SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

Can you show me where Robert’s said that? I don’t see how that’s consistent with absolute immunity. The pardon couldn’t even be used as evidence per the ruling.

JUSTICE BARRETT disagrees, arguing that in a bribery prosecution, for
instance, excluding “any mention” of the official act associated with the
bribe “would hamstring the prosecution.” Post, at 6 (opinion concurring
in part); cf. post, at 25–27 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). But of course the
prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President
performed the official act. And the prosecutor may admit evidence
of what the President allegedly demanded, received, accepted, or agreed
to receive or accept in return for being influenced in the performance of
the act. See 18 U. S. C. §201(b)(2).

[LuFins Dad]

@George-K said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

Bunch of lawyers talking about this for about 30 minutes.

Link to video

There’s an interesting point about 30 minutes in that an Official (Capital O) act by the President is legal by definition, and by contrast, any blatantly illegal act must be found unofficial by any court… Kind of a twisted logic, but I kind of get it.

[George K]

Interesting that they defended, on a strictly legal basis, the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen by Obama.

Was it wrong? Probably.

Was it illegal? Probably not.

Also, of note, they commented that much of the noise about Biden's interaction with regards to financial stuff is probably covered. However, if the House decides that this constitutes a "high crime," there is a mechanism to prosecute. It's called impeachment and conviction.

[Horace]

Some stuff from Roberts' opinion:

The court has wiggle room to place acts in buckets one, two, or three, even if the president thinks something is a bucket-one act:

If the President claims authority to act but in fact exercises
mere “individual will” and “authority without law,”
the courts may say so. Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 655
(Jackson, J., concurring). In Youngstown, for instance, we held
that President Truman exceeded his constitutional authority
when he seized most of the Nation’s steel mills. See id.,
at 582–589 (majority opinion). But once it is determined
that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive
authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot
be subject to further judicial examination.

Roberts did not want to get super specific about which acts would qualify for absolute immunity, and would prefer to await future specific suits to fill in any gaps in this ruling:

[O]ne case” in more than “two centuries does not
afford enough experience” to definitively and
comprehensively determine the President’s scope of immunity from
criminal prosecution. Mazars, 591 U. S., at 871.

Roberts thinks the dissent is histrionic:

As for the dissents, they strike a tone of chilling doom
that is wholly disproportionate to what the Court actually
does today—conclude that immunity extends to official
discussions between the President and his Attorney General,
and then remand to the lower courts to determine “in the
first instance” whether and to what extent Trump’s remaining
alleged conduct is entitled to immunity. Supra, at 24, 28, 30.

Sotomayor is a DEI hire. One of her colleagues at the time of her nomination wrote a letter to the president, warning him against promoting that particular dimwit. He was afraid she wouldn't earn the respect of the smarter judges. And now she's the intellectual champion of the TDS rabble. Fitting.

[Horace]

@LuFins-Dad said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

@George-K said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

Bunch of lawyers talking about this for about 30 minutes.

Link to video

There’s an interesting point about 30 minutes in that an Official (Capital O) act by the President is legal by definition, and by contrast, any blatantly illegal act must be found unofficial by any court… Kind of a twisted logic, but I kind of get it.

Immunity would have no point if it didn’t apply to cases where a law was broken. The ruling actually mentions that an illegal act is not in itself justification for considering the act unofficial.

The circuit courts argued that if a prosecutor brings an indictment, we should all trust it is in good faith, and that it means the act was not an official one. That was funny. Imagine trusting TDS sufferers with the power to prosecute Trump, to always do so in “good faith”. These people have no clue what “good faith” even means in the context of Trump, unless it means bloodthirsty rage at the disgusting orange menace. Donald Trump has personally broken the brains of millions and millions of erstwhile smart people, whose intelligence is now only a distant memory.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace

Your post from oral arguments contains no quotes from Chief Justice Roberts. I started to scan the orals transcript and so far what I’ve seen from Roberts he shared my concern about the inadmissibility of evidence from official acts. Obviously he changed his mind along the way and I’m just starting to review this so don’t take that to the bank.

But still, if you really did see Roberts address the sale-of-core-function problem I’d like to see it. But I’ll find any reference there is.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

@Horace

Your post from oral arguments contains no quotes from Chief Justice Roberts. I started to scan the orals transcript and so far what I’ve seen from Roberts he shared my concern about the inadmissibility of evidence from official acts. Obviously he changed his mind along the way and I’m just starting to review this so don’t take that to the bank.

But still, if you really did see Roberts address the sale-of-core-function problem I’d like to see it. But I’ll find any reference there is.

The quote came from the ruling rather than orals. It was from a part of the ruling written by Roberts. In the quote, he imagines a scenario in which a president could be prosecuted for the bribe. Not the pardon. The bribe. That means he does not imagine full immunity from such a prosecution.

[Horace]

Criminal conspiracy occurs in a murder for hire, for instance, as soon as money changes hands in the agreement. That’s the crime. If a murder then occurs, that would be a separate crime. In this pardon for sale example, there would only be the one crime about selling the official act, with the sale being a private and prosecutable act.

[jon-nyc]

The auction and the pardon are separable acts, with the sale being a private one, and not immune from prosecution. That's what I immediately thought upon hearing the example on Advisory Opinions, and when I read the oral arguments, it is what Roberts thinks. That example was discussed in orals.

I was referring to this. Can you support this? So far I only see evidence against from Roberts in oral arguments but again I just got started.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

The auction and the pardon are separable acts, with the sale being a private one, and not immune from prosecution. That's what I immediately thought upon hearing the example on Advisory Opinions, and when I read the oral arguments, it is what Roberts thinks. That example was discussed in orals.

I was referring to this. Can you support this? So far I only see evidence against from Roberts in oral arguments but again I just got started.

I misattributed what I saw in the ruling footnote as something I saw in orals. Either makes my point just the same, but I apologize for the mistake.

[jon-nyc]

Except - not? Robert’s expressed concern about the inadmissability of evidence of an official act. His example was selling ambassadorships, not pardons, but each a bucket 1 act.

Obviously he got over it. I’ll report findings but it might take a day or two.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
I misattributed what I saw in the ruling footnote as something I saw in orals. Either makes my point just the same, but I apologize for the mistake.

So, for the record, you read the orals?

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

Except - not? Robert’s expressed concern about the inadmissability of evidence of an official act. His example was selling ambassadorships, not pardons, but each a bucket 1 act.

Obviously he got over it. I’ll report findings but it might take a day or two.

I guess you won’t even concede that the act of taking the bribe would not be immune, in Roberts’ reconning. Because that would entirely defeat your claim that the ruling makes official act sales immune.

[jon-nyc]

In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.

You read them, right?

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:
I misattributed what I saw in the ruling footnote as something I saw in orals. Either makes my point just the same, but I apologize for the mistake.

So, for the record, you read the orals?

Jon, part of a good faith discussion is trust. So you can go ahead and decide for yourself. Make it your own truth. Did I pretend to read the orals by accidentally saying I saw something there? Or did I actually read them? Maybe I didn’t, and wanted to score all those credibility points by implying I did. Maybe I got all the points I’ve made in this thread from twitter, or podcasts. It’s an eternal mysterie.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.

You read them, right?

Right. So you won’t concede the central point that the bribe would not be immune from prosecution, as a direct inference of Robert’s talking about such a prosecution in the ruling. You’d rather fixate on what I have or haven’t read. Because that’s more important than the fact that you’re blatantly wrong.

[jon-nyc]

You could always just answer the question.

I will.

I read the ruling. I read summaries of the concurrences and the dissents.

I read reporting on the orals back in April. Just started reading the text of them tonight.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

You could always just answer the question.

I will.

I read the ruling. I read summaries of the concurrences and the dissents.

I read reporting on the orals back in April. Just started reading the text of them tonight.

And yet you’re still blatantly wrong about whether a bribe is an official act.

You could always just concede that, rather than engaging in who has read what pissing contest. Maybe I didn’t read them at all Jon. I thought I saw something there as only a rhetorical trick to convince you that I read them.

[jon-nyc]

@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.

You read them, right?

Right. So you won’t concede the central point that the bribe would not be immune from prosecution, as a direct inference of Robert’s talking about such a prosecution in the ruling. You’d rather fixate on what I have or haven’t read. Because that’s more important than the fact that you’re blatantly wrong.

I’m still discovering what Roberts thinks of this. He expressed concern that you couldn’t effectively prosecute the bribe if the granting of the ambassadorship was inadmissible. That is precisely David French’s concern about the pardon.

Maybe Robert’s resolves the question in print. But you don’t fucking know that.

[Horace]

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

@Horace said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

@jon-nyc said in SCOTUS rules POTUS has limited immunity:

In orals he pushed back against Trumps attorney on that very fact since the granting of the ambassadorship would be inadmissible.

You read them, right?

Right. So you won’t concede the central point that the bribe would not be immune from prosecution, as a direct inference of Robert’s talking about such a prosecution in the ruling. You’d rather fixate on what I have or haven’t read. Because that’s more important than the fact that you’re blatantly wrong.

I’m still discovering what Roberts thinks of this. He expressed concern that you couldn’t effectively prosecute the bribe if the granting of the ambassadorship was inadmissible. That is precisely David French’s concern about the pardon.

Maybe Robert’s resolves the question in print. But you don’t fucking know that.

You should probably reread the ruling rather than searching through the history of evolving thought. The ruling is the final say. The oral arguments, which according to your truth I either did or did not read, are for the purpose of forming and changing thoughts and conclusions.