Would you say that any Justice which votes for absolute immunity is among the top 9 worst Justices?

[VBM]

Imo the answer is clearly yes, regardless of how good the Justice’s record was prior to this ruling. Obviously the chances of it happening are very slim, but if the SC actually did declare that the president has full immunity would be extremely disastrous and a borderline existential level threat for the country. This ruling would easily replace Dred Scott as the worst SC ruling in American history.

This ruling would be so bad that even if you could somehow argue that a plain text reading of the Constitution supports absolute immunity, and that this was clearly the Founders’ intent, it would be morally reprehensible for the Justices to not unanimously engage in judicial activism and side against Trump

[darklordoftech]

Yes (sane)

[VBM]

I wonder if Sinemanchin would actually support packing the court if they made this ruling.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I wonder if Sinemanchin would actually support packing the court if they made this ruling.

At that point, I guarantee you the court also has a majority to strike down any court-packing bill.

But I don't think there's any real chance that the court will rule that Trump became a God-king as soon as he took office.

[MarkD]

I won't know what to think until I've read the opinions from both sides.

[VBM]

I won't know what to think until I've read the opinions from both sides.

As I said, even if you could somehow make a coherent argument for the Constitution granting absolute immunity, it would be such an obvious disaster for our country that it would be morally reprehensible to not engage in judicial activism and rule against absolute immunity

[MarkD]

I won't know what to think until I've read the opinions from both sides.

As I said, even if you could somehow make a coherent argument for the Constitution granting absolute immunity, it would be such an obvious disaster for our country that it would be morally reprehensible to not engage in judicial activism and rule against absolute immunity

You have a lot of conflated but unsubstantiated rhetoric that it will horrifically terrible for the whole country if Trump will win his legal argument about immunity -- "extremely disastrous and a borderline existential threat to the country" -- but arguments like that do not persuade me that I should set aside my strong concern for accurate interpretations of the Constitution rendered by the small band of people for whom that is their most important job. Of course I am far more familiar with the SCOTUS's myriad ways of "interpreting" two of the clauses in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which are the most frequently litigated parts of the Constitution of all, and which have long been the most important source of temptation for Supreme Court Justices to legislate from the bench to their hearts' content. I know relatively little about the issue of presidential powers, so that's why I want to read the opinions first. But in my opinion, a Court that accurately explains the meaning of the Constitution -- as filtered to the body politic through news sources -- can mitigate a lot of anger and backlash by the public. And you'll have to explain more why you think it would be so disastrous for Trump to win, if your concern is about more than public anger and backlash.

[VBM]

I won't know what to think until I've read the opinions from both sides.

As I said, even if you could somehow make a coherent argument for the Constitution granting absolute immunity, it would be such an obvious disaster for our country that it would be morally reprehensible to not engage in judicial activism and rule against absolute immunity

You have a lot of conflated but unsubstantiated rhetoric that it will horrifically terrible for the whole country if Trump will win his legal argument about immunity -- "extremely disastrous and a borderline existential threat to the country" -- but arguments like that do not persuade me that I should set aside my strong concern for accurate interpretations of the Constitution rendered by the small band of people for whom that is their most important job. Of course I am far more familiar with the SCOTUS's myriad ways of "interpreting" two of the clauses in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which are the most frequently litigated parts of the Constitution of all, and which have long been the most important source of temptation for Supreme Court Justices to legislate from the bench to their hearts' content. I know relatively little about the issue of presidential powers, so that's why I want to read the opinions first. But in my opinion, a Court that accurately explains the meaning of the Constitution -- as filtered to the body politic through news sources -- can mitigate a lot of anger and backlash by the public. And you'll have to explain more why you think it would be so disastrous for Trump to win, if your concern is about more than public anger and backlash.

I don’t think I need to explain why it would be terrible for the country if the president could assassinate his political opponents with impunity.

[Progressive Pessimist]

Even without that ruling five of the six Republican appointees are already on that list.

[DaleCooper]

It's surreal to me that this is even on the table. Purely from a pragmatic standpoint, they'd be putting a lot of faith in the Democratic president to not abuse this immunity once they grant it. Catholic guilt would be the only thing preventing Biden from ordering the assassination of Trump or any of the conservative SCOTUS judges.

[VBM]

It's surreal to me that this is even on the table. Purely from a pragmatic standpoint, they'd be putting a lot of faith in the Democratic president to not abuse this immunity once they grant it. Catholic guilt would be the only thing preventing Biden from ordering the assassination of Trump or any of the conservative SCOTUS judges.

Realistically, the top brass of the military would depose a president who gave such an order, especially if it was Trump. But I’d rather not have the moral code of the president and the willingness of the military to go along with it be the only two things preventing us from becoming North Korea

[heatcharger]

Catholic guilt would be the only thing preventing Biden from ordering the assassination of Trump or any of the conservative SCOTUS judges.

Your wishes aren’t very well-masked.

Most disturbing user on the forum.

[John Dule]

Catholic guilt would be the only thing preventing Biden from ordering the assassination of Trump or any of the conservative SCOTUS judges.

Your wishes aren’t very well-masked.

Most disturbing user on the forum.

What's wrong with what he said?

[DaleCooper]

Catholic guilt would be the only thing preventing Biden from ordering the assassination of Trump or any of the conservative SCOTUS judges.

Your wishes aren’t very well-masked.

Most disturbing user on the forum.

What's wrong with what he said?

He clearly has some kind of mental disability. Ignore and move on.

[heatcharger]

Catholic guilt would be the only thing preventing Biden from ordering the assassination of Trump or any of the conservative SCOTUS judges.

Your wishes aren’t very well-masked.

Most disturbing user on the forum.

What's wrong with what he said?

He clearly has some kind of mental disability. Ignore and move on.

I noticed you started using that as a coping mechanism. I guess calling everyone fat or a school shooter was a bit played out.

Have more courage. Don’t hide behind Catholic Guilt.

[President Johnson]

Definitely Thomas.

[John Dule]

Catholic guilt would be the only thing preventing Biden from ordering the assassination of Trump or any of the conservative SCOTUS judges.

Your wishes aren’t very well-masked.

Most disturbing user on the forum.

What's wrong with what he said?

He clearly has some kind of mental disability. Ignore and move on.

I noticed you started using that as a coping mechanism. I guess calling everyone fat or a school shooter was a bit played out.

Have more courage. Don’t hide behind Catholic Guilt.

I think it's obvious that you simply didn't understand his post. That's ok. Reading can be hard.

[Obama24]

Yes.

[Anti-Trump Truth Socialite JD Vance Enjoying Juror]

I’d love to hear the originalist or textualist logic that results in an absolute immunity ruling. Nothing in the Constitution is implied or unstated, except that apparently certain individuals are totally immune from the law.

The existence of independent executive agencies and government regulations? Unacceptable deviations from the plain text of the constitution. But blanket immunity which is mentioned absolutely nowhere? That’s something that obviously exists.

[MarkD]

You have a lot of conflated but unsubstantiated rhetoric that it will horrifically terrible for the whole country if Trump will win his legal argument about immunity -- "extremely disastrous and a borderline existential threat to the country" -- but arguments like that do not persuade me that I should set aside my strong concern for accurate interpretations of the Constitution rendered by the small band of people for whom that is their most important job. Of course I am far more familiar with the SCOTUS's myriad ways of "interpreting" two of the clauses in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which are the most frequently litigated parts of the Constitution of all, and which have long been the most important source of temptation for Supreme Court Justices to legislate from the bench to their hearts' content. I know relatively little about the issue of presidential powers, so that's why I want to read the opinions first. But in my opinion, a Court that accurately explains the meaning of the Constitution -- as filtered to the body politic through news sources -- can mitigate a lot of anger and backlash by the public. And you'll have to explain more why you think it would be so disastrous for Trump to win, if your concern is about more than public anger and backlash.

I don’t think I need to explain why it would be terrible for the country if the president could assassinate his political opponents with impunity.

I shouldn't have used the word "conflated," I should have typed INflated instead. But I still think your fear is indeed inflated, just like Justice Sotomayor's hypothetical situation was far-fetched. Fearing that the Court might rule that presidents have absolute immunity from any crime they might hypothetically commit, and that if such a ruling occurs, that some future president might take it as a license to assassinate their political opponents strikes me as a pretty far-fetched fear. It doesn't behoove Sotomayor to ask such a far-fetched question, and it doesn't speak well for other people to react to the dialogue between her and Trump's attorney as if that is something, realistically, might happen. (According to another post of yours, you do have concerns about how, realistically, the military would react if a hypothetical president were to order the assassination of a political opponent.)

[VBM]

You have a lot of conflated but unsubstantiated rhetoric that it will horrifically terrible for the whole country if Trump will win his legal argument about immunity -- "extremely disastrous and a borderline existential threat to the country" -- but arguments like that do not persuade me that I should set aside my strong concern for accurate interpretations of the Constitution rendered by the small band of people for whom that is their most important job. Of course I am far more familiar with the SCOTUS's myriad ways of "interpreting" two of the clauses in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which are the most frequently litigated parts of the Constitution of all, and which have long been the most important source of temptation for Supreme Court Justices to legislate from the bench to their hearts' content. I know relatively little about the issue of presidential powers, so that's why I want to read the opinions first. But in my opinion, a Court that accurately explains the meaning of the Constitution -- as filtered to the body politic through news sources -- can mitigate a lot of anger and backlash by the public. And you'll have to explain more why you think it would be so disastrous for Trump to win, if your concern is about more than public anger and backlash.

I don’t think I need to explain why it would be terrible for the country if the president could assassinate his political opponents with impunity.

I shouldn't have used the word "conflated," I should have typed INflated instead. But I still think your fear is indeed inflated, just like Justice Sotomayor's hypothetical situation was far-fetched. Fearing that the Court might rule that presidents have absolute immunity from any crime they might hypothetically commit, and that if such a ruling occurs, that some future president might take it as a license to assassinate their political opponents strikes me as a pretty far-fetched fear. It doesn't behoove Sotomayor to ask such a far-fetched question, and it doesn't speak well for other people to react to the dialogue between her and Trump's attorney as if that is something, realistically, might happen. (According to another post of yours, you do have concerns about how, realistically, the military would react if a hypothetical president were to order the assassination of a political opponent.)

Even if you can’t see a president, even Trump, abusing their absolute immunity that much in the near future, there’s bound to be a president down the line who will pull some extremely immoral and authoritarian stunts to gain absolute power, especially if polarization keeps worsening. One of the political parties could gradually place fascist sycophants in charge of the military so that they’ll be confident in having the military’s support when the time comes.

Even if the Constitution literally said word-for-word that presidents have absolute immunity, the SC should still rule against it.