So, does presidential immunity mean that a SCOTUS justice can be executed,

[mzmolly]

for decisions that a sitting President doesn't like?



Surreal times we're living in.

[unblock]

1. Now it gets interesting. Does a president have to personally kill or can he involve others?

I mean, is his staff immune also while carrying out a presidential edict?

[Wounded Bear]

3. According to trump, the Pres can order SEAL Team 6 in...

to kill anybody he likes, including SC Justices.

[mzmolly]

8. Yep. Biden should get on it!

[Beausoleil]

30. As long as there are not 67 senators

Who will vote to convict upon impeachment.

[mzmolly]

5. As I understood the argument by TSF's attorney's

he can have Seal Team Six, kill political enemies.

[hydrolastic]

67. This is crazy.... what does TSF mean?

same as above

[UniqueUserName]

69. Tsf, the sick f*ck

It's a reference to how Biden reportedly refers to Trump in private

[Think. Again.]

7. That's the rightwing suprme court plan, create confusion and chaos which will take years...

...if not generations, to sort out.

[Just_Vote_Dem]

2. Like Bush/Gore, they'll say immunity only for HIM n/t

[unblock]

10. Ah yes. The "not to be used as a precedent" precedent

[mzmolly]

11. Ugh.

Likely so.

[chicoescuela]

4. It won't happen but the fantasy is nice

[mzmolly]

6. Well Biden wouldn't entertain such a thing.

But Trump?

[chicoescuela]

9. You're right, only tfg would attempt it

[SarahD]

12. Yes.

Absolute immunity makes the president a king, able to rule by edict and assassination. We wrote the Constitution because we didn't like being ruled by monarchs who could do that shit. We'll see if the Supremes consider the founders and what they wrote, or just want to grease the skids for their boy.

[H2O Man]

13. Recommended.

Yes, if the USSC rules in the defendant's favor, it would mean that. Luckily, there is zero chance of the court ruling in his favor. Thus, by mid- to late summer, Jack Smith will be overseeing the DC trial, which is actually the best time possible for us.

[scipan]

16. I don't understand why...

The verdict could be after the election.

Also, doj rules could dictate that the trial can't happen at all if we're getting into Sept or October.

[AZSkiffyGeek]

18. The verdict makes no difference

He can be in solitary and still run. And he has a core of followers who don’t care and will vote for him anyway.
And DoJ does not have a rule about no trials - the rule is no new investigations.

[scipan]

26. Legally yes. But polls have shown it makes a difference in who votes for him. Nt

[mzmolly]

52. Provided a criminal conviction happens prior to election

day.

[scipan]

59. Exactly. Let's hope that still happens.

I'm scared.

[H2O Man]

37. Good question.

Traditionally, the DOJ does not indict politicians close to election day. However, this case is on-going with pre-trial motions and, of course, the appeal.

[scipan]

58. Yes, that's the same as I've heard. However

the talking lawyers are saying that a trial at the same time as Trump is running for president in Sept Oct would be something Chutkin should take into account.

[stumpysbear]

56. DOJ doesn't own the court docket or trial dates. The Courts do.

[scipan]

57. They are aware. Further, they have taken timing into account. Nt

[mzmolly]

22. I hope you're right

H2O Man.

[cilla4progress]

53. Im going to hold you

to that, H2O Man!

[Scrivener7]

68. Unless Garland decides it's ungentlemanly to have the case so close to the election.

[onenote]

14. Why are folks presuming that the grant of cert means Trump will win his appeal?

The grant of cert doesn't always mean the decision below is going to be reversed. Last term, Supreme Court review of DC Circuit decisions resulted in the appeals court decision being affirmed 40% of the time. I haven't looked, but I would be surprised if that total of affirmances wasn't even higher where the appeals court decision was unanimous. And speaking of unanimity, it's not unheard of for the Court to unanimously affirm a decision where it has granted cert, most famously -- the United States v. Nixon case in 1974.

[scipan]

17. Well it could just be for delay purposes

Effectively the same outcome.

[onenote]

20. If they wanted to really delay it they could've refused to expedite .

It was in their power to let the ordinary schedule play out, in which case Trump wouldn't have had to file a petition for cert until May, he would've had 45 days to file his brief on the merits, and oral argument wouldn't have occurred until October.

I wish the Court had acted more swiftly, but the schedule they set is a damn sight better than it could've been and only marginally worse than what Smith himself proposed.

[scipan]

23. Correct but maybe they do indeed worry about what people think

They just didn't want to make it obvious.

The media other than MSNBC seems to take all this as the normal course of things.

Why would they take this at all?

[onenote]

25. Why would they take the case? I'll let Jack Smith's words explain why:

This is what Smith told the Court. He was right.
The immunity case presents “a fundamental question at the heart of our democracy” and that it is one that “only this Court can definitively resolve.”

Smith told the Court it should grant certiorari and set an expedited schedule. The Court agreed -- with no dissents -- but unfortunately, the schedule, while expedited, isn't quite as expedited as Smith sought, with argument set for the latter part of April rather than the latter part of March.

[TexasDem69]

28. Don't try to use logic

It will only backfire or be ignored

[onenote]

32. I'm used to it.

What I don't get is the howling from some of the so-called experts. I'm a member of the Supreme Court bar, having worked on several cases over the years. I've never argued one, but I've spent enough time with actual Supreme Court practitioners who are capable of taking a dispassionate view of the likely outcome of a case -- even when it means telling a client something they don't wan't to hear -- to know that once Smith made the argument that "only" the Supreme Court could definitely resolve this "fundamental" question, it was clear cert would be granted.

[scipan]

33. Damn you got me.

I'm hearing from the talking lawyers that this is a decided question and he has no real argument.

Hoisted on his own petard?

Damn damn

[mzmolly]

40. Thank you

onenote. I hope your supposition is correct.

[scipan]

42. Okay what is the unanswered question?

Last edited Wed Feb 28, 2024, 11:50 PM - Edit history (1)

Presidential immunity while he's president? Or after?

Edit: the official unanswered question is whether a former president can be prosecuted for his actions when he was president.

[mzmolly]

45. Neal Katyal

thinks the SCOTUS is trying to help Trump with a delay tactic.

[onenote]

46. Neal, whose record before the Court last term was 3 wins, and 2 losses.

He's not infallible.

And does he offer an explanation as to why Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson didn't publish a dissent, something they are not shy about doing when they think a cert decision is egregiously wrong.

[mzmolly]

51. Neal is not alone

in his opinion. Lawrence Tribe just said essentially the same thing as have others with legal knowledge on MSNBC tonight.

Again, I hope you're correct, but it sounds like the SCOTUS left open the door for frivolous legal arguments which will needlessly delay a resolution.

[Sparkly]

61. But that didn't mean they had to re-consider it.

There was already a unanimous ruling from a 3-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit. Unless I'm mistaken, the entire circuit reviewed and concurred, and according to experts I heard from/read, the arguments were airtight.

It would have made a definite resolution for the Supremes to say, "Yes - this stands." They did NOT need to take it up again and say, "Wait a minute, not so fast... Maybe the president CAN shoot a guy on fifth avenue..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/02/06/trump-jan-6-immunity-appeal-denied/

[onenote]

65. A denial of cert does not "definitively resolve" the issue.

Supreme Court practice 101. As Justice Frankfurter wrote, "the denial means that this Court has refused to take the case. It means nothing else."

Moreover, Smith himself suggested that the Court do exactly what it did: grant cert and expedite. They didn't expedite it as fast as he wanted, which was briefing completed in 22 days, with argument to follow sometime in March. Instead they ordered briefing completed in 46 days. I have no doubt that Smith, who was given 20 days to respond to Trump's brief on the merits, can and likely will file much sooner. However, its a bit unclear as to whether the time allotted for Trump's reply runs from the date Smith files his brief or the date it was due, even if he files sooner. The ordinary rule is that the deadline for filing a reply runs from the date the response is filed. If applied here, it would mean Smith could accelerate the timeline somewhat by taking only the ten days he proposed to file his responsive brief, not the 20 provided in the Court's order.

[bluestarone]

21. I don't think ANYBODY is assuming that

What EVERYONE IS assuming is this SC took 23 days to come down with a decision that could have been stated in ONE DAY! Everyone here, (except you) feel the real reason for this stupid ass decision is to DELAY everything! Because this FN court decided to STOP all federal court proceedings!

[onenote]

27. Seventeen days from Trump's application.

Which is actually a quicker turnaround than many emergency applications. Again--once Smith proposed that the Court grant cert and set an expedited schedule -- an outcome he knew was inevitable -- it was only a question of how expedited the schedule would be. The answer unfortunately is not as expedited as Smith sought, but still far faster than it could have been.

[ecstatic]

31. Can you please post an example timeline of how everything could be realistically completed prior to the election?

[onenote]

47. First tell me how long you think the trial will take.

I don't know so it's hard for me to say. But if you have an idea, that would give me something to work with.

I will note that if the Court takes a month to decide the case after oral argument, the trial could get underway in June -- allowing time for pre-trial motions in May - which leaves five months before the election for the trial, which I suspect is far longer than the trial will take.

[ecstatic]

49. Maybe 6 weeks depending on the witness count and how long the judge takes to

respond to distraction / delay tactic motions, etc. If Chutkan takes the "motion denied, sit down" approach, maybe 5 weeks?

[bluestarone]

34. Well, even at 17 days, that's 17 days SLOWER than it should take (one day max for tis bullshit decision)

Stupid decision to take 17 days to decide. Again, it's DELAY DELAY!

[onenote]

38. So Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are secretly in league with the conservatives helping Trump?

They didn't dissent when the Court decided not to take the case ahead of the DC Circuit. And they didn't dissent from today's decision. They haven't been shy about dissenting to cert decisions they think are egregious.

[H2O Man]

48. It seems possible

that those three recognize the advantage of putting this to sleep, so the trial can go forward. I think it's either that, or it must be the most extreme conspiracy theory we can come up with.

[TexasDem69]

39. They haven't even decided the issue!

Just decided that they will decide the issue. This is the sort of question the Supreme Court SHOULD decide.

[LiberalFighter]

15. Only one?

[mzmolly]

19. One, give or take a handful.

[LiberalFighter]

41. Participants of an insurrection? Especially the leader. And those in the judicial supporting it?

Making sure SC will have a majority ruling.

[hvn_nbr_2]

24. I really want one of the liberal justices to ask Trump's lawyers this:

"So are you saying that if Joe Biden had all six conservative justices arrested, sent to Gitmo, tortured for a few months, and then beheaded, there's nothing legal that anyone could do about it? He would be immune from any legal system consequences."

[mzmolly]

35. I'd like to see that

question posed as well.

[LiberalFighter]

43. I would charge them with participating in an insurrection.

[Ligyron]

50. I think I heard it's narrowly tailored to just Trump so Joe couldn't have him executed right afterward?

Although it seems pretty silly to take this and not establish the limits once and for all and this is the perfect time to do while they even get a chance to delay Trump's trial in the bargain.

[Ms. Toad]

63. Impeachment, followed by a trial.

Remember - in Trump world, immunity only pertains to alleged crimes that escaped the impeachment process.

[MOMFUDSKI]

29. Decision will be timed for after Biden is out

and can’t take advantage of the new law.

[mzmolly]

36. Presuming Trump

wins the next election. If not, how long can they delay a decision?

[LiberalFighter]

44. Personally, I think the attorneys that come up with these Trump defenses need to lose their license.

To start.

[limbicnuminousity]

54. The SC can't grant presidential immunity.

But, if Alito and the gang decide to get their insurrectionist spirit on, I think that would mean members of the SC, House, Senate and maybe even a few governors would theoretically be candidates for 'wet-work.' Just pray Biden would use the authority if granted.

I can't imagine what kind of pretzel logic could be used to grant Trump retroactive immunity without awarding similar immunity to the office. But that would lead down a dark path.

[Sparkly]

55. I wouldn't put anything past them.

There are only three USSC justices I trust at ALL. The other six are corrupt and/or extremist rightwing zealots.

[onenote]

60. Would a court find that to be an "official act" by the President?

Because that is the issue that the Court has limited itself to deciding:"Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office."

[mzmolly]

66. If insurrection is,

why not?

[Mz Pip]

62. And if he does it

after he leaves office is he still immune? Is immunity forever?

[ThoughtCriminal]

64. This is why Impeachement is not a remedy for an immune President

With absolute immunity, a President can kill any "disloyal" members of the House, Senate, Supreme Xourt, DOJ, State Legislators, Press,...

[jalan48]

70. If they stop representing the wealthy and our corporate state, of course it does. It's one way to keep them in line.

[struggle4progress]

71. I'll suspect the Republican judges are partisan hacks without integrity

and with no real commitment to a coherent and consistent rule of law