158

Supreme Court to decide Trump’s immunity claim in election interference case (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 9 months ago by return2ozma@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 30 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 60 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

No oral arguments until late April. This looks like cover for a delay that will push trial past the election.

[-] nxdefiant@startrek.website 35 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That's a win win for the SC.

He wins the election, they can say "Whelp, makes no sense to rule on this until he's out of office again" and hope he dies before dick tatering his way into a third term.

He loses the election, they can decide to rule either way depending on how much grease he's got left in his pockets with no worries about repercussions while they also hope he dies.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Oral arguments this April would generally imply they release their ruling in or by June though before going to recess. Might still be time to get the trial done if they follow their typical schedule.

[-] return2ozma@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Yup. CNN just said these case is typically take up to 2 years. Even if it's fast tracked it'll be at least a year.

[-] dugmeup@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago

The shameless Roberts Supreme Court has decided that Trump is more than justice.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

Shameless and illegitimate.

[-] nxdefiant@startrek.website 23 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I can't imagine a ruling in his favor that doesn't give Biden the power to also commit whatever crimes he wants, but then again I'm not creative enough in the "moral degeneracy" department to qualify as a Republican supreme court justice.

They'll probably rule something asinine like "using a phone isn't treason" and, blinders firmly in place, blow right by the actual question.

[-] ThePantser@lemmy.world 15 points 9 months ago

Except it wasn't just a tweet, he gave a speech to march on the Capitol.

[-] nxdefiant@startrek.website 7 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I changed it because I was actually confused if this was about Jan 6th or about the Georgia case. Either way, they're going to have to argue that what he did isn't a crime because (whatever nonsense reason). There's no way they can argue a president is immune to prosecution for crimes, and for that reason alone, the kkkonservative justices are absolutely going to skirt the actual question and dismiss the case based on "not a crime".

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

So technically the only question before the court is if a President has immunity for official acts.

So I have a feeling what's going to happen is SCOTUS is going to wait until June/July and rule Presidents have immunity for only official acts and kick this back to the District Court. The District Court will then most likely rule these weren't official acts so there's no immunity. This is a question of law so Trump will immediately appeal buying more delay. At this point it's absolutely not going to make it to trial before election day.

So it all comes down to A) Biden wins and the cases go on to trial -- most likely Trump is convicted of something at least. B) Trump wins and either pardons himself or otherwise ends the prosecutions and it's never decided one way or the other whether these were unofficial acts.

[-] Deello@lemm.ee 17 points 9 months ago

Hypothetically speaking, let's say Biden publicly assassinates Trump. Takes credit for it and everything. Does that mean that the court would be forced to decide on presidential immunity thus fast tracking the decision that presidents are in fact NOT kings. Who cares about the failed usurper when we have a full blown king slayer to punish.

The conservatives on the Supreme Court wouldn't allow a Democrat to get away with this blatantly illegal act. So if we force their hand maybe things play out differently. Presidential immunity should have limits and not allow free reign while in office.

The whole premise of presidential immunity seems purpose built for the next round of fascist/authoritarian candidates. With that in mind, Trump feels like the beta test finding where the road blocks are and taking them down before the real danger starts. Realistically, Trump isn't smart enough to do any real damage by himself. The biggest danger was always the people he surrounded himself with.

[-] Itsamemario@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

Hypothetically speaking, the conservative Supreme Court justices could be included in the official order from Biden... Wouldn't have to worry about the conservative justices making the wrong decision then...

[+] mister_monster@monero.town -11 points 9 months ago

Presidential immunity does have limits. Congress is the court that can prosecute him for crimes committed while in office. That's what impeachment is.

[-] Deello@lemm.ee 9 points 9 months ago

Trump's whole argument is that there are no limits to presidential immunity. Even after 2 impeachments and a coup attempt. The courts are dragging their feet making a decision. My hypothetical involves forcing the supreme court to rule on that claim on someone who isn't Trump.

[-] mister_monster@monero.town -5 points 9 months ago

Yeah, it's an interesting hypothetical. But it's important to remember, this isn't Trumps argument, it is longstanding precedent. The president up until now has not been subject to criminal proceedings for conduct in office outside of impeachment. It was long held by everyone in government, not just some party, that the government can be held civilly liable for executive actions but that the president cannot be held personally or criminally liable except to congress. Whether you think he deserves to face criminal charges or not, fact is this breaks from that and will seriously change the way the government functions, it will have far reaching consequences. You may think this is a good thing, Trump argues that it isn't as has every president before him, but it will absolutely fundamentally change the way the government works if he isn't ruled to be immune by the court.

[-] mikezane@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

What if the president detonates a bomb in Congress of finds some other way to kill the members who would impeach the president? Then they can be president for life.

[-] mister_monster@monero.town -4 points 9 months ago

That sucks? Doesn't change the rules, although I think if a president did something that destructive to the government of the US then the rules no longer apply and we are in military coup treason tribunal territory.

[-] assembly@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

That doesn’t work as a Republican controlled congress and president would then have impunity to perform whatever atrocities they like. It’s a big reason we have a coequal judicial branch.

[-] mister_monster@monero.town -3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

It might not work for you but thems the rules.

Look, there are some unwritten rules in the system of government that exist de facto due to it's structure. One of them is that there is a balance of real power, not "balance of power" due to some document saying so, but that these groups, factions, institutions in government have power distributed in such a way that it ensures the continuity of the state among other things. For example, the court can basically rule anything unconstitutional, and the president appoints the court. If the court rules something like free speech isn't protected, this deligitimizes the court and the government loses real power. If the president packs the court, this delegitimizes the government and so on. They don't not pack the court because they have integrity, they don't pack the court because it would reduce their legitimacy and mandate. Politics in it's truest sense is taken into account in the encoding of the machine.

The more we turn it into a team game the more likely what you're talking about becomes true. When the parties have to feign a loyalty to a higher virtue, the president can't just commit atrocities because his party controls the congress. His own party members have to impeach him to maintain their power. But when it is reduced to a team game they're more likely to be able to maintain political viability by doing just that.

Our government has the integrity that we have, and IMO it doesn't have much integrity left, because the power center, not on paper but real power, moved due to architectural changes behind the scenes that were made during world war 2, what we are living with today is the inevitable outcome of decisions made then.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 15 points 9 months ago

Looking forward to Trump's three nominees declaring him King.

[-] Fapper_McFapper@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

And that is how we all found out that the fix was in…

[-] 4grams@awful.systems 7 points 9 months ago

Yep, been saying the same thing. The mere act of taking the case is proof enough since even the “best” possible outcome still benefits turnip. These aren’t stupid people so I simply cannot believe they took the case in the name of justice or service to the American public. The fix is indeed in.

[-] Cheems@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

I read insanity claim at first.

[-] BeardedSingleMalt@kbin.social 3 points 9 months ago

fuck, we're boned

[-] asteriskeverything@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

I guess In a way this election is even more important than some may think because a trump or any candidate that supports the rhetoric/script wins the presidency. This case is going to set a major precedent, with consequences as significant as roe v wade (and the disaster of overturning it).

Because if biden wins they would give him a free pass to do similar shit. This will not be ruled on by November. Unless someone is willing to summon some crossroad demon?

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 2 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to decide whether former President Donald Trump can claim presidential immunity over criminal election interference charges, adding a new hurdle to a trial taking place.

The legal question the court will decide is "whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office," the order said.

Trump’s lawyers have pointed to a 1982 Supreme Court ruling that endorsed presidential immunity from civil lawsuits when the underlying conduct concerns actions within the “outer perimeter” of the president’s official responsibilities.

Special counsel Jack Smith, who is prosecuting the case, said in his own court papers that it was imperative the issue get decided quickly.

On Feb. 8, the justices heard arguments in a separate Trump-related case on the former president’s attempt to avoid being kicked off the ballot in Colorado.

Chutkan in December rejected Trump’s plea to dismiss the indictment on presidential immunity and other constitutional grounds.

The original article contains 640 words, the summary contains 172 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024

158 points (96.5% liked)

politics

19223 readers

2697 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News