Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

For god's sake, don't rely on anything Talent says here

[THE_WIZARD_]

You are gonna make DSL jealous...

[iam416]

I'm all out of love....I'm so lost without you...

[THE_WIZARD_]

No

[iam416]

Anyway -- if you read the oral argument transcript you'll see that the Justices aren't particularly willing to go as far as DJT's attorney argued -- which, btw, is NOT COMPLETE IMMUNITY. That's a total lie. It is, however, blanket immunity for "official acts" -- and then the issue turns on whether he's being charged with an "official act." The issue the Court had with that is the breadth of the definition of official act and then how to figure out the contours.

BUT, the Justices also had a lot of problems with the DC Circuit position that there is no immunity except in certain core areas (Youngstown Sheet & Tube). And they wouldn't even call it immunity -- but that's essentially what it is.

So, the issue, then, sort of boils down to what is an "official act" or for what acts does the President have immunity criminal prosection -- extremely narrow or extremely broad?

So, if you read the questions from Gorsuch and Kav, in particular, you see those two trying to figure out where to land -- and it's pretty clear they're somewhere in between the positions. I mean, Gorsuch asked the Respondent attorney, "isn't the DC Circuit standard a tautology?" -- and the attorney answered "Yes." That's not a workable standard. So, I don't there's any chance that stands. But, I also don't think the Petitioner's position is quite workable, either.

Finally, both Gorsuch and Kav expressly stated that this is an important decision for the long-term -- yeah, maybe this case is easier, but we're trying to set a standard that doesn't fuck up the balance of powers and/or diminish/empower Article II.

It's a really interesting argument. And if you're at all curious, the argument is both accessible to those w/o a law degree AND literally accessible on-line. You can read the source material. Or you can read someone telling you what to think the source material says. I mean, JFC -- would you take rely on ME??? -- on what I just wrote???

Read it.

[THE_WIZARD_]

FB_IMG_1714093825865.jpg

[THE_WIZARD_]

FB_IMG_1714093644047.jpg

[THE_WIZARD_]

(paws)

[THE_WIZARD_]

FB_IMG_1714093462169.jpg

[iam416]

If anyone is actually interested in the case, read the oral arguments — not twitter hot takes.

Judge for yourself.

[crashcourse]

if trump wins the dems aint getting the senate

5-4 trum wins a partial immunity argument gets sent down to lower court bye bye jack smith. thought roberts or someone brought up pardoning yourself and he hopes it never comes up. its gonna come up

[Dr. Strangelove]

The Dems could very well control the House and Senate on Jan 6, 2025 even if Trump wins. Who here wants the Dems to play by the same rules Trump was trying to establish on Jan. 6th, 2021?

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump's alternate electors from Nevada, Arizona, Georgia, and Michigan are being prosecuted. The common theme is that all 4 groups signed documents, under oath, attesting that they were the one and only true electors from their state and had been duly certified by their state legislature. In every case this was a complete lie. None of them had. But these slates were sent to Congress, the Archives, and VP Pence. I believe in Michigan they even lied (under oath) about meeting in the statehouse as required by law.

Trump's electors in WI and PA were much smarter and only claimed to be alternates, to be used in the event that the original electors were discarded. None of these electors have been indicted and likely never will be despite Dems AGs being in control of those states for the past 4 years.

I think there's more than enough evidence to prove these electors were not all acting spontaneously but were being directed and organized by either people in the White House or extremely Trump-adjacent.

Did they think this would work? Probably not but they were hoping that the alternates suddenly appearing at Congress on Jan 6th could cause enough confusion and justification for Pence to declare that the electoral count could not happen for days, possibly weeks, who knows how long. It was a stall for additional time. To do what? Who knows? These people aren't smart enough to think 9 steps ahead. Pence wouldn't play ball and rightly so.

[Jeff Buchanan]

What I liked about this Op-ed is it's tone, especially as it relates to the application of Lawfare. I wonder if Trump understands any of this beyond the D's are trying hard to make sure I will not be elected to the presidency...... instead the electorate will get a tottering victim of dementia who cannot competently act as president [PAUSE] .

[Da Geezer]

I was reading the WSJ just now, and this is what the editorial page had to say about immunity:

The most distressing fact of U.S. politics since Donald Trump arrived on the scene is the accelerating decline of political and legal norms. It isn’t all Mr. Trump’s fault. His opponents have, in their obsession to take him down, also stretched the law and degraded American institutions. (See FBI, Russia collusion narrative.) That’s where the courts are essential, and Thursday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court on presidential immunity from prosecution is a case in point.


We say immunity for Presidents because the future of the office is as much at stake as Mr. Trump’s political fate. In Trump v. U.S., the former President is claiming he has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution. Special counsel Jack Smith says Mr. Trump has no more immunity than any average citizen. ***


The burden on the Justices will be finding a balance that recognizes the unique duties of the Presidency while also holding Presidents accountable for genuine law-breaking. A President needs to be free to make controversial decisions without having to worry that he’ll be prosecuted for them after he leaves office. But he shouldn’t be free to commit crimes that are unrelated to the office.

The Trump case will set a new precedent because no former President has ever been prosecuted. Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon—bravely and at great political cost—before Nixon could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. But as it happens, a precedent exists from that era that is highly relevant to the Trump case.

In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the Supreme Court ruled that a President has “absolute immunity” from civil lawsuits for acts within the “outer perimeter” of his presidential duties. Mr. Smith’s charges are criminal, so one question for the High Court will be whether the Nixon precedent also applies to criminal prosecution.

It’s hard to believe it wouldn’t, since the threat of prison could influence a President far more than a civil lawsuit. Yet the trial judge in the Jan. 6 case and the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals blew through this precedent as if it didn’t exist. The three-judge circuit panel also wrote its opinion as if Mr. Trump is sui generis—a unique threat to democracy—and thus no other former President would ever be charged with a crime.

But as David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley argue nearby, this ignores the reality of our current politics. Four Democratic prosecutors have decided to charge Mr. Trump (three on criminal charges). In doing so they have unleashed partisan furies that future prosecutors will exploit. If Democrats think President Biden won’t at least be investigated for crimes by GOP prosecutors after he leaves office, they aren’t paying attention.

If the Court rules that Nixon v. Fitzgerald applies, the next question concerns whether the acts Mr. Trump is charged with fall within that “outer perimeter” of his duties. This is in part a factual question about Mr. Trump’s actions and motivations.

In the Jan. 6 case, Mr. Smith has cited numerous Trump actions to justify his four charges. One of them is lobbying Vice President Mike Pence to block Congress’s certification of Electoral College votes. That was wrong about what Mr. Pence could do under the Constitution, but Presidents talk to their Veeps all the time and Mr. Pence was free to say no. The same goes for Mr. Trump’s calls asking state election officials to look for electoral fraud. Mr. Trump argues that he was merely trying to ensure the election was honestly conducted, which he says was part of his duty as President.

The Supreme Court could decide this question in the current proceeding, though it doesn’t have to. As the three liberal Justices wrote recently in their unhappy concurrence in Trump v. Anderson, the Court shouldn’t address more questions than it must be to decide a case. On that logic, the Justices could (and probably should) remand the “outer perimeter” question to the trial court for fact-finding and judgment. Some of Mr. Trump’s actions might then qualify for immunity while others might not. ***


Such a remand would infuriate Democrats and the media who want Mr. Smith’s trial to begin soon and convict him before the election. Sending the case back to the trial court could delay the trial past the election. But this is one of the risks of using lawfare to defeat a political opponent.

The job of the Supreme Court isn’t to follow the election calendar. Its duty is to consider the facts and law in the context of America’s constitutional order. It needs to think of the Presidency, and the separation of powers, as much as it does this former President.

The current Court has been acting as if it is up to this job, no matter how unpopular a decision might be politically. What matters is buttressing our institutions against today’s gale force partisan winds.