USA court decision on presidential immunity
I do not understand how it could turn out like this. Can anyone explain in an unbiased way how it is constitutionally correct?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
The key words are acting “in the official capacity”. It’s similar to agency law. A principal is liable for the acts of his or her agent ONLY when the agent is acting within his or her delegated authority. Whether its agency law or determining whether a president is acting in his or her official capacity is a FACTUAL not a legal determination. Virtually every instance is and will be different. As usual Roberts wrote this opinion in a way that applies to one case and one case only. If there is one thing that Roberts is good at it’s being a weasel. The founders did not envision that a Chief Justice behave I. The Roberts weasel manner. I’m not sure if he has to die or retire for a new Chief Justice to take over. Perhaps there is a mechanism to allow a sitting Justice to become Chief and the prior Chief being dechiefed?
@jackjjackson I agree whole heartedly with the weasel stuff. But Roberts didn't talk about official capacity, and this new invention of his is not an affirmative defense of qualified immunity.
@jackjjackson Keep reading, and if you really want to be appalled, read the majority opinion again after the dissents and a refresher on qualified immunity.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
I already had and then reviewed. Appalled? That reaction is ridiculous. This applies to all presidents past present and future. The opinion is actually a recitation of what everyone has thought all along. One can’t apply Trump to every aspect of everything. It pollutes reasonable reaction. Trump is an outlier. Way out. We must not set up a system where everyone is presumed to be Trump. @MistyCee
@jackjjackson I hear you, and I heard Gorsuch say he was "writing for the ages" or whatever, but this seems crafted to give men like Trump free reign, unfettered by mere mortals challenging their motivations, or, to use a term actually used in connection with qualified immunity, their good or bad faith
Obviously, Trump is the man (or perhaps being) at issue in the case, so I don't think it's fair to disregard him entirely as an "outlier," and buy this new framework created without regard to him. It seems to me to be written specifically for Trump, or at least, for future rulers like him.
Obviously, Trump is the man (or perhaps being) at issue in the case, so I don't think it's fair to disregard him entirely as an "outlier," and buy this new framework created without regard to him. It seems to me to be written specifically for Trump, or at least, for future rulers like him.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
There are as many rumors roiling regarding Biden crimes and it appears that that is becoming the new political normal. This will give at least some respite for future presidents of all persuasions. Sure it’s Trump now. Could have been Clinton, Bush, Obama and who knows in the future. Criminalizing politics will be no good for no one. @MistyCee
@jackjjackson No doubt, future Presidents can get away with murder as long as the murder is in some way connected to "an official act" (or at least until until the opinion gets overruled or ends the idea of a Government based on the Constitution).
LeopoldBloom · M
@jackjjackson If nothing else, it delays any federal trial as the lower court must now determine what acts are "official" and which ones aren't. Any decision of course will be appealed back to the Supreme Court, and by then the election will be over.
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
That’s a good point. One must look at the big picture not just Trump. We as a country don’t want future elections to be criminalized. It’s not sensible and the voters are also clear on that. @LeopoldBloom
@jackjjackson Yup, and I thought the Constitution was clear enough
jackjjackson · 61-69, M
I clearly get why one would read it through a Trump specific lens. As a person he is a jackass to say the least. Please read the last several threads I wrote regarding how a moderate democrat who is not the camel is inaugurated January 2025. I am very interested in your thoughts regarding that. Despite many on here lumping me in with current Trump lovers I fairly I might add in the past I voted for WJC once and BO twice. I freely admit to being slightly right of center in general overall however I consider every issue separately and do that for every candidate in every election. Where there is only one candidate for an office I leave it blank unless it’s someone I really know and support and where I know nothing regarding either candidate I leave that spot empty too. I think there are many people on here that are slightly left of center and use a similar vote by vote process similar to mine. There is not a lot of distance between them and me. YOU might even be one of them. Somehow and I blame the MSM for a large part when some someone says they support one party or the other IN GENERAL a listener will automatically conflate that person into an extremist on one side of the other. In fact, I believe extremists on both sides are fewer than we think and the MSM combined with the extemists’ loudness try to pretend moderates don’t exist because the extremists know just how few they are and so does the MSM. @MistyCee
LeopoldBloom · M
@jackjjackson This decision should be read through a Trump-specific lens because its sole purpose is to delay the DC trial. When the next case comes back to SCOTUS asking them to define "official acts," don't be surprised if they clarify it to return the definition to the qualified immunity the president had before. They have no interest in making Trump a dictator as they know that could backfire on them, but they do want him to be president again because he will advance the Project 2025 agenda, which is all they're interested in.
You probably aren't the only voter who votes based on the issues, but the polarization is real. I don't see us going back to the days when Antonin Scalia could be confirmed with 98 votes, at least not in my lifetime.
My wife also refuses to vote for unopposed candidates. We do check the nonpartisan candidates we're unaware of and if someone doesn't have a web site, that's a dead giveaway that they're not serious. We also look for endorsements and other signs of where someone stands. I have to say, it was a lot easier in California where they send you a booklet explaining the propositions and with candidate statements. Here in Georgia you're on your own.
You probably aren't the only voter who votes based on the issues, but the polarization is real. I don't see us going back to the days when Antonin Scalia could be confirmed with 98 votes, at least not in my lifetime.
My wife also refuses to vote for unopposed candidates. We do check the nonpartisan candidates we're unaware of and if someone doesn't have a web site, that's a dead giveaway that they're not serious. We also look for endorsements and other signs of where someone stands. I have to say, it was a lot easier in California where they send you a booklet explaining the propositions and with candidate statements. Here in Georgia you're on your own.
@jackjjackson I know you've been trying to move on from Trump for awhile now, but he's the named petitioner in this case and the opinion was written for him. I'm looking forward to moving on from Trump myself, whether its about another candidate or other consequential SCOTUS cases, but I can't really see how to talk about this case without acknowledging him.