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 .

For what it's worth ... liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley — fishfry

Turley is definitely not a "liberal". The article you linked doesn't actually analyze the decision, it just asserts that it is correct, and then procedes to chastize liberals who disagree with the decision.

Turley is definitely not a "liberal". The article you linked doesn't actually analyze the decision, it just asserts that it is correct, and then procedes to chastize liberals whoCdisagree with the decision. — Relativist

He's written much more detailed legal analyses that I probably had in mind, if that particular article may have been too general.

He's not a liberal because he is a liberal who sees the recent misbehavior of liberals, and talks about it. So he gets called a conservative, and he appears on FOX and in the New York Post because Rachel Maddow and the New York Times won't speak to him anymore.

Liberal legal scholar Alan Dershowitz (controversial for other reasons) talks about this. He is a lifelong liberal Democrat. He defended Trump in the US Senate, and he has complained that now his Martha's Vineyard friends and neighbors won't talk to him. He said he never got this kind of response when he defended murderers.

Glenn Greenwald is another, a lifelong liberal who wrote for Salon and called out Obama's foreign policy as being an extension of Bush's. At the time I had the same impression, and reading Greenwald kept me sane. I wasn't the only one who saw what I saw. Today of course Greenwald gets the "not a liberal" appellation from liberals who don't like it when anyone has a heterodox opinion.

Comedian Jimmy Dore is another one, a Bernie supporter tarred as a right winger by the same illiberal liberals. Many other alt-media figures. Matt Taibbi, smeared as a "so-called journalist" by Dem Rep. Stacey Plaskett in the House social media censorship hearings. So many more. Any liberal who doesn't toe the line gets smeared as a right winger.

I do apologize if Turley's article wasn't detailed enough. I just skimmed it and relied on other much more detailed arguments about the case that Turley has made, and also Dershowitz. Elie Honig on CNN had the same take, that it's a bad case. Many other liberals have made that point. Of course once they criticize Bragg's case they're "not really liberals," as you illustrate.

Gift link to today’s 5,000 word NY Times editorial, Trump is Unfit to Lead.

Some excerpts:

Mr. Trump has shown a character unworthy of the responsibilities of the presidency. He has demonstrated an utter lack of respect for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people. Instead of a cogent vision for the country’s future, Mr. Trump is animated by a thirst for political power: to use the levers of government to advance his interests, satisfy his impulses and exact retribution against those who he thinks have wronged him.

He is, quite simply, unfit to lead. …

He lies blatantly and maliciously, embraces racists, abuses women and has a schoolyard bully’s instinct to target society’s most vulnerable. He has delighted in coarsening and polarizing the town square with ever more divisive and incendiary language. Mr. Trump is a man who craves validation and vindication, so much that he would prefer a hostile leader’s lies to his own intelligence agencies’ truths and would shake down a vulnerable ally for short-term political advantage. His handling of everything from routine affairs to major crises was undermined by his blundering combination of impulsiveness, insecurity and unstudied certainty. …

On Jan. 6, 2021, Mr. Trump incited a mob to violence with hateful lies, then stood by for hours as hundreds of his supporters took his word and stormed the Capitol with the aim of terrorizing members of Congress into keeping him in office. He praised these insurrectionists and called them patriots; today he gives them a starring role at campaign rallies, playing a rendition of the national anthem sung by inmates involved with Jan. 6., and he has promised to consider pardoning the rioters if re-elected. He continues to wrong the country and its voters by lying about the 2020 election, branding it stolen, despite the courts, the Justice Department and Republican state officials disputing him. No man fit for the presidency would flog such pernicious and destructive lies about democratic norms and values, but the Trumpian hunger for vindication and retribution has no moral center. …

Mr. Trump has demonstrated contempt for… American ideals. He admires autocrats, from Viktor Orban to Vladimir Putin to Kim Jong-un. He believes in the strongman model of power — a leader who makes things happen by demanding it, compelling agreement through force of will or personality. In reality, a strongman rules through fear and the unprincipled use of political might for self-serving ends, imposing poorly conceived policies that smother innovation, entrepreneurship, ideas and hope. …

Those who know Mr. Trump’s character best — the people he appointed to serve in the most important positions of his White House — have expressed grave doubts about his fitness for office.

His former chief of staff John Kelly, a retired four-star Marine Corps general, described Mr. Trump as “a person who admires autocrats and murderous dictators. A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution and the rule of law.” Bill Barr, whom Mr. Trump appointed as attorney general, said of him, “He will always put his own interest and gratifying his own ego ahead of everything else, including the country’s interest.” James Mattis, a retired four-star Marine general who served as defense secretary, said, “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try.”

Mike Pence, Mr. Trump’s vice president, has disavowed him. No other vice president in modern American history has done this. “I believe that anyone who puts themselves over the Constitution should never be president of the United States,” Mr. Pence has said. “And anyone who asked someone else to put them over the Constitution should never be president of the United States again.”

And a shorter but essentially similar OP from the LA TImes:

...Trump is the only man in the presidential race manifestly unworthy of holding a position of power, and has no business ever returning to the White House. If the GOP had any decency left, its members would be discussing whether to dump Trump for a candidate who isn’t out to bulldoze democratic institutions in favor of autocracy.

Voters should resist viewing this contest through the politics-as-usual lens of past elections. This November is not about dueling personalities, middle-of-the-road policy differences, or as some might see it, an 81-year-old man being the lesser of two evils compared with a 78-year-old man. It’s nothing short of a referendum on our 248-year democracy, and a choice between a trustworthy public servant who upholds American values and a serial liar who wants to push the country into authoritarianism.

Gift link to today’s 5,000 word NY Times editorial, Trump is Unfit to Lead. — Wayfarer

Last week they said Biden is unfit to lead. Who are they for, Harold Stassen?

What's the point of the Times wasting 5000 words to yammer about Orange Hitler, as if they have anything new to say on that subject. Maybe they should just lie us into another war.

If you think Iraq was such a bad idea (which it was), why are you voting for the political party that got us into it? A majority of House Dems voted against the Iraq war authorization.

Developing! Gunshots at rally! Trump shot in head!

And no one else wounded?
Assuming he was shot - and that not yet reported - I wonder how many people there are with a possible motive. A million or more?

Biden incited them to shoot Trump. Isn’t that how it works?

“We’re done talking about the debate, it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye."

- Joe Biden

Trump has been hurting people for five+ decades. But of course a troll like you wouldn't miss an opportunity to be a troll.

I don’t like seeing that, honestly — despite Trump being awful. Crazy shit.

Grazed on the ear.

I can think of no worse contrast than Biden's campaign trying to talk up his "decent functioning," at his "big boy press conference," where he still managed to call his VP "Trump" and introduce Zelensky as "Putin" and Trump pumping his fist to the crowd after being shot at.

Maybe this will convince people that a viable candidate is needed (meaning probably not Harris). I doubt it.

This factor is another wildcard in the election. The right are already preparing the ground for militias to take action to 'preserve democracy' (i.e. ensure that Trump is declared winner regardless of the outcome) through violence if necessary. This alleged assasination attempt, if that is what it is, will play right into their hands, right into Trump's 'martyr for the righteous cause' meme. Heaven help us.

This alleged assasination attempt, if that is what it is, will play right into their hands, right into Trump's 'martyr for the righteous cause' meme. Heaven help us. — Wayfarer

Gives him a good photo, but otherwise won’t matter much by November. Just a graze on the ear.

I'm looking at the footage of him being hustled offstage by the Secret Service. He's loving it! The crowd loves it! Trump is repeatedly pumping a clenched fist in the air, the crowd are hysterical with anger and self-righteous vindication. Mistake to downplay it.

Odd that there are no reports of other injuries, though. You'd think that if a bullet grazed his ear, it must end up somewhere else, and he was sorrounded by spectators. //update - two deaths, the shooter and an audience member.//