USA court decision on presidential immunity

@MistyCee Ty

@MistyCee Good article. Thanks for sharing! The frustrating thing is that SCOTUS is riding a fine line, but then they did not bother to define where the line is. I bet this decision will be debated for a while and probably change in the future.

@Maritocorneo My guess is that they had at least five justices wanting to give Trump a get out of Jail Free card, but couldn't agree on how to do it because of the text of the Constitution. Roberts might not even have been one of the original five, but he was willing to write this thing in a way that everyone could agree with, even if they needed to concur.

As for changing, assuming it doesn't become moot when Trump gets re-elected, the Court knows it will see the case again on appeal, after the lower courts have struggled with applying this decision.

@MistyCee The lower courts will struggle with the decision until at least this Fall. When they send it back to SCOTUS, they can put it on a slow path, just like they did on the original immunity decision, until at least June 30, 2025. If they can send it back again for refinement, they can delay it another year or more, depending on who is president. If Trump gets back in, they can expedite it to give him maximum autocratic power in January 2025.

@windinhishair If Trump gets back in, they won't really have to address these facts again. His decision to not prosecute himself and to fire anyone who does is a core power.

@MistyCee Of course he will stop all prosecutions of him at the federal level. But he will still face potential charges at the state level (Georgia) so they will probably have to address the issue at least once more to give Trump maximum protection.

@windinhishair I wouldn't bet on that. If Trump wins, he can apply an awful lot of pressure on Georgia, if he even needs to.

@windinhishair Some would applaud that for sure, but Georgia isn't going to secede on this, and when Federal money goes out but not back in, it'll back down, again, if not before.

Hell, I'm not sure the Georgia proceeding can't be removed to Federal Court now to shut it down. There's no statutory or Constitutional grounds for it, but there isn't for Absolute Presidential Immunity either.

@MistyCee We are in uncharted waters, and we no longer have the country based on the rule of law that we thought we did.

@windinhishair Yup. This opinion alone is probably as big or bigger than Marbury v. Madison, and it are seems like it was designed to fundamentally change the government. When you add it to Loper, we're living through some pretty big stuff.

@MistyCee When the history of the recent Court is written, it will be brutal.

@MistyCee I'd be interested in seeing a The Hill article agreeing with Trump. All US media seems to be is "fact checkers" confirming that their side has the facts.

@Aami1 I'll keep an eye out for one, but this was an opinion piece by a law professor. Jonathan Turley will probably come up with some way to spin this, and maybe Dershowitz, but other than that, it's going to be hard to get anyone with any similar credentials to stand up for this decision. You might want to go look over at the Federalist website. They'll publish just about any pro-Trump piece, from anyone, without qualifications.

@MistyCee That's the issue, it'll all be presented as "unbiased", "the facts", from all sides, whist acting more tribalistic than religious factions

@windinhishair The Roberts Court will be remembered as the Taney Court of the 21st Century.

@LeopoldBloom And the Taney Court will be remembered as the Roberts Court of its time.

@Aami1 The syllabus at the front of the decision then, is probably as close as you're going to get to an unbiased fact based analysis of the case. And if I remember correctly, this one was pretty dull and harder to follow than the actual opinions.