Whaaaaaaat TF :brow: :down:

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/02/politics/trump-sentencing-date-delay-proposal/index.html

Sentencing 11July24 18September24 :grimace:

All well said and orderly. But what what was "understood" is now codified - they fixed what wasn't broken - and usually that's not a good thing. Um, as to vaccinations, in most if not all of the US, your child does not go to school unless he or she is vaccinated.

What I do not like about the SCOTUS ruling - I read it (quickly) - is that they appear to have completely sidestepped common sense.

What I do not like about the SCOTUS ruling - I read it (quickly) - is that they appear to have completely sidestepped common sense — tim wood

For what it's worth ... liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley -- although liberals have disowned him, now that he turns out to be off the reservation a bit -- has an article out in the (scurrilous right wing rag) New York Post titled,

Supreme Court’s Trump immunity ruling is what the body was designed for — unpopular but constitutionally correct

https://nypost.com/2024/07/01/opinion/supreme-courts-trump-immunity-ruling-is-what-the-body-was-meant-for-unpopular-but-constitutionally-correct/

It's worth a read if one is openminded about these kinds of things. The Supes didn't give presidents blanket immunity. They said that what counts as "official acts" are to be determined by the lower courts. So they're not issuing an edict. They're leaving everything open for the judicial process to play out. If you take the long view -- and that's the whole idea of lifetime appointments, the Supremes are not supposed to be buffeted about by the latest momentary passions of society, that's what the every-two-years House of Representatives is for -- so if you take the long view, this is somewhat of a moderate, sensible decision. After all, Joe Biden is president right now, and he has all the freedoms granted under this ruling. Which are none at all. The president's actions are always subject to judicial review as to whether they're official acts.

So I think this is kind of sensible, political howling and screeching from the left notwithstanding. The left calls the court illegitimate every time the court does something they don't like. In fact just last month Biden was telling us how wrong it was to criticize a legal decision when a case went against the right and the right was howling. It's all politics and this is an especially volatile election year.

I suggest you read the article with a little more critical care. Imho, it's nonsense. We can slice and dice to see how it's nonsense, but I don't think that's worth our time. And I think it should be clear to you.

What's nonsense is having barely read the SCOTUS opinion is you having such strong opinions about it. The decision is fine and fully in line with what I would expect coming from a Dutch legal background. @Tobias maybe you want to have a look as well but I find the media reporting on this ridiculous and dissenting opinion confused.

The narrative that Trump will be granted evil superpowers if he wins is out there now and not going to be vanquished by facts.

Probably not but hopefully you and others find the facts (or at least my interpretations of them) interesting.

This summary legal analysis and discussion might be useful to understanding the practical impacts to Executive Branch (Article 2) of the 1July24 SCOTUS decision in the context of US legal and political history.

https://youtu.be/7cGT9EVvS7U?si=08Vx04UGMrH18UZw

Is Trump immune from criminal charges for attempting to overturn the 2020 election? The following argument can be made: there was election fraud and as part of his official duties he had an obligation to correct this. It does not matter whether or not there was fraud, only that he believed there was.

Does this mean that in this case or any other the President can use whatever means necessary to carry out an official act? Justice Sotomayor thinks it does. In her dissent she says:

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.

What's nonsense is having barely read the SCOTUS opinion is you having such strong opinions about it. The decision is fine and fully in line with what I would expect coming from a Dutch legal background. Tobias maybe you want to have a look as well but I find the media reporting on this ridiculous and dissenting opinion confused. — Benkei

I agree, but some have argued that Barrett has the better argument in her concurrence. See, for example, Jonathan Adler's piece over at The Volokh Conspiracy.

↪tim wood What's nonsense is having barely read the SCOTUS opinion is you having such strong opinions about it. The decision is fine and fully in line with what I would expect coming from a Dutch legal background. Tobias maybe you want to have a look as well but I find the media reporting on this ridiculous and dissenting opinion confused. — Benkei

I haven't read it, so I also feel unqualified to make any statement on the matter. That this case is difficult and needs a tiered approach does not surprise me. It is actually a very complicated area of law for me, even in Dutch law I am not sure I understand exactly what the doctrine actually is. I reckon in the Netherlands, administrations cannot be prosecuted when they engage in the execution of ordinary affairs of state (Based on the so called 'pikmeer II' judgment). Executives of these administrations are immune when the administration they represent is immune. When I saw the summary of the US verdict, it reminded me of the Dutch doctrine. However, I think the US legal system is a different one, the historical context is different and the evil may well be in the details. I was surprised when Sotomayor argued vehemently against it, but I have also not read her dissent. I therefore feel unqualified to comment. (A very long comment to say 'no comment', but hey I also do law ;) )

The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution,” she wrote. “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.

It seems to me odd that contravening the democratic process (as assassinating a political rival clearly is) could be construed as an official act falling within the duties of the executive. But hey, I am not sure if under US law this is impossible. I find it odd, but I do not know.

What's nonsense is having barely read the SCOTUS opinion is you having such strong opinions about it. The decision is fine and fully in line with what I would expect coming from a Dutch legal background. — Benkei

I didn't say I barely read it; I said I read it quickly. And I noted that to my eye they appeared to have entirely sidestepped common sense.

"Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." Trump v. United States, July 1, 2024.

"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such an inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect."

"The essence of immunity “is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct” in court. Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 525. Presidents therefore cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution."

" The Government asserts that these weighty concerns can be managed by the District Court through the use of “evidentiary rulings” and “jury instructions.” Brief for United States 46. But such tools are unlikely to protect adequately the President’s constitutional prerogatives. Presidential acts frequently deal with “matters likely to ‘arouse the most intense feelings.’ ” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 752 (quoting Pierson, 386 U. S., at 554). Allowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President."

"These safeguards, though important, do not alleviate the need for pretrial review. They fail to address the fact that under our system of separated powers, criminal prohibitions cannot apply to certain Presidential conduct to begin with. As we have explained, when the President acts pursuant to his exclusive constitutional powers, Congress cannot—as a structural matter—regulate such actions, and courts cannot review them."

"As for the Government’s assurances that prosecutors and grand juries will not permit political or baseless prosecutions from advancing in the first place, those assurances are available to every criminal defendant and fail to account for the President’s “unique position in the constitutional scheme.”

--------------------

These just a few excerpts. I invite gentle reader to both discern the common sense in it - or lack thereof, and also to try to articulate the actual sense of it. And a little after these, Roberts is happy to read into the Constitution text that is not there, as well as minimize the significance of text that is there. Starting with this, "The principal dissent’s starting premise—that unlike Speech and Debate Clause immunity, no constitutional text supports Presidential immunity, see post, at 4–6 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.)—is one that the Court rejected decades ago as “unpersuasive.”"

In sum, can't prosecute, can't indict, can't investigate, can't ask - and the "ordinary" protections afforded citizens inadequate for the protection of the office of the presidency. Those old enough will hear clear echoes of Nixon's defenses, viz, that he, Nixon, was shielded by the need to protect "the office of the presidency." And one does well to remember to ask from whom or what the "office of the presidency" needs/needed protection from, the answer in both cases being the president himself!

:up:

When a clown moves into a palace, he does not become a king. The palace becomes a circus. — Elizabeth Bangs · Jan 23, 2022

^{Blog 6 When is an old Turkish proverb not an old Turkish proverb? (Elizabeth Bangs · Dec 31, 2022)}

When a clown moves into a palace, he does not become a king. The palace becomes a circus.
— Elizabeth Bangs · Jan 23, 2022 — jorndoe

:up: :up:

If you haven't already, please consider this .