So if Prez Immunity is a thing, and if Trump "wins," (!) then Biden would be acting in his official capacity to persuade Kamala Harris to reject the real electors and substitute fake ones, and then dispatch his followers to disrupt certification of Trump's victory??
Given the calendar, this will be remanded; causing no decision and thus no trial before the election. So, in essence TFG will get what he needs. Kudos to Sen Whitehouse for shining a light on the court.
I listened to the oral arguments and have read every news article that I could analyzing ther case. All refer to Alito not wanting to hear the facts of THIS case, and he and the other stooges claiming this is a case for the ages. It's not. It's similar to Bush vs Gore, which they famously decided quickly and said the decision applied only to that case. Their proclivity to protect trump is debilitating to our democracy and wrong on the law. If the president can crime and get away with it, what's to stop the rest of us?
Alito is an exceedingly dull bulb it seems. It makes for thoughts that anyone can ascend to our highest court regardless. This is the positive and negative of our system that gives opportunity for the most ill-willed to game it as well, and bring it down. It's remarkable that this has not happened yet. We've had warning. Our system depends on people being awake (informed truthfully)about what is going on and then participation. We, the people, have been given the power, not the Supreme Court, a court that suffers an inferiority complex such that it has to prove its relevance while showing it's mental poverty in the process, digging a deeper hole in the public lack of confidence.
Are there official acts that are illegal? If these SCOTUS doofuses think the main distinction is between official and unofficial acts, rather than legal and illegal, there must be illegal official acts. Of course there aren't illegal official acts, so they should keep it simple: if it's illegal, it's unofficial and no immunity. Done.
I am having real trouble with why everyone is focusing on official ACTS as opposed to the DUTIES that make them official. A President's duties are to uphold the laws and the constitution--and that is behind all of his official Acts. Any act can be a crime, if you think about it. Serving your kids oatmeal can be a crime if you insist on them eating it so hot that it burns their mouths and throats and is in line with other acts of child abuse. A telephone call can become a crime if it is part of a harassment pattern. And appointing an ambassador, as counsel pointed out, can become a crime if it was the result of bribery, even though appointing an ambassador is an archetypal Presidential Act--because one of the laws of the United States prohibits bribery.
The question of when some act becomes a crime strikes me as simply a jury decision, without needing to separate the ACTS into something personal or official. Did the president take an action that was in line with his duties?
As you point out, there are multiple safeguards before a president can be prosecuted for acts alleged to be crimes. The grand jury has to decide that the acts were more likely than not to be crimes--and that is before any indictment can happen. The prosecutors are liable for malicious prosecution if they act on lies presented to the grand jury. If it comes down to simply acts, does immunity extend to even investigating whether something deemed an Official Act is really done for personal reasons at odds with presidential duties?
So I am having trouble with the whole idea of a delaying remand. What is the court supposed to decide without any facts before them? The defense always has the option of arguing that an act is official, and the jury can be instructed that if the act IS official it cannot be used to support a conviction.
I guess we will have to see whether, quite apart from Seal Team Six, a president has immunity from prosecution for accepting actual bribes to, say, veto legislation or for ordering the military to shoot anyone making a completely peaceful protest that he thinks will endanger his reelection.
All of this makes me feel physically ill. Alito, Roberts and crew are clearly in the bag for Trump, and they will find the thinnest of reeds to hang their ruling giving him more precious time on. They also did this when they blow up Amendment 14, Section 3, with the nonsensical idea that insurrection requires Congressional action, or something. The Federalist Society and Leonard Leo are indeed getting their money’s worth. The rest of us just have to suck it up, buttercup. I’m really not fond of my country right now.
“But the sheer outrageousness of Alito’s suggestion may have overshadowed the radical position of his fellow conservatives, all of whom seemed to think the question of whether the president has to obey the laws of this land is a major head scratcher”
Frightening. But its all corruption. The head scratching is just the fig leaf. They know better.
So if Prez Immunity is a thing, and if Trump "wins," (!) then Biden would be acting in his official capacity to persuade Kamala Harris to reject the real electors and substitute fake ones, and then dispatch his followers to disrupt certification of Trump's victory??
OKAAAY then.
Given the calendar, this will be remanded; causing no decision and thus no trial before the election. So, in essence TFG will get what he needs. Kudos to Sen Whitehouse for shining a light on the court.
I listened to the oral arguments and have read every news article that I could analyzing ther case. All refer to Alito not wanting to hear the facts of THIS case, and he and the other stooges claiming this is a case for the ages. It's not. It's similar to Bush vs Gore, which they famously decided quickly and said the decision applied only to that case. Their proclivity to protect trump is debilitating to our democracy and wrong on the law. If the president can crime and get away with it, what's to stop the rest of us?
Alito is an exceedingly dull bulb it seems. It makes for thoughts that anyone can ascend to our highest court regardless. This is the positive and negative of our system that gives opportunity for the most ill-willed to game it as well, and bring it down. It's remarkable that this has not happened yet. We've had warning. Our system depends on people being awake (informed truthfully)about what is going on and then participation. We, the people, have been given the power, not the Supreme Court, a court that suffers an inferiority complex such that it has to prove its relevance while showing it's mental poverty in the process, digging a deeper hole in the public lack of confidence.
Alito is not dull; he is dangerous.
I should have said "dim bulb" meaning not smart. Danger follows, one follows the other; no wisdom in being dangerous.
Are there official acts that are illegal? If these SCOTUS doofuses think the main distinction is between official and unofficial acts, rather than legal and illegal, there must be illegal official acts. Of course there aren't illegal official acts, so they should keep it simple: if it's illegal, it's unofficial and no immunity. Done.
I am having real trouble with why everyone is focusing on official ACTS as opposed to the DUTIES that make them official. A President's duties are to uphold the laws and the constitution--and that is behind all of his official Acts. Any act can be a crime, if you think about it. Serving your kids oatmeal can be a crime if you insist on them eating it so hot that it burns their mouths and throats and is in line with other acts of child abuse. A telephone call can become a crime if it is part of a harassment pattern. And appointing an ambassador, as counsel pointed out, can become a crime if it was the result of bribery, even though appointing an ambassador is an archetypal Presidential Act--because one of the laws of the United States prohibits bribery.
The question of when some act becomes a crime strikes me as simply a jury decision, without needing to separate the ACTS into something personal or official. Did the president take an action that was in line with his duties?
As you point out, there are multiple safeguards before a president can be prosecuted for acts alleged to be crimes. The grand jury has to decide that the acts were more likely than not to be crimes--and that is before any indictment can happen. The prosecutors are liable for malicious prosecution if they act on lies presented to the grand jury. If it comes down to simply acts, does immunity extend to even investigating whether something deemed an Official Act is really done for personal reasons at odds with presidential duties?
So I am having trouble with the whole idea of a delaying remand. What is the court supposed to decide without any facts before them? The defense always has the option of arguing that an act is official, and the jury can be instructed that if the act IS official it cannot be used to support a conviction.
I guess we will have to see whether, quite apart from Seal Team Six, a president has immunity from prosecution for accepting actual bribes to, say, veto legislation or for ordering the military to shoot anyone making a completely peaceful protest that he thinks will endanger his reelection.
All of this makes me feel physically ill. Alito, Roberts and crew are clearly in the bag for Trump, and they will find the thinnest of reeds to hang their ruling giving him more precious time on. They also did this when they blow up Amendment 14, Section 3, with the nonsensical idea that insurrection requires Congressional action, or something. The Federalist Society and Leonard Leo are indeed getting their money’s worth. The rest of us just have to suck it up, buttercup. I’m really not fond of my country right now.
“But the sheer outrageousness of Alito’s suggestion may have overshadowed the radical position of his fellow conservatives, all of whom seemed to think the question of whether the president has to obey the laws of this land is a major head scratcher”
Frightening. But its all corruption. The head scratching is just the fig leaf. They know better.