How impressive to wax so eloquently on the potential abuse by Trump of this SCOTUS ruling while ignoring the long history of claims of presidential immunity, including by Barack Obama, who used it to claim the non-reviewable authority to kill American citizens abroad via drones. Glenn Greenwald has a more honest and coherent response to the SCOTUS ruling: https://rumble.com/v55d0d5-system-update-show-292.html.
The key part of the opinion that is bound to cover up actual crimes under the cloak of the newly invented "official acts" doctrine and will create an invitation to crimes in the future is found in Justice Coney Barrett's dissent within her concurring opinion.
"The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable..." But the majority did just that. An "official act" cannot be investigated for, or used as, evidence of a criminal act. A President who sells a pardon for a quid pro quo bribe can do so without fear of an investigation or prosecution. A President who orders a federal agency to break into the headquarters of a political rival's campaign can do so with impunity. A President can order an administrative agency to give a no-bid contract to a company and get a "kick-back" for doing so.
It would appear that Richard Nixon's dicta is true: when the President acts it is not illegal.
This Court would never have forced him to turn over the tapes to the Special Prosecutor.
This Court is looking for a case and preparing to gut the role of Special Prosecutor and declare it unconstitutional.
For those who mumble on about impeachment it is probable that the Democratic House would have issued articles of impeachment for Nixon--- but it is also probable Nixon would have found 34 Republican votes needed to acquit him in a Senate trial. But Nixon also understood that he could still be criminally prosecuted even if acquitted in the Senate and therefore resigned and negotiated a pardon from President Ford.
Poor Nixon, where can he go to get his presidency back?
Don't agree. The court is actively supporting the separation of powers. The interpretation they have given is a lot less extreme than what has been claimed by White House counsels of both parties for decades. The Constitution provides for impeachment. The President of whatever party needs to be able to carry out their official duties without facing lawfare during and after leaving office. The founders understood this. They had in recent memory egregious examples of factions persecuting each other with the criminal law after each faction gained and lost power.
One point I was only able to mention briefly but that bears spelling out: Roberts' opinion makes things worse *even in the very specific ground of presidents' ability to engage in politically-motivated prosecutions of their rivals.* Ex-presidents are *almost never* the important rivals of sitting presidents.
Trump is the first a) incumbent president defeated for reelection who b) has tried to come back and win the office again since Grover Cleveland.
So on the one hand Roberts immunizes from retributive prosecution people who are almost never the obvious candidates for it. On the other hand, Roberts gives a bright green light to presidents giving the DOJ direction about whom to prosecute, for what, when. He treats as obvious nonsense the post-Watergate norms against political interference with investigative and prosecutorial decisions.
And so Roberts leave behind a much greater temptation to future presidents to go after, not their predecessors (normally who cares about them?) but their would-be *successors,* or their current active opposition.
Politically motivated prosecutions have become more likely, not less.
They became more likely when Obama orchestrated the Russiagate hoax, using the FBI and CIA, to damage Trump (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/russiagate-obama-iran), as well as when Biden's Justice Department went after Trump, Biden's primary political opponent, with obviously politically motivated prosecutions. That you either don't know these things or refuse to recognize them is revealing of your political bias. Again, as Glenn Greenwald points out, what you claim is so unprecedented about Trump and the SCOTUS ruling has been happening for years under previous administrations: https://rumble.com/v55d0d5-system-update-show-292.html.
But the Founding Fathers, for all their erudition and idealism, never counted on a monster like Mitch McConnell. By rigging Trump's trial by the Senate, he put personal power and the interests of his political party over the Constitution and the nation.
After 5 years in marriage with my husband with 2 kids, my husband started acting weird and going out with other ladies and showed me cold love, on several occasions he threatens to divorce me if I dare question him about his affair with other ladies, I was totally devastated and confused until an old friend of mine told me about a spell caster on the internet called Dr OGEDEGBE who help people with relationship and marriage problem by the powers of love spells, at first I doubted if such thing ever exists but decided to give it a try, when I contact him, he helped me cast a love spell and within 48 hours my husband came back to me and started apologizing, now he has stopped going out with other ladies and his with me for good and for real. Contact this great love spell caster for your relationship or marriage problem to be solved today via email: dr.ogedegbe6@gmail.com or directly on WhatsApp: +2348109374702. Dr OGEDEGBE..
Trump is clearly a danger to every prospect for a democratic rule of law. In my view this is true to such a horrifying extent that it is hard for me to not feel some sympathy with wishful thinking that something outside the electoral process might eliminate the prospect of his returning to the White House. On the other hand, the Roberts opinion focuses on one of the very alarming ways that Trump has repeatedly promised to abuse our Constitution and impair the ability of our government to function. Before he was ever initially “electorated” in 2016, trump rallied his base with the fascistic chant “Lock Her Up!” Today, he repeatedly pledges to prosecute Biden and his entire “crime family.” Any legitimate and comprehensive criticism of the majority opinion must address this.
Again, I personally, cannot help but wish there was a way to expedite the resolution of all the complexities arising from trump’s unprecedented conduct while in the office of the presidency. Nor can I totally dismiss my fears and prejudices regarding the conduct and character of some members of the high court and the possible allegiances they might have for certain versions of executive power. But a democratic rule of law is by nature a cumbersome, complex, and subtle set of arrangements and procedures. The level of criminality reasonably alleged against trump as president is also unprecedented as both a matter of public record and (multiple) legal proceedings. Therefore, it seems to me that some presumptive deference be granted to the court for demurring against taking hasty action that could set other dangerous precedents.
If I read the majority opinion clearly, it did preclude using presidential discussions within the Justice Department as evidence in a criminal trial of a former president. But it left open the questions of whether the president’s discussions with the Vice President (in his *legislative* role as president of the Senate) was protected from legal scrutiny while leaving the questions even more open with regard to interactions with state officials and private citizens. Those issues were sent back to the lower courts. Now, of course, some handwringing is definitely understandable given the prospect that trump could regain the presidency and thereby prohibit federal prosecutions of himself during his term of office. (The decision, I think, was silent with regard to his power to pardon himself…) But as dismaying and dangerous as this is (as part of a wide range of abuses and disruptions sure to attend a second trump administration) a full throated denunciation of the Court’s majority opinion must address the jeopardy they invoke if all future presidents were to be subject to legal liability for official actions: meaning the exercise of powers and responsibilities designated exclusively to the executive branch.
Keep in mind who is most likely to abuse the ability to call into question the motives (and thereby the legitimacy) of a president exercising their constitutional responsibilities. Would the bulk of such abuses come from interest groups who seek to limit the war powers of the president and those who resent the president for failure to forcefully enforce civil rights, consumer protections, and environmental laws? Or would the bulk of such interventions against executive authority be initiated by extremely well resourced corporate interests desiring to hamper executive authority to achieve public policy goals supported by Congressional and democratic majorities?
The democratic rule of law is a complicated, cumbersome, and often frustrating set of arrangements and practices. It has taken us centuries to achieve what limited protections for democracy a liberal order can provide. It may seem that it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court, or some energetic charismatic leader, could be counted upon to rise up and “save us” when our institutions and habits of mind seem to be adrift. But how “democratic” or reassuring would that really be??? Unfortunately(?), the democratic rule of law is OUR collective responsibility. The true question is were we ever - or ur we now, truly up to it.
How impressive to wax so eloquently on the potential abuse by Trump of this SCOTUS ruling while ignoring the long history of claims of presidential immunity, including by Barack Obama, who used it to claim the non-reviewable authority to kill American citizens abroad via drones. Glenn Greenwald has a more honest and coherent response to the SCOTUS ruling: https://rumble.com/v55d0d5-system-update-show-292.html.
The key part of the opinion that is bound to cover up actual crimes under the cloak of the newly invented "official acts" doctrine and will create an invitation to crimes in the future is found in Justice Coney Barrett's dissent within her concurring opinion.
"The Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable..." But the majority did just that. An "official act" cannot be investigated for, or used as, evidence of a criminal act. A President who sells a pardon for a quid pro quo bribe can do so without fear of an investigation or prosecution. A President who orders a federal agency to break into the headquarters of a political rival's campaign can do so with impunity. A President can order an administrative agency to give a no-bid contract to a company and get a "kick-back" for doing so.
It would appear that Richard Nixon's dicta is true: when the President acts it is not illegal.
This Court would never have forced him to turn over the tapes to the Special Prosecutor.
This Court is looking for a case and preparing to gut the role of Special Prosecutor and declare it unconstitutional.
For those who mumble on about impeachment it is probable that the Democratic House would have issued articles of impeachment for Nixon--- but it is also probable Nixon would have found 34 Republican votes needed to acquit him in a Senate trial. But Nixon also understood that he could still be criminally prosecuted even if acquitted in the Senate and therefore resigned and negotiated a pardon from President Ford.
Poor Nixon, where can he go to get his presidency back?
Don't agree. The court is actively supporting the separation of powers. The interpretation they have given is a lot less extreme than what has been claimed by White House counsels of both parties for decades. The Constitution provides for impeachment. The President of whatever party needs to be able to carry out their official duties without facing lawfare during and after leaving office. The founders understood this. They had in recent memory egregious examples of factions persecuting each other with the criminal law after each faction gained and lost power.
One point I was only able to mention briefly but that bears spelling out: Roberts' opinion makes things worse *even in the very specific ground of presidents' ability to engage in politically-motivated prosecutions of their rivals.* Ex-presidents are *almost never* the important rivals of sitting presidents.
Trump is the first a) incumbent president defeated for reelection who b) has tried to come back and win the office again since Grover Cleveland.
So on the one hand Roberts immunizes from retributive prosecution people who are almost never the obvious candidates for it. On the other hand, Roberts gives a bright green light to presidents giving the DOJ direction about whom to prosecute, for what, when. He treats as obvious nonsense the post-Watergate norms against political interference with investigative and prosecutorial decisions.
And so Roberts leave behind a much greater temptation to future presidents to go after, not their predecessors (normally who cares about them?) but their would-be *successors,* or their current active opposition.
Politically motivated prosecutions have become more likely, not less.
That's an angle I had not considered. Thanks.
They became more likely when Obama orchestrated the Russiagate hoax, using the FBI and CIA, to damage Trump (https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/russiagate-obama-iran), as well as when Biden's Justice Department went after Trump, Biden's primary political opponent, with obviously politically motivated prosecutions. That you either don't know these things or refuse to recognize them is revealing of your political bias. Again, as Glenn Greenwald points out, what you claim is so unprecedented about Trump and the SCOTUS ruling has been happening for years under previous administrations: https://rumble.com/v55d0d5-system-update-show-292.html.
"The Constitution provides for impeachment."
But the Founding Fathers, for all their erudition and idealism, never counted on a monster like Mitch McConnell. By rigging Trump's trial by the Senate, he put personal power and the interests of his political party over the Constitution and the nation.
After 5 years in marriage with my husband with 2 kids, my husband started acting weird and going out with other ladies and showed me cold love, on several occasions he threatens to divorce me if I dare question him about his affair with other ladies, I was totally devastated and confused until an old friend of mine told me about a spell caster on the internet called Dr OGEDEGBE who help people with relationship and marriage problem by the powers of love spells, at first I doubted if such thing ever exists but decided to give it a try, when I contact him, he helped me cast a love spell and within 48 hours my husband came back to me and started apologizing, now he has stopped going out with other ladies and his with me for good and for real. Contact this great love spell caster for your relationship or marriage problem to be solved today via email: dr.ogedegbe6@gmail.com or directly on WhatsApp: +2348109374702. Dr OGEDEGBE..
Trump is clearly a danger to every prospect for a democratic rule of law. In my view this is true to such a horrifying extent that it is hard for me to not feel some sympathy with wishful thinking that something outside the electoral process might eliminate the prospect of his returning to the White House. On the other hand, the Roberts opinion focuses on one of the very alarming ways that Trump has repeatedly promised to abuse our Constitution and impair the ability of our government to function. Before he was ever initially “electorated” in 2016, trump rallied his base with the fascistic chant “Lock Her Up!” Today, he repeatedly pledges to prosecute Biden and his entire “crime family.” Any legitimate and comprehensive criticism of the majority opinion must address this.
Again, I personally, cannot help but wish there was a way to expedite the resolution of all the complexities arising from trump’s unprecedented conduct while in the office of the presidency. Nor can I totally dismiss my fears and prejudices regarding the conduct and character of some members of the high court and the possible allegiances they might have for certain versions of executive power. But a democratic rule of law is by nature a cumbersome, complex, and subtle set of arrangements and procedures. The level of criminality reasonably alleged against trump as president is also unprecedented as both a matter of public record and (multiple) legal proceedings. Therefore, it seems to me that some presumptive deference be granted to the court for demurring against taking hasty action that could set other dangerous precedents.
If I read the majority opinion clearly, it did preclude using presidential discussions within the Justice Department as evidence in a criminal trial of a former president. But it left open the questions of whether the president’s discussions with the Vice President (in his *legislative* role as president of the Senate) was protected from legal scrutiny while leaving the questions even more open with regard to interactions with state officials and private citizens. Those issues were sent back to the lower courts. Now, of course, some handwringing is definitely understandable given the prospect that trump could regain the presidency and thereby prohibit federal prosecutions of himself during his term of office. (The decision, I think, was silent with regard to his power to pardon himself…) But as dismaying and dangerous as this is (as part of a wide range of abuses and disruptions sure to attend a second trump administration) a full throated denunciation of the Court’s majority opinion must address the jeopardy they invoke if all future presidents were to be subject to legal liability for official actions: meaning the exercise of powers and responsibilities designated exclusively to the executive branch.
Keep in mind who is most likely to abuse the ability to call into question the motives (and thereby the legitimacy) of a president exercising their constitutional responsibilities. Would the bulk of such abuses come from interest groups who seek to limit the war powers of the president and those who resent the president for failure to forcefully enforce civil rights, consumer protections, and environmental laws? Or would the bulk of such interventions against executive authority be initiated by extremely well resourced corporate interests desiring to hamper executive authority to achieve public policy goals supported by Congressional and democratic majorities?
The democratic rule of law is a complicated, cumbersome, and often frustrating set of arrangements and practices. It has taken us centuries to achieve what limited protections for democracy a liberal order can provide. It may seem that it would be wonderful if the Supreme Court, or some energetic charismatic leader, could be counted upon to rise up and “save us” when our institutions and habits of mind seem to be adrift. But how “democratic” or reassuring would that really be??? Unfortunately(?), the democratic rule of law is OUR collective responsibility. The true question is were we ever - or ur we now, truly up to it.