Tornado Alley (PROG)

[fuagf]

hap0206, Forever the integrity-free perennial defend the assholes boy. You seldom disappoint. Trump asked for total immunity, you supported that, and SCOTUS at least laughed at it. I like the Freudian of yours that sortagreen mentioned, the suspremes.

"Cannot be happier —the suspremes have saved the country with its immunity decision— enjoy "

Your people on the court your goons have managed to stack are bloody suss, for sure. Anyway, no big deal as the result was always a forgone conclusion. See:

“For the Ages”: The Supreme Court Hears the Presidential Immunity Defense
"Judge Rejects Trump’s Effort to Delay Jan. 6 Civil Cases"
[...]P - this Supreme Court is making my fucking head explode — again any sane SCOTUS would have quickly slapped Trump down
[...]
any sane Supreme Court would have quickly slapped Trump with a writ of go fuck yourself, and we’d be having a DC trial right now. but we don’t have a sane Court. we have four bought-and-paid for Federalist Society hacks who sit snugly in the pocket of the plutocrats who tell them how to vote — and we have Neil Gorsuch, who just fucking hates government and is deliberately out to create as much chaos as possible.
P - so this Supreme Court said hmm, laws are bullshit and Donny should be allowed to crime all he wants? yeah, we should def look into this.
P - sigh.
[...]
Despite the nearly three hours of oral argument, only a portion of that time was spent on the particulars of the Jan. 6 case or its procedural posture. That’s because the justices were, as Justice Gorsuch put it, writing a ruling “for the ages.” The Court grappled with the distinction between private acts and official acts—everyone seemed to agree that private acts could be prosecuted—and then wrestled with which subset of official acts, if any, could be prosecuted. Several justices further focused on which criminal statutes can apply to the president without conflicting with his Article II powers. There did not appear to be much consensus on these questions, and the justices seem poised to issue a splintered decision rejecting Trump’s maximalist arguments, while establishing at least some presidential criminal immunity for at least some types of official acts.

[Insert: Impulse reaction WOW. It appears the presidential can/could in his/her official capacity act criminally. Sanctioned
by the Supreme Court of the United States. I hope that impulse reaction of mine is tempered in consideration
of the further reading below. It feels Alito and others here are taking America down a very dangerous
authoritarian path. Dangerous to democracy in America. Dangerous to democracy worldwide.]
[...]
Dreeben’s opening remarks .. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24609863/23-939_l5gm.pdf%23page=68 .. offered a counterbalance to Sauer’s vision of a strong executive. “This court has never recognized absolute criminal immunity for any public official,” he observed. Trump’s “novel theory would immunize former presidents from criminal liability for bribery, treason, sedition, murder, and, here, conspiring to use fraud to overturn the results of an election and perpetuate himself in power.”
[...]
ustice Samuel Alito

For much of the argument, Justice Alito seemed concerned about the practical effects of absolute immunity on the functioning of the presidency. Initially, he questioned Sauer .. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/24609863/23-939_l5gm.pdf%23page=21 .. as to “whether the very robust form of immunity that you’re advocating is really necessary” in order to allow the president to perform the duties of the office, as Sauer argued. At one point Alito suggested a rule under which immunity would not extend to acts for which “no plausible justification could be imagined” for the act’s official character.
P - But the justice also asked Dreeben about how the absence of immunity might negatively affect not only the presidency but the country as a whole. “[P]residents have to make a lot of tough decisions about enforcing the law,” he said—doesn’t that put them in a “peculiarly precarious position” if they might face prosecution after leaving office on the basis of decisions made “about questions that are unsettled” and based on potentially limited information? (Dreeben responded that the president also has unique “access to legal advice about everything that he does,” and is bound “to be faithful to the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States.”)
[...]
Less dramatically, Sotomayor also pondered how jury instructions might function on remand, along with the reasoning behind the clear statement rule. In a colloquy with Dreeben, she suggested that the separation-of-powers concerns animating the rule might not be implicated by lawbreaking activity, because it is “[H]ard to imagine that a president who breaks the law is faithfully executing the law” as required under Article II—and therefore, no Article II powers would be conceivably infringed upon. She also argued that overreliance on the clear statement rule to avoid applying criminal law to the president would make the possibility of prosecution after impeachment meaningless.

As is being said by serious well-informed people the facts still stand. Also, though long understood it's
still nice to read it is not the huge victory Trump and his toadies as you scramble to proclaim. Again:

You're breaking out your party hat too soon.
Trump immunity ruling hands big decisions to Judge Tanya Chutkan
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174687818
.