SCOTUS - Trump vs the United States (no irony)

[Unagi]

So, am I hearing (live) the SC starting the hearing on this immunity case?

It looks like SCOTUS is going to slow-walk the spurious immunity decision long enough to ensure that the most important case can't go forward before the election.

Or was this a planned event, but it's not going to lead to a decision being made?

Or are we all surprised to hear this, this morning?

[Smoove_B]

This was a planned event. The SCOTUS agreed to hear it on the last possible day which either means their is intention to make sure it drags out to a point where it won't matter (because we'll re-elect a God-King) -or- the case is so absurd they plan on issuing a quick judgement.

I guess we'll see.

[Unagi]

So far, it sounds like (to my ear) that they find the idea of immunity absurd - and immunity would hinge on non-criminal official actions... and frankly there is no way to say Jan 6th was. so... I hope it's a silly case they want to knock out.

[Kurth]

That’s not what I’m hearing. These arguments have me concerned.

[Unagi]

That’s not what I’m hearing. These arguments have me concerned.

I will admit that these questions/discussions that are being put to the prosecution lawyer are more concerning to me as well, but earlier the discussion with the defense seemed to constantly put his position in a sour light.

I have heard (ages ago, so probably meaningless) that sometimes the courts like to go pretty hard on the side they are eventually going to side with - so I'm trying to pretend that's why they are being tough on the prosecution right now.

[Smoove_B]

That’s not what I’m hearing. These arguments have me concerned.

The crux of the argument is that it's up to Congress to decide - they must impeach based on conduct, right? Specifically, if Congress doesn't or won't impeach, it's not up to the courts to decide guilt or innocence.

[Unagi]

They have pointed out that impeaching a former president is questionably even 'valid' and then also that the amount of effort to impeach an end of term president is not likely to be engaged in.

(as proven just now by this case)

[Unagi]

I didn't like how Alito commented "we all know how easy it is for a prosecutor to get a grand jury to agree to an indictment".

It's only "easy" because they don't try for it without a ton of evidence. (which the prosecution did eventually comment on, thank goodness)

[Kurth]

That’s not what I’m hearing. These arguments have me concerned.

The crux of the argument is that it's up to Congress to decide - they must impeach based on conduct, right? Specifically, if Congress doesn't or won't impeach, it's not up to the courts to decide guilt or innocence.

The argument I keep hearing again and again from the conservatives is that if the President doesn’t have immunity, it will lead to an endless series of politically motivated bogus prosecutions. They are making a slippery slope argument.

It’s also striking the extent to which none of the conservatives will let the government talk about the facts of the pending case against Trump. Every time he tries to bring the facts of this case up to highlight the difference between official and private conduct, they tell him, we’re not talking about this specific case.

I get that they are “writing rules for the ages” and are concerned about what comes down the pike, but the absolute refusal to even discuss the facts of the case in front of them is something else.

[Kurth]

Thank god for Justice Jackson. She’s making some really good points right now about how this Trump case is not the right case to go down a rabbit hole about official vs. private conduct because nothing alleged in the indictment against Trump can even remotely be considered official conduct.

[Kurth]

And they’re done. Case is submitted. No rebuttal from Trump, which was interesting.

[Dogstar]

This was more of a mixed-bag than I was expecting (I was expecting 7-2 because we don't have kings here). There was concern about prosecutorial overreach, which was noted above, which doesn't seem to be a concern elsewhere, as the rest of us can't seem to do much about that if we encounter that problem (as prosecutors currently have immunity and their decisions have limited review). There was concern about distinguishing between an official and a private act. There was Alito's staggering assertion that immunity is an incentive for presidents to leave office peacefully. There was Trump's lawyer's assertion that coups and assassinations could possibly be official acts -- and I'm not sure how you'd prosecute that either, as other have noted, because if you round up all the people that might impeach you, you've solved that problem for yourself.

There are anywhere from 3-5 votes for some type of immunity judging from the oral arguments. That feels insane, and I hope that I'm wrong. Trying to kick it to Congress to determine what's an official act, given how non-functional Congress is, feels like dereliction of duty, even if I can understand the Court stating that it's not its job to do so.

Absent a swift 9-0, 8-1, or 7-2 decision against presidential immunity, this is going to further erode public trust in the Supreme Court as a non-political unbiased institution. And if there is Presidential immunity? I just don't know.

[Smoove_B]

And they’re done. Case is submitted. No rebuttal from Trump, which was interesting.

They have until 6/30/24 to release their written opinion, right?

[Kurth]

This was more of a mixed-bag than I was expecting (I was expecting 7-2 because we don't have kings here). There was concern about prosecutorial overreach, which was noted above, which doesn't seem to be a concern elsewhere, as the rest of us can't seem to do much about that if we encounter that problem (as prosecutors currently have immunity and their decisions have limited review). There was concern about distinguishing between an official and a private act. There was Alito's staggering assertion that immunity is an incentive for presidents to leave office peacefully. There was Trump's lawyer's assertion that coups and assassinations could possibly be official acts -- and I'm not sure how you'd prosecute that either, as other have noted, because if you round up all the people that might impeach you, you've solved that problem for yourself.

There are anywhere from 3-5 votes for some type of immunity judging from the oral arguments. That feels insane, and I hope that I'm wrong. Trying to kick it to Congress to determine what's an official act, given how non-functional Congress is, feels like dereliction of duty, even if I can understand the Court stating that it's not its job to do so.

Absent a swift 9-0, 8-1, or 7-2 decision against presidential immunity, this is going to further erode public trust in the Supreme Court as a non-political unbiased institution. And if there is Presidential immunity? I just don't know.

This is pretty much how I see it, too, after listening to the arguments. I was floored that Trump's arguments about immunity were being taken seriously by this court. I think if they go the way it's looking, this is going to be the nail in the coffin for the Roberts Court's legitimacy. Unreal that we've reached this point.

[Isgrimnur]

Spoiler:

https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1 ... 5496846454

[Jaymann]

Well sure, it's a hypothetical. Like if the rival actually had a chance of unseating his nibs. Then it would totally be an official act.

[Smoove_B]

Amazing

https://twitter.com/ryanbeckwith/status ... 8521405810

SCOTUS: The president does not have the power to forgive student loans under this particular law.

TRUMP: OK, but he could order someone killed, though, right?

[Dogstar]

https://twitter.com/igorbobic/status/17 ... 1523090635

If only all defendants were shown the mercy of Samuel Alito in consideration of the expense a trial may take and the time it may consume of their lives. Surely that's a universal consideration for everyone, no?

This was me most of the oral argument period.

[Holman]

Holy shit.

I just learned that Clarence Thomas, in casting doubt on whether a President should be prosecuted for attempting a domestic coup, asked whether JFK should have been prosecuted for supporting a coup against Fidel Castro.

Slam dunk, Clarence!

[LawBeefaroni]

Holy shit.

I just learned that Clarence Thomas, in casting doubt on whether a President should be prosecuted for attempting a domestic coup, asked whether JFK should have been prosecuted for supporting a coup against Fidel Castro.

Slam dunk, Clarence!

Former president. And JFK never had the fortune of being a former president. Nevemind the whole domestic vs. foreign coup thing.


These justices obviously have an end game and they don't care what bullshit nonsense they foist on us to get there. Really it doesn't matter, either. We have to eat it up.

[Unagi]

Unless we are prepared to posthumously charge JFK with a crime, I don't think we should look at any modern-day domestic coup with any concern.

[waitingtoconnect]

And what do you do as a Supreme Court justice if your wife was connected with said coup in some way?

Seems clear to me that several justices want to give trump full immunity but don’t want to give it to Biden. So the goal here is to delay and engineer an election victory for trump if he doesn’t win at the electoral college.

I really think we are headed to a 1824 election where Andrew Jackson won but ultimately was defeated by the contingent election.

[Unagi]

And what do you do as a Supreme Court justice if your wife was connected with said coup in some way?

lol - yeah, I'm sure he does not like the implications.

sigh.

lol retracted.

[Unagi]

I really think we are headed to a 1824 election.

Maybe Blinken should throw his name in the hat?

[waitingtoconnect]

So if trump is immune doesn’t that mean Biden is immune?

And the founders would want this argument is bonkers. George III based on the precidents set after the English civil war, the glorious revolution and the Magna Carta had substantial limits on his power and was not immune from prosecution and execution.

Trump wants more power than a king.

[Smoove_B]

I think you keep forgetting that we have collectively learned that there's a significant number of Americans that would be perfectly happy under the rule of a King - as long as he is *their* King.

[waitingtoconnect]

Then they are not patriots.

[GreenGoo]

I think you keep forgetting that we have collectively learned that there's a significant number of Americans that would be perfectly happy under the rule of a King - as long as he is *their* King.

I don't think they understand how *kings* work.

And why isn't there a peanut gallery screaming "ARE YOU HIGH?!" every time some idiocy leaves someone's mouth. Because holy fuck. They need to experience *some* push back on this crazy speculation.

[Holman]

I think you keep forgetting that we have collectively learned that there's a significant number of Americans that would be perfectly happy under the rule of a King - as long as he is *their* King.

I spend an unhealthy amount of time paying attention to Christian Nationalism, and I now expect that Monarchy will be their next ambition.

Up to now they have spent a lot of time trying to persuade themselves that the Founding Fathers were enamored of the Old Testament and that they modeled the Constitution on it directly. (Really.) There's literally no plausible foundation for this, either in the Founders' writings or in the Bible, but there are preacher/prophet/pundits building whole careers on the claim, and some of them are deeply involved with TrumpWorld.

The next and much smoother step will be just to insist that democracy itself is un-Biblical and that God's establishment of a theocratic monarchy in Biblical times (King Solomon, King David, etc), supported by an official Priestly class, is the only proper form of government.

Given everything they say about Christian supremacy already, I can think of no reason why they would hold back from this option when it becomes available.

[gbasden]

I think you keep forgetting that we have collectively learned that there's a significant number of Americans that would be perfectly happy under the rule of a King - as long as he is *their* King.

I spend an unhealthy amount of time paying attention to Christian Nationalism, and I now expect that Monarchy will be their next ambition.

Up to now they have spent a lot of time trying to persuade themselves that the Founding Fathers were enamored of the Old Testament and that they modeled the Constitution on it directly. (Really.) There's literally no plausible foundation for this, either in the Founders' writings or in the Bible, but there are preacher/prophet/pundits building whole careers on the claim, and some of them are deeply involved with TrumpWorld.

The next and much smoother step will be just to insist that democracy itself is un-Biblical and that God's establishment of a theocratic monarchy in Biblical times (King Solomon, King David, etc), supported by an official Priestly class, is the only proper form of government.

Given everything they say about Christian supremacy already, I can think of no reason why they would hold back from this option when it becomes available.

My thought that we have a better than average chance at a second Civil War, or at least widespread political violence, hasn't really changed.

[waitingtoconnect]

I think you keep forgetting that we have collectively learned that there's a significant number of Americans that would be perfectly happy under the rule of a King - as long as he is *their* King.

I spend an unhealthy amount of time paying attention to Christian Nationalism, and I now expect that Monarchy will be their next ambition.

Up to now they have spent a lot of time trying to persuade themselves that the Founding Fathers were enamored of the Old Testament and that they modeled the Constitution on it directly. (Really.) There's literally no plausible foundation for this, either in the Founders' writings or in the Bible, but there are preacher/prophet/pundits building whole careers on the claim, and some of them are deeply involved with TrumpWorld.

The next and much smoother step will be just to insist that democracy itself is un-Biblical and that God's establishment of a theocratic monarchy in Biblical times (King Solomon, King David, etc), supported by an official Priestly class, is the only proper form of government.

Given everything they say about Christian supremacy already, I can think of no reason why they would hold back from this option when it becomes available.

Perhaps they view Trump as a Saul or David like figure?

In 2016, Jerry Falwell Jr. said that “God called King David a man after God’s own heart even though he was an adulterer and a murderer.”

Of course David was held responsible by God and accepted punishment and guilt for his crimes.

[LordMortis]

My thought that we have a better than average chance at a second Civil War, or at least widespread political violence, hasn't really changed.

I don't see the 2nd civil war (at this point) but the widespread political violence temperature keeps going up and as much as I hate hate hate to say it but that's part of temp rising... On both sides... No one wants to back down, which is expected, but very few want to talk it through any more (myself included).

[Dogstar]

I don't see the 2nd civil war (at this point) but the widespread political violence temperature keeps going up and as much as I hate hate hate to say it but that's part of temp rising... On both sides... No one wants to back down, which is expected, but very few want to talk it through any more (myself included).

The only thing I don't see even a small possibility of happening is de-escalation. But I think the nature, tempo, and type of future escalations depend very much on who gets elected in November, which isn't exactly stunning analysis. I look at the Civil War movie and what was depicted, and I think it was too tame/too limited in what it envisioned in terms of non-military action, should things elevate to confrontation.

[stessier]

My thought that we have a better than average chance at a second Civil War, or at least widespread political violence, hasn't really changed.

I don't see the 2nd civil war (at this point) but the widespread political violence temperature keeps going up and as much as I hate hate hate to say it but that's part of temp rising... On both sides... No one wants to back down, which is expected, but very few want to talk it through any more (myself included).

If Trump gets elected, all bets are off. With his stated agenda, he may very well want a Civil War. If Biden is elected, I expect a lot of angry Truth Social posts and the FBI finding a few more militia cells, but otherwise nothing.

[Holman]

Perhaps they view Trump as a Saul or David like figure?

In 2016, Jerry Falwell Jr. said that “God called King David a man after God’s own heart even though he was an adulterer and a murderer.”

Oh, that's a central trope of Christian Nationalist MAGA. They compare him to David all the time.

Of course David was held responsible by God and accepted punishment and guilt for his crimes.

MAGA logic is that all of Trump's crimes must be ignored and forgiven because he is God's chosen leader. David was apparently a sucker.

[Unagi]

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he was David.