Please tell me they defined with an official act is.NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:33 pm Also, what is an "official act" and what is an "unofficial act"? I guess the courts get to decide that (but without considering motive)?
SCOTUS
Re: SCOTUS
Re: SCOTUS
If Trump does it, it is an “official act.” If Biden does it, it is an “unofficial act.” That is what this Supreme Court would say.
-
SCLaxAttack
- Posts: 1708
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 10:24 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Threw it back to Chutkan. This way if she rules against King Donald they can get the appeal.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:47 pmPlease tell me they defined with an official act is.NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:33 pm Also, what is an "official act" and what is an "unofficial act"? I guess the courts get to decide that (but without considering motive)?
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
Re: SCOTUS
So you're telling me that the entire decision is based on what an official act is....and they didn't bother telling Americans what an official act is?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:55 pmThrew it back to Chutkan. This way if she rules against King Donald they can get the appeal.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:47 pmPlease tell me they defined with an official act is.NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:33 pm Also, what is an "official act" and what is an "unofficial act"? I guess the courts get to decide that (but without considering motive)?
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
Forum Lawyers: are official acts defined in US Law? Or CFR's?
Re: SCOTUS
They offered some guidance.
Here is a link to the opinion. Wouldn’t expect you to read the entire thing, but you can get a sense for the answer to your question in the syllabus.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_e2pg.pdf
Here is a link to the opinion. Wouldn’t expect you to read the entire thing, but you can get a sense for the answer to your question in the syllabus.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 9_e2pg.pdf
Re: SCOTUS
This has been addressed previously by Congress:
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-c ... -sect-201/
18 U.S.C. § 201 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by FindLaw Staff
(a) For the purpose of this section--
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever--
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent--
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever--
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty--
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
Based on the above, tRump's interference in the Georgia elections, his fomenting of violence and dissension on Jan 6, and his corrupt business practices do not constitute official acts under the law. On that basis he does not have legal immunity. It's the law but watch as the right wingers in the corrupt USSC spin the law in theirs and in his favor.
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-c ... -sect-201/
18 U.S.C. § 201 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 201. Bribery of public officials and witnesses
Current as of January 01, 2024 | Updated by FindLaw Staff
(a) For the purpose of this section--
(1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;
(2) the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and
(3) the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official's official capacity, or in such official's place of trust or profit.
(b) Whoever--
(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent--
(A) to influence any official act; or
(B) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
(3) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;
(4) directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(c) Whoever--
(1) otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty--
(A) directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or
(B) being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;
(2) directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom;
(3) directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person's absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.
(d) Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.
(e) The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.
Based on the above, tRump's interference in the Georgia elections, his fomenting of violence and dissension on Jan 6, and his corrupt business practices do not constitute official acts under the law. On that basis he does not have legal immunity. It's the law but watch as the right wingers in the corrupt USSC spin the law in theirs and in his favor.
It has been proven a hundred times that the surest way to the heart of any man, black or white, honest or dishonest, is through justice and fairness.
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Charles Francis "Socker" Coe, Esq
Re: SCOTUS
Yet again, ACB shows that she is the smartest and least hack-ish of the conservative justices.
She doesn’t shy away from throwing shade where it is deserved.
She doesn’t shy away from throwing shade where it is deserved.
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4801
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: SCOTUS
No. It is to be interpreted from the core function of Aticle II, without reference to the President’s intent. Nice, huh?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:59 pmSo you're telling me that the entire decision is based on what an official act is....and they didn't bother telling Americans what an official act is?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:55 pmThrew it back to Chutkan. This way if she rules against King Donald they can get the appeal.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:47 pmPlease tell me they defined with an official act is.NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:33 pm Also, what is an "official act" and what is an "unofficial act"? I guess the courts get to decide that (but without considering motive)?
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
Forum Lawyers: are official acts defined in US Law? Or CFR's?
Re: SCOTUS
It is worth repeating this clip - which is now trueSeacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 4:24 pmNo. It is to be interpreted from the core function of Aticle II, without reference to the President’s intent. Nice, huh?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:59 pmSo you're telling me that the entire decision is based on what an official act is....and they didn't bother telling Americans what an official act is?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:55 pmThrew it back to Chutkan. This way if she rules against King Donald they can get the appeal.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:47 pmPlease tell me they defined with an official act is.NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:33 pm Also, what is an "official act" and what is an "unofficial act"? I guess the courts get to decide that (but without considering motive)?
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
Forum Lawyers: are official acts defined in US Law? Or CFR's?
Where in DC can they erect a Nixon Monument?
Re: SCOTUS
Motive is not an issue in deciding
-
LaxFan2311
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:35 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Biden belongs in prison. This may actually help him. Cry and cope Dems!
Biden is ORANGE now?! Hahahahaha Orange man bad is now Joe Peodphile Biden!
Biden is ORANGE now?! Hahahahaha Orange man bad is now Joe Peodphile Biden!
The right loves the country but hates the government.
The left hates the country but loves the government.
Understanding this will explain it all.
The left hates the country but loves the government.
Understanding this will explain it all.
Re: SCOTUS
This will be a question in Law Schools everywhere, to help students understand how F'ed up this ruling is.Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 4:34 pmIt is worth repeating this clip - which is now trueSeacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 4:24 pmNo. It is to be interpreted from the core function of Aticle II, without reference to the President’s intent. Nice, huh?a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:59 pmSo you're telling me that the entire decision is based on what an official act is....and they didn't bother telling Americans what an official act is?SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:55 pmThrew it back to Chutkan. This way if she rules against King Donald they can get the appeal.a fan wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:47 pmPlease tell me they defined with an official act is.NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 3:33 pm Also, what is an "official act" and what is an "unofficial act"? I guess the courts get to decide that (but without considering motive)?
The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
Forum Lawyers: are official acts defined in US Law? Or CFR's?
Where in DC can they erect a Nixon Monument?
Biden hires hitman to Kill Trump, and every other politician who opposed him, claiming he's just protecting America from its enemies, just like the oath says. You know: an "official act".
We all know now that the POTUS can do that, and is in the clear. That's not the fun question for law students.
The question is: is the hitman guilty of anything, if the person who hired him didn't break the law in directing him to kill someone?
Bonus points to answer same question assuming the hitman is a Federal employee.
To quote the Emperor? The SCOTUS just made it legal......
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 15224
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: SCOTUS
What was Joe implying back in the day...is Joe's argument on Natural Law have to do with race? https://x.com/LarryOConnor/status/1807894799501906239
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
-
LaxFan2311
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:35 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Democrats on X are calling for Trump to be murdered to see what happens based on the immunity ruling. The Left is all about violence to maintain power.
https://x.com/breaking911/status/180783 ... 3A8dXXaEwA
https://x.com/breaking911/status/180783 ... 3A8dXXaEwA
Last edited by LaxFan2311 on Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The right loves the country but hates the government.
The left hates the country but loves the government.
Understanding this will explain it all.
The left hates the country but loves the government.
Understanding this will explain it all.
-
NattyBohChamps04
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Democrats in X are calling for Trump to be murdered to see what happens. The Left is all about violence to maintain power.
https://x.com/breaking911/status/180783 ... 3A8dXXaEwA
Whoopsie! Petey forgot what he was chanting on Jan 6th.
-
LaxFan2311
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:35 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter was the only one to die that day. She was murdered by a police officer. But not surprised you support the murder of Trump. You're really bad at being a troll. DMac is the most deranged, followed by white neighborhood living, a fan and then you. Seacoaster is up there as well. Oh I forgot about njbill. MDLax can’t handle the truth either. So many TDS sufferers on this forum. J6 was a museum tour compared to the BLM terrorist riots. BLM is a racist, scam organization. Did you donate to them? Maybe ask for your $ back. Your wokeness knows no bounds.NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:31 pmDemocrats in X are calling for Trump to be murdered to see what happens. The Left is all about violence to maintain power.
https://x.com/breaking911/status/180783 ... 3A8dXXaEwA
Whoopsie! Petey forgot what he was chanting on Jan 6th.
The right loves the country but hates the government.
The left hates the country but loves the government.
Understanding this will explain it all.
The left hates the country but loves the government.
Understanding this will explain it all.
-
NattyBohChamps04
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
You just can't cope my man! Facts don't care about your feelings seeing how the violence was coming from inside the White House on J6. Not surprised that you support the murder of Trump, Pence, Biden, Fox News Hosts and all non-"pure-bloods" who got vaxxed.LaxFan2311 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:36 pm Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter was the only one to die that day. She was murdered by a police officer. But not surprised you support the murder of Trump. You're really bad at being a troll. DMac is the most deranged, followed by white neighborhood living, a fan and then you. Seacoaster is up there as well. Oh I forgot about njbill. MDLax can’t handle the truth either. So many TDS sufferers on this forum. J6 was a museum tour compared to the BLM terrorist riots. BLM is a racist, scam organization. Did you donate to them? Maybe ask for your $ back. Your wokeness knows no bounds.
Friendly reminder that you're in love with a Dirty-Blood guy who loses all the time. And who personally calls for violence when he loses. You really gotta step up your game my man. The act has gotten stale and boring and repetitive. It's like watching a standup do the same hour 4 years later. Andy Dick's got nothing on you!
Keep the personal insults coming though, they're exciting, they really get the people going! Go Seminoles! Oooh, this is fun, keep going!
-
LaxFan2311
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:35 pm
Re: SCOTUS
“End of Quote”NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:46 pmYou just can't cope my man! Facts don't care about your feelings seeing how the violence was coming from inside the White House on J6. Not surprised that you support the murder of Trump, Pence, Biden, Fox News Hosts and all non-"pure-bloods" who got vaxxed.LaxFan2311 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:36 pm Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter was the only one to die that day. She was murdered by a police officer. But not surprised you support the murder of Trump. You're really bad at being a troll. DMac is the most deranged, followed by white neighborhood living, a fan and then you. Seacoaster is up there as well. Oh I forgot about njbill. MDLax can’t handle the truth either. So many TDS sufferers on this forum. J6 was a museum tour compared to the BLM terrorist riots. BLM is a racist, scam organization. Did you donate to them? Maybe ask for your $ back. Your wokeness knows no bounds.
Friendly reminder that you're in love with a Dirty-Blood guy who loses all the time. And who personally calls for violence when he loses. You really gotta step up your game my man. The act has gotten stale and boring and repetitive. It's like watching a standup do the same hour 4 years later. Andy Dick's got nothing on you!
Keep the personal insults coming though, they're exciting, they really get the people going! Go Seminoles! Oooh, this is fun, keep going!
The right loves the country but hates the government.
The left hates the country but loves the government.
Understanding this will explain it all.
The left hates the country but loves the government.
Understanding this will explain it all.
-
NattyBohChamps04
- Posts: 2483
- Joined: Tue May 04, 2021 11:40 pm
Re: SCOTUS
Happy Biden has immunity Tuesday!LaxFan2311 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 02, 2024 12:05 am“End of Quote”NattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:46 pmYou just can't cope my man! Facts don't care about your feelings seeing how the violence was coming from inside the White House on J6. Not surprised that you support the murder of Trump, Pence, Biden, Fox News Hosts and all non-"pure-bloods" who got vaxxed.LaxFan2311 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2024 11:36 pm Ashli Babbitt, a Trump supporter was the only one to die that day. She was murdered by a police officer. But not surprised you support the murder of Trump. You're really bad at being a troll. DMac is the most deranged, followed by white neighborhood living, a fan and then you. Seacoaster is up there as well. Oh I forgot about njbill. MDLax can’t handle the truth either. So many TDS sufferers on this forum. J6 was a museum tour compared to the BLM terrorist riots. BLM is a racist, scam organization. Did you donate to them? Maybe ask for your $ back. Your wokeness knows no bounds.
Friendly reminder that you're in love with a Dirty-Blood guy who loses all the time. And who personally calls for violence when he loses. You really gotta step up your game my man. The act has gotten stale and boring and repetitive. It's like watching a standup do the same hour 4 years later. Andy Dick's got nothing on you!
Keep the personal insults coming though, they're exciting, they really get the people going! Go Seminoles! Oooh, this is fun, keep going!
Why do you support vaxxed "dirty-blood" accused Pedophile voter fraud candidates like Trump? You're supporting the stuff we're supposed to hate!
We need new standup content! Stop with the old stuff, it's boring!
Make America End of Quote Again!
-
Seacoaster(1)
- Posts: 4801
- Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am
Re: SCOTUS
It is a labor for sure, but it is worthwhile, as Americans, to read the various immunity case opinions: (1) Roberts's decision for the majority, (2) Barrett's concurring (and dissenting in some meaningful respects) opinion, and (3) Sotomayor's dissent, in which Kagan and Jackson join. The Thomas opinion is basically a throw away, an effort to feed the notion that the Special Counsel's appointment is invalid. The only willing reader of that opinion will be Aileen Cannon.
So take a long read. Roberts's opinion has the thrum of moderation and concern for a vigorous presidency that might protect us and our interests best. But in the end it takes away all of the moderating power in the small print, where Roberts canvasses the indictment and opines that the Presidency's powers have such express and implied reach that even things no lay person would think of as "official" acts are probably official. Even the conspiracy to defraud the voting public by using and deploying fake electors is put up for consideration as an official act.
Barrett's opinion, as ggait suggests, is less festooned with flowery language about our grand Presidency and our wonderful separation of powers, but it is more thoughtful as a practical matter. Her note (and disagreement with Roberts) on the use of evidence of official acts in the course of proving criminality of non-official acts is an acknowledgement of the realities of evidentiary practices in a court -- something Roberts and the rest of the majority never had to do in their lives as lawyers and don't appear to understand.
Sotomayor is the canary in this coal mine of choking methane and carbon monoxide. She reads Roberts's opinion, I think, rightly to grease the skids of review on remand to allow extraordinarily wide latitude to a President fixed on increasing his own power, cult of personality, and ability to remain in office using the now astonishing powers of incumbency.
Put aside the folks angling for the office itself this November, and, after reading these opinions, ask yourself earnestly whether this is the Presidency you really thought you had all these years, and want in the years to come.
So take a long read. Roberts's opinion has the thrum of moderation and concern for a vigorous presidency that might protect us and our interests best. But in the end it takes away all of the moderating power in the small print, where Roberts canvasses the indictment and opines that the Presidency's powers have such express and implied reach that even things no lay person would think of as "official" acts are probably official. Even the conspiracy to defraud the voting public by using and deploying fake electors is put up for consideration as an official act.
Barrett's opinion, as ggait suggests, is less festooned with flowery language about our grand Presidency and our wonderful separation of powers, but it is more thoughtful as a practical matter. Her note (and disagreement with Roberts) on the use of evidence of official acts in the course of proving criminality of non-official acts is an acknowledgement of the realities of evidentiary practices in a court -- something Roberts and the rest of the majority never had to do in their lives as lawyers and don't appear to understand.
Sotomayor is the canary in this coal mine of choking methane and carbon monoxide. She reads Roberts's opinion, I think, rightly to grease the skids of review on remand to allow extraordinarily wide latitude to a President fixed on increasing his own power, cult of personality, and ability to remain in office using the now astonishing powers of incumbency.
Put aside the folks angling for the office itself this November, and, after reading these opinions, ask yourself earnestly whether this is the Presidency you really thought you had all these years, and want in the years to come.