Corner Post is first, party-line case judicially extending the statute of limitations for APA challenges out to the heat death of the universe. Barrett writes, Jackson dissents. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
2nd up is Netchoice—the judgments are unanimously vacated and sent back. Kagan writes with 6 joiners (though Jackson skips a few parts). Several conservatives pen concurrences in the judgment. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
Roberts rules for Trump. Absolute immunity for “official acts.” Vacated and remanded. Party line case. Both Sotomayor and Jackson dissent. Fuck this. www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23p...
Okay, it’s absolute immunity for official acts that are “within [the president’s] exclusive and preclusive authority” and presumptive immunity for all official acts. Corrupting the DOJ — absolute immunity (which boggles my mind). Pressuring Pence — presumptive immunity.
Yeah but they have to leave some opening to say what a Dem president has done is only presumptively immune and then conclude that the presumption has been overcome so they can be prosecuted unlike the presumption for GOP presidents, which will never be overcome
Also SCOTUS rules that Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for demanding DOJ pressure the states to change their vote count and threatening to replace the AG.
"Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials."
That. Was. Not. An. Official. Act.
The elections are run by the states. Certainly, someone who ran in the election should have no say in changing the counting or certification.
I believe the chain is this:
1) States run elections to delegate electoral votes to send to Congress
2) Congress does the ACTUAL tally of the EVs
3) That tally is presided over by the Vice Prez
4) The President can therefore "officially" order his VP to override the vote, which is a protected act
'Discussion' should be immune, 'Coercion', 'Pressure', 'Duress', etc. are very different things and should NOT be immune. Scrotus clearly struggling with basic English as well as jurisprudence.
So, theoretically let's say, the President threatens to have his followers murder the VP if the VP doesn't fall in line, it's "immune" because it's "official?" This is completely theoretical of course.
So: this confirms that the Articles of Impeachment (2nd impeachment) were too narrow. Telling Pence to reject state electors might have been an official act, but it was an abuse of power.
It looks like the district court will have to decide, but then I imagine it will get sent up to SCOTUS again to see if the district judge got it right.
The lower court. And then when they inevitably say it was unofficial and Trump inevitably appeals, then SCOTUS will have to make up some bullshit on why overturning an election is actually an official act.
No, because SCOUTS will say it's not an official act. If Trump does it, this SCOTUS will say it was official. See how that works?
People with SCOTUS friends are immensely powerful now, more than last Monday.
Then perhaps Biden should start with locking up the 6 justices that issued the opinion as they endanger the institutions of democracy and upholding the Constitution is definitely an “official act” of the POTUS.
Then go after Trump.
Isn’t the whole *point* of corruption to abuse the powers of your office? If you apply this to policing—arrests are within the authority of the police—then all arrests are cool without any recognition that the choice to arrest may be influenced by bribery or other factors?