SCOTUS arguments on presidential immunity

[BoSoxGal]

Very interesting and well worth a listen if you didn't get to catch it live as I am.

[Big RR]

It's well worth a listen, if only to see how most of the justices hold the presidency in higher regard than I think is wise. The idea of some sort of immunity appears to be thought of as necessary for the president to do his/her job--this even came through with the government attorney. I personally think we have given our president a lot more power than the founders ever thought, and that only increases the chances of a totalitarian regime; giving immunity for actions just increases this chance. Two themes that became apparent--the justices (at least a majority) appear to think that the president should have some pretty broad immunity with regard to the exercise of presidential powers enumerated in the Constitution, even to the point of not being able to question motives, such as selling pardons. The second is that a majority appeared to be comfortable with the argument that if the attorney general approved a course of conduct, the president could not be prosecuted for it (at least federally); yes, it does raise entrapment questions, but an even more important concern would be if a yes man were installed as AG and approved whatever the president wanted to do--they appeared to downplay or outright ignore this concern.

The Trump attorney went even further and said the president would need to be impeached before he could be prosecuted at all; in response to a question as to whether a president attempted a coup could be prosecuted if he were not first impeached and convicted for that, he replied that he could not; I was concerned to see that it didn't bother the justices all that much.

The government attorney tried to get back again and again to the facts of this case, but he was rebuffed by the justices who wanted to consider the broader implications.

My prediction is that the justices will take their time and that we won't see an opinion until June/July when the term ends. It will not be unanimous, but will give the president absolute immunity for some actions, qualified immunity for others, and will remand to the district court; this will ensure we will not see any trial until after November. I am fairly sure it will not be unanimous, and the dissent will be fairly strongly worded, but we will see the presidency just getting some additional powers, hopefully very limited, but I am not confident. I would be interested to see what they do with the state court actions and whether this would stall them, but I am not hopeful. Unlike the founders, many in the US appear to want a king who can ignore a deadlocked congress, and I predict the opinion will help foster that goal.

In all, it's quite disappointing; I had hoped some of the conservative, strict constructionist justices would hold that the Cons5itution did not give the president any immunity, and they would not do so abent a Constitutional amendment, and some of the left leaning justices woudl take the same position, but it appears some immunity will be recognized by all. Very sad and dangerous IMHO.

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with you Big RR; I listened to the arguments in full and felt very much like democracy was hanging in the balance.

I don't think there should be any immunity from criminal law for any office holder at any level in a democracy. Plenty of functional democracies around the globe have tried and convicted their PMs and presidents after they have left office, as it should be. There is no safety in relying on the good nature or moral character of a leader, we have millennia of evidence for that. They must be accountable for crimes committed in office or out, and not just by a political process - by the same criminal justice system which all other citizens are subject to.

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/ ... -rcna89931

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/26/countr ... ed-charged

[liberty]

error

[liberty]

It's well worth a listen, if only to see how most of the justices hold the presidency in higher regard than I think is wise. The idea of some sort of immunity appears to be thought of as necessary for the president to do his/her job--this even came through with the government attorney. I personally think we have given our president a lot more power than the founders ever thought, and that only increases the chances of a totalitarian regime;

I think you're wrong Big. Do you remember what the situation was during the time of the Constitution Convention? The founders wanted the president to have the power necessary to defend the country while Congress debated. You guys accused Trump of being a dictator, but Trump was no dictator. He could not be a dictator; the way the founders designed the system made it highly unlikely. Even if he gained total control of the federal government, he would still have to deal with the state governments and the power of an armed people. I have said it for years; all of the safeguards in the Constitution are important and not one should be changed.


I had copilot confirm it for me:

"The British occupation of western force was indeed one of the factors that spurred the US Constitution Convention. "

[Joe Guy]

.......You guys accused Trump of being a dictator, but Trump was no dictator....

Which guys accused Trump of being a dictator?

[liberty]

.......You guys accused Trump of being a dictator, but Trump was no dictator....

Which guys accused Trump of being a dictator?

Like all of you. Could trump be a dictator if he was elected again? Of course, you could help the slide into dictatorship along by abolishing the 2nd, 10th, 11th amendment, the electoral college and by the president appointing states governors. That might do the trick and give you the Democrat party dictator and the progressive world that you want. It's not that you're opposed to a dictator you just opposed to a dictator not being your dictator.

As for myself, I want to stick with the nasty frustrating system we have now: at least, it's relatively safe from tyrannical power which in my mind is the worst of all potential outcomes.

[MajGenl.Meade]

["Constitution Convention" is appalling use of the English language, as is "western force" which is also meaningless drivel]

What a weird, not to mention totally inadequate, knowledge of history you have, lib. The Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia met from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was called to resolve various problems, some arising from the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American War of Independence.

The confederated American states had agreed to pay debts owed to British subjects and to allow former British loyalists to recover confiscated property in U.S. courts. Some states refused to allow either to happen. In return, Britain refused to surrender some forts in U.S. territory pending resolution. British goods flooded American markets and the states themselves imposed import duties on intrastate commerce. Additionally, Spain barred American ships from the Mississippi which southern states wanted to see ended, while northern states wouldn't agree unless import duties were ended (or imposed in some cases). The Confederation Congress had no real way under the Articles of Confederation to resolve these issues, mostly due to the inability to get the required majority of state votes on any issue.

The Constitutional Convention was called (as some thought) to amend the Articles to allow a more efficient implementation of nationally agreed solutions. But it turned out that the Articles were cancelled by a new Constitution.

The founders did not want the President to have power to make war while Congress debated. In fact (you may need a dictionary for that word), Article 1, Section 8 forbade the President to make war without Congressional approval.

As to you contention that Trump can't be a dictator because he'd have to deal with "state governments and the power of an armed people" . . . well. . . if he wins it will be because "most" state governments have become Trumpist Republican and (you silly goose) "the armed people" are (in the vast majority) rightist military wannabes who will be shooting at whoever opposes Benito Trumpolini.

And the states have no authority to veto or nullify any Federal law (controlled by Adolf Trump) and the issue of secession has been long decided as Josef Trump well knows).

And you claim you want to "stick with the system we have now", while denying that Genghis Trump and his Supremes want to radically change the meaning of the Constitution in his favor so that he can defy it.

Ball 4 - batter walks.,

[liberty]

["Constitution Convention" is appalling use of the English language, as is "western force" which is also meaningless drivel]

What a weird, not to mention totally inadequate, knowledge of history you have, lib. The Constitutional Convention of Philadelphia met from May 25 to September 17, 1787. It was called to resolve various problems, some arising from the 1783 Treaty of Paris, which ended the American War of Independence.

The confederated American states had agreed to pay debts owed to British subjects and to allow former British loyalists to recover confiscated property in U.S. courts. Some states refused to allow either to happen. In return, Britain refused to surrender some forts in U.S. territory pending resolution. British goods flooded American markets and the states themselves imposed import duties on intrastate commerce. Additionally, Spain barred American ships from the Mississippi which southern states wanted to see ended, while northern states wouldn't agree unless import duties were ended (or imposed in some cases). The Confederation Congress had no real way under the Articles of Confederation to resolve these issues, mostly due to the inability to get the required majority of state votes on any issue.

The Constitutional Convention was called (as some thought) to amend the Articles to allow a more efficient implementation of nationally agreed solutions. But it turned out that the Articles were cancelled by a new Constitution.

The founders did not want the President to have power to make war while Congress debated. In fact (you may need a dictionary for that word), Article 1, Section 8 forbade the President to make war without Congressional approval.

As to you contention that Trump can't be a dictator because he'd have to deal with "state governments and the power of an armed people" . . . well. . . if he wins it will be because "most" state governments have become Trumpist Republican and (you silly goose) "the armed people" are (in the vast majority) rightist military wannabes who will be shooting at whoever opposes Benito Trumpolini.

And the states have no authority to veto or nullify any Federal law (controlled by Adolf Trump) and the issue of secession has been long decided as Josef Trump well knows).

And you claim you want to "stick with the system we have now", while denying that Genghis Trump and his Supremes want to radically change the meaning of the Constitution in his favor so that he can defy it.

Ball 4 - batter walks.,

I see nothing new there. Just because I don't mention something does not mean I'm not aware of it. The founders were concerned about the survival of the country as a free and independent nation state above all else. Maybe they were being collectively self-centered, but that's just the way people are sometimes.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Just because I don't mention something does not mean I'm not aware of it. The founders were concerned about the survival of the country as a free and independent nation state above all else. Maybe they were being collectively self-centered, but that's just the way people are sometimes.

None of that is what you wrote and it's the stuff you do mention that is erroneous. But you of course deny your own words, not from 10 years ago from an hour or less as usual. You wrote:

Do you remember what the situation was during the time of the Constitution Convention? The founders wanted the president to have the power necessary to defend the country while Congress debated

Not only don't you understand the situation during the time of the Constitution (sic) Convention, but you most certainly did not write that the Founders (big F please) were concerned about etc. etc. Instead you wrote that "they wanted the president to have the power necessary to defend the country while Congress debated". No they did not. They wanted the opposite.

Why don't you man-up and admit for once your actual words and what they mean instead of making up stuff about things you never did write?

[Burning Petard]

Maj Gen'l Sir, you are beating a very dead horse. The poor being (I am not sure Liberty IS a man) is unable to read basic English with any degree of understanding.

snailgate.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Time for a good old favorite from the Cafe D'Artre days

[Joe Guy]

[Burning Petard]

Mr. Guy. I like it but the horse does not look dead yet. But what is the unopened can in the fore ground? Snailgate

[Big RR]

And as for

Could trump be a dictator if he was elected again?

I would have to answer, I doubt it; I do not think he has the necessary skills/intelligence to be come a dictator (I guess he could be the figurehead of a dictatorial cabal, but that is different, and given his behavior, I doubt such a cabal would last very long). However, I do think that the more power we give a president, the more the chance of us winding up with a dictatorship; I think the Founders understood that and refused to create a strong presidency. As I said, I would have hoped that some of the strict constructionists on the court would have taken that position with regard to immunity that was never granted and even rejected at the convention, but they're far more concerned with politics than what should be done.

[Joe Guy]

Mr. Guy. I like it but the horse does not look dead yet. But what is the unopened can in the fore ground? Snailgate

The dead horse is experiencing cadaveric spasm. All of the cans, including the one in the foreground, contain beets.