SCOTUS

[a fan]

Roberts is now running neck and neck with Roger Taney for the title of worst Chief Justice ever.

Sad, there was a time when I thought he cared about the Court and its legacy, not to mention his.

Putting aside the horrendous series of decisions he has joined, he has been an abject failure at reigning in the ethics “excesses” (to be kind) of his fellow Justices.

Now that the Supreme Court has green lit such actions, Biden should order the IRS to go after Clarence for his failure to pay income taxes on the millions and millions of dollars in payments he has received from Republican donors over the years.

+100

.... the court that sanctioned public corruption. Pathetic. History will not be kind to these losers.

And it would be an "official act".


Has anyone noticed that not one of the Forum's Republicans have come on to tell us this was bad decision on the part of the SCOTUS?

They can't muster the strength to have an opinion? Cool.

small correction, MAGA Republicans.

Noted. And notice....even after calling them out...not a word. No comment at all. Gee, I can't figure out why.

We need a new word for hypocrisy. Because that word is inadequate for how bad the hypocrisy has gotten since the Forum started.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Roberts is now running neck and neck with Roger Taney for the title of worst Chief Justice ever.

Sad, there was a time when I thought he cared about the Court and its legacy, not to mention his.

Putting aside the horrendous series of decisions he has joined, he has been an abject failure at reigning in the ethics “excesses” (to be kind) of his fellow Justices.

Now that the Supreme Court has green lit such actions, Biden should order the IRS to go after Clarence for his failure to pay income taxes on the millions and millions of dollars in payments he has received from Republican donors over the years.

+100

.... the court that sanctioned public corruption. Pathetic. History will not be kind to these losers.

And it would be an "official act".


Has anyone noticed that not one of the Forum's Republicans have come on to tell us this was bad decision on the part of the SCOTUS?

They can't muster the strength to have an opinion? Cool.

small correction, MAGA Republicans.

Noted. And notice....even after calling them out...not a word. No comment at all. Gee, I can't figure out why.

We need a new word for hypocrisy. Because that word is inadequate for how bad the hypocrisy has gotten since the Forum started.

I was pointing it out years ago. Can’t even say, “you are right, I was wrong.” Something you teach children to do…..they won’t be cowed.

[old salt]

Roberts is now running neck and neck with Roger Taney for the title of worst Chief Justice ever.

Sad, there was a time when I thought he cared about the Court and its legacy, not to mention his.

Putting aside the horrendous series of decisions he has joined, he has been an abject failure at reigning in the ethics “excesses” (to be kind) of his fellow Justices.

Now that the Supreme Court has green lit such actions, Biden should order the IRS to go after Clarence for his failure to pay income taxes on the millions and millions of dollars in payments he has received from Republican donors over the years.

+100

.... the court that sanctioned public corruption. Pathetic. History will not be kind to these losers.

And it would be an "official act".


Has anyone noticed that not one of the Forum's Republicans have come on to tell us this was bad decision on the part of the SCOTUS?

They can't muster the strength to have an opinion? Cool.

small correction, MAGA Republicans.

Noted. And notice....even after calling them out...not a word. No comment at all. Gee, I can't figure out why.

We need a new word for hypocrisy. Because that word is inadequate for how bad the hypocrisy has gotten since the Forum started.

Boo Hoo The operational word is schadenfreude

Has Biden ordered SEAL Team 6 to take out Trump yet ?

https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-me ... -immunity/

A Balanced Decision on Presidential Immunity

by CARRIE CAMPBELL SEVERINO, July 3, 2024

In Trump v. United States, the Supreme Court faced a question of first impression about the scope of a former president’s immunity, if any, from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts. By a 6–3 vote, the majority crafted a sensible rule, balancing the commonsense notion that presidents are subject to liability for private actions with the constitutionally inescapable position that presidents must be able to exercise Article II power without fear of criminal liability or even probes into their motivations.

In the majority opinion, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court noted the threat to a president’s ability to do his job boldly if he were immediately faced with a bevy of lawsuits upon leaving office—something that until recently was almost unheard-of but may be part of the new normal in our current environment of lawfare and polarization. By the Court’s holding, that translated into absolute immunity “[a]t least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers . . . . As for his remaining official actions, he is also entitled to immunity,” but the Court did not decide whether that immunity would be absolute or presumptive. Presumptive immunity would entail immunity from criminal prosecution unless the government could show that the prosecution would not pose any “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

Going forward, courts determining whether an action is covered by immunity will begin by assessing the president’s authority to take that action under the Constitution. And “once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination.”

The Court did not confer immunity for allegations involving Trump’s private, non-official acts, and neither side disputed that unofficial acts committed while in office can be subject to criminal prosecution. Both sides agreed that some of the acts alleged were private, but they disagreed on which ones should be so classified.

The Court’s decision did not undertake anything like a comprehensive categorization of the allegations that arose in the underlying prosecution. Allegations involving President Trump’s discussions with senior Justice Department officials regarding the 2020 election received absolute immunity from prosecution because “nvestigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is the special province of the Executive Branch, and the Constitution vests the entirety of the executive power in the President” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). But the district court will assess on remand whether and to what extent the rest of the alleged conduct in the indictment is entitled to immunity. Allegations stemming from Trump’s conversations with Vice-President Pence (who acted as both a presidential advisor and as president of the Senate) about the January 6 certification proceeding implicated presumptive immunity, leaving the burden on the government to demonstrate in district court that the prosecution will not endanger executive branch authority and functions. Still other allegations involving interactions with state officials, private parties, and the general public, were remanded for determination on whether the former president’s conduct qualifies as official or unofficial. During oral argument, Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to elicit a concession from Trump’s attorney that allegations about the president’s dealings with private attorneys and a political consultant in connection with the 2020 election were private, but the Court’s decision did not venture that far with its conclusions. Also remanded were the “necessarily factbound” and potentially “challenging” questions of how to characterize Trump’s relevant tweets and January 6 speech to gathered supporters. None of that stopped the dissent, written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from glossing over what the Court actually did. The dissent drew the unwarranted conclusions that “the category of Presidential action that can be deemed ‘unofficial’” would be “vanishingly small” and that “n every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Monday’s decision makes clear that courts “may not inquire into the President’s motives” when distinguishing official from unofficial conduct. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry “would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose, thereby intruding on the Article II interests that immunity seeks to protect.”

Plenty of critics have objected to the timeline of this litigation, which, regardless of how the Court decided this case, rendered it highly unlikely that Trump would be convicted of any charges before election day. For that we can thank the Justice Department and Jack Smith. They could have brought his prosecution much earlier.

The Court’s decision may undercut Biden’s attempt to use government prosecutors to attack his political rival, but in the long term it will benefit him, as it does Trump, by shielding him from liability for his own actions in office.

[a fan]

Roberts is now running neck and neck with Roger Taney for the title of worst Chief Justice ever.

Sad, there was a time when I thought he cared about the Court and its legacy, not to mention his.

Putting aside the horrendous series of decisions he has joined, he has been an abject failure at reigning in the ethics “excesses” (to be kind) of his fellow Justices.

Now that the Supreme Court has green lit such actions, Biden should order the IRS to go after Clarence for his failure to pay income taxes on the millions and millions of dollars in payments he has received from Republican donors over the years.

+100

.... the court that sanctioned public corruption. Pathetic. History will not be kind to these losers.

And it would be an "official act".


Has anyone noticed that not one of the Forum's Republicans have come on to tell us this was bad decision on the part of the SCOTUS?

They can't muster the strength to have an opinion? Cool.

small correction, MAGA Republicans.

Noted. And notice....even after calling them out...not a word. No comment at all. Gee, I can't figure out why.

We need a new word for hypocrisy. Because that word is inadequate for how bad the hypocrisy has gotten since the Forum started.

Boo Hoo The operational word is schadenfreude

Has Biden ordered SEAL Team 6 to take out Trump yet ?

Well, now you're on record as loving this decision, and mocking anyone who dares to criticize it.

Great. Goalposts are now set in the ground. We'll come back to this. Remember....you think this is swell, and won't have negative outcomes.

Good for you!

[OCanada]

Boo Hoo The operational word is schadenfreude

Has Biden ordered SEAL Team 6 to take out Trump yet ?

No or it would be done by now. With his new immunity powers easy peasy !

[NattyBohChamps04]

Dems took the high road, far right Republicans took the Supreme Court. Dems continue to take the high road. Not sure that will help our country.

I think it's quite clear we lived in a nation of norms rather than laws and rules.

[dislaxxic]

The "tell" is in the article's last paragraph:

The Court’s decision may undercut Biden’s attempt to use government prosecutors to attack his political rival, but in the long term it will benefit him, as it does Trump, by shielding him from liability for his own actions in office.

It could not be a BIGGER LIE than attempting to assert that Biden is using the DoJ to attack his political rival. Trump and his accomplices are successfully weaponizing lies.

..