Well, I guess we had a good run.

[Sue U]

So long, rule of law and limits on executive power. Everything is legal if the President does it while Presidenting, and don't you dare ask *why* he's doing it, either!

Trump v. United States

This court is completely off the rails.

[MajGenl.Meade]

(3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.

Have The Supremes not turned this back to the courts to determine whether Trump's treasonable acts were in fact unofficial and therefore justiciable?

[BoSoxGal]

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

“Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.”

. . .

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” ~ Justice Sotomayor

[Sue U]

(3) As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.

Have The Supremes not turned this back to the courts to determine whether Trump's treasonable acts were in fact unofficial and therefore justiciable?

Sure, as long as the trial court can make that determination without using virtually any of the actual evidence or inquiring as to his unlawful intent. Basically, anything Trump did in attempting to use government officials to overturn the election results is off limits because "official acts." From the syllabus:

The immunity the Court has recognized therefore extends to the “outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority.” In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. .... Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. ....

The indictment alleges that as part of their conspiracy to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to leverage the Justice Department’s power and authority to convince certain States to replace their legitimate electors with Trump’s fraudulent slates of electors. ... The indictment further alleges that after the Acting Attorney General resisted Trump’s requests, Trump repeatedly threatened to replace him. ... The allegations in fact plainly implicate Trump’s “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. ... The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.

The indictment next alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators “attempted to enlist the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the January 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.” App. 187, Indictment ¶10(d). In particular, the indictment alleges several conversations in which Trump pressured the Vice President to reject States’ legitimate electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures for review. Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice
President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.

Oh, and not for nothing, note the implicit endorsement of the "unitary executive" theory of presidential power in controlling government agencies.

ETA:

This decision is frankly shocking in the breadth of corruption and criminality it immunizes from prosecution and accountability; it validates Nixon's argument that "if the President does it, it's not illegal."

[BoSoxGal]

Not for nothing, but people like me who studied hard and did as we were told and followed the rules and foolishly believed in meritocracy and who poured themselves heart and soul into the study of and reverence for our democracy and legal system all their adult lives are pretty fucking upset about this shit.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Oh. Damn him. Damn them.

[Big RR]

I'm not surprised after listening to the arguments, but deep down I hoped for more. But no such luck. I agree with Sue--we had a good run, but it's over.

[Scooter]

So come January, if Trump has been elected but we have a Democratic Speaker of the House, all Biden needs to do is order some FBI or Secret Service agents to carry out a hit on Trump and his Vice-President Elect, giving everyone involved a pardon. Speaker becomes President on January 20, and Biden can't be prosecuted for it.

Problem solved?

Oh, and for good measure, those agents also firebomb the houses of the six SCOTUS justices who issued this travesty of a ruling, and Biden appoints their successors (all under 35 and redder than a rose).

[BoSoxGal]

So come January, if Trump has been elected but we have a Democratic Speaker of the House, all Biden needs to do is order some FBI or Secret Service agents to carry out a hit on Trump and his Vice-President Elect, giving everyone involved a pardon. Speaker becomes President on January 20, and Biden can't be prosecuted for it.

Problem solved?

Oh, and for good measure, those agents also firebomb the houses of the six SCOTUS justices who issued this travesty of a ruling, and Biden appoints their successors (all under 35 and redder than a rose).

I hope you meant bluer than the ocean!

[Scooter]

I was thinking of commie red.

[Sue U]

I can only assume the SCOTUS majority is so debased that they no longer give a shit about any public perception of "legitimacy," let alone impartiality, and are now just letting their freak flags fly.

[BoSoxGal]

[ex-khobar Andy]

Comment in NYT today: 'So long, America. It was good while it lasted.'

I speak as a European. Sure we have often laughed at you Americans because your history just isn't. And because we disapprove of letting the market rule everything. And we watch and laugh as you stumble into fire pits and elephant traps because you were not watching where you were going.

But at the same time we keep a close eye on your progress and make mental notes - we'll try that one and now we know not to go there.

I sometimes think - and I don't know if I have said it here - but maybe we need the occasional reminder of fascism / extreme nationalism (every couple of generations???) so that we can be reminded of how awful it really is.

[Joe Guy]

(e) This case poses a question of lasting significance: When may a former President be prosecuted for official acts taken during his Presidency? In answering that question, unlike the political branches and the public at large, the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies. Enduring separation of powers principles guide our decision in this case. The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office. Pp. 41–43.

Doesn't this mean that the SCOTUS is leaving it to the trial courts to determine what actions that Trump took can actually be prosecuted?

Is Trump's "win" really just the fact that any actual justice is being delayed indefinitely?

Is it possible that he could still eventually be prosecuted for the fake electors and his part in the Jan 6th riot?

If elected, can he still be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" alleged during his last term?

As they say about Grand Juries, couldn't the House of Representatives impeach a ham sandwich if they felt like it?

I'm just trying to find something positive that can be salvaged from today's SCOTUS decision.

Everybody needs to vote for Biden (or whichever democrat shows up on the ballot) on November 5th. It looks like our only hope now is for the majority of voters in this country (and their electors) to to show up and end the madness.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I liked (wrong word but it will have to do for now) that cartoon you posted, BSG. I looked up the Chattanooga Times Free Press on Wikipedia and found this sentence: "The Times Free Press runs two editorial pages: one staunchly liberal, the other staunchly conservative, reflecting the editorial leanings of the Times and Free Press, respectively."

I went to the web site and this is indeed true. I haven't come across this before in a world of merged newspapers and basically nowadays one for the entire market except in huge areas such as NY. Does anyone know how common this is? It makes sense.

The difference between the print press in UK and USA is huge. UK is a geographically small country so distribution of newspapers is relatively easy. Go into any newspaper distributor in the UK - e.g. supermarket - and you will find an array of newspapers to choose from and you will find one which suits your political bent. So if you want the Guardian to suit your 'liberal' leanings it's there; or the Daily Mail (it's not your fault, it's someone else's); or the Telegraph (Tory through and through); or the Sun (none of it matters unless she has nice tits) - they are all there. In the US most markets have one paper and the name reflects the mergers over the years.

[BoSoxGal]

I liked (wrong word but it will have to do for now) that cartoon you posted, BSG.

I highly recommend following Clay Bennett on Facebook or on Go Comics - his stuff is brilliant and has been a real balm to my soul these last several years.

https://www.timesfreepress.com/staff/clay-bennett/

[Sue U]

***

Doesn't this mean that the SCOTUS is leaving it to the trial courts to determine what actions that Trump took can actually be prosecuted?
***

As I noted above, given the constraints the Court has put on what can be considered evidence and actionable conduct, it is likely to be a practical impossibility to make the factual case for what we're broadly calling "election interference." When Trump demands his Attorney General open a sham investigation of "election fraud" so he can substitute slates of fake electors, that's just exercising presidential authority over an executive agency in determining what crimes to prosecute.

ETA:
That's not me being snarky, that is literally the holding of the case. We are in a world beyond parody and satire.

[ex-khobar Andy]

Of course, Biden as president now has a host of SCOTUS-bestowed powers he never dreamed he had. Maybe he should exercise some of them.

[Econoline]

Of course, Biden as president now has a host of SCOTUS-bestowed powers he never dreamed he had. Maybe he should exercise some of them.

I'm liking the "Seal Team 6" scenario more and more.


(Hey, if Joe does it quickly and then resigns before Inauguration Day, he can even get a Nixon-style pardon from Kamala to guar-on-TEE the absence of consequences, even from this oh-so-special Supreme Court! )

[Sue U]

Yeah, that sums up the current Court pretty accurately. Have you seen the decision in Corner Post v. Federal Reserve? There's no longer any limitations period for challenging a federal regulation. You can create a business knowing what all the applicable rules and regulations are, even if they've been on the books for decades, and then file suit to have them ruled unconstitutional; there's no such thing as "settled law" anymore. The whole field of administrative law is now the Wild West. I guess law schools must be throwing out all their course materials over the summer and replacing them with shrug emojis. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯