PDPGuy:


Now, you’re first hypo its where it could get tricky. I wouldn’t want to believe that a reasonable judge would agree that your first hypo is an official act, because even if the political opponent has committed treason against the U.S., he/she would still have to go through due process before a punishment can be meted out to that person.

But if that same rival, for eg, takes hostages in a federal building, while being armed and threatens to shoot all the hostages unless a President Trump (or Biden) withdraws from the race, a court may decide that the sitting president has the official power to authorize the FBI’s SWAT team to take out that rival. No doubt that the DOJ and the court may reason that the president’s duty to protect lives and property would be sufficient justification for the president to authorize the on the spot shooting of his rival, in that circumstance.

As to your second example, the District court would most likely hold that, Trump allegedly asking his supporters to invade Capitol Hill, would be outside the scope of his official duties, especially if he didn’t use any instrument of governance ie the DOJ, FBI etc to pass that order to his supporters.

Okay thanks

raumdeuter:


You are missing the point, Osama and Suleimani killing will fall under official killing, Joe Random even if he is a criminal/killer as long as he hasnt been found guilty by court. You have no right to order his killing. is an unofficial killing

You will be prosecuted for Joe Random, you have immunity for Osama

We shall see!

The presumption of immunity is even a high bar.

raumdeuter:


Then its left for the lower court to decide if he used his powers in the way Sotomayor is suggesting.

The simple thing is there are protected official acts and unprotected unofficial acts

or does Sotomayor expect the SCOTUS to say All President acts are NOT covered under immunity? Then that is opening a different kettle which might include the killing of Osama Suleimani, Zarqarwhi etc where all former POTUS are going to face criminal proceedings

To you which of these will be right?

All President acts are covered under immunity
or
All president acts are NOT covered under immunity

I think Sotomayer and her team of top law clerks are capable of understanding the issue and fashioning solutions that doesn't include your straw man.
A ruling could have been fashioned that included a carve out for corrupt use of official acts which would be determined by a Jury. That would be more in fashion with no man being above the law.

ijebosb:
Hilarious

Anwar al Alwaki was a citizen and radical preacher who was in Yemem Obama ordered a drone strike on him and he was killed together with his son. Yemen not a country at war with America.
Is that an official act ? Killing a citizen in a foreign country.

IjeBos:


I think Sotomayer and her team of top law clerks are capable of understanding the issue and fashioning solutions that doesn't include your straw man.
A ruling could have been fashioned that included a carve out for corrupt use of official acts which would be determined by a Jury. That would be more in fashion with no man being above the law.

I think the 6 SCOTUS judges and their law clerks know enough and understood the issues perfectly and left the lower courts to take their own decisions in determining what is official and what is unofficial

The SCOTUS will not be differentiating of the millions of possible scenarios what is official and what is unofficial. Let attorneys and lower judges determine that

raumdeuter:


I think the 6 SCOTUS judges and their law clerks know enough and understood the issues perfectly and left the lower courts to take their own decisions in determining what is official and what is unofficial

The SCOTUS will not be differentiating of the millions of possible scenarios what is official and what is unofficial. Let attorneys and lower judges determine that

Who do do you think will be ruling on whether something is an official act or an unofficial act. SCOTUS.
You do understand that right?

Republicans have done a masterful job.
They have convinced people with minimum power to agree to aggregate power to those with much much more power.
They are going to be studying this in history books.

"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.”

The justice did not end the dissent with the traditional “respectfully” language.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote. "

How did the case get there to SCOTUS
Judge Chutkan was appointed by Obama.
3 DC Appeallate judges ruled that Trump has no immunity. One appointed by GW Bush, the other two by Biden
SCOTUS 3 dissenters are all liberals appointed by democrat presidents
Nothing to see here folks

Who comes off worse. Chutkan should have thrown out the case against Trump or at least determine what was personal or official.

In the other ruling by SCOTUS on Friday the charge of obstruction against official proceedings was remanded to lower courts to properly define the congressional law that was enacted after the Enron case where auditors destroyed evidence. Judge Chutkan should have known that, but she proceeded with the trial preparation.

basilico:
How did the case get there to SCOTUS
Judge Chutkan was appointed by Obama.
3 DC Appeallate judges ruled that Trump has no immunity. One appointed by GW Bush, the other two by Biden
SCOTUS 3 dissenters are all liberals appointed by democrat presidents
Nothing to see here folks

Who comes off worse. Chutkan should have thrown out the case against Trump or at least determine what was personal or official.

In the other ruling by SCOTUS on Friday the charge of obstruction against official proceedings was remanded to lower courts to properly define the congressional law that was enacted after the Enron case where auditors destroyed evidence. Judge Chutkan should have known that, but she proceeded with the trial preparation.

Let them cry. Trump will be the president. All their plot against him seem to be failing because of the few systems that still cares about the constitution

IjeBos:


Who do do you think will be ruling on whether something is an official act or an unofficial act. SCOTUS.
You do understand that right?

SCOTUS has pushed that back to the lower courts, there are a million and one acts a politician can do while in power. Let the lower courts sort it out which is official and which is unofficial

But the SCOTUS has stated official are covered, unofficial are covered. Now the other lower courts should get to work

happney65:
"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.”

The justice did not end the dissent with the traditional “respectfully” language.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote. "

All these are just to induce panic. She can add all the millions of scenarios to it, It doesnt change anything

Sotomayor should tell us what her ruling should be
Current ruling states its on a case by case, If she wants a blanket rule let her say which of the 2 options is she with
Is it

1. President does not have immunity from ALL acts
or
2. President does have immunity from ALL acts

So what is it?

raumdeuter:


All these are just to induce panic. She can add all the millions of scenarios to it, It doesnt change anything

Sotomayor should tell us what her ruling should be
Current ruling states its on a case by case, If she wants a blanket rule let her say which of the 2 options is she with
Is it

1. President does not have immunity from ALL acts
or
2. President does have immunity from ALL acts

See scenario.

sanpipita:
Sotomayor: "With fear for our democracy, I dissent."

Sotomayor is a joke... I can't believe Jackson is to her right.

Sotomayor's dissent looks like citations to things she heard on podcasts. An activist?

LordAdam16:


Their tears is delicious.
Ain't expending any time in a back and forth with TDS patients about the ruling.
We move.

Next up is Merchan.

-Lord

They've exhausted their Trump card... Let's see what July 11th holds.

bemeruca:


See scenario.

The Biden should do it and prove it at lower courts that its an official act

raumdeuter:


SCOTUS has pushed that back to the lower courts, there are a million and one acts a politician can do while in power. Let the lower courts sort it out which is official and which is unofficial

But the SCOTUS has stated official are covered, unofficial are covered. Now the other lower courts should get to work

You keep repeating the same thing on a loop.
People have the ability to appeal to SCOTUS. So SCOTUS will then be the one deciding.
They have given themselves the power to decide this.
You do understand this don't you. That you can't/won't acknowledge it is odd. As if not acknowledging it makes it not real.

bemeruca:


See scenario.

The simple question still remain if you disagree with current ruling then what should be the ruling

1. President does not have immunity from ALL acts
or
2. President does have immunity from ALL acts

So that all presidents can be brought to the dock for ordering the deaths of Osama, Zawahiri, Suleimani etc

happney65:
"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.”

The justice did not end the dissent with the traditional “respectfully” language.

“With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” Sotomayor wrote. "

She's a hack... Hopefully Trump gets to replace her.

ijebosb:


You keep repeating the same thing on a loop.
People have the ability to appeal to SCOTUS. So SCOTUS will then be the one deciding.
They have given themselves the power to decide this.
You do understand this don't you. That you can't/won't acknowledge it is odd. As if not acknowledging it makes it not real.

when they are unable to decide, they should bring that specific case to the SCOTUS. They shouldnt be asking for blanket immunity or blanket non-immunity. That is irresponsible

Killing Osama is not equal to killing Joe Random

Laurene:
She's a hack... Hopefully Trump gets to replace her.

Simmer down. In the US, unlike in Nigeria, Presidents can't replace Federal justices because they feel they can.
Now given this ruling, Trump could have Seal Team 6 kill her and then nominate someone to replace her.

bemeruca:


Let them cry. Trump will be the president. All their plot against him seem to be failing because of the few systems that still cares about the constitution

I dont know if Trump will be president or not but screaming about this very straight forward and common sense ruling is ridiculous

raumdeuter:


when they are unable to decide, they should bring that specific case to the SCOTUS. They shouldnt be asking for blanket immunity or blanket non-immunity. That is irresponsible

Killing Osama is not equal to killing Joe Random

Even if courts do decide. Anyone can appeal the decision to SCOTUS. It's not a matter of them not being able to decide.
That's not how US courts work.
I'm telling you how it works and you ignore it and repeat the same thing.

ijebosb:


Simmer down. In the US, unlike in Nigeria, Presidents can't replace Federal justices because they feel they can.
Now given this ruling, Trump could have Seal Team 6 kill her and then nominate someone to replace her.

if the defence prosecution and lower courts are dumb enough to agree that its an official act. There is still the SCOTUS to adjudicate

I have faith in the justice system they probably wont unlike in Nigeria

ijebosb:


Even if courts do decide. Anyone can appeal the decision to SCOTUS. It's not a matter of them not being able to decide.
You seem to not have a foundational understanding of how US courts work.

If courts decide and you appeal to SCOTUS you bring specific cases not blanket ruling

There might be some where the POTUS will have immunity and some where he doesnt. It is on a case by case basis

That is how law nd justice system works

Killing Osama is not same as killing Joe Random

raumdeuter:


If courts decide and you appeal to SCOTUS you bring specific cases not blanket ruling

There might be some where the POTUS will have immunity and some where he doesnt. It is on a case by case basis

That is how law nd justice system works

Killing Osama is not same as killing Joe Random

Let me try this again,
Say a POTUS's official act is driving a car.
He says in a meeting with a DOJ official he intends to drive his car and kill Biden.
He then drives his Car and kills Biden.
He is immune. In fact they can't even question the discussion he had with the DOJ.
Doesn't matter the reason he chose to kill Biden, as long as he was performing his official act he is immune.
That is my reading of it.

raumdeuter:


I dont know if Trump will be president or not but screaming about this very straight forward and common sense ruling is ridiculous

all these people were nowhere to be found when Obama was doing his things.

ijebosb:


Let me try this again,
Say a POTUS's official act is driving a car.
He says in a meeting with a DOJ official he intends to drive his car and kill Biden.
He then drives his Car and kills Biden.
He is immune. In fact they can't even question the discussion he had with the DOJ.
Doesn't matter the reason he chose to kill Biden, as long as he was performing his official act he is immune.
That is my reading of it.

Thats your reading of it, You are not a judge and I am not
Then they should go prove it in court, and appeal it to SCOTUS. If all layers of the courts agree that its an official act

raumdeuter:


if the defence prosecution and lower courts are dumb enough to agree that its an official act. There is still the SCOTUS to adjudicate

I have faith in the justice system they probably wont unlike in Nigeria

So, the president controls the military. Described in the constitution. Using seal team 6 may even rise to Core Constitutional Power. The problem is the SCOTUS didn't include language for corrupt use of official acts/constitutional power.

ijebosb:


Let me try this again,
Say a POTUS's official act is driving a car.
He says in a meeting with a DOJ official he intends to drive his car and kill Biden.
He then drives his Car and kills Biden.
He is immune. In fact they can't even question the discussion he had with the DOJ.
Doesn't matter the reason he chose to kill Biden, as long as he was performing his official act he is immune.
That is my reading of it.

raumdeuter:


Thats your reading of it, Then they should go prove it in court, and appeal it to SCOTUS. If all layers of the courts agree that its an official act

You think somehow they can take into account motivation or purpose. They can't. The purpose of the use of the official act could be corrupt it wouldn't matter one bit as long as the act is deemed official.