Julia Azari: in practice, presidents have been enjoying a lot of immunity. This codifies it in a way that's quite alarming in the abstract, but even more alarming in the case considered. The decision references Trump's discussions with Pence about trying to interfere with the EC vote counting as "official"

important points here.

However, the Court’s GOP majority did not issue a test for “official” v. “Unofficial” acts so that it can remain the ultimate arbiter of what can or cannot be prosecuted

couple of observations from reading the decision: 1. this is really bad. 2. in practice, the status quo has also been bad, and i'm honestly unsure how much of a departure this is from the status quo. i'm still mad about the lack of accountability for Nixon, George W. Bush etc. ...

in practice, presidents have been enjoying a lot of immunity. This codifies it in a way that's quite alarming in the abstract, but even more alarming in the case considered. The decision references Trump's discussions with Pence about trying to interfere with the EC vote counting as "official"

basically making a coup legal as long as you discuss it with your vice president. moreover, this way of argumentation that ignores obvious context and treats all reasoning like we're in a law school seminar is just straight-up gaslighting.

i keep re-reading this to make sure i didn't hallucinate

Also, what?

This also stands in stark contrast to their overturning of Chevron, where the executive branch’s prerogatives are apparently much less sacrosanct.

🪄INSANE!

except it's not an *allegation* of improper purpose in this case. it was explicit. calvinball court rules again.

Wait, what? The Presi-Emperor can do whatever he likes, and we can't even question the motives for why he does it? (guy doesn't clap hard enough or long enough at a rally) "Execute him for being a suspected terrorist!" COURT: "Well, we have to presume the president was keeping the country safe"

Well you see as president I can literally be on the record discussion all the very illegal shit I want to do, but if I do it in an official context and then try to actually do it... you can't actually question my motives... motives for a crime apparently don't matter when you're president.

They also disallow almost all evidence relating to official acts to be used in charging unofficial acts.

bsky.app/profile/pjso...

Another important point: the majority says conduct that is protected (immune) cannot be used as evidence in another prosecution for unprotected conduct.

Wouldn't this be official conduct for the VP, but not for the Pres? If I talk to you about your job, that's related to your job, not mine, right? I mean, I know it's all terrible and made up, but the logic doesn't even hold in this absolutely insane example

If I’m talking to you about your job and I’m your boss, that’s related to my job of managing/directing your work. I don’t imagine it’s controversial to consider the president to be the VP’s boss. This is stupid and terrible for other reasons.

The president isn’t the VP’s boss.

Not in the second term, but they are to some extent in the first term because the president has leverage over the vice president.

The thing is, though, POTUS is *not* the VP's boss. Historically VPs have mostly deferred to their POTUS, but POTUS can't fire a VP and VP isn't required to follow orders. The worst a thing POTUS could do is threaten to leave VP off the next ticket, and that only works in the first term.

Not the VP's boss, and the Pres has absolutely no official duties related to the counting of the electoral college ballots

In this case the VP's job, as President of the Senate, is declared by the Constitution, so it's part oh their enumerated powers. The president cannot fire the VP, so he's not the VP's boss.

Bottom line - logic has no place here. Logic assumes that what applies to A should apply to B. That's never been the case in this country - ask Native or African Americans about that. In today's reality, the law is meant for A to use against B, but NOT vice-versa.

I had the same thought - it doesn't make sense on multiple levels!

It's official conduct for Trump to threaten the VP not to carry out his official conduct properly?

It’s in fact legal now to throw your VP and the one person most loyal to you under the bus.

it's official conduct to have him hanged for defying your order to overthrow democracy, apparently.

AYFSM

Thanks for introducing me to another acronym found in the Urban Dictionary.

“Telling an official to knowingly violate the constitution is related to official duties and therefore immune” is an bribed justice’s way of saying “we are a government of corrupt petulant men, not laws”

Isn’t the VP’s role in the certification process in the VP’s capacity as President of the Senate? So they were not really discussing an Executive Branch function under the purview of the President? It’s official action just because the President and VP are officially buddies? I’m confused.

It seems like a hallucination as a serious argument, but maybe more understandable as a rationalization that just needs to look like a serious argument. A rationalization you can cite with all the correct notation

This scarcely matters, but doesn’t this definition of official conduct contradict how they defined it in McDonnell? There, they said McDonnell arranging phone calls and meetings with a cabinet official wasn’t an official act, but here, just talking about work is an official act?

Yeah, I read the main part of the decision before I looked at any commentary, and this was the part where I was like, this can’t mean what it says, right? But no, it does!

Talking about official duties is also official duties is a thing only this court could say

Now let's apply that logic to January 6, 2025...

Judge Chutkan may schedule hearings ASAP on this rebuttable presumption, call Pence and others under oath. That's what should happen, and right now.

Obstructing official conduct is part of my official conduct!

This logic is so strained it will need some ice, followed by heat, elevation and ibuprofen to recover

Would Trump's attempt to extort Zelensky by threatening to withhold aid unless Zelensky came up with manufactured dirt on Biden now considered legal?!?

I am just some guy on the internet, a legal and political muggle, but I have a question: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Does this ruling conflict with what is promised in the inauguration of POTUS? Is it just ceremony now?

Sounds like a thrilling game of legislative hot potato. Fairly sure Pence didn't discuss details of his attempted lynching with Trump though and his failure to act appropriately or pretty well at all to aid members of the house sure feels like a dereliction of duty still. I guess we'll see.

So trying to convince the VP to do something that's not an official duty (refusing to certify) is ok, according to the Robertspierre* court. * - h/t himself.bsky.social

This is like "prostitution is illegal unless there's a camera, then it's called porn and it's legal."

"presumption of immunity" what a load

Btw (he wrote, self-servingly) you can get Azari’s ridiculously smart analyses regularly at our newsletter: goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com

Good Politics/Bad Politics | Jonathan Bernstein | Substackgoodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com A Plain Newsletter About Government and Elections in the US with Jonathan Bernstein, Julia Azari, and David S. Bernstein. Click to read Good Politics/Bad Politics, a Substack publication with thousand...

This seems to suggest that if we made it possible to prosecute the one President for pressuring the VP to renege on his constitutional duty to certify, we might infringe on all Presidents' willingness to talk about anything at all with their VP. And so he's immune, no matter what his intention?

yea i mean i lean towards "this is as bad as it seems" and "i recall reading about what the imperial presidency really meant and how it was a reality already" and so like...am i panicking about something I was already living through? but then oh right, ideology, that's how it works.

i would def read a blog post about the last sentence there, becuase that's not really how i was trained to think and it seems useful. but i'm in the same place.

yea, absolutely wild/chilling stuff.

my law school seminars ain't that stupid

Of course, the seminar will probably be adjourned once the conduct in question is by a Democratic president or - I would assume if they have a semblance of self-preservation - involves sending any of them who was appointed by a GOP president to Guantanamo Bay.

So, I guess encouraging a mob to hang Pence is also an "official act" and immune.

I know we’ve thrown around the term “judicial coup” rather injudiciously over the past few years but at this point, is that not clearly what this court term has been?

Post