I get the awful feeling they are going to find a way to make Trump immune to prosecution in some narrow ruling that only applies to him, and not to any other (Biden) president.
That's where my betting pool bet goes.
There are three general possibilities:
1. No immunity for any executive
2. Immunity for Trump only
3. Immunity for all executives
From Biden's perspective, #2 and #3 are effectively the same. Because the ruling is not going to say "immunity for this one president named Donald J. Trump." Possibility #2 is only possible through some twisted argument that will be difficult for other courts to interpret. There will be wiggle room for any other president to claim it applies to them also.
If they try to grant immunity to just Trump, Biden can just commit crimes and then clog the courts with a defense referencing this ruling. By the time it got to the Supreme Court, Biden will dead or too old to put in prison.
If they do grant immunity to Trump, I really hope that Biden weaponizes it for himself. I think it would show strength and help him in the polls.
> Possibility #2 is only possible through some twisted argument that will be difficult for other courts to interpret
I find it HIGHLY unlikely, but there is a very small chance that they decide something like QI, where only acts that have been clearly established to be unconstitutional, or outside the scope of an official act, are unprotected.
I think it is much more likely that trump either gets rejected or the case is remanded.
Is there a list somewhere of acts that have been clearly established to be unconstitutional?
Because otherwise such a ruling would put us back at square one.
It doesn't answer the "president orders a SEAL team to ..." question.
The way it works for QI is essentially that each act has to be litigated individually and be found to be unconstitutional*.
>Because otherwise such a ruling would put us back at square one.
Maybe I should have emphasized the "very small chance" more? I won't say it is impossible that SCOTUS rules this way, but I would say improbable. If I had to give you odds, I'd say <1%.
* Kinda, sorta, it is a bit more involved than that, but it is too much to go into.
>If immunity is for all the Dark Biden should call seal team 6 , no more candidate to oppose and clean up SC
Yet Trump is the real danger theses same people will also tell you
Let people tell you who they are, they always just can't help themselves
That’s the gate that they’d open up. A ruling like that would open Pandora’s box, and if you think Trump, with full immunity, wouldn’t have a gestapo to wipe out all of his political rivals, you’re lying to yourself. He’s already threatening to prosecute all of his political rivals and to fire 50% of government workers to hire loyalists after he literally orchestrated a coup.
This is literally the power he’s arguing for.
The entire point of QI is to say “eh, we believe they were working in a good way and the others were in a bad way” when it comes to police as they are supposed to apply the law but it’s been twisted where if an officer shoots someone then they can walk because it’s the benefit of the doubt versus true justice.
Without it, most officers would probably avoid the lengthy lawsuits and we would see killings decrease & less bad people join which…is why it exists.
Hard to protect capital if you toss aside someone’s get out of consequences free card
If they do that Biden should just order the conservatives on the bench assassinated and fill in the replacements before the election. It'd fall under the protections of any sort of QI argument they'd make since there's neither precedent nor a specific official act saying the president cannot execute SCOTUS judges.
Given:
* Our nation's violent proclivities
* Our nation's well armed populace
* Our nation's descent into fascist depravity
I remain astonished each day that our centers of governance are not enshrouded by pink mist.
Here's to a peaceful transition.
Here's to the subjugation of delusion.
Here's to reason's rule!
I don’t think Republicans would take too kindly to that. That would be the start of retaliation. More realistically, Biden might just start pardoning extremely unpopular people like his son and maybe thousands of others before the inauguration in January
Yeah they can effectively say “there’s no rule that says a dog can’t play basketball therefore Congress needs to pass laws in the future to prevent this” leaving a loophole in place
The better alternative would be that they effectively bet on him legit winning and just say “yeah you can’t argue if it’s stolen again or cause any issues” which by then will free Trump to try to legit win the election…or it just means if he can get away with it and steal it that’s the plan.
Best case scenario is it’s a 9-0 defeat for Trump and they draw up plans where if he loses the election they basically wipe their hands of him and he goes to prison.
The only issue is any immunity for official acts make the idea of a unlawful order null and void since commander and chief would fall under official acts
There's no way the robed bozos held this ruling till FUCKING JULY, just to say he doesn't have immunity. They will insure Agolf Shitler no longer has to deal with the two federal cases. It won't surprise me if the Supreme Farce makes it so he's immune from even the cases in NY.
The most likely outcome is “immunity for official acts (which is how they characterized the question presented), but no immunity for private/personal/non-official acts… court didn’t determine if these acts at issue here were ‘official acts’ where Trump was acting in his official capacity as President or in his personal capacity as citizen Trump, so remanded for more litigation (and time delays).”
This.
If anyone listened the audio of the oral arguments, this was a key focus area of the justices.
Trump’s own lawyer, interestingly, was quite clear that many of the hypothetical actions (very similar acts to what Trump has been accused of) posed by the justices were personal acts and not official acts.
Sounds about right. In the meantime, if Trump wins, he will immediately sic Attorney General Abbott on Biden to charge him with a list of made up crimes. Biden will claim immunity and SCOTUS will knock that down before the ink on the Writ of Cert is dry because now they can say "Of course there's no presidential immunity. Only a dictator would think there was! Of course a Democrat would make this specious argument. We remand to consider additional charges for treason."
Old.reddit.com has a save option at the bottom of each comment which you can get to via your profile (in old.reddit.com).
Direct link: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dr01tz/trumps_immunity_ruling_due_monday_as_us_supreme/laswk2v/
This sounds extremely likely except for
> all of trumps charges are based on official acts and should be dismissed.
They aren't just gonna be able to handwaive that and make that determination (Not in any coherent way that makes sense and isnt disputable or leaves open room for making the opposite determination). They might send it to lower courts to say you have to determine which acts were official and not. which delays it til past the election.
Option 4. They send it back to the lower courts to better define “official acts” so that Trump gets to rerun the whole appeal process. Easy out for SCROTUS. They don’t have to actually decide until after the election and if trump wins it all goes away.
They could send it back to the lower courts to iron out detail by detail, then that will be appeal and take another year to work its way to a decision.
Eh, the most likely result (in my opinion) is conditional immunity. This would give Trump even more delay opportunities.
Basically, they can say something like "acts that are discretionary in nature, but fall on the outer perimeter of the POTUS ministerial responsibilities cannot be prosecuted."
That would avoid a POTUS being allowed to murder a political opponent but would allow Trump to attempt a coop.
The reason this gives additional delays is it would require Donald Trump to appeal the charges brought by Jack Smith as on the outer perimeter, which allows the SCOTUS the ability to control who they give immunity.
Not sure why so many are excited about the possibility of biden commiting crimes. Biden is never going to do that, even if he could. I wouldn't want that either. I wouldn't root for him to commit crimes
At best it de facto protects him from claims that he destroyed the country with immigration policies.
But trump is the only candidate who is going to outright commit crimes in his second reality
I don't want any president to commit crimes. I want laws and institutions that will prevent that.
But we don't have that. At present we have a system where one party gets to commit crimes and the other doesn't commit them out of principle. The party that commits crimes is actively exploiting this imbalance to gain power, enabling a cycle of even more crime.
We are at a tipping point and it is foreseeable that we won't have a functioning democracy in a decade. The party that gets away with crimes will ensure only they have power.
If Biden commits crimes, there might actually be a unified effort to put the systems in place that prevent any president from committing crimes.
Republicans need to be taught that America won't accept a double-standard and selective rule of law. Crime has consequences, and that tolerating criminal politicians can hurt them too.
Spot on comment. The social contract only works when the rule of law is enforced. If one party can run roughshod over our legal system like our laws mean nothing, they will continue to acquire as much power as possible. You cannot try to fight fair in an unfair fight and expect to have a chance. It's a terribly unfortunate corner to be backed into but sometimes it's the only way out. We can't have a part of our population who is above the laws that we as a society have collectively agreed upon.
As much as I don’t think #2 will happen, I just fear that since they have the majority, so they may just say “fuck it” and pass it, no matter how unpopular it is. Because, apparently, what are we going to do about it? They’re not going to get kicked out, they’ve got lifetime appointments, and you know fucking cowards at the GOP won’t push back on it
Unfortunately Biden is too "good"... He respects the office of the presidency too much to willfully commit crimes.
Trump is a piece of Human criminal garbage that has no respect for any American intitution.
My money is on #2 or #3 since we all know (including them) that Biden won't weaponize such a ruling. Democrats are really skittish at weaponizing laws and policies to their advantage (not that they don't do it, they just do it a lot less).
By delaying the decision as long as they could, it already means immunity for Trump only. It doesn't matter what the decision is, if he is elected in November he will just tell DoJ to cancel all the cases.
Those aren't the only possibilities. You didn't even include the most likely possibility. It'll probably be all executives are immune under these circumstances at these times and not under these circumstances at these other times.
If immunity is granted, Trump will be saved personally, but his political career would be done: he won’t win the presidency.
In fact, if not going to jail becomes a reality for him, he will probably end his campaign.
Oh, I mean, I suppose there is "a way", in some technical sense. But practically speaking, barring any major dramatic changes between now and the election, that way isn't happening. And by major dramatic changes, I mean something on the order of Anderson Cooper going on CNN and announcing that the Russian pee tapes with Donald are real and they have a blurred copy they'll be airing. And even that I give 50/50 of making a difference.
We all already knew he's old. We also know the record of his administration, we know how his opponent performed, we know memories are short, we know the ship has already sailed and we know most people's minds are made up. It will be a nail biter either way. Buckle up.
The only nail biter is going to be around how much of a clusterf Trump's next term is going to be. Barring something physically preventing Trump from assuming office in January, all available data points to him being the likeliest winner of the election. I think this is absolutely unbelievably freaking absurd, but my head isn't in the sand either. People need to give their head a shake if they think this is going to be anywhere close to a repeat of 2020.
Hello fellow Canadian. Sorry about your down votes, seems some people don't like being told the obvious.
Aside from polls, the biggest indicator that Trump is going to win is the prediction markets. As of right now, Polymarket has Trump at 63% to win and Biden at 22%, and PredictIt has Trump at 59% and Biden at 38%. (To contrast this to 2020, that year prediction markets correctly predicted a Biden win with similar numbers to what Trump has now.)
The real takeaway here is that Dems need to replace Biden. That **might** be a losing strategy, but keeping him on is a **guaranteed** losing strategy.
This is law not politics so I won’t mind if this whole stupid thread gets nuked.
The president can’t be replaced at this stage. People can bitch all they want it’s too damn late logistically. And anyone who’s planned a large event understands that. Nevertheless a natl effing election for petesake.
Bidens administration is doing everything I asked without the house and a senate hanging by a thread. And fighting a bought out SCOTUS. It’s insane me to want to replace the only person that has beat Trump. Because of a debate. Idek why they did that debate. Trump has always been a good adderalled up carnival barker. It’s his schtick.
Joe Biden is a Democrat and therefore does not know how to govern proactively, only limply say "nuh uh" when Republicans accuse him of, like, eating a baby or whatever.
If they do rule that a sitting president has full immunity, maybe the “assassinate a clearly corrupt opponent” option supported by trump’s lawyer should be considered.
Biden doesn’t even know what room he’s in, he’s not going to weaponize anything.
Also why shouldn’t the Supreme Court say that only DJT is completely immune and it doesn’t apply to anyone else? There would be literally 0 consequences for them doing so. What are you going to do about it?
I will take that bet. I’m feeling good with my current betting position. (2/3 bets are over and I’ve been right on both.) I think what people have been speculating is correct: it’s going back to the lower courts and will have them decide what is official acts vs not and then those decisions will be appealed back to the SC. I think they will hold steadfast on ruling that only “official acts” give qualified immunity.
So, part of Trump’s argument to the federal circuit’s appeal court was that all of his conduct on J6 was part of his official duties and thus he was immune. It was appealed to Supreme Court, which is the decision we are waiting on. This is why I think they will come back and say he is only immune for things that are official acts and Chutkan has to rule on whether or not those were official acts or not. The appeal to the Supreme Court was basically worded such that defense states he had absolute immunity for all acts on J6, on the basis of the civil Fitzgerald case. So, I think it’s likely the Supreme Court tells Trump that no, Presidents aren’t entirely immune from criminal prosecution, if the acts that they did were outside of the official duties of a president and done for personal gain.
I’m not sure if I’m doing an adequate job of clarifying but basically Chutkan ruled presidents are not immune to prosecution just because they’re president at the time of the acts. The DC federal appeal circuit upheld that. But at no time did they go through each of the alleged charges and evidence and rule that “This is outside the perimeter of presidential duty and powers because x, y, and/or z.” Once that ruling is made, Trump can then appeal that again. Does that make sense?
So, while I agree with this sentiment being the most likely outcome, I do have one source of skepticism. Doing that a week after the arguments would have still been a death sentence to the chances of starting the trial before the election. If this was the course they were taking, there was zero reason to sit on this ruling until the last day. I still hold out a microscopic slice of hope that Roberts and ACB are leaning as the 4 and 5 on, at worst, partial immunity. Would also give the court an opportunity to continue pretending they aren't outrageously biased given how bad the Chevron decision is being received.
That said, the betting odds are definitely with you.
That is a possibility as well. I’m just not sure how much they care about optics anymore. There wasn’t really much of a downside to them delaying the decision for as long as possible just to ensure they give enough time before the election because Chutkan is absolutely ready to go. Monday will be interesting, for sure.
You're right, for sure. I just think even if Chutkin was ready to flip this around the next session starts in, what, August/September? Where they'd schedule another hearing for arguments and then could sit on it for another few months again? Doesn't really make much sense for them to sit on it like they have if that's the route they were going to take, but I'm not going to argue they've done a lot that makes sense lol
Like I said though this is just a microscopic sliver of hopium still surviving in my veins.
> If this was the course they were taking, there was zero reason to sit on this ruling until the last day.
Robert's wants this as close to unanimous as possible, its a landmark case. Deciding it 5-4 is ugly. Both sides probably agree on the framework outcome, but they disagree on whether to decide, and whether the acts qualify, as official acts. I wouldn't be surprised if there's dissenting opinions from both liberal and conservative justices arguing that this shouldn't go back to the lower courts, and that these acts were/weren't official. I would be absolutely shocked if at least Alito didn't write a dissent.
I'm feeling bullish, I think the did their dirty work today and want the weekend and the Monday release to bury any stories about all the cases today which we're very terrible.
They want to hide the Chevron stuff from the general public. If Monday says what most of us expect aka some immunity but fact finding needed and he definitely isn't fully immune. That will mean that the cases today only get remember by the type of people in the sub
Chevron is such a cluster fuck for all kinds of reasons that I’m still mulling over. Monday’s ruling on the states’ rights to interfere with social media will be interesting.
People in this sub do not like my stance on Chevron. I'm not actually a fan. I'm not a fan of what this court is doing either but I feel chevron is a highly imperfect solve due to the failure of the federal courts to adapt to the needs of society and serve their role.
I’m still formulating my ideas about it and deciding what I think. Part of what made sense to me about the Chevron ruling is that it allowed experts to fill in the gaps for where laws fall short. As we saw during Covid, and even in less time critical cases, science, knowledge, and best practices can evolve. Sometimes that comes quicker than the law can catch up. What is worrisome to me is that, especially in the case of Congress and state legislatures, we’ve seen time and time again that lawmakers write laws without fully understanding the science and implications of what the implemented law will do. Examples of this are clear with abortion and what life-endangerment means and how that is interpreted by physicians. But there are also stories about lawmakers who don’t understand things like intricacies of telecoms and AI. I’m of mixed mind on this whole thing. It is best if we can have very clear cut laws on as much as possible so that the regulations cannot be just cut or go too far every four years. Again, this is why I think it is a clusterfuck, especially in the short term and with the current political landscape.
Edit to add: someone brought up something I hadn’t thought of and concerns with the FDA. They approve the drugs that are allowed on the market, and decide whether pharmaceuticals are legal and regulations surrounding their manufacture and distribution, as well as importing. I’m still unsure and researching what the implications this decision might have on their authority. This is potentially opening a huge litigious can of worms, I think. Under chevron, the courts were allowed to defer to those regulations for guidelines. I think the most worrisome part is the research guidelines the FDA held for new pharmaceuticals, which imposed restrictions that the treatment effect had to be meaningful. It is going to take time for the law to catch up with imposing these regulations as law, and with the lobbying industry as it is, it may never happen.
I can understand this argument, but I think they overplayed their hand with Chevron. Everyone I know is talking about it - even people who have historically not involved themselves with what is going on in the courts/politics (this is all anecdotal, of course). I don’t think it’s going to be buried.
If they come out to say that only trump is immune and no other executives, that would probably be the final straw for a lot of people. Interpret that as you will.
Alito’s questioning in the oral arguments hints at this.
Basically “the presidency is a hard job but not completely immune. “
So decisions made around “official acts pertaining to the job” or some nonsense are immune but if the president hits a kid with his car it’s not job related.
Naturally the scope of officials acts will be highly subjective with no clear guidance. 5th circuit court will run wild.
and they can get away with it because the checks and balances are gone and the scotus is corrupt and there appears to be nothing we can do about the fox in the henhouse but watch all the chickens die and go 'oh well'
At this point , some of the stupid chickens are swayed by a debate between the old henkeeper and a wolf with chicken feathers in its mouth.
Idek if I could mount even an oh well lol
My concern is with how late they've made it trump won't go to trial before November anyway on the case. So they won't infact give the president immunity. They'll have sat on it for ages to achieve that end.
That said I wouldn't put it past the con hacks on the court to issue some sort of "well for the sake of political neutrality we embargo all movement on this case till November but presidents don't have immunity" nonsense
They don’t need to grant immunity at this point. They’ve succeeded in their goal of delaying the trial to the point that it can’t happen before the election. After the election, it doesn’t matter. If he loses, he can go to jail, none of them care because he’s done politically. If he wins, he can fire Jack Smith and order the DOJ to drop the case.
He can say that but it would never hold up. Biden has been calling on Congress to act on the border situation since he took office. He tried getting what would have been the largest bill for the border passed in over a decade however it included funding for Israel and Ukraine. Republicans didn’t like that it included more funding for Ukraine (because they’re all Russian puppets) so it didn’t go through. Biden has made multiple emergency requests for the border during his presidency and has closed the border.
The border situation has obviously gotten worse during his term but for anyone to say he hasn’t acted on it is nonsense if anything republicans are more at fault than Biden as they have refused to act this entire time solely to have it as an issue to hold against Biden.
So even if they wanted to prosecute Biden it would never hold as all of this is well documented.
That would be goofy because that’s certainly something the president is in fact immune from criminal prosecution for. Like obviously. Any concept of immunity at all would, at a bare minimum, include policy.
Yeah, based on how they’ve been cherry picking their interpretations to achieve the outcome they want. Especially as we know how in the bag for Trump Alito and Thomas are.
100%. I think it’s an issue to talk about while we wait for a ruling, but there’s no way that they’re going to issue a broadly applicable ruling that Presidents are absolutely immune for any act. That would result in the end of their own authority because a president, any president, could oust them. If nothing else, self preservation prevents them from issuing a ruling granting absolute immunity.
I think the realistic options are outright denial with a clear standard to be applied in the future or a narrowly applicable ruling that Trumps actions and only Trumps actions are of the type that are immune. If they want to waste more time, they issue their ruling with a remand to DC circuit for further findings consistent with their holding.
It might go even worse than you are imagining.
They could rule 6 to 3 that Presidents are immune from the law before, during, and after the Presidency.
The Republicans int the Supreme Court could be willing to grant Biden this power knowing that he's not going to abuse it. He's running for reelection and not going to make a big move that would get him negative press. He's not ruthless enough to use that power.
The Supreme Court could be gambling that Trump will be re-elected. They'd be giving Trump unlimited power knowing that he will use it to firmly cement his hold on power and further destabilize our country.
> Could they rule that presidents are immune up to the date of their ruling? That would effectively apply only to Trump.
With this court, they could rule that "presidents with names starting with T are immune." They don't care about law, judicial philosophy, or precedent.
Given that 3 alt-right judges cut-off answers that concerned the actual question before the court, concerning Trump's specific crimes, it's apparent they want to create a general rule that applies to all presidents.
Of course they will. They want to get democracy out of America, so they'll give him free reign to do whatever he has to to make that happen if he gets elected again.
If someone had asked me a few years ago how I think this would turn out, I'd say no way in hell he would get immunity. But given the corrupt and ideologically driven nature of SCOTUS, honestly I have zero faith.
Hope they do give Presidents immunity. That way Biden can just flip the bird at Republicans on many, many, many subjects. What are they gonna do, arrest him? Hell, he could move to dissolve the Supreme Court if he had any balls.
They know that they would just simply put it as needing to be qualified and shoot it back down to the courts to ask “ok what does qualified mean?” To stall.
They’d be better off going 9-0 as the court did for Clinton but it does feel like they are willing to risk their integrity to win power.
Which is dumb—a 9-0 decision would keep people believing in them being a bit unbiased and they could keep doing corrupt things…also wouldn’t shock me if there’s either leverage or legit threats if they don’t let Trump off
I agree, but also think it’s wishful thinking based on previous decisions. The majority is contorting law to fit politics.
There is a reason this was slow walked to the very end. A case that should have never been heard in the first place. I think we will all be disappointed in its ruling.
He won't do anything though because his brain exists in another time where there is dignity and ethics in holding public office. Biden will not flip the switch.
Having zero faith indicates an embrace of reason.
Faith requires the willing suspension of critical thinking.
Faith requires the embrace of supposition lacking factual evidence.
Reason requires the ongoing embrace of critical thinking.
Trouble is six members of SCOTUS have rejected critical thinking instead tightly grasping their *closely held beliefs* under their robes as they spew their diahriffic depravity.
I'm beyond disgusted.
I wasn’t sure what tag to use on this, but I noticed that there are still some outstanding cases not ruled on. Since this article is not purely about the immunity decision, I picked SCOTUS. However, everyone was speculating they would rule on Trump’s immunity today, so I wanted to post this.
Some of the other outstanding decisions aside from immunity are on the legality of “swipe fees” and a case regarding the power of the states’ governments when it comes to social media. Roberts says they will rule on all outstanding decisions on Monday, so I guess they aren’t waiting till fall or later with these, thankfully.
Yeah they normally wrap up by the end of June but recently they’ve been bleeding into July. It’s strange since they aren’t taking on an heavier case load or anything, they’re just struggling to get opinions out.
That doesn’t surprise me for various reasons. It is clear that some justices are getting a lot more outside influence, looking for legal loopholes and justifications for going against previous decisions, as well as what I assume is some pretty heavy arguing over certain cases.
Kinda dumb because it can’t be money unless someone is really funding them to get Trump off.
I feel like their wives are both just convinced of the conspiracy theories and pushing their husbands lol
This court has shown it has zero restraint from producing partisan outcomes. I guarantee this case will find immunity for Trump under some theory designed to never apply again to anyone else except maybe the next Republican.
I have a feeling that it will be that “courts can’t influence the public on an election” which would pause the process for Trump. Otherwise I think it will be too difficult for them to make it narrow for Trump but not Biden. Knowing how corrupt their rulings have been, I could be very wrong.
> “courts can’t influence the public on an election”
BTW I'm announcing my run for president on Monday! :) The venue is the bank I'll be robbing at the same time.
They're going to send it back down to the lower court for further review.
This is a delay tactic, they know it they know we know it, and they don't give a fuck that we know it.
They don't care. What are we going to do about it?
That makes the most sense. They are not going to give Biden immunity, and it would help rally Democrats. They are likely to wait for Trump to become president to crown him king. They are seeking to run out the clock though.
Yes, Trump’s attorney Sauer clearly admitted to Justice Barrett that 3 of the allegations involved private acts so I would think Judge Chutkan could schedule a trial for those or at least hold a public hearing as she delves into whatever SCOTUS remands back to her? Also, there’s the ruling on the Fisher obstruction case and how that will affect Jan. 6 obstruction charges. Will be interested to see how Cannon maneuvers the rulings from Fisher and immunity cases to try and throw out docs case. Because as Trump’s minion, she wants so badly to do so.
I think they are waiting until Monday because it's the last day and they know it's going to upset people.
Our supreme Court is corrupt and no longer legitimate.
Because it's the last day of their session and people won't have the weekend to think and plan flights out there if needed.
By time people get organized they will be at home
Considering how important the concept of presidential immunity is they have been putting this off far to long. It should have been taken up last year when it was offered up to them. After all the question of immunity for the president would also have implications for the sitting president at that time. Which would mean without that clarification the president would be having to make decisions without knowing what consequences could be turned on him.
Pretty sure there's a phrase about ignorance of the law being no excuse for breaking it. Meaning you can be punished for something even if didn't know it was a crime. Considering the stakes involved in the highest elected position in the government I would think they should be knowledgeable about what their boundaries are. Especially considering we had Trump trying to push them to the limits throughout his term.
I get the awful feeling they are going to find a way to make Trump immune to prosecution in some narrow ruling that only applies to him, and not to any other (Biden) president. That's where my betting pool bet goes.
There are three general possibilities: 1. No immunity for any executive 2. Immunity for Trump only 3. Immunity for all executives From Biden's perspective, #2 and #3 are effectively the same. Because the ruling is not going to say "immunity for this one president named Donald J. Trump." Possibility #2 is only possible through some twisted argument that will be difficult for other courts to interpret. There will be wiggle room for any other president to claim it applies to them also. If they try to grant immunity to just Trump, Biden can just commit crimes and then clog the courts with a defense referencing this ruling. By the time it got to the Supreme Court, Biden will dead or too old to put in prison. If they do grant immunity to Trump, I really hope that Biden weaponizes it for himself. I think it would show strength and help him in the polls.
> Possibility #2 is only possible through some twisted argument that will be difficult for other courts to interpret I find it HIGHLY unlikely, but there is a very small chance that they decide something like QI, where only acts that have been clearly established to be unconstitutional, or outside the scope of an official act, are unprotected. I think it is much more likely that trump either gets rejected or the case is remanded.
Is there a list somewhere of acts that have been clearly established to be unconstitutional? Because otherwise such a ruling would put us back at square one. It doesn't answer the "president orders a SEAL team to ..." question.
The way it works for QI is essentially that each act has to be litigated individually and be found to be unconstitutional*. >Because otherwise such a ruling would put us back at square one. Maybe I should have emphasized the "very small chance" more? I won't say it is impossible that SCOTUS rules this way, but I would say improbable. If I had to give you odds, I'd say <1%. * Kinda, sorta, it is a bit more involved than that, but it is too much to go into.
If immunity is for all the Dark Biden should call seal team 6 , no more candidate to oppose and clean up SC
Should also send Roger Stone a drone strike if immune to prosecution.
>If immunity is for all the Dark Biden should call seal team 6 , no more candidate to oppose and clean up SC Yet Trump is the real danger theses same people will also tell you Let people tell you who they are, they always just can't help themselves
That’s the gate that they’d open up. A ruling like that would open Pandora’s box, and if you think Trump, with full immunity, wouldn’t have a gestapo to wipe out all of his political rivals, you’re lying to yourself. He’s already threatening to prosecute all of his political rivals and to fire 50% of government workers to hire loyalists after he literally orchestrated a coup. This is literally the power he’s arguing for.
>Yet Trump is the real danger theses same people will also tell you Because he's actively arguing for that?
This wouldn’t surprise me. QI is a bullshit idea they already use to just arbitrarily toss cases they don’t like so it’s perfect to apply here.
The entire point of QI is to say “eh, we believe they were working in a good way and the others were in a bad way” when it comes to police as they are supposed to apply the law but it’s been twisted where if an officer shoots someone then they can walk because it’s the benefit of the doubt versus true justice. Without it, most officers would probably avoid the lengthy lawsuits and we would see killings decrease & less bad people join which…is why it exists. Hard to protect capital if you toss aside someone’s get out of consequences free card
If they do that Biden should just order the conservatives on the bench assassinated and fill in the replacements before the election. It'd fall under the protections of any sort of QI argument they'd make since there's neither precedent nor a specific official act saying the president cannot execute SCOTUS judges.
Given: * Our nation's violent proclivities * Our nation's well armed populace * Our nation's descent into fascist depravity I remain astonished each day that our centers of governance are not enshrouded by pink mist. Here's to a peaceful transition. Here's to the subjugation of delusion. Here's to reason's rule!
I don’t think Republicans would take too kindly to that. That would be the start of retaliation. More realistically, Biden might just start pardoning extremely unpopular people like his son and maybe thousands of others before the inauguration in January
Yeah they can effectively say “there’s no rule that says a dog can’t play basketball therefore Congress needs to pass laws in the future to prevent this” leaving a loophole in place The better alternative would be that they effectively bet on him legit winning and just say “yeah you can’t argue if it’s stolen again or cause any issues” which by then will free Trump to try to legit win the election…or it just means if he can get away with it and steal it that’s the plan. Best case scenario is it’s a 9-0 defeat for Trump and they draw up plans where if he loses the election they basically wipe their hands of him and he goes to prison.
The only issue is any immunity for official acts make the idea of a unlawful order null and void since commander and chief would fall under official acts
There's no way the robed bozos held this ruling till FUCKING JULY, just to say he doesn't have immunity. They will insure Agolf Shitler no longer has to deal with the two federal cases. It won't surprise me if the Supreme Farce makes it so he's immune from even the cases in NY.
The most likely outcome is “immunity for official acts (which is how they characterized the question presented), but no immunity for private/personal/non-official acts… court didn’t determine if these acts at issue here were ‘official acts’ where Trump was acting in his official capacity as President or in his personal capacity as citizen Trump, so remanded for more litigation (and time delays).”
This. If anyone listened the audio of the oral arguments, this was a key focus area of the justices. Trump’s own lawyer, interestingly, was quite clear that many of the hypothetical actions (very similar acts to what Trump has been accused of) posed by the justices were personal acts and not official acts.
yes, this will be remanded for the court to determine if what Trump did was an official act
[удалено]
Sounds about right. In the meantime, if Trump wins, he will immediately sic Attorney General Abbott on Biden to charge him with a list of made up crimes. Biden will claim immunity and SCOTUS will knock that down before the ink on the Writ of Cert is dry because now they can say "Of course there's no presidential immunity. Only a dictator would think there was! Of course a Democrat would make this specious argument. We remand to consider additional charges for treason."
I wish I knew how to save comments to revisit later. I have the feeling I’m going to try to remember where I saw the future next week lol
Screen shot
Old.reddit.com has a save option at the bottom of each comment which you can get to via your profile (in old.reddit.com). Direct link: https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1dr01tz/trumps_immunity_ruling_due_monday_as_us_supreme/laswk2v/
This sounds extremely likely except for > all of trumps charges are based on official acts and should be dismissed. They aren't just gonna be able to handwaive that and make that determination (Not in any coherent way that makes sense and isnt disputable or leaves open room for making the opposite determination). They might send it to lower courts to say you have to determine which acts were official and not. which delays it til past the election.
I’m predicting that will be the Alito concurrence, joined by at least Thomas. And I have faith in Sammy’s ability to hand wave.
>or president for life. This made me laugh because it's both absolutely absurd and very likely if he wins
Option 4. They send it back to the lower courts to better define “official acts” so that Trump gets to rerun the whole appeal process. Easy out for SCROTUS. They don’t have to actually decide until after the election and if trump wins it all goes away.
Yep or they ask for a reargument next SC term.
They could send it back to the lower courts to iron out detail by detail, then that will be appeal and take another year to work its way to a decision.
Eh, the most likely result (in my opinion) is conditional immunity. This would give Trump even more delay opportunities. Basically, they can say something like "acts that are discretionary in nature, but fall on the outer perimeter of the POTUS ministerial responsibilities cannot be prosecuted." That would avoid a POTUS being allowed to murder a political opponent but would allow Trump to attempt a coop. The reason this gives additional delays is it would require Donald Trump to appeal the charges brought by Jack Smith as on the outer perimeter, which allows the SCOTUS the ability to control who they give immunity.
*coup
Not sure why so many are excited about the possibility of biden commiting crimes. Biden is never going to do that, even if he could. I wouldn't want that either. I wouldn't root for him to commit crimes At best it de facto protects him from claims that he destroyed the country with immigration policies. But trump is the only candidate who is going to outright commit crimes in his second reality
I don't want any president to commit crimes. I want laws and institutions that will prevent that. But we don't have that. At present we have a system where one party gets to commit crimes and the other doesn't commit them out of principle. The party that commits crimes is actively exploiting this imbalance to gain power, enabling a cycle of even more crime. We are at a tipping point and it is foreseeable that we won't have a functioning democracy in a decade. The party that gets away with crimes will ensure only they have power. If Biden commits crimes, there might actually be a unified effort to put the systems in place that prevent any president from committing crimes. Republicans need to be taught that America won't accept a double-standard and selective rule of law. Crime has consequences, and that tolerating criminal politicians can hurt them too.
Spot on comment. The social contract only works when the rule of law is enforced. If one party can run roughshod over our legal system like our laws mean nothing, they will continue to acquire as much power as possible. You cannot try to fight fair in an unfair fight and expect to have a chance. It's a terribly unfortunate corner to be backed into but sometimes it's the only way out. We can't have a part of our population who is above the laws that we as a society have collectively agreed upon.
If they grant immunity to all executives, Biden could extinguish chump and we wouldnt need an election
As much as I don’t think #2 will happen, I just fear that since they have the majority, so they may just say “fuck it” and pass it, no matter how unpopular it is. Because, apparently, what are we going to do about it? They’re not going to get kicked out, they’ve got lifetime appointments, and you know fucking cowards at the GOP won’t push back on it
Unfortunately Biden is too "good"... He respects the office of the presidency too much to willfully commit crimes. Trump is a piece of Human criminal garbage that has no respect for any American intitution.
My money is on #2 or #3 since we all know (including them) that Biden won't weaponize such a ruling. Democrats are really skittish at weaponizing laws and policies to their advantage (not that they don't do it, they just do it a lot less).
By delaying the decision as long as they could, it already means immunity for Trump only. It doesn't matter what the decision is, if he is elected in November he will just tell DoJ to cancel all the cases.
Could he just “unlawfully detain” trump in gitmo?
So that means Biden can take out Trump to save democracy 😄
Those aren't the only possibilities. You didn't even include the most likely possibility. It'll probably be all executives are immune under these circumstances at these times and not under these circumstances at these other times.
If immunity is granted, Trump will be saved personally, but his political career would be done: he won’t win the presidency. In fact, if not going to jail becomes a reality for him, he will probably end his campaign.
Did u see last night's debate? As a Canadian scared out of my mind of another Trump term, I don't see any way Biden wins.
That’s why you’re a Canadian.
Because he hates Trump but is willing to very politely state there's no way for Biden to win? It's true, Canadians are both polite and honest.
“No way for Biden to win” lol
Oh, I mean, I suppose there is "a way", in some technical sense. But practically speaking, barring any major dramatic changes between now and the election, that way isn't happening. And by major dramatic changes, I mean something on the order of Anderson Cooper going on CNN and announcing that the Russian pee tapes with Donald are real and they have a blurred copy they'll be airing. And even that I give 50/50 of making a difference.
As an American, thank for the input and shut the fuck up.
Translation *Lalalalalala I can't hear you, Biden has a great shot of winning, Lalalalalala.*
ESL
Many Americans seem to struggle with English as a first language.
A lot of people are in denial about things.
We all already knew he's old. We also know the record of his administration, we know how his opponent performed, we know memories are short, we know the ship has already sailed and we know most people's minds are made up. It will be a nail biter either way. Buckle up.
The only nail biter is going to be around how much of a clusterf Trump's next term is going to be. Barring something physically preventing Trump from assuming office in January, all available data points to him being the likeliest winner of the election. I think this is absolutely unbelievably freaking absurd, but my head isn't in the sand either. People need to give their head a shake if they think this is going to be anywhere close to a repeat of 2020.
No the ship has not sailed at all. But I guess libs are just going to bury their heads in the sand and bury this country with it. 🤦♂️
Hello fellow Canadian. Sorry about your down votes, seems some people don't like being told the obvious. Aside from polls, the biggest indicator that Trump is going to win is the prediction markets. As of right now, Polymarket has Trump at 63% to win and Biden at 22%, and PredictIt has Trump at 59% and Biden at 38%. (To contrast this to 2020, that year prediction markets correctly predicted a Biden win with similar numbers to what Trump has now.) The real takeaway here is that Dems need to replace Biden. That **might** be a losing strategy, but keeping him on is a **guaranteed** losing strategy.
This is law not politics so I won’t mind if this whole stupid thread gets nuked. The president can’t be replaced at this stage. People can bitch all they want it’s too damn late logistically. And anyone who’s planned a large event understands that. Nevertheless a natl effing election for petesake. Bidens administration is doing everything I asked without the house and a senate hanging by a thread. And fighting a bought out SCOTUS. It’s insane me to want to replace the only person that has beat Trump. Because of a debate. Idek why they did that debate. Trump has always been a good adderalled up carnival barker. It’s his schtick.
Joe Biden is a Democrat and therefore does not know how to govern proactively, only limply say "nuh uh" when Republicans accuse him of, like, eating a baby or whatever.
Can’t wait to see abide n shooting folks in 5th Avenue and getting away with it!
If they do rule that a sitting president has full immunity, maybe the “assassinate a clearly corrupt opponent” option supported by trump’s lawyer should be considered.
Bid3n Crime #1- Pull Secret Service from Trump Bid3n Crime #2- $100,000,000 reward for Trump's fat head on a pike in front of Mearde Largo
Biden doesn’t even know what room he’s in, he’s not going to weaponize anything. Also why shouldn’t the Supreme Court say that only DJT is completely immune and it doesn’t apply to anyone else? There would be literally 0 consequences for them doing so. What are you going to do about it?
This is clearly incorrect.
I will take that bet. I’m feeling good with my current betting position. (2/3 bets are over and I’ve been right on both.) I think what people have been speculating is correct: it’s going back to the lower courts and will have them decide what is official acts vs not and then those decisions will be appealed back to the SC. I think they will hold steadfast on ruling that only “official acts” give qualified immunity.
That makes sense. They don't have to be the bad guys and they give Trump what he wants - a delay.
Didn't they already ruled that he didn't have immunity? That's why it was appealed up to the Supreme Court
So, part of Trump’s argument to the federal circuit’s appeal court was that all of his conduct on J6 was part of his official duties and thus he was immune. It was appealed to Supreme Court, which is the decision we are waiting on. This is why I think they will come back and say he is only immune for things that are official acts and Chutkan has to rule on whether or not those were official acts or not. The appeal to the Supreme Court was basically worded such that defense states he had absolute immunity for all acts on J6, on the basis of the civil Fitzgerald case. So, I think it’s likely the Supreme Court tells Trump that no, Presidents aren’t entirely immune from criminal prosecution, if the acts that they did were outside of the official duties of a president and done for personal gain. I’m not sure if I’m doing an adequate job of clarifying but basically Chutkan ruled presidents are not immune to prosecution just because they’re president at the time of the acts. The DC federal appeal circuit upheld that. But at no time did they go through each of the alleged charges and evidence and rule that “This is outside the perimeter of presidential duty and powers because x, y, and/or z.” Once that ruling is made, Trump can then appeal that again. Does that make sense?
Yup. Thanks
So, while I agree with this sentiment being the most likely outcome, I do have one source of skepticism. Doing that a week after the arguments would have still been a death sentence to the chances of starting the trial before the election. If this was the course they were taking, there was zero reason to sit on this ruling until the last day. I still hold out a microscopic slice of hope that Roberts and ACB are leaning as the 4 and 5 on, at worst, partial immunity. Would also give the court an opportunity to continue pretending they aren't outrageously biased given how bad the Chevron decision is being received. That said, the betting odds are definitely with you.
That is a possibility as well. I’m just not sure how much they care about optics anymore. There wasn’t really much of a downside to them delaying the decision for as long as possible just to ensure they give enough time before the election because Chutkan is absolutely ready to go. Monday will be interesting, for sure.
You're right, for sure. I just think even if Chutkin was ready to flip this around the next session starts in, what, August/September? Where they'd schedule another hearing for arguments and then could sit on it for another few months again? Doesn't really make much sense for them to sit on it like they have if that's the route they were going to take, but I'm not going to argue they've done a lot that makes sense lol Like I said though this is just a microscopic sliver of hopium still surviving in my veins.
> If this was the course they were taking, there was zero reason to sit on this ruling until the last day. Robert's wants this as close to unanimous as possible, its a landmark case. Deciding it 5-4 is ugly. Both sides probably agree on the framework outcome, but they disagree on whether to decide, and whether the acts qualify, as official acts. I wouldn't be surprised if there's dissenting opinions from both liberal and conservative justices arguing that this shouldn't go back to the lower courts, and that these acts were/weren't official. I would be absolutely shocked if at least Alito didn't write a dissent.
I'm feeling bullish, I think the did their dirty work today and want the weekend and the Monday release to bury any stories about all the cases today which we're very terrible. They want to hide the Chevron stuff from the general public. If Monday says what most of us expect aka some immunity but fact finding needed and he definitely isn't fully immune. That will mean that the cases today only get remember by the type of people in the sub
Chevron is such a cluster fuck for all kinds of reasons that I’m still mulling over. Monday’s ruling on the states’ rights to interfere with social media will be interesting.
People in this sub do not like my stance on Chevron. I'm not actually a fan. I'm not a fan of what this court is doing either but I feel chevron is a highly imperfect solve due to the failure of the federal courts to adapt to the needs of society and serve their role.
I’m still formulating my ideas about it and deciding what I think. Part of what made sense to me about the Chevron ruling is that it allowed experts to fill in the gaps for where laws fall short. As we saw during Covid, and even in less time critical cases, science, knowledge, and best practices can evolve. Sometimes that comes quicker than the law can catch up. What is worrisome to me is that, especially in the case of Congress and state legislatures, we’ve seen time and time again that lawmakers write laws without fully understanding the science and implications of what the implemented law will do. Examples of this are clear with abortion and what life-endangerment means and how that is interpreted by physicians. But there are also stories about lawmakers who don’t understand things like intricacies of telecoms and AI. I’m of mixed mind on this whole thing. It is best if we can have very clear cut laws on as much as possible so that the regulations cannot be just cut or go too far every four years. Again, this is why I think it is a clusterfuck, especially in the short term and with the current political landscape. Edit to add: someone brought up something I hadn’t thought of and concerns with the FDA. They approve the drugs that are allowed on the market, and decide whether pharmaceuticals are legal and regulations surrounding their manufacture and distribution, as well as importing. I’m still unsure and researching what the implications this decision might have on their authority. This is potentially opening a huge litigious can of worms, I think. Under chevron, the courts were allowed to defer to those regulations for guidelines. I think the most worrisome part is the research guidelines the FDA held for new pharmaceuticals, which imposed restrictions that the treatment effect had to be meaningful. It is going to take time for the law to catch up with imposing these regulations as law, and with the lobbying industry as it is, it may never happen.
I can understand this argument, but I think they overplayed their hand with Chevron. Everyone I know is talking about it - even people who have historically not involved themselves with what is going on in the courts/politics (this is all anecdotal, of course). I don’t think it’s going to be buried. If they come out to say that only trump is immune and no other executives, that would probably be the final straw for a lot of people. Interpret that as you will.
Alito’s questioning in the oral arguments hints at this. Basically “the presidency is a hard job but not completely immune. “ So decisions made around “official acts pertaining to the job” or some nonsense are immune but if the president hits a kid with his car it’s not job related. Naturally the scope of officials acts will be highly subjective with no clear guidance. 5th circuit court will run wild.
and they can get away with it because the checks and balances are gone and the scotus is corrupt and there appears to be nothing we can do about the fox in the henhouse but watch all the chickens die and go 'oh well'
At this point , some of the stupid chickens are swayed by a debate between the old henkeeper and a wolf with chicken feathers in its mouth. Idek if I could mount even an oh well lol
My concern is with how late they've made it trump won't go to trial before November anyway on the case. So they won't infact give the president immunity. They'll have sat on it for ages to achieve that end. That said I wouldn't put it past the con hacks on the court to issue some sort of "well for the sake of political neutrality we embargo all movement on this case till November but presidents don't have immunity" nonsense
They don’t need to grant immunity at this point. They’ve succeeded in their goal of delaying the trial to the point that it can’t happen before the election. After the election, it doesn’t matter. If he loses, he can go to jail, none of them care because he’s done politically. If he wins, he can fire Jack Smith and order the DOJ to drop the case.
What has Biden done to be charged with?
At the debate, Trump said that he would prosecute Biden over the border situation.
Trump saying he will prosecute Biden over the border situation shows how stupid Trump is
It means he wants to have a sham trial then throw his political enemy into prison
Can"t do shame jury trials
You can if you put a thumb onto the weights of jury pool selection. There may also be friendly FISA courts or similar.
He can say that but it would never hold up. Biden has been calling on Congress to act on the border situation since he took office. He tried getting what would have been the largest bill for the border passed in over a decade however it included funding for Israel and Ukraine. Republicans didn’t like that it included more funding for Ukraine (because they’re all Russian puppets) so it didn’t go through. Biden has made multiple emergency requests for the border during his presidency and has closed the border. The border situation has obviously gotten worse during his term but for anyone to say he hasn’t acted on it is nonsense if anything republicans are more at fault than Biden as they have refused to act this entire time solely to have it as an issue to hold against Biden. So even if they wanted to prosecute Biden it would never hold as all of this is well documented.
That would be goofy because that’s certainly something the president is in fact immune from criminal prosecution for. Like obviously. Any concept of immunity at all would, at a bare minimum, include policy.
Biden also admitted to killing Medicare at the debate too, so that could be a pretty high profile murder case.
Yeah, based on how they’ve been cherry picking their interpretations to achieve the outcome they want. Especially as we know how in the bag for Trump Alito and Thomas are.
100%. I think it’s an issue to talk about while we wait for a ruling, but there’s no way that they’re going to issue a broadly applicable ruling that Presidents are absolutely immune for any act. That would result in the end of their own authority because a president, any president, could oust them. If nothing else, self preservation prevents them from issuing a ruling granting absolute immunity. I think the realistic options are outright denial with a clear standard to be applied in the future or a narrowly applicable ruling that Trumps actions and only Trumps actions are of the type that are immune. If they want to waste more time, they issue their ruling with a remand to DC circuit for further findings consistent with their holding.
It might go even worse than you are imagining. They could rule 6 to 3 that Presidents are immune from the law before, during, and after the Presidency. The Republicans int the Supreme Court could be willing to grant Biden this power knowing that he's not going to abuse it. He's running for reelection and not going to make a big move that would get him negative press. He's not ruthless enough to use that power. The Supreme Court could be gambling that Trump will be re-elected. They'd be giving Trump unlimited power knowing that he will use it to firmly cement his hold on power and further destabilize our country.
Could they rule that presidents are immune up to the date of their ruling? That would effectively apply only to Trump.
> Could they rule that presidents are immune up to the date of their ruling? That would effectively apply only to Trump. With this court, they could rule that "presidents with names starting with T are immune." They don't care about law, judicial philosophy, or precedent.
The expectations are low from these court jesters.
Given that 3 alt-right judges cut-off answers that concerned the actual question before the court, concerning Trump's specific crimes, it's apparent they want to create a general rule that applies to all presidents.
That's still going to be the end of them. They can try to narrow it all they want, but it'll still give Biden enough power to throw them in jail.
Oh I see you've been watching at home too!
I think they'd just make the decision and reverse it when they need to. They just need us to forget it a bit and new outrages will replace it.
💯
Of course they will. They want to get democracy out of America, so they'll give him free reign to do whatever he has to to make that happen if he gets elected again.
same...its gonna be all good for trump this time and back to BAU as it's been for the last two centuries for every POTUS after him
If someone had asked me a few years ago how I think this would turn out, I'd say no way in hell he would get immunity. But given the corrupt and ideologically driven nature of SCOTUS, honestly I have zero faith.
Hope they do give Presidents immunity. That way Biden can just flip the bird at Republicans on many, many, many subjects. What are they gonna do, arrest him? Hell, he could move to dissolve the Supreme Court if he had any balls.
They know that they would just simply put it as needing to be qualified and shoot it back down to the courts to ask “ok what does qualified mean?” To stall. They’d be better off going 9-0 as the court did for Clinton but it does feel like they are willing to risk their integrity to win power. Which is dumb—a 9-0 decision would keep people believing in them being a bit unbiased and they could keep doing corrupt things…also wouldn’t shock me if there’s either leverage or legit threats if they don’t let Trump off
I agree, but also think it’s wishful thinking based on previous decisions. The majority is contorting law to fit politics. There is a reason this was slow walked to the very end. A case that should have never been heard in the first place. I think we will all be disappointed in its ruling.
He doesn’t have any balls. He doesn’t get it. He thinks he can reach across the aisle and make deals like it’s the 70’s.
He is not pulling the strings. The guy is not fully aware of what is going on.
He won't do anything though because his brain exists in another time where there is dignity and ethics in holding public office. Biden will not flip the switch.
That's why they will give judgement after the election. If MAGA wins they will give immunity, if Biden, they will not.
Having zero faith indicates an embrace of reason. Faith requires the willing suspension of critical thinking. Faith requires the embrace of supposition lacking factual evidence. Reason requires the ongoing embrace of critical thinking. Trouble is six members of SCOTUS have rejected critical thinking instead tightly grasping their *closely held beliefs* under their robes as they spew their diahriffic depravity. I'm beyond disgusted.
John Roberts having one of his random "I have a spine" moments is the only thing that can save us from Donald Trump being actually above the law.
I wasn’t sure what tag to use on this, but I noticed that there are still some outstanding cases not ruled on. Since this article is not purely about the immunity decision, I picked SCOTUS. However, everyone was speculating they would rule on Trump’s immunity today, so I wanted to post this. Some of the other outstanding decisions aside from immunity are on the legality of “swipe fees” and a case regarding the power of the states’ governments when it comes to social media. Roberts says they will rule on all outstanding decisions on Monday, so I guess they aren’t waiting till fall or later with these, thankfully.
Yeah they normally wrap up by the end of June but recently they’ve been bleeding into July. It’s strange since they aren’t taking on an heavier case load or anything, they’re just struggling to get opinions out.
That doesn’t surprise me for various reasons. It is clear that some justices are getting a lot more outside influence, looking for legal loopholes and justifications for going against previous decisions, as well as what I assume is some pretty heavy arguing over certain cases.
Kinda dumb because it can’t be money unless someone is really funding them to get Trump off. I feel like their wives are both just convinced of the conspiracy theories and pushing their husbands lol
Gotta let the big tippers get their gratuities turned in.
In that case, they’d be pushing out opinions faster. Since a gratuity comes in after an official act.
When do they drop the new RV models?
John Oliver wasn’t able to unload his brand new one.
This court has shown it has zero restraint from producing partisan outcomes. I guarantee this case will find immunity for Trump under some theory designed to never apply again to anyone else except maybe the next Republican.
I have a feeling that it will be that “courts can’t influence the public on an election” which would pause the process for Trump. Otherwise I think it will be too difficult for them to make it narrow for Trump but not Biden. Knowing how corrupt their rulings have been, I could be very wrong.
> “courts can’t influence the public on an election” BTW I'm announcing my run for president on Monday! :) The venue is the bank I'll be robbing at the same time.
LMAO!
They're going to send it back down to the lower court for further review. This is a delay tactic, they know it they know we know it, and they don't give a fuck that we know it. They don't care. What are we going to do about it?
That makes the most sense. They are not going to give Biden immunity, and it would help rally Democrats. They are likely to wait for Trump to become president to crown him king. They are seeking to run out the clock though.
Yes, Trump’s attorney Sauer clearly admitted to Justice Barrett that 3 of the allegations involved private acts so I would think Judge Chutkan could schedule a trial for those or at least hold a public hearing as she delves into whatever SCOTUS remands back to her? Also, there’s the ruling on the Fisher obstruction case and how that will affect Jan. 6 obstruction charges. Will be interested to see how Cannon maneuvers the rulings from Fisher and immunity cases to try and throw out docs case. Because as Trump’s minion, she wants so badly to do so.
I think they are waiting until Monday because it's the last day and they know it's going to upset people. Our supreme Court is corrupt and no longer legitimate.
It's going to upset people regardless of how they rule on this. Upsetting Trump's minions is more likely to lead to violence though.
They are a violent bunch
I'm a little surprised they didn't make it Friday to bury it as much as possible.
1000% this. They want to make the ruling and the immediately disappear.
Why wait for Monday when the Friday news dump is the best time to release controversial rulings?
Because it's the last day of their session and people won't have the weekend to think and plan flights out there if needed. By time people get organized they will be at home
If the scotus wants to save face they ruled no one is above the law.
And we're all waiting with baited breath to find out whether the Trump Court can do the right thing for a change.
Well, that question got answered today (July 1, 2024). They either cannot or *will not.*
Considering how important the concept of presidential immunity is they have been putting this off far to long. It should have been taken up last year when it was offered up to them. After all the question of immunity for the president would also have implications for the sitting president at that time. Which would mean without that clarification the president would be having to make decisions without knowing what consequences could be turned on him. Pretty sure there's a phrase about ignorance of the law being no excuse for breaking it. Meaning you can be punished for something even if didn't know it was a crime. Considering the stakes involved in the highest elected position in the government I would think they should be knowledgeable about what their boundaries are. Especially considering we had Trump trying to push them to the limits throughout his term.
Trump immunity means Biden immunity... 😂🤷