This whole thing with everything being delayed is annoying, there has to be some sort of cap to this.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Trump on Trial - Episode 5 |OT| The One with the Insurrection
- Thread starter phisheep
- Start date
The biggest worry here realistically is not that they rule that Presidents have total immunity because then Biden would have it too and the partisans on the Supreme Court(like Alito) are only hearing this to go to bat for Trump and not anyone else, the worry is they will say there is limited immunity for presidents and then refuse to specify what that limited immunity entails sending the case back to district court to decide that and by doing so delaying the case even more to make sure it can't be held before the election.
Watch them do exactly this.
Watch them do exactly this.
Everything that I've seen post-Trump Presidency is like this honestly lmao.
Its like everyone suddenly realized that so much of our laws, rules and constitutions are written "in good faith" and all it took is one bozo to blow it all wide open and take advantage of it.
That's the problem with how these idiots do Constitutional Law. And with Amendments being almost impossible to pass, we have judicial fiat.
my mind keeps going back to the Mule from the foundation books.
It seems SCOTUS is leaning toward ruling that a president has immunity for official acts. However, they say that would mean a determination needs to be made as to whether alleged conduct in an indictment is official or not. That being the case, wouldn't saying the act is official and therefore immune not constitute a defense that would be brought up at trial? Meaning, it would ultimately be a jury who would side with either the prosecution or defense to determine of conduct was part of an official act.
That being the case, why is this trial being stayed? It should still go forward. The only thing being decided is that Trump's lawyers can use immunity for official acts as a defense.
That being the case, why is this trial being stayed? It should still go forward. The only thing being decided is that Trump's lawyers can use immunity for official acts as a defense.
Yeah, you could tell by the line of questions the Republicans justices were throwing around that this was the plan all along.
This discussion doesn't even sound serious. It's something legal nerds would sit around and talk about at the bar.
View: https://Twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1783521814758433212
He's sooo. Close to getting it....
As soon as you argue that you can assassinate political opponents and have immunity, we are done. How can you say that and then say what Biden is doing is illegal?
You really want a god king who is above the law, it's wild.
You really want a god king who is above the law, it's wild.
Someone yesterday said we need this election because if we don't win, democracy will be finished. Democracy might be finished today.
Which is why people have been saying for months, this idea that the courts are going to save you from Trump is nonsense. You are going to have to hold your nose and vote yourself. Trump cannot be allowed back in office, he will go scorched earth.
Mr. President Trump*, your crimes have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?
*Blanche called him that in the gag order hearing
Agreed. Long before these recordings used to be released live, the common knowledge was that making guesses on case outcomes based on Oral Arguments was always a crap-shoot. Sometimes, the Justice ask questions about bonkers interpretations just to get things laid out on the record before they swerve and stick with the standard interpretation. Sometimes, it's just a game of chasing every logical pronouncement to its utmost extent. Just gonna have to wait on this one.
It's being stayed because the conservative justices want this punted until after the election. Pure and simple.
They need to stop asking in general terms and call them out by name. Ask "If Trump did this, then what", followed by the exact same question, but insert Biden's name.
Stop pussyfooting around the special accommodations for one man and fucking call them out on it.
Stop pussyfooting around the special accommodations for one man and fucking call them out on it.
He won't. Democrats play by the rules while Republicans don't. It's why we're so fucked as a country today.
Willing to bet that is going to be a mistrial. The hush money trial isn't going to stop him from running and winning.
Not "overall" going Trump's way still means that we're unlikely to see the trial begin before the election if it's remanded to the District Court for further arguments.
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh atleast 1 of the 2 is not going to go for this.
Yep. Congrats he doesn't have immunity, now he has trials going through Election Day, potentially wins and grants himself a pardon.
"Can the president assassinate Supreme Court justices or remove and install them as they see fit?"
Ask that. Dead on.
Ask that. Dead on.
He doesn't have to even grant himself a pardon if he wins - he can just direct his AG to drop the two cases that they're prosecuting.
Edit: Already answered perfectly by the post above mine.
You can hear the fucking Fox News talking points streaming out of his gob.
Not sure about that. Both have been asking nutty questions here.
Clearly just saying, if he was convicted prior to Jan he would just pardon himself. The point is regardless of any of these cases the only answer is him losing in November.
"something something, existing checks & balances, blah blah blah"
Oh yeah, you are 100% right about that. Also gotta hope that at least getting convicted in the New York case damages him electorally.
OP
OP
The argument for presidential immunity based upon the threat of retaliatory prosecution against 'political opponents' is very badly flawed in a way that I have not heard addressed. Because if we have a rogue president who does that, his 'political opponents' will not only be former presidents - they will be senators, governors, even Supreme Court Justices.
So the answer cannot be presidential immunity, it must be some form of immunity for everyone. And there is already a way of dealing with that - through a claim of selective or vindictive prosecution.
So the answer cannot be presidential immunity, it must be some form of immunity for everyone. And there is already a way of dealing with that - through a claim of selective or vindictive prosecution.
"The President will be held accountable by impeachment and conviction...which will take like a year....and will only happen if the President doesn't have a little over one third of the Senate in his pocket to avoid consequence."
People need to stop doomcasting based on oral arguments. The entire purpose is for the justices to rough up each party's argument. They've done this is a very large number of Trump-related cases in the past and ruled against him. They've done it in core culture war stuff regularly and ruled for republicans. It's not a productive exercise.
A better focus is: what test are they going to come up with? Some delineation between official acts and personal acts seems to be the ballgame, here. I would say that an additional dimension would be "corrupt" acts, that is ostensibly official acts which are undertaken for private gain. That really hasn't been addressed, which always struck me as odd. But it is theoretically in the mix. It's a tricky problem and the answer, going by this court's past history with corruption cases and dozens of Trump-related bullshit cases, is probably going to end up setting some lines along those axes. Trump got his delay, and the court gets to make a sweeping policy statement, which they have shown they absolutely (on both sides) love to do. It's kind of gross but it's the system we're operating in now.
You of all people, cataloguing all the various ridiculous ways Trump has gummed up the system, should recognize that isn't a meaningful remedy. I do agree that this is bigger than the president, because we have always operated on the understanding that official acts are not sanctionable. For good reason, too. Imagine all the lawsuits that would be lodged against individual members of Congress over contentious votes. Or for harm due to not renewing the extended child tax credit. Even here, a place that has some pretty wild ideas about how liability should sit, still doesn't have an appreciable number of people clamoring for lawsuits against members of Congress for laws that they've passed.
That, I think, is the court's main concern with this case in particular. There is an understanding that we all have and Trump has abused that understanding to the point where we need something official, to provide guidance for future misconduct and to dissuade people from trying to abuse the already faltering legal system by using it vindictively against political opponents. I have no idea how the court will resolve it, but it's not going to be anything silly like "Republicans rule, Democrats drool" that keeps getting tossed around in these conversations.
A better focus is: what test are they going to come up with? Some delineation between official acts and personal acts seems to be the ballgame, here. I would say that an additional dimension would be "corrupt" acts, that is ostensibly official acts which are undertaken for private gain. That really hasn't been addressed, which always struck me as odd. But it is theoretically in the mix. It's a tricky problem and the answer, going by this court's past history with corruption cases and dozens of Trump-related bullshit cases, is probably going to end up setting some lines along those axes. Trump got his delay, and the court gets to make a sweeping policy statement, which they have shown they absolutely (on both sides) love to do. It's kind of gross but it's the system we're operating in now.
You of all people, cataloguing all the various ridiculous ways Trump has gummed up the system, should recognize that isn't a meaningful remedy. I do agree that this is bigger than the president, because we have always operated on the understanding that official acts are not sanctionable. For good reason, too. Imagine all the lawsuits that would be lodged against individual members of Congress over contentious votes. Or for harm due to not renewing the extended child tax credit. Even here, a place that has some pretty wild ideas about how liability should sit, still doesn't have an appreciable number of people clamoring for lawsuits against members of Congress for laws that they've passed.
That, I think, is the court's main concern with this case in particular. There is an understanding that we all have and Trump has abused that understanding to the point where we need something official, to provide guidance for future misconduct and to dissuade people from trying to abuse the already faltering legal system by using it vindictively against political opponents. I have no idea how the court will resolve it, but it's not going to be anything silly like "Republicans rule, Democrats drool" that keeps getting tossed around in these conversations.
I really don't think it will at all, there isn't a single soul out there who is confused on this election. They either care about it or they don't, the conviction is already a pre drawn conclusion. He is of course guilty or another example of a witch hunt.
Nah, there's plenty of people who aren't fully paying attention yet and who don't like Biden or Trump. Trump being labeled as a convicted felon will definitely hurt him.
After eight years how can you be so tuned out? Boggles my mind.
I'm trying very hard to not freak the fuck out right now, but reading this these tidbits today has me absolutely terrified.
The bolded are civil matters about official acts, which I don't think anyone questions here, not even Dreeben. Obviously I wouldn't be able to sue the state for raising my taxes because my finances were harmed. The point Dreeben made about bribery is much more substantial IMO: an official act done for corrupt purpose should be considered as open for prosecution. Bribery happens to be a great example (you get paid under the table to do something official that is not in the best interests of society but for the paying party) but so can interrupting an official proceeding (sending a mob of people to Congress to interrupt a process that would remove you from power).
We use the word "reasonable" when it comes to these matters, and every reasonable person understands that the president sending a team of assassins to kill a political opponent should never be considered reasonable if we live in a civilized democracy. And while you're right, oral arguments very often are there for justices to act as devil's advocate, if these people simply believed the DC Circuit Court got it right, they would never have agreed to take on the case. That they do leaves us to believe otherwise.
For people who are turning 18 this year, the 2016 election would have happened when they were in 5th grade and Trump would have left office when they were just starting high school.