http://www.politico.com/news/2...ump-immunity-00154744

>> The Supreme Court's conservatives often accuse liberals of inventing provisions nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Now, the fingers are pointed in the other direction.

At the attention-grabbing arguments this week over Donald Trump's claim of sweeping presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, the six-member conservative bloc seemed largely unconcerned by a key flaw in Trump's theory: Nothing in the Constitution explicitly mentions the concept of presidential immunity.


Trump's lawyer told the justices that the founders had "in a sense" written immunity into the Constitution because it's a logical outgrowth of a broadly worded clause about presidential power. But that's the sort of argument conservative justices have often scoffed at - most notably in the context of abortion rights.
Two years ago, conservatives relied on a strict interpretation of the Constitution's text and original meaning to overturn the federal right to abortion. But on Thursday, as they debated whether Trump can be prosecuted for his bid to subvert the 2020 election, they seemed content to engage in a free-form balancing exercise where they weighed competing interests and practical consequences.

Some critics said the conservative justices - all of whom purport to adhere to an original understanding of the Constitution - appeared to be on the verge of fashioning a legal protection for former presidents based on the justices' subjective assessment of what's best for the country and not derived from the nation's founding document.

"The legal approach they seemed to be gravitating toward has no basis in the Constitution, in precedent, or logic," said Michael Waldman, president and CEO of New York University's Brennan Center for Justice. "It sure ain't originalism."... <<



-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

At a minimum, they are buying time for their politician. It's time to stack the court and outlaw payments to justices.

-------------------------
I was right.

From the Hill:
>>Thus, the Supreme Court's tragic failure is glaring: It has methodically blocked the prompt and timely resolution of that essential case.
1. Instead of hearing Trump's "absolute" immunity claim in December, 2023, it deferred to proceedings in a lower appellate court.
2. Instead of upholding the excellent and unanimous opinion of that lower court denying the immunity claim, it agreed to hear yet another appeal on the issue.
3. Instead of recognizing the absence of proper grounds for continuing the stay of the district court's pre-trial preparations, it ordered a continued stay of those proceedings.
4. Instead of setting a short briefing schedule to expedite its hearing of the immunity claim - recognizing that the parties had already thoroughly briefed the issue - it set a lazy schedule that gave the parties two additional months to file their briefs.
5. Instead of setting an early date to hear arguments, it set the date as late as possible, placing it on the very last day of the court's term.

6. Instead of focusing on the facts of the case in the oral argument, it obscured the actual issue and pretended that the case presented an imagined comprehensive immunity issue, a red herring potentially enabling it to refuse to make a final decision, justify a remand and cause even further delay.
7. Instead of deciding the case immediately after argument, it confirmed the likelihood that it would not issue its decision before late June or even July.
The court could easily have decided the immunity claim as early as January or February and given the district court ample time to complete pre-trial proceedings and begin the trial by May or June. Instead, it managed to delay the case for countless months, making trial before the election increasingly unlikely if not virtually impossible.<<

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

The justices are paving a path to Authoritarian Rule in the US of A

-------------------------
GOP:

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

The devil speaks for his own.

-------------------------
"Hey, where's Cricket?" - Kristi Noem's daughter.

I keep going over what I think will be next. The Supreme Court will make a ruling that will affect our entire trajectory as a democracy and it will disappoint half the country. That other half will be thrilled. The losing half will look at the decision as a 5-4 split and never believe it was anything more a political strong arm with the legal veneer of an execution. It will not be accepted as law. It was decided as politics. This will galvanize the winners and losers to place a premium on getting their people onto the court to get a majority onto the court to remake EVERY legal decision conform to their politics. This started with McConell but it will not end. There will never be a bipartisan choice for this role ever again.

The ugly part is the logic or veneers that Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett use to practice their politics. These are proud people who need a certain amount of mythology and the religion of law with its alleged objectivity to function. Calling out the doctrine of originalism against abortion and destroying fifty years of precedents (plural) in the name of originalism and then throwing the decision back to the individual states like segregation sows the seeds of a civil war. It's not hard to imagine red states banning abortion and criminalizing anyone who travels to a blue state to get one. It's not hard to imagine those red and blue lines falling on a great many other laws.

But you can't undo the precedents you swore were settled law with that logic and then find "presidential immunity" anywhere in the constitution. You can't find it because it's not there and it never was. That should end this specious attempt to shield a shyster grifter but it does not for this group. This same group of originalists are now crafting an immunity for the grifter in chief Trump out of a penumbra of rights assumed (and therefore never stated) in the office itself.

Maybe we get defections from Barrett and Kavanaugh but the numbers will be close. 5-4 likely. For or against we won't know. This will forever prove that this issue was not decided by the law, precedent or logic, it was a political choice consistent with the politics of the president that appointed the Justice. So they will never settle arguments conclusively, they will merely leave them at status quo until the next round of appointments can change that status quo.


-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

Wrong. The legal protection has been in place since Nixon's days, when a liberal court made that determination. This Court is merely defining the boundries of that decision.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

So liberal justices added that to the constitution when Nixon resigned before being impeached? Where exactly Tpap?

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

Nixon v. Fitzgerald.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Is your idea of a constitutional right? Like Roe v. Wade?

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

If you are asking if I believe that there is a Constitutional right to abortion, the answer is no.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

Everyone knows that with this court packed by the far right, the fix is in.

They are a joke, and the notion of some mighty court that defends the Constitution is a lot of bunk.

You might as well look for the cherry tree stump that George Washington chopped down.

-------------------------
"Hey, where's Cricket?" - Kristi Noem's daughter.

RvW was Never in the constitution, but if Trump loses immunity, who could it effect down the years, remember odumbo's illegal killing of a U.S citizen and also the Harry Reid effect!

-------------------------
Romans 8;18-32 John 3;16-18

I am sure that all of us will look forward to your legal analysis of the opinion when it comes out.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

So getting your legal opinion, Tpap, is that Roe was not based on the constitution? No shit. Pay attention. The whole point of this thread, if you had bothered to actually pay attention and follow it, is that if the SCOTUS justices used originalist logic to overturn Roe, they cannot use originalism to create presidential immunity for the same lack of such an explicit right in the text of the constitution. Your reliance upon a case decided in the 70's is misguided at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Originalism. Sure it's great to overturn Roe but it absolutely prohibits a right to presidential immunity.

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

Oh, I am paying attention. The Court didn't decide Nixon on Constitutional grounds. They relied primarily on common law grounds. Same will be true with the Trump case. For the dummies out there, the Court did not find that the Constitution grants immunity to the president. Originalism has nothing to do with these immunity cases. Roe, on the other hand, found a Constitutional right to abortion. Apples and Oranges.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q

So is this where you mention that the Nixon court only found that the Nixon could not be sued? That's the holding, correct? it was a civil liability waiver in now way creating an entirely new right to immunity at the criminal level.

Originalism, has everything to do with how Roe was overturned. It apparently is an argument of convenience without regard to consistence or logic. It was used for Roe, it cannot be used for Trump and yet here are some recent Trump appointees, devout originalists, attempting to fashion a criminal immunity out of thin air.

>>Writing for five conservative justices in the earth-shaking abortion case two years ago, Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, Justice Samuel Alito referred to the notion of guaranteed access to abortion as "an asserted right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.",,

-------------------------

"One of the reasons why propaganda tries to get you to hate government is because it's the one existing institution in which people can participate to some extent and constrain tyrannical unaccountable power." Noam Chomsky.

I recall the familiar refrain from back in the day...

Judicial ACTIVISTS!

The CONSTITUTION is perfect, literal, and complete, just like our BIBLES!

-------------------------
"Hey, where's Cricket?" - Kristi Noem's daughter.

Well, then, speaking of "originalism" in the Constitution, that means that every person owning a firearm in the US of A must be part of a Militia.

And originally, "A Well Regulated militia" and "being part of a Free State" meant being part of the National Army or nowadays called the National Guard.

That's also Originalism.

-------------------------
GOP:

Gaslight
Obstruct
Project

Said he was immune from civil liabililty for exercising his presidential duties. You were saying that the Trump case (if there is immunity) would be a deviation from originalism and be inconsistent with Dobbs. It wouldn't. Indeed, it would be entirely consistent with originalism.

-------------------------
I :heart; Q