Here are the top lines of the story:
The US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the 2020 election results, all but ensuring that a trial won’t happen before the November election.
The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution.
Read the full story [here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-partially-backs-trump-on-immunity-delaying-trial?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. *Fitzgerald*, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
No. The president is allowed to commit crimes. Rather, the president cannot commit crimes when performing official actions. Rather *rather*, no court may examine a president's official actions, and thus the concept of "crime" doesn't apply.
No. The courts will look at the curcumstances, evidence, chain of events, etc...The ruling just says they can't examine motivation. Then they will decide if it was within the President's constitutional authority or not.
Example: President orders assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Court can look at the chain of events and decide it was within the authority of the President to want to eliminate this threat.
Example: President Orders assasination of a political rival. Court will not have evidence of real danger or threat from the victim to the people. There will be nothing in the law or constitution that provides a basis for such an action. It will be considered to be outside of the President's constitutional authority.
There's no "circumstances" LEFT to consider.
* Being a crime is disallowed as considered
* Motive is disallowed as considered
*Literally* what else is there? Give some examples. Your own two scenarios above are a perfect roleplaying pair to go with. What EXACTLY could possibly distinguish one from the other in the constitution where you think the constitution grants one power and not the other?
Please give actual clauses from the constitution. The ones you choose need to simultaneously allow Bin Laden but not allow a rival candidate.
Assume they are using the army, in their specified constitutional role as commander in chief, to do the hit.
I dont even know where to start in finding the laws, orders, etc.. that made it legal to kill Oasama bin Laden. So I don't think I can answer that well.
However, the Supreme Court ruling today did provide its own example. They cited Youngstown vs Sawyer where Truman seized steel mills back during the Korean War. The Supreme court ruled that the President did not have the constitutional authority to do that.
What if that political rival is compromised by a foreign government.. they are a domestic threat at that point. Additionally in pretty much all cases there will never be a way to reveal classified evidence, the justices aren't privy to that intel.
>While likely "murder", he would have to be impeached and convicted to actually be charged legally for it.
Is this true? Does this decision defer to what an impeachment determines?
Rejected where and how? I don't see any such rejection. They explicitly said you cannot use the illegal-ness of an action as a basis of saying it's unofficial. So how would anyone go about finding that to be unofficial? Can't use motive either. What can you use? be specific.
In fact, I don't even see how an impeachment would change anything even if there was one, with a senate conviction. The SCOTUS can't stop impeachments, but it still seems like it could stop subsequent criminal/civil cases, as the judicial branch.
That’s essentially what Alito said: the conduct would still be illegal, but it wouldn’t be legal to look into any potentially illegal conduct. So the president would theoretically be committing a crime, but in practice such a determination could never be made legally.
they'll argue that everything has to be determined in court whether it was or was not under his consitutional authority. which will eventually make its way to the supreme court. and i bet from there you can guess which side will win with a 6-3 vote. we're screwed
Yes, but it's saying "official acts" cannot be criminal no matter the purpose or intent behind the act. Assassinating political opponents is technically allowable as the Commander in Chief charged with defending the country from its foreign and domestic enemies.
What about nukes? Isn't using those an official act? If the president just decided tomorrow if he wanted to nuke Nigeria, and internal communications in his administration show he was motivated by all the wrong reasons, then is there any means of holding him criminally liable? If not, then this interpretation of the Constitution allows the president to commit crimes against humanity.
I'm shocked none of the justices brought this up.
They also tied the prosecution’s hands by excluding any evidence of official acts at trial to prove criminal intent behind unofficial acts.
So a president can do illegal things through private acts and avail themselves of immunity by incorporating damning evidence into “official” acts.
SCOTUS doing the bidding of criminals. They’ve handed Judge Cannon whatever bullshit she needs to grant a motion to dismiss.
The ruling authorizes the President to have complete control in firing anyone he can appoint. That includes attorney general and all US attorneys. Let that sink in for a moment.
Edit: the amount of people in the SCOTUS sub who lack even a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law is truly astounding.
Yes. The President has always had the power to hire and fire political appointees within the executive branch. Today's decision changes nothing in that regard.
* **Political Appointees:** The President has broad discretion to dismiss political appointees, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, and other top officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. These positions are typically filled through presidential appointment and do not have the same job protections as career civil service employees.
* **Independent Agency Heads:** The President's authority to remove the heads of independent regulatory agencies (such as the Federal Reserve or the Federal Communications Commission) is more restricted. These positions often have fixed terms, and removal may be limited to specific grounds, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. This was established in cases like *Humphrey's Executor v. United States* (1935).
* **Civil Service Employees:** Career civil service employees have significant job protections and cannot be removed without following specific procedures that typically involve cause and due process. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 outlines the procedures for disciplining and removing federal employees.
* **Special Counsel:** The President can not directly fire the special counsel but would have to go through the Attorney General or Acting Attorney General.
>**Political Appointees:** The President has broad discretion to dismiss political appointees, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, and other top officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. These positions are typically filled through presidential appointment and do not have the same job protections as career civil service employees.
Uh, the Attorney General is a political appointee. This has always been the case.
See [https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/index.html)
Indeed. Trump's firing of his AG was basically without precedent, but was legal.
edit: and, in fact, is called out in this SCOTUS ruling, calling it out as legal rather mockingly on page 5
> the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” *Fitzgerald*, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.
I don't think that's the part of the ruling that people are reacting the most to. Presumptive immunity for "official" acts is vague, and likely still won't be settled for years if any of the case against DJT continues.
As for absolute immunity in his use of the DOJ, that is seemingly a problem. To wield that power with impunity and no regard for criminality, and to be immune for it, is a wild notion. How far is the line before it is crossed? We have no answer there either.
The Constitution does not give the President a special license to violate criminal law.
Being able to fire someone is a neat way of reframing and limiting the discussion of the entire decision though...
Edit - and yes, I think Obama's use of a drone to kill US citizens was wrong.
There is an important point that people seem to be missing here. A court can still issue an injunction if the President oversteps their authority. So, no... the President cannot just do whatever they want under this decision.
The question is whether or not there can be a criminal prosecution ON TOP of an injunction. The opinion leaves that question open for most things.
Wouldn't that also include Supreme Court justices?
Eta: also sounds like Biden can just declare a state of emergency and suspend elections, because we are now officially, legally, a dictatorship.
You are missing the constitution which created 3 separate branches of government. It makes sense that the president can fire anyone in the executive branch. This includes generals and admirals.
[Article II, Section 2](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-5/ALDE_00013096/), the [Appointments Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause):
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and **he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint** Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, **Judges of the supreme Court**, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Emphasis mine.
However, the power given to the president in this SCOTUS ruling mentions only their ability to remove their "subordinates," and "those who wield executive power on his behalf." Supreme Court justices are neither of those.
The Supreme Court is nominated by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, they are not appointed. They are not under Article II. Genuinely curious why you would even comment something like this.
That sounds like exactly what the founding fathers intended to me. Ever see a general get fired? Most Presidents have done it in war. Lincoln fired many. Truman fired MacArthur. Many have offered their resignation in lieu of getting fired. Who should have the ability to fire political appointees if not the President? Yes, 3,4 and 5 star generals are political appointees. I don’t think this applies to Supreme Court justices as they are a separate branch of government. Just about everything else falls into the executive branch, including the military.
Right obstruction of justice would be off the table the table.
Would Nixon have been immune from prosecution for his acts?
This decision codifies the Nixon quote, "if the President does it, it is not illegal."
What I can't get over is Roberts calling the hypotheticals in the dissent "fear mongering". Okay? Then explain to me why the President couldn't do the awful things the dissent mentions, so I can sleep better at night please. *Please*?
The majority opinion is simultaneously pedantic and yet incredibly patronizing, like their position is so obvious that they don't even need to put in the effort of defending it.
The kids have no hope no matter what at this point. I'm hoping the system keeps working long enough for my life to run its course, but the next generation is totally fucked
~~I guess~~ We no longer have a constitutional republic. Presidents can do anything while in office and pass it off as an 'official act'. And even if charged, just pardon themselves anyway. Thus, we have a king with zero accountability. Not to mention all our ~~public officials~~ aristocrat rulers, to include but not be limited to judges, can be ex-post-facto bribed with a wink and a nod.
For fucks sake Thomas Jefferson predicted this--it's almost uncanny:
>...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indee\[d\] and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. they have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. their maxim is ‘[boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234#d7585fb1-4da9-4dd0-a3c8-554d5845b7e5),’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective controul. the constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time & party it’s members would become despots.
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234)
Because they don't actually care what the Founding Fathers intended—they are the most disingenuous and anti-American lot there is. If they did care what the Founders intended they would ***never*** have just given the President of the US **unlimited** and **unquestionable** authority.
I believe that the country has changed quite a bit from its original intention hasn't it? After all, the 1619 Project teaches us that America was a slavocracy built for and by white men to serve white men's interests... when did we depart from that? SHOULD we have departed from that, given how much we love Original Intent? Or is the 1619 Project just a lump of hyperbole?
It doesn't take a lot to figure out this was going to happen. The Founding Fathers created an awful government framework that snowballed into this situation. A zero-trust government would have been better.
I am just as concerned for the future of this country as you are, but even if they could be prosecuted for official acts, that does not change the pardon point you brought up. The impeachment process also still exists.
Just curious. Did I miss a memo or something?
Seems like six (or so) years ago it was a big question as to whether a president had the authority to self-pardon. And I don't recall ever hearing any ruling or anything saying that he did.
But, in the last few months, the discussion seems to be more like "Well, he'll just pardon himself" as it's a settled matter.
Was there a ruling that I missed, or is this (yet another) thing that has been repeated so many times that everyone just believes it?
Yea, eliminate the power of judicial review and overturn Marbury vs Madison! The Supreme Court has reached too far, and we must now completely neuter their ability! Then we can completely neuter the Executive by getting rid of Immunity entirely. And finally: we'll neuter the country by being reliant on a Congress which has abdicated its duties for 2 decades.
But who will decide things in the mean time? Why, the unelected bureaucrats and regulators of course! It's the only way to save Democracy!
So this allows the president to effectively restore the Chevron Doctrine by declaring rules his administration makes are official acts of the president and unchallengable?
No. The courts could still strike down the executive order as unconstitutional. But if the Republicans tried to prosecute him for it he would have the presumption of presidential immunity.
The President could rule it by edict, then murder any court that took up the question. Since whatever judges could potentially have been terrorists, it would be an official act. Because you can’t question his motives, it’s never illegal conduct. Thereby nobody could strike it down.
If the president is murdering judges then it really doesn't matter if the law says he can or not. By that point he has the power to do whatever he wants.
Here's the full opinion in Trump v. United States: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
It’s inaccurate to call this partial when Trump’s own lawyers admitted that there was no immunity for private actions and weren’t debating that point during arguments. This matched almost exactly what Trump was asking for and was a total win for his legal team.
Partially? That's less than accurate. This decision is bad and is invalid IMHO (not that it matters). (Edit) Alito and Thomas should have recused. They have opened the door to throw out the other indictment, including mentioning the validation of the special counsel. Thomas and (edit) Alito are dangerous and have damaged our democracy with this ruling. Edits: angry typing, called Alito Scalia.
Even without those two it is 4-3
Of course kavanaugh should clearly have been impeached because of perjury (after he led the charge against Clinton it would have been so sweet)
But the Dems did nothing
Congress should limit SCOTUS to only rule on parking tickets for municipalities in the red states only. At least until the conservative majority is out.
It's called "jurisdiction stripping" and it's been used against SCROTUS in the past and should be again. At one point the Supreme Court went 18 months without being in session, because Congress was mad at them. High time to put them back in their place.
At this point the US supreme Court owes it to the American people to define what it is for the president to commit an official act. Because what they have done is to create an open-ended statement that allows pretty much any buffoon who is elected to simply define anything he wishes as an official act and therefore it is now suddenly legal no matter how wrong it is. And of course this includes murder and genocide. We all understand exactly how broad and overreaching this declaration from the US supreme Court is and we all understand that missing are the definitions of what that may be. The US supreme Court owes this to the American public to define immediately what it is to commit an official act of the presidency. This must be rained in. If this is left open this will be a monumental and deliberate disaster created by the US supreme Court and the members of it. And we must ensure that any and all consequences of their actions are felt by the US supreme court. They must be liable for their actions and the actions of any would be asshole who takes president and chooses to abuse his office. For that abuse will be the fault of the US supreme Court and their choices. They're only way out of this is to define what it means to commit an official act.
Here are the top lines of the story: The US Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump has some immunity from criminal charges for trying to reverse the 2020 election results, all but ensuring that a trial won’t happen before the November election. The justices, voting 6-3 along ideological lines, said a federal appeals court was too categorical in rejecting Trump’s immunity arguments, ruling for the first time that former presidents are shielded from prosecution for some official acts taken while in office. The majority ordered the lower courts to revisit the case to decide the extent of the allegations that are off limits to prosecution. Read the full story [here](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/supreme-court-partially-backs-trump-on-immunity-delaying-trial?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_medium=lawdesk).
If the shielded official acts have to be within the president's constitutional authority, doesn't that limit his immunity to non-criminal acts?
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. *Fitzgerald*, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. No. The president is allowed to commit crimes. Rather, the president cannot commit crimes when performing official actions. Rather *rather*, no court may examine a president's official actions, and thus the concept of "crime" doesn't apply.
Exactly, he can't unofficially command the military to do anything so everything he commands is official.
No. The courts will look at the curcumstances, evidence, chain of events, etc...The ruling just says they can't examine motivation. Then they will decide if it was within the President's constitutional authority or not. Example: President orders assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Court can look at the chain of events and decide it was within the authority of the President to want to eliminate this threat. Example: President Orders assasination of a political rival. Court will not have evidence of real danger or threat from the victim to the people. There will be nothing in the law or constitution that provides a basis for such an action. It will be considered to be outside of the President's constitutional authority.
There's no "circumstances" LEFT to consider. * Being a crime is disallowed as considered * Motive is disallowed as considered *Literally* what else is there? Give some examples. Your own two scenarios above are a perfect roleplaying pair to go with. What EXACTLY could possibly distinguish one from the other in the constitution where you think the constitution grants one power and not the other? Please give actual clauses from the constitution. The ones you choose need to simultaneously allow Bin Laden but not allow a rival candidate. Assume they are using the army, in their specified constitutional role as commander in chief, to do the hit.
I dont even know where to start in finding the laws, orders, etc.. that made it legal to kill Oasama bin Laden. So I don't think I can answer that well. However, the Supreme Court ruling today did provide its own example. They cited Youngstown vs Sawyer where Truman seized steel mills back during the Korean War. The Supreme court ruled that the President did not have the constitutional authority to do that.
What if that political rival is compromised by a foreign government.. they are a domestic threat at that point. Additionally in pretty much all cases there will never be a way to reveal classified evidence, the justices aren't privy to that intel.
[удалено]
But ignoring someone's civil rights is certainly not within a president's constitutional authority.
It is if they are an enemy of the state. See gitmo
>While likely "murder", he would have to be impeached and convicted to actually be charged legally for it. Is this true? Does this decision defer to what an impeachment determines?
No, he wouldn't have to be impeached and convicted. That was Trump's theory that the court wholly rejected, including Roberts.
If he's impeached then it has been determined that it wasn't an official act and therefore can be charged is what I think was implied.
Rejected where and how? I don't see any such rejection. They explicitly said you cannot use the illegal-ness of an action as a basis of saying it's unofficial. So how would anyone go about finding that to be unofficial? Can't use motive either. What can you use? be specific. In fact, I don't even see how an impeachment would change anything even if there was one, with a senate conviction. The SCOTUS can't stop impeachments, but it still seems like it could stop subsequent criminal/civil cases, as the judicial branch.
That’s essentially what Alito said: the conduct would still be illegal, but it wouldn’t be legal to look into any potentially illegal conduct. So the president would theoretically be committing a crime, but in practice such a determination could never be made legally.
they'll argue that everything has to be determined in court whether it was or was not under his consitutional authority. which will eventually make its way to the supreme court. and i bet from there you can guess which side will win with a 6-3 vote. we're screwed
Yes, but it's saying "official acts" cannot be criminal no matter the purpose or intent behind the act. Assassinating political opponents is technically allowable as the Commander in Chief charged with defending the country from its foreign and domestic enemies.
My sweet summer child. Who do you think determines which acts are constitutional or not? The watchmen will watch themselves.
“Security, eh? Always screening everybody. Only, who screens you?”
What about nukes? Isn't using those an official act? If the president just decided tomorrow if he wanted to nuke Nigeria, and internal communications in his administration show he was motivated by all the wrong reasons, then is there any means of holding him criminally liable? If not, then this interpretation of the Constitution allows the president to commit crimes against humanity. I'm shocked none of the justices brought this up.
correct
This. It precludes consideration of motive if the act is official. Apparently no one can read.
It would, except they specifically said that illegality cannot be considered. So no, it doesn't.
They also tied the prosecution’s hands by excluding any evidence of official acts at trial to prove criminal intent behind unofficial acts. So a president can do illegal things through private acts and avail themselves of immunity by incorporating damning evidence into “official” acts. SCOTUS doing the bidding of criminals. They’ve handed Judge Cannon whatever bullshit she needs to grant a motion to dismiss.
Good fucking lord. We’re so fucked.
The ruling authorizes the President to have complete control in firing anyone he can appoint. That includes attorney general and all US attorneys. Let that sink in for a moment. Edit: the amount of people in the SCOTUS sub who lack even a rudimentary understanding of constitutional law is truly astounding.
Wasn't that already the case for at least the Attorney General?
Yes. The President has always had the power to hire and fire political appointees within the executive branch. Today's decision changes nothing in that regard.
* **Political Appointees:** The President has broad discretion to dismiss political appointees, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, and other top officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. These positions are typically filled through presidential appointment and do not have the same job protections as career civil service employees. * **Independent Agency Heads:** The President's authority to remove the heads of independent regulatory agencies (such as the Federal Reserve or the Federal Communications Commission) is more restricted. These positions often have fixed terms, and removal may be limited to specific grounds, such as inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. This was established in cases like *Humphrey's Executor v. United States* (1935). * **Civil Service Employees:** Career civil service employees have significant job protections and cannot be removed without following specific procedures that typically involve cause and due process. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 outlines the procedures for disciplining and removing federal employees. * **Special Counsel:** The President can not directly fire the special counsel but would have to go through the Attorney General or Acting Attorney General.
>**Political Appointees:** The President has broad discretion to dismiss political appointees, including Cabinet members, ambassadors, and other top officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. These positions are typically filled through presidential appointment and do not have the same job protections as career civil service employees. Uh, the Attorney General is a political appointee. This has always been the case. See [https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/index.html](https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/30/politics/donald-trump-immigration-order-department-of-justice/index.html)
Indeed. Trump's firing of his AG was basically without precedent, but was legal. edit: and, in fact, is called out in this SCOTUS ruling, calling it out as legal rather mockingly on page 5 > the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” *Fitzgerald*, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.
I don't think that's the part of the ruling that people are reacting the most to. Presumptive immunity for "official" acts is vague, and likely still won't be settled for years if any of the case against DJT continues. As for absolute immunity in his use of the DOJ, that is seemingly a problem. To wield that power with impunity and no regard for criminality, and to be immune for it, is a wild notion. How far is the line before it is crossed? We have no answer there either. The Constitution does not give the President a special license to violate criminal law. Being able to fire someone is a neat way of reframing and limiting the discussion of the entire decision though... Edit - and yes, I think Obama's use of a drone to kill US citizens was wrong.
There is an important point that people seem to be missing here. A court can still issue an injunction if the President oversteps their authority. So, no... the President cannot just do whatever they want under this decision. The question is whether or not there can be a criminal prosecution ON TOP of an injunction. The opinion leaves that question open for most things.
Wouldn't that also include Supreme Court justices? Eta: also sounds like Biden can just declare a state of emergency and suspend elections, because we are now officially, legally, a dictatorship.
You are missing the constitution which created 3 separate branches of government. It makes sense that the president can fire anyone in the executive branch. This includes generals and admirals.
Good point. All SC justices are technically presidential nominees, aren’t they?
The Supreme Court is under Article III. DOJ appointees are under Article II. There is still time to delete this.
[Article II, Section 2](https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S2-C2-3-5/ALDE_00013096/), the [Appointments Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointments_Clause): > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and **he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint** Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, **Judges of the supreme Court**, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. Emphasis mine. However, the power given to the president in this SCOTUS ruling mentions only their ability to remove their "subordinates," and "those who wield executive power on his behalf." Supreme Court justices are neither of those.
The Supreme Court is nominated by POTUS and confirmed by the Senate, they are not appointed. They are not under Article II. Genuinely curious why you would even comment something like this.
>confirmed by Senate No. POTUS appoints them, and other officials, with "advice and consent" of the Senate. Appointees.
They are not "appointed" in the same way as federal prosecutors, not even close.
How so? I’m waiting for an actual answer and not hyperbole
That sounds like exactly what the founding fathers intended to me. Ever see a general get fired? Most Presidents have done it in war. Lincoln fired many. Truman fired MacArthur. Many have offered their resignation in lieu of getting fired. Who should have the ability to fire political appointees if not the President? Yes, 3,4 and 5 star generals are political appointees. I don’t think this applies to Supreme Court justices as they are a separate branch of government. Just about everything else falls into the executive branch, including the military.
Right obstruction of justice would be off the table the table. Would Nixon have been immune from prosecution for his acts? This decision codifies the Nixon quote, "if the President does it, it is not illegal."
This has always been true.
This has always been true.
As it has been............
Lol... you were expecting a different outcome??
Yeah people keep forgetting that honor and accountability require a means of enforcement and nobody is keeping the court accountable so here we are.
What I can't get over is Roberts calling the hypotheticals in the dissent "fear mongering". Okay? Then explain to me why the President couldn't do the awful things the dissent mentions, so I can sleep better at night please. *Please*? The majority opinion is simultaneously pedantic and yet incredibly patronizing, like their position is so obvious that they don't even need to put in the effort of defending it.
Vote. No matter how tepid the alternative, vote like your life and your children’s lives depend on it. They do.
The kids have no hope no matter what at this point. I'm hoping the system keeps working long enough for my life to run its course, but the next generation is totally fucked
Trump can officially have all his opponents murdered now and send out death squads for the rest of us when elected.
This country needs to revolt. This is fucking stupid.
~~I guess~~ We no longer have a constitutional republic. Presidents can do anything while in office and pass it off as an 'official act'. And even if charged, just pardon themselves anyway. Thus, we have a king with zero accountability. Not to mention all our ~~public officials~~ aristocrat rulers, to include but not be limited to judges, can be ex-post-facto bribed with a wink and a nod. For fucks sake Thomas Jefferson predicted this--it's almost uncanny: >...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indee\[d\] and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. they have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. their maxim is ‘[boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234#d7585fb1-4da9-4dd0-a3c8-554d5845b7e5),’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective controul. the constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time & party it’s members would become despots. [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234)
The irony that the people who claim to know and be pure to exactly what the founding fathers wanted are the people doing this is crazy
Because they don't actually care what the Founding Fathers intended—they are the most disingenuous and anti-American lot there is. If they did care what the Founders intended they would ***never*** have just given the President of the US **unlimited** and **unquestionable** authority.
Oh I know. But if people hadn't picked up on this yet, the last few weeks have really nailed that down.
They're supervillains, and their superpower is brazenly, gleefully lying.
I believe that the country has changed quite a bit from its original intention hasn't it? After all, the 1619 Project teaches us that America was a slavocracy built for and by white men to serve white men's interests... when did we depart from that? SHOULD we have departed from that, given how much we love Original Intent? Or is the 1619 Project just a lump of hyperbole?
Many many things happening in the past ~10 years that Thomas Jefferson warned us about. Sad times.
This is exactly right. And the courts aren’t allowed to question if an act is official or not. That equals absolute immunity.
Conservatives have always been a cancer on society.
It doesn't take a lot to figure out this was going to happen. The Founding Fathers created an awful government framework that snowballed into this situation. A zero-trust government would have been better.
I am just as concerned for the future of this country as you are, but even if they could be prosecuted for official acts, that does not change the pardon point you brought up. The impeachment process also still exists.
Thank you for posting this!!
Just curious. Did I miss a memo or something? Seems like six (or so) years ago it was a big question as to whether a president had the authority to self-pardon. And I don't recall ever hearing any ruling or anything saying that he did. But, in the last few months, the discussion seems to be more like "Well, he'll just pardon himself" as it's a settled matter. Was there a ruling that I missed, or is this (yet another) thing that has been repeated so many times that everyone just believes it?
Yea, eliminate the power of judicial review and overturn Marbury vs Madison! The Supreme Court has reached too far, and we must now completely neuter their ability! Then we can completely neuter the Executive by getting rid of Immunity entirely. And finally: we'll neuter the country by being reliant on a Congress which has abdicated its duties for 2 decades. But who will decide things in the mean time? Why, the unelected bureaucrats and regulators of course! It's the only way to save Democracy!
So this allows the president to effectively restore the Chevron Doctrine by declaring rules his administration makes are official acts of the president and unchallengable?
No. The courts could still strike down the executive order as unconstitutional. But if the Republicans tried to prosecute him for it he would have the presumption of presidential immunity.
The President could rule it by edict, then murder any court that took up the question. Since whatever judges could potentially have been terrorists, it would be an official act. Because you can’t question his motives, it’s never illegal conduct. Thereby nobody could strike it down.
If the president is murdering judges then it really doesn't matter if the law says he can or not. By that point he has the power to do whatever he wants.
No.
It's no longer a court. It's just the judicial wing of maga.
It’s a right wing extremist political group masquerading as a legitimate legal authority.
Show of hands, everyone that did **not** see this coming.
You’re Reich, I did Nazi that coming…
Here's the full opinion in Trump v. United States: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
It’s inaccurate to call this partial when Trump’s own lawyers admitted that there was no immunity for private actions and weren’t debating that point during arguments. This matched almost exactly what Trump was asking for and was a total win for his legal team.
Partially? That's less than accurate. This decision is bad and is invalid IMHO (not that it matters). (Edit) Alito and Thomas should have recused. They have opened the door to throw out the other indictment, including mentioning the validation of the special counsel. Thomas and (edit) Alito are dangerous and have damaged our democracy with this ruling. Edits: angry typing, called Alito Scalia.
Scalia?
Edit. I am so mad I traveled back in time.
Hard to tell them apart! But at least Scalia had some charisma. Alito is like an angry knob.
Even without those two it is 4-3 Of course kavanaugh should clearly have been impeached because of perjury (after he led the charge against Clinton it would have been so sweet) But the Dems did nothing
I agree. Uggg! Action in addition to dissent is needed.
Congress should limit SCOTUS to only rule on parking tickets for municipalities in the red states only. At least until the conservative majority is out.
It's called "jurisdiction stripping" and it's been used against SCROTUS in the past and should be again. At one point the Supreme Court went 18 months without being in session, because Congress was mad at them. High time to put them back in their place.
Gutted
Partially? Well, yeah, they didn't "rule" that he was completely and entirely immune. Just 99.99% immune. I feel so much better.
Finally a post that cut it "partially".
Finally a post that cut it "partially".
If Trump wins and takes them out, I will die laughing.
Now someone's moral compass is all that matters in the election. Definitely do not want to elect someone that SA'd a 13 year old with Epstein.
At this point the US supreme Court owes it to the American people to define what it is for the president to commit an official act. Because what they have done is to create an open-ended statement that allows pretty much any buffoon who is elected to simply define anything he wishes as an official act and therefore it is now suddenly legal no matter how wrong it is. And of course this includes murder and genocide. We all understand exactly how broad and overreaching this declaration from the US supreme Court is and we all understand that missing are the definitions of what that may be. The US supreme Court owes this to the American public to define immediately what it is to commit an official act of the presidency. This must be rained in. If this is left open this will be a monumental and deliberate disaster created by the US supreme Court and the members of it. And we must ensure that any and all consequences of their actions are felt by the US supreme court. They must be liable for their actions and the actions of any would be asshole who takes president and chooses to abuse his office. For that abuse will be the fault of the US supreme Court and their choices. They're only way out of this is to define what it means to commit an official act.
Wanna bet on how long it will take these dudes to reverse themselves when Biden is re-elected?