will decide before the election, and then back to the Supreme Court, but I have heard speculation that the District Court will move at warp speed. Time will tell.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Can President Biden ordering the assassination of Donald Trump be considered an official duty?
Asking for the non brain-dead Trump cult.

And after that order the assassination of all the fascist Federalist Society Supreme Court Justices.

[It’s so Joever]

But Atlas keeps telling me the Supreme Court would never prop up a dictator!

[Progressive Pessimist]

Can President Biden ordering the assassination of Donald Trump be considered an official duty?
Asking for the non brain-dead Trump cult.

And after that order the assassination of all the fascist Federalist Society Supreme Court Justices.

The President is supposed to protect the country from domestic and foreign threats...this is the former, so it might be an "official act!"

[HisGrace]

Can President Biden ordering the assassination of Donald Trump be considered an official duty?
Asking for the non brain-dead Trump cult.

And after that order the assassination of all the fascist Federalist Society Supreme Court Justices.

The President is supposed to protect the country from domestic and foreign threats...this is the former, so it might be an "official act!"

Doesn't even need an excuse, he's commander in chief, he has total command of the army. The ruling even specifically says it's still official even if it breaks laws so he wouldn't be bound by laws against murder in that circumstance. Absolutely deranged and so stupid that the usual braindead bootlickers online are downplaying this. Would respect them more if they were just like "OH YEAH HERE WE GO" instead of straight up lying about it.

[Torie]

Biden goes on a rant about the SCOTUS decision basically saying that it gave Trump basically unlimited immunity.

https://youtu.be/vtc_n4Tqr8k

That is totally false. SCOTUS sent the decision to Judge Tanya Chutkin of the DC court, an Obama appointee, to parse what is, and what is not, an official decision. Sad.

We shall see whether the press call him on it, or not.

[Ljube]

Biden goes on a rant about the SCOTUS decision basically saying that it gave Trump basically unlimited immunity.

https://youtu.be/vtc_n4Tqr8k

That is totally false. SCOTUS sent the decision to Judge Tanya Chutkin of the DC court, an Obama appointee, to parse what is, and what is not, an official decision. Sad.

We shall see whether the press call him on it, or not.

No need.
Nobody takes him seriously anymore.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Biden goes on a rant about the SCOTUS decision basically saying that it gave Trump basically unlimited immunity.

https://youtu.be/vtc_n4Tqr8k

That is totally false. SCOTUS sent the decision to Judge Tanya Chutkin of the DC court, an Obama appointee, to parse what is, and what is not, an official decision. Sad.

We shall see whether the press call him on it, or not.

IN PRACTICE it absolutely gives Trump unlimited immunity. Sending the case back down to the district court is blatant ass-covering. We need to be realistic here.

[Torie]

The procedure is real and the judge is real. Granted it may delay matters until after the election, but it may not.  The judge may act at warp speed. So Disagree. Have a nice day.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The procedure is real and the judge is real. Granted it may delay matters until after the election, but it may not.  The judge may act at warp speed. So Disagree. Have a nice day.

Please don't patronize me on a board I moderate, Torie.

The opinion as written makes certain things very clear about the understanding of presidential authority and the standards that are supposed to be employed that make a lot of what's going on at the district level a dead letter. Anything related to exclusive powers of the President is completely immune from investigation, is nonjusticiable, cannot be admitted as evidence, cannot be used to establish mens rea--that goes beyond even some of what Trump was asking for. There's quite a lot that the insane made-up evidentiary precedents make de facto impossible to get a conviction on, beyond the supposed limits of the immune actions. The fact that the immunity is ostensibly limited is not the really story here, and neither is the fact that more will be happening on the district level.

[Torie]

We shall see in due course. For justices sake, I certainly hope you are wrong.    Be well.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

We shall see in due course. For justices sake, I certainly hope you are wrong.    Be well.

Every once in a while you surprise me, but you have possibly the worst case of normalcy bias of anybody I've ever seen here.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

The procedure is real and the judge is real. Granted it may delay matters until after the election, but it may not.  The judge may act at warp speed. So Disagree. Have a nice day.

Please don't patronize me on a board I moderate, Torie.

The opinion as written makes certain things very clear about the understanding of presidential authority and the standards that are supposed to be employed that make a lot of what's going on at the district level a dead letter. Anything related to exclusive powers of the President is completely immune from investigation, is nonjusticiable, cannot be admitted as evidence, cannot be used to establish mens rea--that goes beyond even some of what Trump was asking for. There's quite a lot that the insane made-up evidentiary precedents make de facto impossible to get a conviction on, beyond the supposed limits of the immune actions. The fact that the immunity is ostensibly limited is not the really story here, and neither is the fact that more will be happening on the district level.

This is a quote from Yes, Minister that for some reason never got the attention it deserved. It fits here:

Bernard Woolley to Minister Hacker on independent inquiries: "Railway trains are impartial too. But if you lay down the lines for them, that's the way they go..."

This judge is impartial but the Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines on which she has to base her decisions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

We shall see in due course. For justices sake, I certainly hope you are wrong.    Be well.

I hope I'm wrong too, but I could say that about a lot of situations.