southpaw: Sotomayor points out why this distinction between absolute and presumptive immunity that the majority introduces is essentially meaningless.

The hour is upon us

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...

www.supremecourt.gov

From Jackson’s dissent. I believe the way this works in combination with Loper-Bright is really insidious, but ofc it’s not gonna get the headlines.

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...

www.supremecourt.gov

So Trump will be the last case of the term. We’ll know soon enough, but I’m guessing Roberts wrote it.

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...

www.supremecourt.gov

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.

Sotomayor points out why this distinction between absolute and presumptive immunity that the majority introduces is essentially meaningless.

Presidents: 100% immune if they use letterhead. Probably immune if they don't.

If the president shanks someone in the oval office with a letter opener he just has to shout "official act" and it's legal i guess.

It's "stop resisting!" but for presidents.

so this makes nixon's "it is not illegal if the president does it" defense *correct*? fuck

Huge question. How can a president be impeached now? If the standard is other crimes and misdemeanors?

Impeachment is whatever Congress wants it to be.

Technically yes. But as long as 34 Senators decide he's their guy, then no, they can't.

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

Same with official and unofficial. And all untethered from any precedent or principled consistency of application.

Meaningless, like the so-called exception for when the mother’s life is in danger.

Is this the one that made her go back to her chambers and cry?