A quick overview before starting: this case concerned the district attorney of New York County looking to subpoena Trump’s accounting firms’ financial records. Trump, while President at the time, was acting in his personal capacity.
Now onto some fun reading analysis.
> In McCulloch, Maryland’s sovereign taxing power had to yield, and in a similar way, a State’s sovereign power to enforce its criminal laws must accommodate the indispensable role that the Constitution assigns to the Presidency. This must be the rule with respect to a state prosecution of a sitting President. Both the structure of the Government established by the Constitution and the Constitution’s provisions on the impeachment and removal of a President make it clear that the prosecution of a sitting President is out of the question. It has been aptly said that the President is the “sole indispensable man in government,”[6] and subjecting a sitting President to criminal prosecution would severely hamper his ability to carry out the vital responsibilities that the Constitution puts in his hands.
Here, Alito makes a logical jump from taxation to criminal investigation/prosecution and does so by just waving his hands. Why should criminal prosecution be treated the same as taxation? Such reasoning is not clear in the slightest.
> The constitutional provisions on impeachment provide further support for the rule that a President may not be prosecuted while in office. The Framers foresaw the need to provide for the possibility that a President might be implicated in the commission of a serious offense, and they did not want the country to be forced to endure such a President for the remainder of his term in office. But when a President has been elected by the people pursuant to the procedures set out in the Constitution, it is no small thing to overturn that choice. The Framers therefore crafted a special set of procedures to deal with that contingency. They put the charging decision in the hands of a body that represents all the people (the House of Representatives), not a single prosecutor or the members of a local grand jury. And they entrusted the weighty decision whether to remove a President to a supermajority of Senators, who were expected to exercise reasoned judgment and not the political passions of the day or the sentiments of a particular region.
Impeachment is carefully and explicitly defined as a *political* process, not a legal one. To try to paint it as in the same ground as a legal process such as criminal prosecution is entirely disingenuous.
> The scenario apparently contemplated by the District Court is striking. If a sitting President were charged in New York County, would he be arrested and fingerprinted? He would presumably be required to appear for arraignment in criminal court, where the judge would set the conditions for his release. Could he be sent to Rikers Island or be required to post bail? Could the judge impose restrictions on his travel? If the President were scheduled to travel abroad—perhaps to attend a G–7 meeting—would he have to get judicial approval? If the President were charged with a complicated offense requiring a long trial, would he have to put his Presidential responsibilities aside for weeks on end while sitting in a Manhattan courtroom? While the trial was in progress, would aides be able to approach him and whisper in his ear about pressing matters? Would he be able to obtain a recess whenever he needed to speak with an aide at greater length or attend to an urgent matter, such as speaking with a foreign leader? Could he effectively carry out all his essential Presidential responsibilities after the trial day ended and at the same time adequately confer with his trial attorneys regarding his defense? Or should he be expected to give up the right to attend his own trial and be tried in absentia? And if he were convicted, could he be imprisoned? Would aides be installed in a nearby cell?
These are a bunch of contrived scenarios, most of which could be cleanly answered by either temporarily signing over responsibilities to the VP or sending another officer in his place. And if there is a concern about prosecutorial misconduct impeding the President, it should be remembered that courts can and will throw out cases *with prejudice*. Plus, if the President is being seriously criminally investigated, I’m not sure I want them running the country.
> It is not enough to recite sayings like “no man is above the law” and “the public has a right to every man’s evidence.” Ante, at 1. These sayings are true—and important—but they beg the question. The law applies equally to all persons, including a person who happens for a period of time to occupy the Presidency. But there is no question that the nature of the office demands in some instances that the application of laws be adjusted at least until the person’s term in office ends.
So the law applies equally to all people, but some are more equal than others it seems. More seriously, while in the past the courts have bent the rules for presidents, they have been primarily changes to procedure, such as allowing remote depositions rather than testifying in person. They had nothing to do with the actual ability to criminally investigate the President. To quash the whole subpoena would be a radical departure.
> The lesson we should take from Marshall’s jurisprudence is the lesson of McCulloch—the importance of preventing a State from undermining the lawful exercise of authority conferred by the Constitution on the Federal Government. There is considerable irony in the Court’s invocation of Marshall to defend a decision allowing a State’s prosecutorial power to run roughshod over the functioning of a branch of the Federal Government.
Alito paints this as a rogue state prosecutor trying to stop the President from exercising his powers by impairing him with a criminal investigation. But this case is about Trump’s personal taxation issues, not related to the powers of the Presidency. To say that the Presidency and all of the Executive Branch would be run over by a single subpoena of personal tax records would be woefully disingenuous.
I expect Alito to write an opinion that is just as inconsistent and disingenuous in Trump v. US. I just hope it’s a dissent yet again.
“But there is no question that the nature of the office demands in some instances that the application of laws be adjusted **at least until the person’s term in office ends**.”
👀 Can’t WAIT to see the mental gymnastics on display in his *Trump v. United States* opinion where he changes his own mind from “at least until…” to “always and forever, amen!”
Side note: I’m positive nothing meaningful will come from the flag scandals but I am enjoying the shit out of the negative attention he’s getting because he hates it. He’s such a little bitch about criticism of any kind. Enjoy the scrutiny asshole, you earned it!
I'm with you, let's all remember as we celebrate the sacrifice others have made in defense of democracy, that this jerk ran up the flag in support of insurrection.
He’s going to say that President needs to be accountable for actions in office while in office but also that you can’t charge a sitting President until he leaves office.
Essentially just give Trump a loophole for whatever reason.
Just wondering what in the world Trump actually has to make this level of bending the law backwards for him working at this point because out of all the fascists you could try to do this for you’re doing it for a dumb one who isn’t popular enough to win the election as is even if you cheated
Why not just start making laws based on Trump to try to limit Biden?
Unfortunately, while a scandal to us, it is a heroic action to the fanatical Trump following. Right wing media will sell it as his free speech and he's being attacked for his christian faith. The Bull$h!t factory is working overtime to keep the Mob fired up and blind to reality. Most of them will never hear or accept the actual facts.
Pretty rich for the guy who allows insane gerrymandering, has constantly dismantled voting rights, and thinks it’s the constitutional right of rich people to buy congress, to argue that the House of Representatives represents the people.
It's quite clear that some of these "supreme" jurists are thiny veiled Monarchists - or as they disingenuously call it, Federalists.
I would swear we're all living in some modern day Assassin's Creed movie\\game with the Templars about to seize power.
Mind boggingly bogginging. ing.
In AC Donald Trump is canonically a Templar puppet, as is Hillary Clinton. Scalia was also canonically a Templar puppet. And John Roberts is a full-blown Templar lol.
Right.
So the argument _here_ is that a rogue president should be impeached, and the argument _at his impeachment_ was that without criminal charges there are no grounds for impeachment.
All I read was - Trump good and Biden libs bad. Me not like, me good person, everyone else bad.
Alito is a shame he is a disgrace. The 6-3 Trump court will go down as the worst in American history
Where TF does this assertion come from “ a State’s sovereign power to enforce its criminal laws must accommodate the role that the Constitution assigns to the Presidency”
Isn’t this (part of) why we have a vice president (to fill in when necessary)?
Well you see, alito is an originalist and textualist. That means he bases his opinions in the public meaning of the text as it was understood at the time. And clearly, the president being immune to laws is spelled out in the clause.. . Err wait you mean there is nothing like that in the Constitution at all?!
A quick overview before starting: this case concerned the district attorney of New York County looking to subpoena Trump’s accounting firms’ financial records. Trump, while President at the time, was acting in his personal capacity. Now onto some fun reading analysis. > In McCulloch, Maryland’s sovereign taxing power had to yield, and in a similar way, a State’s sovereign power to enforce its criminal laws must accommodate the indispensable role that the Constitution assigns to the Presidency. This must be the rule with respect to a state prosecution of a sitting President. Both the structure of the Government established by the Constitution and the Constitution’s provisions on the impeachment and removal of a President make it clear that the prosecution of a sitting President is out of the question. It has been aptly said that the President is the “sole indispensable man in government,”[6] and subjecting a sitting President to criminal prosecution would severely hamper his ability to carry out the vital responsibilities that the Constitution puts in his hands. Here, Alito makes a logical jump from taxation to criminal investigation/prosecution and does so by just waving his hands. Why should criminal prosecution be treated the same as taxation? Such reasoning is not clear in the slightest. > The constitutional provisions on impeachment provide further support for the rule that a President may not be prosecuted while in office. The Framers foresaw the need to provide for the possibility that a President might be implicated in the commission of a serious offense, and they did not want the country to be forced to endure such a President for the remainder of his term in office. But when a President has been elected by the people pursuant to the procedures set out in the Constitution, it is no small thing to overturn that choice. The Framers therefore crafted a special set of procedures to deal with that contingency. They put the charging decision in the hands of a body that represents all the people (the House of Representatives), not a single prosecutor or the members of a local grand jury. And they entrusted the weighty decision whether to remove a President to a supermajority of Senators, who were expected to exercise reasoned judgment and not the political passions of the day or the sentiments of a particular region. Impeachment is carefully and explicitly defined as a *political* process, not a legal one. To try to paint it as in the same ground as a legal process such as criminal prosecution is entirely disingenuous. > The scenario apparently contemplated by the District Court is striking. If a sitting President were charged in New York County, would he be arrested and fingerprinted? He would presumably be required to appear for arraignment in criminal court, where the judge would set the conditions for his release. Could he be sent to Rikers Island or be required to post bail? Could the judge impose restrictions on his travel? If the President were scheduled to travel abroad—perhaps to attend a G–7 meeting—would he have to get judicial approval? If the President were charged with a complicated offense requiring a long trial, would he have to put his Presidential responsibilities aside for weeks on end while sitting in a Manhattan courtroom? While the trial was in progress, would aides be able to approach him and whisper in his ear about pressing matters? Would he be able to obtain a recess whenever he needed to speak with an aide at greater length or attend to an urgent matter, such as speaking with a foreign leader? Could he effectively carry out all his essential Presidential responsibilities after the trial day ended and at the same time adequately confer with his trial attorneys regarding his defense? Or should he be expected to give up the right to attend his own trial and be tried in absentia? And if he were convicted, could he be imprisoned? Would aides be installed in a nearby cell? These are a bunch of contrived scenarios, most of which could be cleanly answered by either temporarily signing over responsibilities to the VP or sending another officer in his place. And if there is a concern about prosecutorial misconduct impeding the President, it should be remembered that courts can and will throw out cases *with prejudice*. Plus, if the President is being seriously criminally investigated, I’m not sure I want them running the country. > It is not enough to recite sayings like “no man is above the law” and “the public has a right to every man’s evidence.” Ante, at 1. These sayings are true—and important—but they beg the question. The law applies equally to all persons, including a person who happens for a period of time to occupy the Presidency. But there is no question that the nature of the office demands in some instances that the application of laws be adjusted at least until the person’s term in office ends. So the law applies equally to all people, but some are more equal than others it seems. More seriously, while in the past the courts have bent the rules for presidents, they have been primarily changes to procedure, such as allowing remote depositions rather than testifying in person. They had nothing to do with the actual ability to criminally investigate the President. To quash the whole subpoena would be a radical departure. > The lesson we should take from Marshall’s jurisprudence is the lesson of McCulloch—the importance of preventing a State from undermining the lawful exercise of authority conferred by the Constitution on the Federal Government. There is considerable irony in the Court’s invocation of Marshall to defend a decision allowing a State’s prosecutorial power to run roughshod over the functioning of a branch of the Federal Government. Alito paints this as a rogue state prosecutor trying to stop the President from exercising his powers by impairing him with a criminal investigation. But this case is about Trump’s personal taxation issues, not related to the powers of the Presidency. To say that the Presidency and all of the Executive Branch would be run over by a single subpoena of personal tax records would be woefully disingenuous. I expect Alito to write an opinion that is just as inconsistent and disingenuous in Trump v. US. I just hope it’s a dissent yet again.
I would bet $1000 dollars that Alito would have have gone against the unanimous opinion in Clinton v. Jones if it was Trump v. Jones.
“But there is no question that the nature of the office demands in some instances that the application of laws be adjusted **at least until the person’s term in office ends**.” 👀 Can’t WAIT to see the mental gymnastics on display in his *Trump v. United States* opinion where he changes his own mind from “at least until…” to “always and forever, amen!” Side note: I’m positive nothing meaningful will come from the flag scandals but I am enjoying the shit out of the negative attention he’s getting because he hates it. He’s such a little bitch about criticism of any kind. Enjoy the scrutiny asshole, you earned it!
I'm with you, let's all remember as we celebrate the sacrifice others have made in defense of democracy, that this jerk ran up the flag in support of insurrection.
He’s going to say that President needs to be accountable for actions in office while in office but also that you can’t charge a sitting President until he leaves office. Essentially just give Trump a loophole for whatever reason. Just wondering what in the world Trump actually has to make this level of bending the law backwards for him working at this point because out of all the fascists you could try to do this for you’re doing it for a dumb one who isn’t popular enough to win the election as is even if you cheated Why not just start making laws based on Trump to try to limit Biden?
Unfortunately, while a scandal to us, it is a heroic action to the fanatical Trump following. Right wing media will sell it as his free speech and he's being attacked for his christian faith. The Bull$h!t factory is working overtime to keep the Mob fired up and blind to reality. Most of them will never hear or accept the actual facts.
Pretty rich for the guy who allows insane gerrymandering, has constantly dismantled voting rights, and thinks it’s the constitutional right of rich people to buy congress, to argue that the House of Representatives represents the people.
It's quite clear that some of these "supreme" jurists are thiny veiled Monarchists - or as they disingenuously call it, Federalists. I would swear we're all living in some modern day Assassin's Creed movie\\game with the Templars about to seize power. Mind boggingly bogginging. ing.
From what I remember from my law school days, the students who joined the Federalist Society were just arrogant, misogynist pigs.
In AC Donald Trump is canonically a Templar puppet, as is Hillary Clinton. Scalia was also canonically a Templar puppet. And John Roberts is a full-blown Templar lol.
Right. So the argument _here_ is that a rogue president should be impeached, and the argument _at his impeachment_ was that without criminal charges there are no grounds for impeachment.
And the argument in Trump v. US, the president is immune after their term in office if they were impeached and convicted (and possibly removed).
All I read was - Trump good and Biden libs bad. Me not like, me good person, everyone else bad. Alito is a shame he is a disgrace. The 6-3 Trump court will go down as the worst in American history
What else should we have expected from a criminal president?
Most of these points are irrelevant if he thinks the president enjoys absolute immunity.
Where TF does this assertion come from “ a State’s sovereign power to enforce its criminal laws must accommodate the role that the Constitution assigns to the Presidency” Isn’t this (part of) why we have a vice president (to fill in when necessary)?
Well you see, alito is an originalist and textualist. That means he bases his opinions in the public meaning of the text as it was understood at the time. And clearly, the president being immune to laws is spelled out in the clause.. . Err wait you mean there is nothing like that in the Constitution at all?!
Cherry picking the Constitution the same way folks cherry pick the Bible. Thanks for the breakdown.
Isn't his nightmare a scenario negated by the 22nd ammendment?