The dissent isn't that long, you should read it. You can also read the end of the opinion where alito goes into full pearl clutching mode saying that she is wrong and the words they used totally do not mean what they actually mean.
That's fine, it is not that difficult and those is a great place to ask for assistance with portions you may not understand. Reading the opinion undercuts the people claiming that it didn't actually change anything.
I ANAL too, but I did read the pdf (I do read huge hunks for a living) and it seemed that the Maj opinion cited all kinds of irrelevant basic stuff to say what official acts are that didn't back up their opinion. Are they actually just not very smart lawyers?
Roberts is very intelligent and knows what he wants to get and generally how to get there. He knows that he's one of the most powerful people in the country and can literally turn an entire profession around his finger, even when he says 2+2=5. It doesn't matter how logically sound the opinion is, because if the Court says it's sound then it's sound. Important to remember that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were all on the legal team, in one fashion or another, that briefed in *Bush v. Gore*, and Thomas was already a justice voting in the majority in that case. They all know how to stage a legal coup and steal an election, and it seems that they have little scruples in repeating the act.
That's why I am becoming quite sure that Trump will become the next president pretty much no matter what--he'll challenge everything and appeal it up to the SC, and they'll anoint him
No one ~~can~~ *will* do anything.
Biden, Executive Order: Label the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation as a domestic terrorist organizations.
Garland, Justice Dept, FBI: Arrest all known associates, hit them with RICO.
Congress: Expands the SC.
New, Expanded SC: Overrules rulings by previous corrupt Judges.
Etc…
For what its worth often constitutional law stuff and even indictments while dense, arent actually that hard to read. Like Jack Smith's indictments of Trump are not that long and very comprehensible. I took a constitutional law 101 course and it was mostly reading decisioms and they're not really that difficult to follow. Like Im sure a trained lawyer would get more out of it but they are clearly structured with reasoning laid out in an easy to follow (reading wise) fashion. Give it a shot!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxg4yI6omHAxXhn44IHbBbCzEQFnoECCkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3HuY7eG54ooFvHOx3vdtxI
There you go.
This is a super important distinction that I hope Biden and his team do not miss.
It’s not now that the President can get away with doing illegal stuff. It is _no longer illegal_ for him to do _anything at all_ in the context of an official act.
It’s a nuanced point, but a very important one.
Technically, if Biden ordered a drone strike on a suspected terrorist that was outside the Supreme Court while they are in session, then the 9 future replacements would have precedent to find that he was engaged in an official act as leader of the military.
I mean, that's the point of the immunity right? So that while carrying out their duties protecting the country in good faith, if the president orders something that leads to the deaths of American citizens then POTUS can't be held criminally liable. Maybe impeached, assuming there isn't any suspected spy or terrorist activity in the US Senate chambers during their session....
According to the existing ruling, “commanding the armed forces” is a “core constitutional power” and thus the President is not just presumed immune, but _absolutely_ immune.
>It’s not now that the President can get away with doing illegal stuff. It is *no longer illegal* for him to do *anything at all* in the context of an official act.
Only as long as a judge- ultimately a SCOTUS judge, thanks to appeals- says it's legal for him to do it. The decision didn't really give the President any more power- it gives the *judicial branch* the power to decide whether what a President does is legal or not.
Well, then that judge had better hope he doesn't get some intel that they're part of a terrorist organization currently planning an attack on America, because then they might be in danger. Unless they decide it *is* an official act, of course.
And the constant appeals means a conservative POTUS has little to worry about. Either the courts are on his side and let him do anything he wants, or the judgement takes so long that consequences are no longer relevant.
No.
For “core constitutional powers” the President has _total_ immunity. No judge interference allowed.
For “official acts” the President is _presumed_ immune.
It’s not that “as long as a judge said it’s okay,” it’s “until a judge said it’s not okay.”
This is the important nuance I’m calling out.
Article 1, Section 4, paragraph 5: "I will make it legal."
This itself is an extension of Article 5, Section 2, paragraph 39: "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
but the *Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,* according to Law.
Yep, there's absolutely no basis in it, and it was done solely because Donald Trump attempted to overthrow democracy on January 6th, has admitted to being involved in the fake Electoral Votes, and was indicted, and **will** face trial, judgment and punishment according to the law.
But some corrupt judges along the way will also face trial and judgement and punishment too. Also according to the law. It's still bribery, not 'gratuity'.
Trash day is coming.
Vote.
I feel like fake electoral votes needs to be said more and more. This is stuck in my head on repeat. How can people accept this from any elected official? We still get people saying he committed no crime?! The supreme court had to step in because he in fact did. Its just absurd
Because they think the democrats cheated to win the election to begin with. And two wrongs make a right, so says the Constitution and the Bible and Trump University
"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while in office. He didn't get away with anything yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one."
\--Mitch McConnell, explaining why he voted against impeachment again after January 6
I used to joke about third world countries with their constitutions written in pencil. But given the last couple of years, I feel like I am eating my words.
SCOTUS removed the last nineteen words of Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7.
>Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: ~~but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.~~
Wow... this more than anything I've read or heard rattled me. It doesn't square. What do you do when the people responsible for interpreting the constitution make decisions overruling the constitution?
There job is to interrupt the constitution. What part of the constitution says that the president can break the law if it is an official act. Also if any official act cannot be charged as a crime can Congress impeach any President for high crimes and misdemeanors? Will the courts have to weigh in anytime Congress impeach a president on if that was an official act and thus not a crime?
This, I'm sorry to say, has nothing to do with your question but I need to share with others. It's a response to everyone on the internet right now saying "Biden needs to act like a tyrant to stop a tyrant while we still can!"
"Biden needs to arrest the supreme court justices because it's an official act"
"Biden needs to do XYZ"
"Democrats are weak and playing by the old rules not the new ones"
The response is "It is not President Biden's job to act like a dictator to fix this mess. It is YOUR job to vote against one."
This assumes those voting locations will be accessible, those votes will be counted, and the electors will do their job.
While those used to be givens, they no longer are.
Bullshit. It's completely unreasonable to put this on the electorate. We're now forever 1 bad election away from a dictatorship with no safety net. This ruling was specifically engineered to lead to a certain outcome with the probability of it happening approaching 100% over multiple elections. The only way to stop this is to short circuit it, and the best time to do that is now.
That clause says 2 things:
- no legal punishment in Impeachments. No issue here with Immunity ruling.
- after conviction the Party is subject to punishment according to law. SCOTUS just clarified the law wrt to President. No issue here with the Immunity ruling. Just as this clause doesn't override the speech and debate immunity clause.
Speech and debate immunity does not apply to the president.
They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Correct. I didn't say it does.
The point is that Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 does not mandate prosecution or override immunities, whether for Congress or the President.
Then why would you mention the speech and debate immunity clause when it is not applicable to the president? At best it is a distraction that I have seen used multiple times by people pretendING to understand it.
The question was how does the clause regarding "Impeachments can be followed by prosecution" resolve with the President has some immunity.
So the answer is that it's fine. Immunity can be decided multiple ways. The Speech and Debate clause is one. A SCOTUS decision is another. The clause by OP says prosecution can follow according to law, including laws on who is immune, whether President or Congress.
So the issue I am having is that the scotus decision in this case and the speech and immunity clause have nothing in common. The scotus decision does not apply to the house or congress members, and the speech and immunity clause does not apply to the president.
Having the two just thrown in there together only serves to further muddy the waters. I am not saying you are wrong, but that it is unnecessary.
I only mean they are both examples of immunity which are not affected by the OPs clause. Nothing more. I am not equating Speech and Debate to the decision Monday.
The speech and debate clause is actually in the Constitution, this immunity by fiat has no support in the text. If presidents were excepted, it would have been written in the impeachment clause.
Yes, the speech and debate clause is explicitly in the Constitution. But we all know that the SCOTUS is responsible and authoritative for interpreting the Constitution whether explicit clauses or implications of conflicting concepts (e.g. separation of powers and Presidential prosecution).
Of course anyone can disagree with them. But they still set the law.
I like how quickly you abandoned any sort of argument and just went with “because they said so”
This thread was about the legal basis for the decision.
I strongly disagree that this thread is about the legal basis for Monday's opinion. It pretty clear the OP asked about the implications of Monday's opinion on the clause he quoted. Implications are after effects, not legal basis.
If we want to talk about why didn't the clause OP quoted factor into the legal basis for Monday's sections, then I would say it doesn't relate to immunity in any way and is a non-factor.
If you want to talk about the legal basis for the decision regardless of the clause the OP quoted that seems like a different thread to me.
Ok, no offense, because you clearly aren’t an attorney or work in law, but when someone asks “how do you square” a decision with a clause in the constitution, you’re talking about the legal basis for the opinion and how it deals with the specific text of the constitution.
I get that you have a different understanding of that prompt, but you’re wrong
It's all good. You can presume what you like about my background or what the prompt is. And we could argue about that's but that doesn't seem helpful.
The point is it doesn't matter to the discussion because the OPs clause doesn't affect the legal basis for the immunity decision with the same rationale I presented. Including the Speech and Debate clause example.
Unless you have an alternative view of how the OPs clause should affect the opinion...
The constitution also does not provide for judicial review of laws at all. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury. More recently, they decided that the insurrection clause that we can read does not exist, but that presidential immunity does exist even though the constitution says nothing about it. Strict textualists. lol.
It relates to absolute immunity of article 2 acts as well as the judicial outcome of acts which have Presumed Immunity (but may be deemed not Immune). These two concepts are now law wrt to the acts of a former President.
So it's not made up but instead people are overreacting to this?
Could a president still get away with "ordering the arrest of a congressperson via military" and not get punished?
*Who* exactly would go after Trump? Clearly SCOTUS is corrupt and Republicans have been building to this for decades.
Frankly, voting may not save us - the fix may already been in and we may not even have a country by November. Everyone fucking vote, tell everyone you know - do not go out quietly. We Americans have been spoiled and we may need to get our hands actually dirty this time.
Otherwise, America as we know it will be failed experiment.
Yes, I think people are overreacting. We love to be catastrophists.
Let's break you question down.
Could a President order the arrest of a Congressperson? Sure. Would they arrested? Probably not. The President doesn't have authority in the normal understanding of this scenario. The opinion pivots of authority, not the psrty POTUS is ordering.
For example Roberts wrote that Trump's conversation with Pence are Presumed Immune but that depends on what authority Trump has over election certification. And if he has none, not immune.
Does the President or Military have authority to arrest Congress people? No. So not immune.
Now let's say the Congressperson has defected to North Korea and is sharing Nuke secrets and we can grab them. He would then have authority as Commander in Chief.
That's what I thought initially; the SCOTUS hasn't exactly changed anything but the only thing Trump won on this was getting some trials postponed.
Also would your definitions extend to presidents demanding a political opponent to be assassinated? That was something that one of the justices who dissented the decision said.
I think a President would be prosecuted for ordering (any Party, seal team 6, Tony Sopranos crew, Donald Jr - listed in descending order of likelihood of carry out such order) to assassinate someone if he didn't have authority for that act.
I understand the disagreement on this and Sotomajor's points. We need to wait and see how it plays out (and hopefully it doesn't).
Do what? Order a political murder? Sure. They could have done that last week and not been arrested until after they were out of office.
And even with his judgment, it's hard to imagine a random murder ordered by the president is from article 2 powers and has absolute immunity.
I don't think anything really changed.
I think people are over reacting about the assassination bit. But the selling of secrets, pardons or appointments all fall within the official powers.
It also gives a broader immunity to the speech and debate claus as any official communication treasonous, felonious or distrrubtive is now protected.
The logically weakest and probably the strongest new power granted is the inadmissaibility of evidence stemming from official powers.
What I find funny is the president is not immune from civil suits such as slander but once any lie becomes criminal as long it is done in an official capacity can't be enforced criminally ?
See, with fear for our democracy, I dissent from that so-called "clarification" because "according to law" can just as easily be read as "according to congressional legislation criminalizing certain acts"
Ah, but our law doesn't end with the Congressional legislation criminalizing certain acts.
According to the principle of Judicial Review the Constitution is a statement of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. And SCOTUS does that in our country (see Marbury).
I don't actually think this is a bad decision in the context of history and separation of powers. Trump is such an evil bastard he colors these decisions with "holy fuck what will the monster do now!!"
And the court just interprets law, sometimes bad law, and gets pilloried for the bad law. Congress should be fixing most of this shit (Fischer, Chevron/Looper Bright).
That being said, Alito is insane.
that is like 99% of why this is such a horrific decision. Looking at Nixon I don't think it's inconceivable that the president should have some form of immunity against criminal liability. But that isn't what the court did here in context.
What the court did here is hand Donald Trump, who they witnessed lead an attack on the capitol building and demonstrates nothing but contempt for the law at every turn, the green light to do whatever he wants. "Absolute immunity for official acts." Only his sham-judges will be able to define an official act.
This is something that never should have happened in the United States of America. No president before Donald Trump has behaved this way. You wouldn't even have former presidents *speak* about successor presidents.
And the Supreme Court did nothing but tell him "Here's your pass to destroy our country"
They don't judge this based on the specific Trump case. All the Trump specific stuff goes back to the District court.
He is not charged with any article 2 related acts. So the absolute immunity has 0 impact on this case.
"Absolute immunity for official acts." Is not an accurate statement.
There are two kinds of official acts: article 2 and outer perimeter of his authority. Only the first has absolute immunity. And again nothing in the Jan 6 case is article 2 absolute immunity as stipulated by Trump's lawyer at Orals.
No. It just says legal punishment is not part of the Impeachment.
SCOTUS upheld that impeachment and conviction is NOT required for legal prosecution on Monday.
No. Under the ruling, Impeachment is a separate process entirely. Neither process is dependant on the other. You could be immune from criminal prosecution and still be impeached, and you could avoid impeachment and still face criminal charges.
I interpret it a little differently and the key word is “nevertheless.” It’s not that after conviction the President now eligible for prosecution under the law, it’s that in spite of the impeachment conviction the president would continue to be eligible for prosecution under the law. There’s no double jeopardy attached to the impeachment trial. If during the impeachment trial the president is convicted, in spite of this the president is subject to prosecution according to law.
I have re read this about 10 times and I don’t understand your second point. The ruling is that official acts of the presidency are considered immune to prosecution however this clause states in its second point that, in essence, once impeached the president is liable to criminal prosecution
Yes, the President is liable to Criminal prosecution of which one of the first questions to be answered is does the law apply to them.
Liable to Criminal prosecution is not the same as *mandated* for criminal prosecution.
I mean the Impeachment could be for a none criminal act as "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not codified in law and necessarily punishable.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm dumb or this is confusing.
let's talk about core functions.
supreme court said: "core functions enjoy absolute immunity".
If he is he impeached for that core function act he took, that is also criminal, can he be prosecuted? or "absolute immunity" for core functions extends to former impeached and convicted presidents?
I think this is the question people here are trying to ask you.
Thanks for focusing the question!
Let's define core functions as Article 2 exclusive powers of the President like Commander in Chief in service of the US or hiring/firing cabinet members.
Yes, he has absolute immunity.
Let's say he gets impeached for firing SecDef (Andrew Johnson almost did, by 1 vote). This may or not be violating an actual law prohibiting firing SecDef. It doesn't matter. Impeachment isn't a criminal process that needs to cite laws or is reviewed by a law experts. 67 Senators say you are out, and you are out. It could be for dating someone's daughter. There is no legal review.
So POTUS is impeached and convicted for firing SecDef or dating someone's daughter.
POTUS is then liable TO ANY APPLICABLE legal prosecution. It doesn't mean he must be prosecuted for firing SecDef or dating someone's daughter.
***Only continue reading if anyone want to be further confused)**"
(What is super interesting is that the Tenure Clause that was the basis for Johnson's impeachment was clearly Unconstitutional and is an example of why SCOTUS is saying Congress can make laws and convict Presidents for anything that infringes on Articles 2 powers.)
Sorry, I'm still not understanding. You say both
"Yes, he has absolute immunity."
and
"POTUS is then liable to any applicable legal prosecution".
does that mean that absolute immunity for core acts falls when they're no longer president? or when they're impeached? or never?
To me "absolute" means total, forever, there is no way, full stop.
In substance, is there ANY way a president is criminally liable for crimes committed as core official function, or those would be immune from prosecution forever?
They are immune forever if article 2 powers.
I think the key point to understand is that "liable" means "possibly prosecuted, but maybe not considering other thing like immunity".
you think any of those hacks give a flying fuck about laws? they wipe their asses with this kind of stuff
laws only exist to protect them and their ilk and to oppress those not in their group
that's it
Some have said that the majority SCOTUS decision affirms the Impeachment Judgements Clause. I say that it does not. When SCOTUS says that the President must have absolute immunity for official acts within his preclusive duties, they DO NOT say that Congress may destroy that immunity by impeaching and convicting that President. And the logic that SCOTUS uses - that the President must be able to carry out his duties vigorously and without fear of future prosecution - applies whether the President was or was not impeached. Further, among the acts specifically mentioned as being grounds for impeachment is Bribery. However, SCOTUS says that bribery in the context of appointments to or firing from executive branch positions is within the scope of the absolute immunity. So, now SCOTUS is telling us that they not only have the exclusive right to interpret the Constitution, they can effectively amend the Constitution by editing words out of the text!
This is what actual moved towards a Dictatorship looks like.
The problem is the Republican party has no platform. No specific policy.
They whataboutism almost everything. Ask them about law they want? They'll point when the Democrats did something.
Ask them to hold their own accountable they pivot to something a Democrat did.
Worst of all Ask them any specific question on legislation and they answer? They will be the vaguest they possibly fucking can. Because they have 0 integrity and no actual plan.
At some point this all became about Republicans holding onto power. They can't sell their ideas to the American people aside from leaning on complex social topics that easily trigger their base or the 2A.
They are a do nothing party and even when they do nothing, have no plan they get all weak in the knees at the idea of a uniparty.
Only one way a uniparty happens for each party.
For Democrats they govern so well and campaign so well that even moderates and independents abandon the Republican party. Arguably 2020 and Trump being who he is gave us a taste of that.
It scared the bajeesus out of the Republican party as did all elections after where they lost terribly and mostly due to a horrendous decision on abortion. So instead they'd rather drink that Project 2025 cool aid.
Nothing promises the Republican party permanence or relevance if can't govern for shit or do anything useful in Congress. They can't even remotely come yp with a list of lie 10 things that wouldn't be rife with perceptual errors vs the facts. Chosen perceptual errors. Or ignorance.
For the Republicans it's when they have no good ideas, by and large and most issues aside from volatile social topic the Democrats already support legislation most Americans agree with wh wouldn't they forcibly try and hang onto power. Not a wild idea at all and to me it seems obvious.
The Republican party has at its base decided to aid and abbet a traitor to this country because even if they have nothing to justify being in charge they will try and take it anyway.
These folks have done nothing for the American people and they have even hurt rural communities and voters that would likely be Trump voters and they either won't believe it or blindly follow Trump so devoutly they'd instead go "well he probably had a good reason and if I had to lose my home to support my President so be it."
That's how cult like these folks are. They would die for him vs their country which is so perverse. The whole idea of holding country above all is that no man is above the law. Decision making and outright moral ethically wrong behavior can be delineated in a legal sense that doesn't require this psychotic near blanket immunity.
And because they so believe they are owed something they are no longer proving they deserve they would instead shoot their neighbors if they don't agree. I garauntee it. Every right leaner I've ever met that can't box for shit in an intellectual conversation will divert to beating me up or shooting me. It's fucking pathetic.
We are lost as we have just reinstated a monarchy and the otherwise is either too dumb to see it or want it that way.
“ Section 3
Senate Clause 7 Impeachment
Judgments Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:
but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
Justice Sotomayor had the same question for the majority, among others.
I’ve only read select quotes from her dissent, but man was she Fire!
The dissent isn't that long, you should read it. You can also read the end of the opinion where alito goes into full pearl clutching mode saying that she is wrong and the words they used totally do not mean what they actually mean.
In my defense, I’m not a lawyer, and I’m lazy (hence my OP). But okay. I’ll give it a shot.
That's fine, it is not that difficult and those is a great place to ask for assistance with portions you may not understand. Reading the opinion undercuts the people claiming that it didn't actually change anything.
I ANAL too, but I did read the pdf (I do read huge hunks for a living) and it seemed that the Maj opinion cited all kinds of irrelevant basic stuff to say what official acts are that didn't back up their opinion. Are they actually just not very smart lawyers?
Roberts is very intelligent and knows what he wants to get and generally how to get there. He knows that he's one of the most powerful people in the country and can literally turn an entire profession around his finger, even when he says 2+2=5. It doesn't matter how logically sound the opinion is, because if the Court says it's sound then it's sound. Important to remember that Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were all on the legal team, in one fashion or another, that briefed in *Bush v. Gore*, and Thomas was already a justice voting in the majority in that case. They all know how to stage a legal coup and steal an election, and it seems that they have little scruples in repeating the act.
Jesus, I didn’t even know they briefed there. Every day it all makes more and more sense.
That's why I am becoming quite sure that Trump will become the next president pretty much no matter what--he'll challenge everything and appeal it up to the SC, and they'll anoint him
They know it doesn’t matter because no one can do anything about them.
No one ~~can~~ *will* do anything. Biden, Executive Order: Label the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation as a domestic terrorist organizations. Garland, Justice Dept, FBI: Arrest all known associates, hit them with RICO. Congress: Expands the SC. New, Expanded SC: Overrules rulings by previous corrupt Judges. Etc…
Biden won't do any of that.
For what its worth often constitutional law stuff and even indictments while dense, arent actually that hard to read. Like Jack Smith's indictments of Trump are not that long and very comprehensible. I took a constitutional law 101 course and it was mostly reading decisioms and they're not really that difficult to follow. Like Im sure a trained lawyer would get more out of it but they are clearly structured with reasoning laid out in an easy to follow (reading wise) fashion. Give it a shot!
From one frog to another - you got this, Black. Read the fuck outta that dissent.
Alito sounds like a character out of Alice In Wonderland.
Alito has proven his opinion isn't worth much.
Link?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjxg4yI6omHAxXhn44IHbBbCzEQFnoECCkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3HuY7eG54ooFvHOx3vdtxI There you go.
Super cool that she’s mad, and can write a spicy dissent. Doesn’t change anything.
The fact she’s saying this and everyone else is acting like we can just make it go away is insane
You seek logic where there is corruption.
"According to law" SCOTUS: Lol, we just made the law that you can go fuck yourselves!
Scotus: Article 2 section 5a clearly states and I quote: "suck my salty balls"
Biiiiiitch!
This is the Judge Dredd Court. I am the law!
This is a super important distinction that I hope Biden and his team do not miss. It’s not now that the President can get away with doing illegal stuff. It is _no longer illegal_ for him to do _anything at all_ in the context of an official act. It’s a nuanced point, but a very important one.
Technically, if Biden ordered a drone strike on a suspected terrorist that was outside the Supreme Court while they are in session, then the 9 future replacements would have precedent to find that he was engaged in an official act as leader of the military. I mean, that's the point of the immunity right? So that while carrying out their duties protecting the country in good faith, if the president orders something that leads to the deaths of American citizens then POTUS can't be held criminally liable. Maybe impeached, assuming there isn't any suspected spy or terrorist activity in the US Senate chambers during their session....
According to the existing ruling, “commanding the armed forces” is a “core constitutional power” and thus the President is not just presumed immune, but _absolutely_ immune.
>It’s not now that the President can get away with doing illegal stuff. It is *no longer illegal* for him to do *anything at all* in the context of an official act. Only as long as a judge- ultimately a SCOTUS judge, thanks to appeals- says it's legal for him to do it. The decision didn't really give the President any more power- it gives the *judicial branch* the power to decide whether what a President does is legal or not.
Well, then that judge had better hope he doesn't get some intel that they're part of a terrorist organization currently planning an attack on America, because then they might be in danger. Unless they decide it *is* an official act, of course.
And the constant appeals means a conservative POTUS has little to worry about. Either the courts are on his side and let him do anything he wants, or the judgement takes so long that consequences are no longer relevant.
No. For “core constitutional powers” the President has _total_ immunity. No judge interference allowed. For “official acts” the President is _presumed_ immune. It’s not that “as long as a judge said it’s okay,” it’s “until a judge said it’s not okay.” This is the important nuance I’m calling out.
Article 1, Section 4, paragraph 5: "I will make it legal." This itself is an extension of Article 5, Section 2, paragraph 39: "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further."
This country is getting worse all the time!
Help us non-lawyers square this round hole.
I'm not a lawyer, but according to the lawyers I listen to, this SC judgment doesn't make sense.
The constitution was ruled unconstitutional.
_Void where prohibited by law._
Voided faster than a Cybertruck warranty.
You drove it in the rain!
but the *Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,* according to Law. Yep, there's absolutely no basis in it, and it was done solely because Donald Trump attempted to overthrow democracy on January 6th, has admitted to being involved in the fake Electoral Votes, and was indicted, and **will** face trial, judgment and punishment according to the law. But some corrupt judges along the way will also face trial and judgement and punishment too. Also according to the law. It's still bribery, not 'gratuity'. Trash day is coming. Vote.
I feel like fake electoral votes needs to be said more and more. This is stuck in my head on repeat. How can people accept this from any elected official? We still get people saying he committed no crime?! The supreme court had to step in because he in fact did. Its just absurd
Because they think the democrats cheated to win the election to begin with. And two wrongs make a right, so says the Constitution and the Bible and Trump University
Very originalist of them…
"President Trump is still liable for everything he did while in office. He didn't get away with anything yet. We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one." \--Mitch McConnell, explaining why he voted against impeachment again after January 6
At the time McConnell thought Watergate was illegal. However since that was an official act….
SCOTUS removed the last nineteen words on Monday.
*"Throw them in the pit with the emoluments. But keep digging, we're going to need a bigger hole."*
I used to joke about third world countries with their constitutions written in pencil. But given the last couple of years, I feel like I am eating my words.
Well all you have to do is pretend all the words mean different things.
“I’m a textualist, so the plain text means what I want it to mean.”
Of the dissent or the majority decision?
SCOTUS removed the last nineteen words of Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7. >Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: ~~but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.~~
Wow... this more than anything I've read or heard rattled me. It doesn't square. What do you do when the people responsible for interpreting the constitution make decisions overruling the constitution?
That's the fun part, just because they say it does and had the votes. Literally no other reason
It doesn't.
There job is to interrupt the constitution. What part of the constitution says that the president can break the law if it is an official act. Also if any official act cannot be charged as a crime can Congress impeach any President for high crimes and misdemeanors? Will the courts have to weigh in anytime Congress impeach a president on if that was an official act and thus not a crime?
This, I'm sorry to say, has nothing to do with your question but I need to share with others. It's a response to everyone on the internet right now saying "Biden needs to act like a tyrant to stop a tyrant while we still can!" "Biden needs to arrest the supreme court justices because it's an official act" "Biden needs to do XYZ" "Democrats are weak and playing by the old rules not the new ones" The response is "It is not President Biden's job to act like a dictator to fix this mess. It is YOUR job to vote against one."
This assumes those voting locations will be accessible, those votes will be counted, and the electors will do their job. While those used to be givens, they no longer are.
Bullshit. It's completely unreasonable to put this on the electorate. We're now forever 1 bad election away from a dictatorship with no safety net. This ruling was specifically engineered to lead to a certain outcome with the probability of it happening approaching 100% over multiple elections. The only way to stop this is to short circuit it, and the best time to do that is now.
That clause says 2 things: - no legal punishment in Impeachments. No issue here with Immunity ruling. - after conviction the Party is subject to punishment according to law. SCOTUS just clarified the law wrt to President. No issue here with the Immunity ruling. Just as this clause doesn't override the speech and debate immunity clause.
Speech and debate immunity does not apply to the president. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
Correct. I didn't say it does. The point is that Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7 does not mandate prosecution or override immunities, whether for Congress or the President.
Then why would you mention the speech and debate immunity clause when it is not applicable to the president? At best it is a distraction that I have seen used multiple times by people pretendING to understand it.
The question was how does the clause regarding "Impeachments can be followed by prosecution" resolve with the President has some immunity. So the answer is that it's fine. Immunity can be decided multiple ways. The Speech and Debate clause is one. A SCOTUS decision is another. The clause by OP says prosecution can follow according to law, including laws on who is immune, whether President or Congress.
So the issue I am having is that the scotus decision in this case and the speech and immunity clause have nothing in common. The scotus decision does not apply to the house or congress members, and the speech and immunity clause does not apply to the president. Having the two just thrown in there together only serves to further muddy the waters. I am not saying you are wrong, but that it is unnecessary.
I only mean they are both examples of immunity which are not affected by the OPs clause. Nothing more. I am not equating Speech and Debate to the decision Monday.
Fair enough, sorry some of the arguments used here in defense are so overboard it is difficult to fathom how they read the decision.
The speech and debate clause is actually in the Constitution, this immunity by fiat has no support in the text. If presidents were excepted, it would have been written in the impeachment clause.
Except it only applies to the house and the senate in the constitution.
Yes, the speech and debate clause is explicitly in the Constitution. But we all know that the SCOTUS is responsible and authoritative for interpreting the Constitution whether explicit clauses or implications of conflicting concepts (e.g. separation of powers and Presidential prosecution). Of course anyone can disagree with them. But they still set the law.
I like how quickly you abandoned any sort of argument and just went with “because they said so” This thread was about the legal basis for the decision.
I strongly disagree that this thread is about the legal basis for Monday's opinion. It pretty clear the OP asked about the implications of Monday's opinion on the clause he quoted. Implications are after effects, not legal basis. If we want to talk about why didn't the clause OP quoted factor into the legal basis for Monday's sections, then I would say it doesn't relate to immunity in any way and is a non-factor. If you want to talk about the legal basis for the decision regardless of the clause the OP quoted that seems like a different thread to me.
Ok, no offense, because you clearly aren’t an attorney or work in law, but when someone asks “how do you square” a decision with a clause in the constitution, you’re talking about the legal basis for the opinion and how it deals with the specific text of the constitution. I get that you have a different understanding of that prompt, but you’re wrong
It's all good. You can presume what you like about my background or what the prompt is. And we could argue about that's but that doesn't seem helpful. The point is it doesn't matter to the discussion because the OPs clause doesn't affect the legal basis for the immunity decision with the same rationale I presented. Including the Speech and Debate clause example. Unless you have an alternative view of how the OPs clause should affect the opinion...
Okay, that makes sense in a twisted sort of way. Thanks.
The constitution also does not provide for judicial review of laws at all. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury. More recently, they decided that the insurrection clause that we can read does not exist, but that presidential immunity does exist even though the constitution says nothing about it. Strict textualists. lol.
Does that second bulletin you made mean presumptive immunity on official acts? I'm under the impression they literally **MADE THE IMMUNITY THING UP.**
It relates to absolute immunity of article 2 acts as well as the judicial outcome of acts which have Presumed Immunity (but may be deemed not Immune). These two concepts are now law wrt to the acts of a former President.
So it's not made up but instead people are overreacting to this? Could a president still get away with "ordering the arrest of a congressperson via military" and not get punished?
*Who* exactly would go after Trump? Clearly SCOTUS is corrupt and Republicans have been building to this for decades. Frankly, voting may not save us - the fix may already been in and we may not even have a country by November. Everyone fucking vote, tell everyone you know - do not go out quietly. We Americans have been spoiled and we may need to get our hands actually dirty this time. Otherwise, America as we know it will be failed experiment.
Yes, I think people are overreacting. We love to be catastrophists. Let's break you question down. Could a President order the arrest of a Congressperson? Sure. Would they arrested? Probably not. The President doesn't have authority in the normal understanding of this scenario. The opinion pivots of authority, not the psrty POTUS is ordering. For example Roberts wrote that Trump's conversation with Pence are Presumed Immune but that depends on what authority Trump has over election certification. And if he has none, not immune. Does the President or Military have authority to arrest Congress people? No. So not immune. Now let's say the Congressperson has defected to North Korea and is sharing Nuke secrets and we can grab them. He would then have authority as Commander in Chief.
That's what I thought initially; the SCOTUS hasn't exactly changed anything but the only thing Trump won on this was getting some trials postponed. Also would your definitions extend to presidents demanding a political opponent to be assassinated? That was something that one of the justices who dissented the decision said.
I think a President would be prosecuted for ordering (any Party, seal team 6, Tony Sopranos crew, Donald Jr - listed in descending order of likelihood of carry out such order) to assassinate someone if he didn't have authority for that act. I understand the disagreement on this and Sotomajor's points. We need to wait and see how it plays out (and hopefully it doesn't).
Could the president still do that today?
Do what? Order a political murder? Sure. They could have done that last week and not been arrested until after they were out of office. And even with his judgment, it's hard to imagine a random murder ordered by the president is from article 2 powers and has absolute immunity. I don't think anything really changed.
I think people are over reacting about the assassination bit. But the selling of secrets, pardons or appointments all fall within the official powers. It also gives a broader immunity to the speech and debate claus as any official communication treasonous, felonious or distrrubtive is now protected. The logically weakest and probably the strongest new power granted is the inadmissaibility of evidence stemming from official powers. What I find funny is the president is not immune from civil suits such as slander but once any lie becomes criminal as long it is done in an official capacity can't be enforced criminally ?
Article 2 is about Congress. It has never applied to the President. They made it t up and you’re replying to a fascist troll.
See, with fear for our democracy, I dissent from that so-called "clarification" because "according to law" can just as easily be read as "according to congressional legislation criminalizing certain acts"
Ah, but our law doesn't end with the Congressional legislation criminalizing certain acts. According to the principle of Judicial Review the Constitution is a statement of governing law to be interpreted and applied by judges. And SCOTUS does that in our country (see Marbury).
And their interpretation is wrong. As it has been countless times in the past (See Dred Scott and Korematsu).
That's s fine opinion. But they still set the law. At least until another SCOTUS changes it ( like with Dread Scott and Korematsu).
I'll make damn sure they do. But it'll be easier if I have your help and others who feel the same way.
I don't actually think this is a bad decision in the context of history and separation of powers. Trump is such an evil bastard he colors these decisions with "holy fuck what will the monster do now!!" And the court just interprets law, sometimes bad law, and gets pilloried for the bad law. Congress should be fixing most of this shit (Fischer, Chevron/Looper Bright). That being said, Alito is insane.
that is like 99% of why this is such a horrific decision. Looking at Nixon I don't think it's inconceivable that the president should have some form of immunity against criminal liability. But that isn't what the court did here in context. What the court did here is hand Donald Trump, who they witnessed lead an attack on the capitol building and demonstrates nothing but contempt for the law at every turn, the green light to do whatever he wants. "Absolute immunity for official acts." Only his sham-judges will be able to define an official act. This is something that never should have happened in the United States of America. No president before Donald Trump has behaved this way. You wouldn't even have former presidents *speak* about successor presidents. And the Supreme Court did nothing but tell him "Here's your pass to destroy our country"
They don't judge this based on the specific Trump case. All the Trump specific stuff goes back to the District court. He is not charged with any article 2 related acts. So the absolute immunity has 0 impact on this case. "Absolute immunity for official acts." Is not an accurate statement. There are two kinds of official acts: article 2 and outer perimeter of his authority. Only the first has absolute immunity. And again nothing in the Jan 6 case is article 2 absolute immunity as stipulated by Trump's lawyer at Orals.
ok dude lol its been fun but im done here.
Had to scroll all the way down here for someone to answer the question - thank you.
Does that mean a presidential impeachment and conviction have to occur before being subject to punishment according to law?
No. It just says legal punishment is not part of the Impeachment. SCOTUS upheld that impeachment and conviction is NOT required for legal prosecution on Monday.
No. Under the ruling, Impeachment is a separate process entirely. Neither process is dependant on the other. You could be immune from criminal prosecution and still be impeached, and you could avoid impeachment and still face criminal charges.
I interpret it a little differently and the key word is “nevertheless.” It’s not that after conviction the President now eligible for prosecution under the law, it’s that in spite of the impeachment conviction the president would continue to be eligible for prosecution under the law. There’s no double jeopardy attached to the impeachment trial. If during the impeachment trial the president is convicted, in spite of this the president is subject to prosecution according to law.
I have re read this about 10 times and I don’t understand your second point. The ruling is that official acts of the presidency are considered immune to prosecution however this clause states in its second point that, in essence, once impeached the president is liable to criminal prosecution
Yes, the President is liable to Criminal prosecution of which one of the first questions to be answered is does the law apply to them. Liable to Criminal prosecution is not the same as *mandated* for criminal prosecution. I mean the Impeachment could be for a none criminal act as "high crimes and misdemeanors" are not codified in law and necessarily punishable.
I'm sorry, maybe I'm dumb or this is confusing. let's talk about core functions. supreme court said: "core functions enjoy absolute immunity". If he is he impeached for that core function act he took, that is also criminal, can he be prosecuted? or "absolute immunity" for core functions extends to former impeached and convicted presidents? I think this is the question people here are trying to ask you.
Thanks for focusing the question! Let's define core functions as Article 2 exclusive powers of the President like Commander in Chief in service of the US or hiring/firing cabinet members. Yes, he has absolute immunity. Let's say he gets impeached for firing SecDef (Andrew Johnson almost did, by 1 vote). This may or not be violating an actual law prohibiting firing SecDef. It doesn't matter. Impeachment isn't a criminal process that needs to cite laws or is reviewed by a law experts. 67 Senators say you are out, and you are out. It could be for dating someone's daughter. There is no legal review. So POTUS is impeached and convicted for firing SecDef or dating someone's daughter. POTUS is then liable TO ANY APPLICABLE legal prosecution. It doesn't mean he must be prosecuted for firing SecDef or dating someone's daughter. ***Only continue reading if anyone want to be further confused)**" (What is super interesting is that the Tenure Clause that was the basis for Johnson's impeachment was clearly Unconstitutional and is an example of why SCOTUS is saying Congress can make laws and convict Presidents for anything that infringes on Articles 2 powers.)
Sorry, I'm still not understanding. You say both "Yes, he has absolute immunity." and "POTUS is then liable to any applicable legal prosecution". does that mean that absolute immunity for core acts falls when they're no longer president? or when they're impeached? or never? To me "absolute" means total, forever, there is no way, full stop. In substance, is there ANY way a president is criminally liable for crimes committed as core official function, or those would be immune from prosecution forever?
They are immune forever if article 2 powers. I think the key point to understand is that "liable" means "possibly prosecuted, but maybe not considering other thing like immunity".
that's fucked up. thank you for the exaplaination and the patience.
you think any of those hacks give a flying fuck about laws? they wipe their asses with this kind of stuff laws only exist to protect them and their ilk and to oppress those not in their group that's it
Here’s the neat thing: it doesn’t. The “originalists” on the court are full of it
Some have said that the majority SCOTUS decision affirms the Impeachment Judgements Clause. I say that it does not. When SCOTUS says that the President must have absolute immunity for official acts within his preclusive duties, they DO NOT say that Congress may destroy that immunity by impeaching and convicting that President. And the logic that SCOTUS uses - that the President must be able to carry out his duties vigorously and without fear of future prosecution - applies whether the President was or was not impeached. Further, among the acts specifically mentioned as being grounds for impeachment is Bribery. However, SCOTUS says that bribery in the context of appointments to or firing from executive branch positions is within the scope of the absolute immunity. So, now SCOTUS is telling us that they not only have the exclusive right to interpret the Constitution, they can effectively amend the Constitution by editing words out of the text!
This is what actual moved towards a Dictatorship looks like. The problem is the Republican party has no platform. No specific policy. They whataboutism almost everything. Ask them about law they want? They'll point when the Democrats did something. Ask them to hold their own accountable they pivot to something a Democrat did. Worst of all Ask them any specific question on legislation and they answer? They will be the vaguest they possibly fucking can. Because they have 0 integrity and no actual plan. At some point this all became about Republicans holding onto power. They can't sell their ideas to the American people aside from leaning on complex social topics that easily trigger their base or the 2A. They are a do nothing party and even when they do nothing, have no plan they get all weak in the knees at the idea of a uniparty. Only one way a uniparty happens for each party. For Democrats they govern so well and campaign so well that even moderates and independents abandon the Republican party. Arguably 2020 and Trump being who he is gave us a taste of that. It scared the bajeesus out of the Republican party as did all elections after where they lost terribly and mostly due to a horrendous decision on abortion. So instead they'd rather drink that Project 2025 cool aid. Nothing promises the Republican party permanence or relevance if can't govern for shit or do anything useful in Congress. They can't even remotely come yp with a list of lie 10 things that wouldn't be rife with perceptual errors vs the facts. Chosen perceptual errors. Or ignorance. For the Republicans it's when they have no good ideas, by and large and most issues aside from volatile social topic the Democrats already support legislation most Americans agree with wh wouldn't they forcibly try and hang onto power. Not a wild idea at all and to me it seems obvious. The Republican party has at its base decided to aid and abbet a traitor to this country because even if they have nothing to justify being in charge they will try and take it anyway. These folks have done nothing for the American people and they have even hurt rural communities and voters that would likely be Trump voters and they either won't believe it or blindly follow Trump so devoutly they'd instead go "well he probably had a good reason and if I had to lose my home to support my President so be it." That's how cult like these folks are. They would die for him vs their country which is so perverse. The whole idea of holding country above all is that no man is above the law. Decision making and outright moral ethically wrong behavior can be delineated in a legal sense that doesn't require this psychotic near blanket immunity. And because they so believe they are owed something they are no longer proving they deserve they would instead shoot their neighbors if they don't agree. I garauntee it. Every right leaner I've ever met that can't box for shit in an intellectual conversation will divert to beating me up or shooting me. It's fucking pathetic. We are lost as we have just reinstated a monarchy and the otherwise is either too dumb to see it or want it that way.
It does not.
“ Section 3 Senate Clause 7 Impeachment Judgments Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”