We are waiting on the court's ruling in the presidential immunity case, Trump v. US. We're also waiting on three cases from February: Corner Post v. Federal Reserve and the NetChoice cases....
UPDATE: The first case is Corner Post, a 6-3 decision, divided in the usual way, written by Justice Barrett. SCOTUSblog: "The court holds that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act to challenge an agency action first comes into being when the plaintiff is injured by final agency action.... Justice Barrett started her announcement with a joke about how this case was not one that we were here to hear.... Justice Jackson... writes that 'there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face.'"
UPDATE 2: Justice Kagan writes the opinion in Moody v. NetChoice. Roberts, Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, and Barrett join in full. Jackson joins in part and has a concurring opinion. Thomas has an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Alito has an opinion concurring in the judgment and joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. From Alito's opinion: "It is a mystery how NetChoice could expect to prevail on a facial challenge without candidly disclosing the platforms that it thinks the challenged laws reach or the nature of the content moderation they practice."
UPDATE 3: "The court holds that a former president has absolute immunity for his core constitutional powers. Former presidents are also entitled to at least a presumption of immunity for their official acts. There is no immunity, the court holds, for unofficial acts...." Here's the text: Trump v. United States. Written by Roberts. 6-3, in the usual lineup. Justice Barrett is in the 6, but she does not join Part III-C.
From the case syllabus: "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."
Posts
112 comments:
Trump's freedom from Garland (Heckle) & Smith (Jeckle) in a few minutes from this post.
It's importance clickbait.
They are conversing about the buzzer to warn the press. How archaic now that scotus approved leaks are the norm
They would sell their souls for total control.
…and another blow to the left, this time with a crack on the skull with a corner post…
Oh what to read into the sassy open???
The official act’s decision comes.
We are now going to have to listen to 7 robed Pharisees and the people who can actually read decide what the government can do to punish political opponents.
But the real issue here is prosecutorial discretion.
Will they acknowledge that?
The Supremes have really been taking the Democrats/administrative state to the woodshed. So much winning for the good guys from them in the recent announcements. Makes me worry about the Trump immunity decision, gotta tell ya.
"'there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face.'"
Correct. Nor should there be. Ever.
"They would sell their souls for total control."
Did sell their souls...
Trump v. US.?
Here comes insurrection again
Clunking on my head like a memory
Clunking on my head like a new emotion
The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government
Total oppression of the people is not a valid function of government.
Justice Jackson... writes that
'effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face.'
should there be? It seems to REALLY BOTHER JJ that The US Constitution limits the deep state
Ice Nine said...
The Supremes have really been taking the Democrats/administrative state to the woodshed. So much winning for the good guys from them in the recent announcements. Makes me worry about the Trump immunity decision, gotta tell ya.
If the feds can send DOJ lawyers to any state AG team that will play ball to harass and imprison political opponents it just changes who does the persecution rather than stopping it.
Even if Trump gets some sort of relief it doesn't change what is happening to thousands of Trump supporters right now.
The issue here is prosecutorial discretion. Always has been.
Right now if you lose an election the Democrats promise to prosecute their opponents.
Representative Democracy cannot survive in that situation.
gilbar said...
Justice Jackson... writes that
'effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face.'
should there be? It seems to REALLY BOTHER JJ that The US Constitution limits the deep state
No, there should not be. Some people really don't like that if the government violates the law, it can be challenged at all.
Jackson's view in the Corner Post case that a company can't challenge existing rules that predated its incorporation is astounding.
The idealist in me hopes SCOTUS rules against immunity. I think the concept of it shields many in the Executive Branch from the type of lawsuits board members of corporations face everyday as well as the managers and employees of their companies.
The pragmatist in me realizes Democrats are pursuing this to prosecute absurd violations they claim Trump did and want to prosecute as a means to retain power. So long as they retain power, they’ll prevent any prosecution for their crimes just as they are refusing to prosecute AG Garland for Contempt of Congress. And we now know it isn’t Biden running the White House, so who is continuing to defy Congress and SCOTUS by forgiving student loan debt? Many White House staffers stood to personally gain from the dismissal of their college debt. Who are they and did they unlawfully intervene to cause the Executive Branch to act without authority?
Justice Jackson... writes that 'there is effectively no longer any limitations period for lawsuits that challenge agency regulations on their face.
That is great news! Thank you Justice Jackson for clarifying.
"It seems to REALLY BOTHER JJ that The US Constitution limits the deep state."
The entire purpose/thesis of "this Constitution" is LIMITATION on the created beast.
Jackson sees no need for that. The people should be limited, not the government.
https://jbs.org/video/featured/overview-of-america/?mc_cid=aab99f82ce
Maybe my status of IANAL has the following observation demonstrate my ignorance, but...
Isn't this sort of a reverse standing issue? You can sue if the issue does not or longer affects you, but the libs would also say you can't sue if it does affect you but it started affecting you before you got involved.
I predict the Trump decision is going to be 9-0 against Trump.
I predict the Trump decision is going to be 9-0 against Trump.
…then Soto gets to spit fire?
For those claiming that Kavanaugh and Barrett are always big government symps:
Barrett wrote the Corner Post decision, which is a total "screw big government" decision. It doesn't matter how long the regulation has been on the books, start a new company that is now impacted by a regulation, and you can take the gov't to court
Kavanaugh agreed, and wrote a concurrence that says: I agree with the Court that a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act accrues when the plaintiff is injured by the challenged agency rule. I also agree with the Court that today’s decision vindicates the APA’s “ ‘basic presumption’ that anyone injured by agency action should have access to judicial review.”
And they Bothe voted with Roberts to nuke Chevron deference. Which means all of these new lawsuits will be "what does the law actually say?" rather than "what does the Agency claim it can get away with?"
This is huge.
Thank you Trump
Was the January 6th speech an official act?
In the Alito quote: thins? Meaning thinks?
IANAL, just a pedant.
"And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts."
My amateur reading says this is a blow to people who want to see Trump in jail.
Court affirms high crimes and misdemeanors are whatever the house says they are. They need not be misdemeanors or crimes and it matters not if everyone in the house is high…
This kills both of Jack Smith's cases until next year. Trump and Smith will allege actions in the indictment were official or unofficial, judges will rule, rulings will be appealed, neither trial is happening this year. If (when) Trump wins the election, they will be killed forever.
Investigating voter fraud is an official act which actually protects "our democracy."
The Supreme Court knows there was fraud in 2020. So does everyone else.
Oh, Wowo, look at that, Roberts did exactly what I predicted.
It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.” Critical threshold issues in this case are how to differentiate between a President’s official and unofficial actions, and how to do so with respect to the indictment’s extensive and detailed allegations covering a broad range of conduct. The Court offers guidance on those issues.
IOW: "here's how you determine what has immunity. Go to it District Court."
Which Trump will appeal to DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Which he will then appeal to SCOTUS
Which will sit on it until after there election
The vote:
The 5 guys in full, Barrett mostly, the 3 losers whining in the corner
With this acknowledged presumption in the favor of Trump, the burden of proof shifts to Heckle & Jeckle to show that what Trump is alleged to have done was not an official act. Bottom line: Biden and Garland will not be getting their trial before the election.
“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequences of Appropriations made by Law”
Where was the money drawn by Biden to pay for student loan forgiveness? I want an Account of Receipts and Expenditures related to student loan forgiveness.
Looks like NY state will have to lock Trump up.
The court sends the case back to the district court for it to determine other things, such as "whether a prosecution involving Trump's attempts to influence the Vice President's oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch
IOW, to determine if everyone except Trump is allowed to influence the Vice President’s oversight and certification…
Did Thomas (or was it Barret) get an answer to their question about State Prosecutors and immunity?
Thomas’ concurring opinion provides a guide map to Judge Cannon for disqualifying Smith.
Lemnity @ 9:12
Good one.
(the usual suspects) Oh! Nos!
Memo to self: don't rely on The Rule of Lemnity, 09:29, for any weather forecast.
What is going to be interesting is the take of our more progressive commenters who claim to be lawyers.
If Democrats had any self-awareness, the Biden team should be breathing a huge sigh of relief. "Too senile to be on trial" was a pretty thin reed to rely on riding into the sunset, as was self-pardon.
The tsunami of lawsuits against agencies that the Court's holdings in this case and Loper Bright have authorized has the potential to devastate the functioning of the Federal Government
They wrote that as if it was a bad thing.
Just remember, folks:
This all came about because of Trump
The 3 "big gov't shills", Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, either wrote the decisions (Loper & Corner Post) and / or voted in full for them with strong concurrences.
Yes, I am absolutely pissed at the 3 of them for their siding with the censorship State far too often. But these two decisions, especially teh way they combine, are a huge blow to big government and the Administrative State.
And neither of them would have happened without Trump
If I were Joe Biden, I’d be thrilled by this. Of course, if I were Joe Biden, I’d (a) not understand what it means or how it would’ve applied if the decision had gone the other way, and (b) be immune anyway because vegetables can’t stand trial.
Dave Begley said...
Looks like NY state will have to lock Trump up.
Oh God, I hope so. Doing that would
1: Force SCOTUS to get involved with this case right now. After which Trump is no longer "a convicted felon", because the trail was trash
2: Guarantee a Trump re-election & GOP sweep down ballot
The rule of Lemnity said, My amateur reading says this is a blow to people who want to see Trump in jail.
We'll need to hear from the brainiacs of The View to tell us what it really means.
Patentlee said...
Thomas’ concurring opinion provides a guide map to Judge Cannon for disqualifying Smith.
Thomas seems to be chomping at the bit to get that issue before SCOTUS.
The Dems are openly talking about a 2-year jail sentence starting after the election. I think 30-60 days in jail; to be served after the convention.
Or maybe a two-year term and suspend it until the appeals court decides. Then the Dems can really hammer the convicted felon meme.
Sotomayor recognizes that her position would create absolute chaos, so she buried in her opinion a caveat that completely negates it. She argues that presidential immunity doesn't exist because judges just made it up, but she concedes that a President could rely on an implied "public-authority exception" that judges just made up.
Hmmm? Is taking cash and diamonds as bribes from Red China an Official Act? Maybe it weakens China to drain their cash and diamonds while it helps the Biden Crime Family to rule over us.
Rejahm,
The president has no, zero, zilch power over the vp to make them do anything at all.
The exception, in some cases, might be political "do this or I'll make sure you are not on the ticket as vp or prez.
But even that assumes the prez has the political/party power to do something.
Trump had no power to influence Pence in any way in Jan 21.
Othet than power of logic/argument /persuasion
John Henry
Can we all get on with our lives now?
Or do we have to wait for another 'Adam Schiff' moment when Jack Smith hits the floor to declare that he has a bombshell announcement coming soon.
Seems like the NetChoice decision affirms that governments can not intrude on private platforms wrt any content. It’s solely the platform’s choice what to allow. That seems to be at odds with the Murthy ruling, but it could be that harm traceability issue that differentiates it in that case.
The hesitation to execute the duties of his office fearlessly and fairly that might result when a President is making decisions under “a pall of potential prosecution,” McDonnell v. United States, 579 U. S. 550, 575 (2016), raises “unique risks to the effective functioning of government."
Julie Kelly adds, (LOL this refers to Jack Smith's prosecution of former VA Gov Bob McDonnell, which SCOTUS overturned 8-0)
This is the exact case many of us non-lawyers cited when arguing with a certain banned commenter, who apparently is worse at his profession than us laymen. I mean not many prosecutors get overturned unanimously at SCOTUS but when they do, they sure as shit shouldn't do the same goddamned thing to another executive officer. Smith ain't just dirty, he's blood simple with TDS.
Othet than power of logic/argument /persuasion
…and that is the power to which I was referring. Thanks for reading…
I don't get Jackson's dissent in Corner Post- you normally can't sue until you have been harmed by an action- that is pretty much standard law, isn't it? If my neighbor plants a oak tree on his side of the fence, I can't sue him because it might fall my house a hundred years from now. Jackson seems to be arguing that the U.S. government can make any regulation it wants that might harm you in the future, but if you have to wait until that harm arises, it is too late to sue. Am I reading that right?
Trump v. United States. Written by Roberts. 6-3, in the usual lineup.
I don't really see how this isn't 9-0.
Drawing a line between official and unofficial is as easy as it gets.
It still lets New York throw Trump in jail for having his accountant label a legal expense as a legal expense.
The espionage act cases were going nowhere. They were already decided in the Clinton Sock Drawer case. This saves Jack Smith from the humiliation of losing and being brought up on charges of evidence tampering.
This is a win/win for the democrats.
I am at work. Could someone give me the TLDR on the dissent in this case? I am intrigued by the three idiot women's opinion on this. It looks like I overestimated Kagan.
Imagine a country founded in revolution thinking the courts give the President immunity!
If the Revolution had failed, Washington, Jefferson, and Adams would have swung. By the same token, Marbury vs. Madison has always been at risk of being dissolved at gunpoint.
In one case the govt made a law (NetChoice), in the other case (Murthy) govt stealthily forced content changes. Stealth wins for now.
The immunity case went exactly as I predicted it would. Only Congress is the proper jurisdiction for the actions of a President. Do you want to know what constitutes an unofficial act- only Congress can answer this question since Congress is the only entity given this power over the executive branch by The Constitution.
Imagine Trump were a Democrat but with the same set of facts in this case- what do you think the present justices on SCOTUS do with the hypothetical case? Which justices would switch sides? That is why it is Congress and Congress alone.
The girls at SCOTUSBlog making reference to the omission of ‘respectfully’ in the dissents by the lefties, as though I’m being invited to respect the disrespect the justices are showing to the judicial system. To me their disrespect looks and feels…insurrection-ey…
Tom T. said...
Sotomayor recognizes that her position would create absolute chaos, so she buried in her opinion a caveat that completely negates it. She argues that presidential immunity doesn't exist because judges just made it up, but she concedes that a President could rely on an implied "public-authority exception" that judges just made up.
That sounds about as stupid as I would expect.
Othet than power of logic/argument /persuasion
…and that is the power to which I was referring. Thanks for reading…
Achilles: "That sounds about as stupid as I would expect."
Indeed. LLR-democratical level stupid...which we will no doubt see borne out on this blog site today.
IOW: "here's how you determine what has immunity. Go to it District Court."
Which Trump will appeal to DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Which he will then appeal to SCOTUS
Which will sit on it until after there election
---
Someone doesn't know how the Courts work and the scheduling factor that comes into play. There is no way any case can make it through the process prior to the November election. SCOTUS wouldn't "sit" on the case. It just wouldn't make it to the Court to be heard until the October 2024 term.
"If the Revolution had failed, Washington, Jefferson, and Adams would have swung."
Something never to forget. And the Brits would have done it for sure. Send a message.
And compare Joe Biden to Washington, Jefferson and Adams.
Sotomayor recognizes that her position would create absolute chaos, so she buried in her opinion a caveat that completely negates it. She argues that presidential immunity doesn't exist because judges just made it up, but she concedes that a President could rely on an implied "public-authority exception" that judges just made up.
For Smith's cases we're relying on a lot of testimony from some entity with the initials FBI, which is also not in the Constitution, and seems to have been "just made up" by some character named Hoover. From where do they get their awesome and apparently unlimited authority (extending even to ordering the Chief Executive to turn over documents), Ms. Sotomayor?
Greg the Class Traitor: "For those claiming that Kavanaugh and Barrett are always big government symps:"
The specific complaint against Barrett was that in multiple cases involving govt emergency powers Barrett always sided with the govt as long as there was an "emergency" aspect to it (i.e. COVID lockdowns, medical rulings), no matter how flimsy.
Trump has turned it around without a single mean tweet.
Most of it, if not all of it, has come to pass as a direct result of the other side overreaching, doubling down, going for broke.
I feel a little bit of hope today, the first day of July, our Independance Month.
link to video
"Seems like the NetChoice decision affirms that governments can not intrude on private platforms wrt any content. It’s solely the platform’s choice what to allow. That seems to be at odds with the Murthy ruling, but it could be that harm traceability issue that differentiates it in that case."
My reasoning about the combined decisions is this- as a user of a social media forum, if I am banned or censored, the only entity I can sue is the social media platform since it is ultimately up to them what content appears on their platform. This holds even if the social media platform appears to have bent to the will of someone in government. To be able to sue the government or its agent for this, I would have to prove that the injury against me wouldn't have happened absent the actions of that government agent. In Murthy, that last part wasn't established according to SCOTUS.
What I am wondering is this- given the decision in Murthy, can the plaintiffs now refile if, let's say, Twitter agreed that those people would not have been banned but for actual coercion by the government agents?
There is little doubt what is going to happen here. Particularly after the debate disaster, the Dems realize the only way to stop Trump is to convict him in a federal case, and put him in prison. The Obama DC judge will order briefs on what is an official act within a few weeks, will rule within a few days that just about everything was unofficial acts (particularly the parts about appointing the alternative electors which in fairness was probably not an official act) and then order a trial within 30-60 days -- i.e. in October, just before the election. I am not sure if interlocutory appeals can stop that, but that's the best card Biden has to play even if it is not a very good one.
Dave Begley said...
Something never to forget. And the Brits would have done it for sure. Send a message.
And compare Joe Biden to Washington, Jefferson and Adams.
7/1/24, 10:21 AM
What choice would they really have? Particularly with Washington, who took paths to the king? Patrick Henry would have called the other Founders pussies if they begged for clemency.
Before anyone forgets, the Revolutionary war took years. Not for sunshine patriots, that's for danged skippy. Thankfully, FJB is doing his damnedest to build a broad pre-revolutionary population- against him.
Banning Trump from tweeter ended up helping him the most, probably.
Smith's D.C. cases against Trump are dead as are any cases he has against Trump's subordinates at the time. The D.C. district court will, of course, try speed up the process by making the decisions that the crimes Trump is charged with are not official acts but those decisions will be immediately challenged just like before and with other issues raised. This trial, if it ever happens, won't happen until next year.
Of course, this decision now means Merchan really will feel the need to jail Trump while he appeals the verdict and sentence.
"Banning Trump from tweeter ended up helping him the most, probably."
It certainly added billions to his wealth on paper.
So all Garland has to do is "presume" that Trump has no such immunity. Mack Truck, meet gargantuan loophole.
One of the founders is purported to have said that our constitution will not work if the premises of it are rejected. It's like the "Underarm Bowling Incident" where what the Ozzies did was perfectly within the rules, but it just "wasn't cricket." I side with New Zealand on that one.
FBI, which is also not in the Constitution, and seems to have been "just made up" by some character named Hoover.
Not only not in the constitution not in any law or legislation.
Founded in 1908 over loud objections from congress by St teddy the good and his AG Bonapart. Founded as a political intelligence organization which it remains to this day.
Some crime fighting mainly for window dressing.
John Henry
Hoover
"Imagine a country founded in revolution thinking the courts give the President immunity!"
Imagine being so purblind as to not notice that the founders gave Congress the power to impeach and remove the President.
How many courts does a head of state need to face in the performance of his duties. One thing is for sure, that court should represent ALL of the people, not some district where 90% of the people have voted against him, despite his victory, and where the other 10% are afraid to open their mouths.
The extent of immunity found by the Court surprises me. Has the political prosecution of Trump touched this decision along with countless others? Trump has exposed the shameless lawlessness of Democrats and perhaps the extremes to which legitimate courts need to go to counter it.
Yancey Ward said...
I don't get Jackson's dissent in Corner Post- you normally can't sue until you have been harmed by an action- that is pretty much standard law, isn't it? If my neighbor plants a oak tree on his side of the fence, I can't sue him because it might fall my house a hundred years from now. Jackson seems to be arguing that the U.S. government can make any regulation it wants that might harm you in the future, but if you have to wait until that harm arises, it is too late to sue. Am I reading that right?
I think that the better analogy would be if you built a shed on one corner of your property, and ten years later your neighbor sells the property, and the new owner sues you because it turns out part of the shed extends onto his property. Or the guy who buys a home next to an airport/dairy farm and then sues because of the noise/smell.
The concern from the dissent is that this ruling will encourage "gaming" the system: waiting years for a favorable court and then creating an entity to claim subsequent harm. This creates uncertainty with regards to federal regulations.
Dave Begley said...
"...And compare Joe Biden to Washington, Jefferson and Adams."
A more apt comparison would be Joe Biden to King George III.
I am eagerly awaiting Chuck's link to "The Bulwark" explaining why this immunity decision is not only wrong but won't help Trump avoid a trial in D.C. before the election.
Chuck, Rich, Lonejustice, Freder, Inga, etal. must still be waiting for their narrative to come down from the DNC.
The concern from the dissent is that this ruling will encourage "gaming" the system: waiting years for a favorable court and then creating an entity to claim subsequent harm. This creates uncertainty with regards to federal regulations.
Hard for me to see this as a bad thing. An uncaged tiger with tooth and claw SHOULD be at least a little afraid to attach.
If a rule or regulation has actual merit, it should be fairly easy for it to prevail.
I used to joke that every law should automatically expire in 10 years if not specifically and individually voted on to maintain, so as to help eliminate bad laws. This ruling may do more to help trim the administrative state than anything else.
Lawfare just became rare. There goes the multi millions in Attorneys fees. What will DC lawyers do for a living now?
So… is there absolute immunity between the president and the DOJ now? Just asking. If so, what will the Biden administration do now before the election? Biden has more power now, are you ok with that? November is still 5 months away, anything could happen.
"Biden has more power now, are you ok with that? November is still 5 months away, anything could happen."
LOL, Inga. The playing field is now level between what the two parties' Presidents can get away with under "official acts". Since Nixon it had been completely tilted in the Democrats' favor.
"So… is there absolute immunity between the president and the DOJ now? Just asking. If so, what will the Biden administration do now before the election?"
Its obvious. Biden will send seal team six to assassinate Trump, his associates, and family members. Then they will start sending Republicans to "re-education camps." Didn't you get the email Inga?
But first they have to get a stamp made in order to make the documents containing the orders "official."
Hmmm… what happens if Biden refuses to leave Office, even if Trump wins the election? Somehow I don’t see Democrats being the only ones who behave themselves. There is still a Democratic president, there is still a Democratic majority Senate. I hope Trumpublicans aren’t under the misapprehension that Democrats won’t take advantage of the gift that the SC has now given the POTUS.
What a can of worms.
"Hmmm… what happens if Biden refuses to leave Office, even if Trump wins the election?"
The immunity ruling has nothing to do with this situation, but it wouldn't surprise me if that did happen. After all, Trump is worse than Hitler and we have to preserve "our Democracy" Its certain that there would be wide spread rioting in blue cities if Trump won.
I fear Vicki from Pasadena has taken to her fainting couch, overcome by “the vapors”…
“What a can of worms.”
Keep digging, Igna! There IS a pony in all of what you’ve said.
Shorter Inga:
"Now Biden is free to do what we accused Trump of doing but didn't actually do."
White Savior Karen Inga: "Somehow I don’t see Democrats being the only ones who behave themselves."
LOL
It doesn't get any funnier than that, right there. Ever.
@Inga sez @11:40: "Hmmm… what happens if Biden refuses to leave Office, even if Trump wins the election?"
That's odd, the only time I've ever heard that in the past was from Democrats, projecting what the Trump Hitler would almost surely do, come the end of his term, and exhorting extreme proactive moves to forestall it 'just in case'. You know, it's funny how Democrats always project hateful and/or unlawful things on their perceived opponents, when the truth is, that hateful/unlawful behavior is exactly what they are secretly plotting, themselves. The Democratic Party is the party of ambush.
Inga said: Hmmm… what happens if Biden refuses to leave Office, even if Trump wins the election?
Dr. Jill will just tell him that it's time (again) to go on vacation to his Rehoboth Beach house.
Apologies Rehajm.
I went back and reread your comment and see it could be read either way. So many people think the vice-president "works for" the prez and that the prez has some sort of control over the VP, that I just assumed that was what you meant.
John Henry
Blogger Todd said...
I used to joke that every law should automatically expire in 10 years if not specifically and individually voted on to maintain, so as to help eliminate bad laws. This ruling may do more to help trim the administrative state than anything else.
It is not a joke, Todd. It is something we should all be demanding.
Donald Trump ran on a platform of refusing to sign any new laws unless 2 were abolished. Some progress was made but much remains.
Some states have sunset clauses where laws expire unless renewed.
I might be willing to go as far as 20-25 years to expiration but am OK with 10.
The key is automatic expiration in some relatively short time. Also, needing to vote on each law specifically and individually, as you noted. Not just one vote to enact the CFR in its entirety.
I'd also be OK with making all current US laws expire in 20 years.
John Henry
Hey Inga,
Welcome back!
Can you give us a "The walls are closing in on Trump!" in your scariest typing?
Been a while since I've heard that and I've missed it.
John Henry
Inga said...
Hmmm… what happens if Biden refuses to leave Office, even if Trump wins the election? Somehow I don’t see Democrats being the only ones who behave themselves.
Joe Biden was always kinda stupid and now he is even more limited due to dementia.
Everyone that still calls themselves a democrat is less intelligent than Joe Biden.
The difference between Rich and Inga is Rich is smart enough to feel the humiliation.
“What a can a woims!”
Spread-out, Igna.
Hmmm… what happens if Biden refuses to leave Office, even if Trump wins the election?
Armed conflict, probably.
If he refuses to leave office and declares himself president-for-life, I think a judge at his treason trial would probably rule that this was an "unofficial act" that was not performed under the Constitution.
Although, in Biden's case, the judge would probably rule that he's not mentally fit to stand trial, because he doesn't understand what is going on.
Lem at 9:12
too funny
I hope Trumpublicans aren’t under the misapprehension that Democrats won’t take advantage of the gift that the SC has now given the POTUS.
They were already taking advantage of it. That's the whole point.
Good lord ...
Saint Croix,
"... because he doesn't understand what is going on."
Yeah, but that's an apt description of Biden's entire adult life.
"What if some future president, emboldened by this Supreme Court decision, tries to jail his election opponent? That would be truly shocking wouldn’t it?"--David Sacks
cfs said...
Me:
IOW: "here's how you determine what has immunity. Go to it District Court."
Which Trump will appeal to DC Circuit Court of Appeals
Which he will then appeal to SCOTUS
Which will sit on it until after there election
---
Someone doesn't know how the Courts work and the scheduling factor that comes into play. There is no way any case can make it through the process prior to the November election. SCOTUS wouldn't "sit" on the case. It just wouldn't make it to the Court to be heard until the October 2024 term.
1: I totally approve of what SCOTUS is doing here
2: As the butthurt lefties have been whining, SCOTUS made this the last case issued this term, because they're working to screw over the lawfare assholes who waited until late last year to fire because they wanted to get a "conviction", with no time for an appeal
3: If SCOTUS wanted the trial to finish before the election, they would have arranged things so it could.
They dont' want corrupt lawfare before the election, so it won't happen.
howdydoody said...
There is little doubt what is going to happen here. Particularly after the debate disaster, the Dems realize the only way to stop Trump is to convict him in a federal case, and put him in prison. The Obama DC judge will order briefs on what is an official act within a few weeks, will rule within a few days that just about everything was unofficial acts (particularly the parts about appointing the alternative electors which in fairness was probably not an official act) and then order a trial within 30-60 days -- i.e. in October, just before the election
Whatever that judge rules will be appealed, and SCOTUS will take the appeal.
Because SCOTUS is the "last view" and they're going to get their view.
Nothing' going to happen before the election. After Trump wins, nothing will happen after the election, either.
And if Trump "loses", we'll have a civil war, so nothing in that trial will matter.
The Democrats pulled the following:
1: Established that Trump either wins, or spends the rest of his life bankrupt and in jail
2: Established that there's no point in "leaving your guns home" if you are a right-wing protester, because your life will be destroyed anyway
3L Rammed though an illiegitimate "trial" in New York just so they could campaign on "Trump's a convicted felon".
So there's no reason for the GOP to accept any loss, and there's no reason for "not accept" to not involve killing people.
Congrats, Dems. You played Will to Power games. Now you get the Will to Power prizes
Sadly, Greg, you're probably right.
It could all been avoided.
Two quick items:
1. So all Garland has to do is "presume" that Trump has no such immunity.
No. This overlooks the very plain language CJ Roberts used in which he said presumption falls to official since most of what POTUS does are official acts. Note this is why Joe will, during a trip that is 99% campaigning and fundraising, attend to some tiny official act like dedicating a library in order to justify use of AF1 on "official business).
2. Inga. Since every hypothetical you've presented is extreme and contrary to any historical official act we're aware of, perhaps you start your next post by defining what you see as the "official acts" presidents take.
Better yet, ask about one or two of the actual things Trump did, since that is what SCOTUS told the DC courts to consider, instead of your insane hypotheticals.
Post a Comment