Rick Hasen’s Live Blog of the Supreme Court’s Oral Argument Over Trump’s Claim of Immunity in the Federal Election Subversion Case (Refresh this page frequently for updates) electionlawblog.org?p=142644
Sauer's argument for Trump is breathtaking in allowing the President to murder or commit a coup so long as it is wrapped in the trappings of a President's official acts.
This argument still has a ways to go. But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).
Dreeben stresses that what Trump was charged with, trying to subvert the election, is not part of any official acts. Alito wants to avoid the facts of this case (for good reason!).
Alito tries to turn things on their head, by saying that to encourage peaceful transitions of power, you need to give incumbents absolute immunity so they will leave and won't worry about prosecution later. This is the most insane thing I've heard today (and there have been many crazy things).
When some clever people find their principles in conflict with their preferences, they don’t use reason to interrogate their preferences, they use their cleverness to justify them. We call these people shitheads.
It's all absurd Calvinball hypotheticals with him while ignoring (and pooh-poohing the importance of) the facts of this actual case. They're "strict constructionists" only when the wind blows north by northwest.
A president much have full immunity (including for using the powers of government against a former president) otherwise a president might use the powers of government against a former president
Fear not! For brave Alito’s seemingly iron-clad opinion is more malleable than you think! All you need to do is have a Democrat take advantage of the protections he affords and he will change his mind in a heartbeat!
Taiwan and South Korea have regularly prosecuted former presidents and have had regular elections for the past 30-odd years. Comparative politics has its limits, of course, but these sure seem like cases certain authority figures can learn from.
You could also ensure a peaceful transition of power by ensuring that corrupt would-be tyrants get prosecuted for their crimes and go to prison, just like any other criminal in the US, even if they temporarily reside in the White House.
does he think we need to coax presidents like trump into giving up power? negotiate? fuck that. it's the most public hire/fire process in the world. resisting the peaceful transfer is criminal, and literally what this whole shit is about...
When I read Sarah Kendzior's 'Hiding In Plain Sight' (written in 2019, published 2020), where she predicted that Trump would try to stay in office to avoid prosecution, I thought, "Great book but this is going a bit *too* far!" Then January 6 happened. This SCOTUS debate is unconscionable.
