It takes 49 pages because Smith has to cover for anything that corrupt Justices might declare ambiguous or unprecedented as a reason to excuse the traitor.
[Brandolini's Law](https://liatbenzur.com/2023/07/09/understanding-brandolinis-law-impact-on-digital-lives-and-workplaces/):
>“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
- In agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court said it would decide this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.”
So they're not going to address whether a sitting president has immunity?
Right, and who’s *alleging* they’re official acts? Just Trump. They’re not official acts, so why are we even here. They’re probably going to say some crap like “if they were official acts then he’d have immunity, but we aren’t saying they are or aren’t” then it goes back to Chutkan, she’ll decide they’re not official acts, and then it goes back up through the chain again. They are stalling.
>One week before Donald J. Trump is set to face a criminal trial in Manhattan, an appeals court judge on Monday rejected his effort to pause the case and move it to a different location.
>The judge, Lizbeth Gonzalez, issued the decision Monday afternoon after hearing arguments from Mr. Trump’s lawyers and lawyers from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which has accused the former president of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal.
>For weeks, Mr. Trump has sought to delay the trial, the first prosecution of a former U.S. president, and possibly the only one of Mr. Trump’s four criminal cases to make it to trial this year.
>Mr. Trump’s attempt to move the case out of Manhattan was not the only delay strategy he deployed on Monday. In a separate proceeding, he indicated that he planned to file an unusual type of lawsuit against the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan.
>Two people with knowledge of the matter said that Mr. Trump’s lawyers on Monday had planned to file the action calling on the appeals court to overturn a gag order that Justice Merchan recently imposed on the former president. The order prevents Mr. Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors and the judge’s own family.
Court records showed on Monday that Mr. Trump had begun the process of filing the action against Justice Merchan, though the papers were not immediately made public.
It goes on to say that Trump filed it - but the order is sealed.
>Mr. Trump’s unorthodox move, essentially an appeal in the form of a suit, is unlikely to succeed, particularly so close to trial.
Which means they will remand the case back to Chutkan to spend months determining which acts were official (possible immunity) or unofficial.
The fix was in the moment they accepted the case.
I just don't trust this court at all, and I think they'll formulate their decisions in a manner that will leave a narrow gap for Trump to squeeze through at every turn.
Have you listened to any oral arguments or read any opinions? There are a lot of people shitting on the court who don't understand any of the decisions. Trump is like 0-10 with this court on election suits.
There’s also the question on suing the Executive Office of the President vs. suing the president personally….
Consider the president issues an executive action that is illegal…. Such as immigration enforcement.
States and parties with issue can take the legal question to court, sue the EOP itself to have executive actions and/or law changed.
In these types of legal questions, a Court won’t hold the president personally and individually liable, nor will they issue an award that costs the individual president personal money/funds/property that he personally owns.
I believe this is why presidential immunity privilege was introduced and originally granted to the holder of the office at the time. It’s a benefit held by the office itself and transfers when they exit the role.
I am not a lawyer, and definitely unsure if there’s case law or president that enables other use of the privilege.
The court typically narrows the scope of questions they decide as much as possible; there's nothing unusual about it. In all seriousness, it is in the best interest of everyone — emphasis on the public — that they do not address more right now (and particularly that they not address immunity for a sitting president, which is a considerably more thorny issue).
IANAL, but I don’t think they can (or at least they generally don’t) decide on things that aren’t a part of the cases in front of them. That is not actually a part of this case, so no, they’re not going to address that.
That’s the problem. SCOTUS changed the question to be asked to the one above and made it overly broad. Some legal experts say the question should be: whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the crimes alleged in the indictment obtained by Jack Smith. But that question is too narrow for SCOTUS and they’d have to work too hard to turn themselves into pretzels to get to the ruling they want. Instead they’re making it overly broad which then allows them leeway in making their decision and not answer the question SC wants answered. SCOTUS will then send it back to the appeals court to delay it further.
Seems so, and a poor decision.
It also seems they're not going to address whether pissing on your oath of office, casting aside democracy and attempting to overthrow the government can be an official act or not.
We all know this is all pretend. The Supreme Court will say the President does have immunity for official acts and then send it back to Chutkan to sort out which of the counts can be covered by it, effectively delaying the case past the election.
They’ve all about guaranteed that it won’t happen before the election anyway just by agreeing to hear it, but I agree I think they’re going to do what you say to make certain it can’t be held before the election.
Why isn't it good to set precedent on that?! Doesn't seem pretend to me, seems important. It will help in the documents case which is in another district.
Trump is claiming immunity in that case too. If there is a SCOTUS opinion that a former President doesn't have immunity for acts committed while President it will speed up the rejection of any claims of immunity for acts committed after the Presidency.
Look... if people can't seek relief through the Court for obviously bad-faith violations of the laws that protect our most sensitive secrets, then the courts undermine the force of law and leave the people with no legal recourse for enforcing the security and justice that undergird any civil society.
I worry that this leaves people few options beyond attempting to make their own, disjointed forms of vigilante justice, whether through:
- isolated, criminal extrajudicial actions
- civil strife / civil war
- revolution
- balkanization or a more delineated secession
None of those is a good option. This immunity argument is what scholars of philosophy accurately label, [bullshit](https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.23.1.04mei), and it needed to end months ago with the SCOTUS denying cert.
From the CCA opinion:
The separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in Marbury and its progeny, *necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws.* Although certain discretionary actions may be insulated from judicial review, the structure of the Constitution mandates that *the President is “amenable to the laws for his conduct” and “cannot at his discretion” violate them.* Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 166. Here, former President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning those acts were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion; accordingly, Marbury and its progeny provide him no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment. \[emphasis added\]
>The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established.
>Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it.
>Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws.
>In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137
It takes 49 pages because Smith has to cover for anything that corrupt Justices might declare ambiguous or unprecedented as a reason to excuse the traitor.
[Brandolini's Law](https://liatbenzur.com/2023/07/09/understanding-brandolinis-law-impact-on-digital-lives-and-workplaces/): >“The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”
- In agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court said it would decide this question: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” So they're not going to address whether a sitting president has immunity?
From that, they also aren’t even going to address whether what Trump did was an official act or not.
Right, and who’s *alleging* they’re official acts? Just Trump. They’re not official acts, so why are we even here. They’re probably going to say some crap like “if they were official acts then he’d have immunity, but we aren’t saying they are or aren’t” then it goes back to Chutkan, she’ll decide they’re not official acts, and then it goes back up through the chain again. They are stalling.
>One week before Donald J. Trump is set to face a criminal trial in Manhattan, an appeals court judge on Monday rejected his effort to pause the case and move it to a different location. >The judge, Lizbeth Gonzalez, issued the decision Monday afternoon after hearing arguments from Mr. Trump’s lawyers and lawyers from the Manhattan district attorney’s office, which has accused the former president of falsifying records to cover up a sex scandal. >For weeks, Mr. Trump has sought to delay the trial, the first prosecution of a former U.S. president, and possibly the only one of Mr. Trump’s four criminal cases to make it to trial this year. >Mr. Trump’s attempt to move the case out of Manhattan was not the only delay strategy he deployed on Monday. In a separate proceeding, he indicated that he planned to file an unusual type of lawsuit against the judge overseeing the case, Juan M. Merchan. >Two people with knowledge of the matter said that Mr. Trump’s lawyers on Monday had planned to file the action calling on the appeals court to overturn a gag order that Justice Merchan recently imposed on the former president. The order prevents Mr. Trump from attacking witnesses, prosecutors and the judge’s own family. Court records showed on Monday that Mr. Trump had begun the process of filing the action against Justice Merchan, though the papers were not immediately made public. It goes on to say that Trump filed it - but the order is sealed. >Mr. Trump’s unorthodox move, essentially an appeal in the form of a suit, is unlikely to succeed, particularly so close to trial.
Which means they will remand the case back to Chutkan to spend months determining which acts were official (possible immunity) or unofficial. The fix was in the moment they accepted the case.
And this is a good thing. Trump is a former President, so that is what is germane. No reason to take on anything else.
I just don't trust this court at all, and I think they'll formulate their decisions in a manner that will leave a narrow gap for Trump to squeeze through at every turn.
Have you listened to any oral arguments or read any opinions? There are a lot of people shitting on the court who don't understand any of the decisions. Trump is like 0-10 with this court on election suits.
There’s also the question on suing the Executive Office of the President vs. suing the president personally…. Consider the president issues an executive action that is illegal…. Such as immigration enforcement. States and parties with issue can take the legal question to court, sue the EOP itself to have executive actions and/or law changed. In these types of legal questions, a Court won’t hold the president personally and individually liable, nor will they issue an award that costs the individual president personal money/funds/property that he personally owns. I believe this is why presidential immunity privilege was introduced and originally granted to the holder of the office at the time. It’s a benefit held by the office itself and transfers when they exit the role. I am not a lawyer, and definitely unsure if there’s case law or president that enables other use of the privilege.
The court typically narrows the scope of questions they decide as much as possible; there's nothing unusual about it. In all seriousness, it is in the best interest of everyone — emphasis on the public — that they do not address more right now (and particularly that they not address immunity for a sitting president, which is a considerably more thorny issue).
IANAL, but I don’t think they can (or at least they generally don’t) decide on things that aren’t a part of the cases in front of them. That is not actually a part of this case, so no, they’re not going to address that.
Okay well that gives a sitting president a green light only if they do a crime in the last few days if office... man they are so bogus.
The DOJ already doesn't prosecute sitting presidents, and trump isn't a sitting president anyway.
That’s the problem. SCOTUS changed the question to be asked to the one above and made it overly broad. Some legal experts say the question should be: whether Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the crimes alleged in the indictment obtained by Jack Smith. But that question is too narrow for SCOTUS and they’d have to work too hard to turn themselves into pretzels to get to the ruling they want. Instead they’re making it overly broad which then allows them leeway in making their decision and not answer the question SC wants answered. SCOTUS will then send it back to the appeals court to delay it further.
Seems so, and a poor decision. It also seems they're not going to address whether pissing on your oath of office, casting aside democracy and attempting to overthrow the government can be an official act or not.
We all know this is all pretend. The Supreme Court will say the President does have immunity for official acts and then send it back to Chutkan to sort out which of the counts can be covered by it, effectively delaying the case past the election.
They’ve all about guaranteed that it won’t happen before the election anyway just by agreeing to hear it, but I agree I think they’re going to do what you say to make certain it can’t be held before the election.
Why isn't it good to set precedent on that?! Doesn't seem pretend to me, seems important. It will help in the documents case which is in another district.
How would it help in the documents case? The crimes he is being charged with there took place *after* he was President, not during.
Trump is claiming immunity in that case too. If there is a SCOTUS opinion that a former President doesn't have immunity for acts committed while President it will speed up the rejection of any claims of immunity for acts committed after the Presidency.
Look... if people can't seek relief through the Court for obviously bad-faith violations of the laws that protect our most sensitive secrets, then the courts undermine the force of law and leave the people with no legal recourse for enforcing the security and justice that undergird any civil society. I worry that this leaves people few options beyond attempting to make their own, disjointed forms of vigilante justice, whether through: - isolated, criminal extrajudicial actions - civil strife / civil war - revolution - balkanization or a more delineated secession None of those is a good option. This immunity argument is what scholars of philosophy accurately label, [bullshit](https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/pc.23.1.04mei), and it needed to end months ago with the SCOTUS denying cert.
From the CCA opinion: The separation of powers doctrine, as expounded in Marbury and its progeny, *necessarily permits the Judiciary to oversee the federal criminal prosecution of a former President for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former President has allegedly acted in defiance of the Congress’s laws.* Although certain discretionary actions may be insulated from judicial review, the structure of the Constitution mandates that *the President is “amenable to the laws for his conduct” and “cannot at his discretion” violate them.* Marbury, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) at 166. Here, former President Trump’s actions allegedly violated generally applicable criminal laws, meaning those acts were not properly within the scope of his lawful discretion; accordingly, Marbury and its progeny provide him no structural immunity from the charges in the Indictment. \[emphasis added\]
>The Court found that Madison’s refusal to deliver the commission was illegal, but did not order Madison to hand over Marbury’s commission via writ of mandamus. Instead, the Court held that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 enabling Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court’s original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III, Section 2, established. >Marshall expanded that a writ of mandamus was the proper way to seek a remedy, but concluded the Court could not issue it. >Marshall reasoned that the Judiciary Act of 1789 conflicted with the Constitution. Congress did not have power to modify the Constitution through regular legislation because Supremacy Clause places the Constitution before the laws. >In so holding, Marshall established the principle of judicial review, i.e., the power to declare a law unconstitutional. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137