In principle, I should probably be on board with that. And doubtless would be if we had the Warren Court. But have you met this Supreme Court?
To paraphrase the old saying: Six wolves and three sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
SCOTUS gives Trump most of what he wants, helps him run the clock out on the rest.
- Thread starter Hoosierhawkeye
- Start date
To paraphrase the old saying: Six wolves and three sheep deciding what to have for dinner.
Stakes couldn’t be clearer this election. Want to sit on the sideline again because the candidate doesn’t excite you? Good luck.
More importantly, you can litigate that question for a couple years.
At least there’d be something.
I’m also of the opinion that they should have ruled specifically on this case as well instead of just bouncing it back.
They effectively determined that case won’t be decided before the election.
Just calling balls and strikes - and making up a rule that appears nowhere in the Constitution.
As for my part, I think they did...maybe not in the webster's or oed sense, but they did, by referencing constitutional authority provisions and the like. It's not rocket science, for example, to conclude that actions around foreign policy are those where the president has maximum discretion, whereas by contrast for example, those having to do with budgetary expenditures are where he likely has the least. At the end of the day I agree with you that it came out quite mushy, but both the litigants and the district court get the first bite at that apple.
Last edited:
It showed us just how awful Trump and the Republicans are.
You'd think after showing America and the world their true colors, the Republican Party would be on the verge of extinction, not running neck-and-neck.
But apparently that's what America wants, judging from the polls.
except that there won't be four of them to take the case. challenges to special counsels (and their equivalents) are the deadest of dead horses. Just ask Yuri Progozhin.
BTW, thanks for the reminder of the Clinton/DNC strategy: Attack your natural allies rather than try to reel them in.
Because that worked so well in 2016, didn't it?
Franky, I'm surprised we aren't hearing more about how available Hillary is, should Biden withdraw.
A swift trial and an even swifter execution would seem to be in order.
So I can go commit a dozen federal felonies, and if I donate a lot of money to Trump to bribe him to pardon me......that is completely legal for POTUS, but likely punishable to the me
Jimmy man, don't be so greedy. I mean, at least you'd be pardoned for the dozen federal felonies, for which the pardon is probably unreviewable. Almost certain to be a fair trade from a sentencing guidelines perspective.
(In all seriousness, this is a much more fair hypo challenge to the reasoning of the case, as the pardon power is in fact likely to be something the president holds absolute immunity around as an exclusive power).
Argument #1: The only person in a position to judge what constitutes an official act is the President himself.
Argument #2: If the President engaged in an act believing it was an official act, it WAS an official act.
Argument #3: If the President goes too far, we have the 25th Amendment and the Impeachment Clause as the proper (and only) constitutional remedies. If neither the Congress nor the Cabinet act, then the President's acts were, in fact, "official acts."
Did I forget anything?
Only a problem for you if you failed to follow one of the many legal paths to bribe officials.
Just don't hand him a bag of money while simultaneously specifying the specific act you are paying for. You might get in trouble for that - but not much else.
Not quite jesus. Your hypo would only help jimmy if he were trying to bribe a governor, since federal law prohibits gratuities to federal officials
That is the problem with SCOTUS' decision. They can take bribes, but only after they have served.
JEEBUS, can any of those justices say that with a straight face?
"If the president does it, that means that it s not illegal." -- Richard Nixon
There's two of them that probably got paid for this decision.
But the law no longer prevents "donations" - especially when they are laundered through non-profits or PACs. It's pretty much only if you directly and blatantly contract with them that you'll get in trouble. Laundered money with an "understanding" is perfectly legal.
And a recent decison seems to say that even blatant deals are fine if the payment comes after the dirty work is done. You know, kind of like an employer-employee relationship.
Maybe Presidents (and all other public officials) should have to sign a non-compete agreement, or something along those lines, that says they can't be in the employ of anyone else as long as they are (supposedly) working for the people.
As people who have been around here a long time know, I'm a staunch opponent of the death penalty - with the 1 exception of abuse of public office.
Last edited:
Not quite. What the decision says is that it is not a violation of FEDERAL law, if a 'retroactive' gratuity payment is made to a STATE official. Both retro and prospective payments to federal officials are illegal, and in many states, as a matter of state law, the same is true. The only thing the decision said is that the 'retro' case involving a state official is not a violation of federal law, based on the language of the federal law.
But hey, if I have to explain the legal jokes, they're probably not that funny to begin with.
So this is the decision that the Chief Justice wanted to personally handle the written opinion for, and this is what they ultimately give the country? Are you kidding me?
Roberts continues to slide down the hill of irrelevance as a CJ of the SCOTUS. What a disappointment and a continuance of mediocrity and bias from this court. Roberts' legacy is shit.
Roberts continues to slide down the hill of irrelevance as a CJ of the SCOTUS. What a disappointment and a continuance of mediocrity and bias from this court. Roberts' legacy is shit.
It seems like the biggest hole here is that it assumes the POTUS is a good and decent human being who isn't going to use the power of the government for personal gain or to weaponize his power against political opponents.
In Biden's case, I think you could trust old Joe but not the band of scoundrels he has pulling the strings on him now. (Rethinking that statement given how much money his family made off of his name).
In Trump's case...well he's never really gone after a political opponent (only threatened) but you certainly wouldnt put it past him to start declaring things official acts for personal gain...
Bottom line is our leaders can't be trusted to act in good faith, and therefore it seems this ruling exposes more vulnerability than it accounts for.
In Biden's case, I think you could trust old Joe but not the band of scoundrels he has pulling the strings on him now. (Rethinking that statement given how much money his family made off of his name).
In Trump's case...well he's never really gone after a political opponent (only threatened) but you certainly wouldnt put it past him to start declaring things official acts for personal gain...
Bottom line is our leaders can't be trusted to act in good faith, and therefore it seems this ruling exposes more vulnerability than it accounts for.
It goes back to the lower courts so it be cycled back to the SCOTUS for them to decide everything is an Official Act so the Orange Turd can get away with murder.
So . . . since most individual public offices are probably not established by law, most of the bureaucracy is illegal?
How about the military? Is it enough to have a law authorizing the Army, for example, or does every officer, cook and grunt have to be enumerated?
What a wonderful ruling that would be for criminals, profiteers, polluters.... No cops, no SEC or FDA, no EPA....
Note, this is basically the same playbook the Court is using to undermine most regulations - or as sensible people call them, "protections."
Can't leave hiring up to the Executive Branch any more than you can leave regulations up to the authorized agencies.
Is that grossly overstating the problem? I doubt it. No, the Court is opening the door to slashing the bureaucracy - as urged by Project 2025 and others - because you don't need to follow due process to terminate someone who should never have been employed in the first place.
Boom!
Last edited:
in mulling the politics of this, do you think this is a gift or a curse to biden insofar as it will suck the press oxygen out of the room for a day or two, while they figure out their post-debate strategy (ie, does he find his footing or get stabbed in the back while no one's looking?)
The other issue is that it assumes that congress will act for the good of the country if the president oversteps.
We've seen clearly that is not true. A president attempted a coup and the senate still did not convict.
Both Trump and Biden are now effectively above the law - in the sense that they can almost certainly delay beyond their likely lifespan.
Thanks. So they still have to use a modicum of subtlety to pay federal officials after the act. But the barn door is basically wide open unless you are ham-fisted about it.
We need to reconstitute the Court and bring the cases to dismantle this avalanche of pro-bribery decisions - going back at least to Citizens United.
Even that won't restore our democracy unless we also work to get private money out of (or very limited) in politics, and until we overturn the scurrilous rulings that equate money with speech and corporations with persons.
How is this not obvious?
How is it not clear and actionable that the Republican Party needs to be stopped?
Horrible take. One they don't define what an official act is. Two I could easily see an official act being defined later as anything done for public and not private benefit. So anything election related or politically related would enjoy immunity including stealing classified documents, engaging in coups, and interfering with elections.
A Dem sweep could allow the expansion of the Court. In theory. But big money would just bribe enough folks to block that. Because that's legal.
