Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[ati87]

This makes sense to me, since what consititutes "official acts" is not strictly defined. Some acts will obviously qualify and some obviously wont. I dont think theyre suggesting that every act is some wishy-washy grey area, but that there is, in fact, some wishy washy grey area.

All theyre saying is the President gets the benefit of the doubt when he claims "official act" and the burden of proof lies on those who claim it isnt.

Way I'm reading the articles is that the ruling is way to open to consider this a victory for Trump,which is why it was mostly send back to the lower courts and told them what we already knew, that the Presidential acts are by themselves not punishable.

Obama killin a American citizen abroad was done as a President, Obama as a canidate didn't benefit anymore then any other presidential act he could carry out.
Obama killing Mit Ronmey however would be zero benefit for him as President and would be considered in my opinion only a benefit for Canidate Obama so not a official act.

If Trump wins however he will probably consider himself to be god king or something, because from his pov that is what the SC told him even if that wasn't the case.

[Marfrilau]

Way I'm reading the articles is that the ruling is way to open to consider this a victory for Trump,which is why it was mostly send back to the lower courts and told them what we already knew, that the Presidential acts are by themselves not punishable.

Obama killin a American citizen abroad was done as a President, Obama as a canidate didn't benefit anymore then any other presidential act he could carry out.
Obama killing Mit Ronmey however would be zero benefit for him as President and would be considered in my opinion only a benefit for Canidate Obama so not a official act.

If Trump wins however he will probably consider himself to be god king or something, because from his pov that is what the SC told him even if that wasn't the case.

Quote from the dissent:
"It then goes a step further: “In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” Ante, at 18. It is one thing to say that motive is irrelevant to questions regarding the scope of civil liability, but it is quite another to make it irrelevant to questions regarding criminal liability. Under that rule, any use of official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt purpose indicated by objective evidence of the most corrupt motives and intent, remains official and immune. Under the majority’s test, if it can be called a test, the category of Presidential action that can be deemed “unofficial” is destined to be vanishingly small."

[Benggaul]

Way I'm reading the articles is that the ruling is way to open to consider this a victory for Trump,which is why it was mostly send back to the lower courts and told them what we already knew, that the Presidential acts are by themselves not punishable.

This is what I'm saying.

It could help him in the J6 case though I've always felt that was the weakest of the big four cases since it was already far too open to interpretation. I don't expect him to suffer consequences for that one.

The classified documents case is (still) the strongest since he took them, admitted he took them and obstructed attempts to retrieve them. Yes, Canon is doing her best to ratfuck it, but there are limits to what she can do to help Trump out beyond keep up the delays. This decision doesn't really affect this case since it's post-Presidency and therefore, according to the SCOTUS ruling, isn't immune.

The Georgia case is also fairly strong since Trump's on tape demanding they "find" votes. GOP are doing their best to ratfuck that one too with their attacks on the prosecution. I think the SCOTUS ruling also doesn't apply here since it can't really be classified as a core presidential act, but I can see the case being further delayed while the language is litigated.

This also doesn't absolve Trump in the New York fraud case, so he's still a convicted felon awaiting sentencing.

[Sunseeker]

Which is problematic because they also can't question the motive of a president if he claims "official act". It's absolutely retarded...

Why cant they, exactly? If they have evidence to suggest that the means and ends were not "official acts" then that by nature questions the motive.

[zEmini]

The Supreme Court gave Biden the power to sic the military on Trump: legal analysts[i]

Biden is a old coward. he doesn't have the balls to do any of that.

What he should do it sic the military on the supreme court. Arrest uncle thomas, alito and perhaps even kavanaugh. And replace them. Do it now

[Marfrilau]

Why cant they, exactly? If they have evidence to suggest that the means and ends were not "official acts" then that by nature questions the motive.

Here's the part of the opinion that that the dissent references:
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect."

[Edge-]

Is drone striking a SCOTUS Justice an official act? Asking for a friend.

[Sunseeker]

Here's the part of the opinion that that the dissent references:
"In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect."

It sounds like the dissent is arguing for stronger immunity, not weaker though.

[Marfrilau]

It sounds like the dissent is arguing for stronger immunity, not weaker though.

What, how?

[Sunseeker]

What, how?

It would seem to be they are arguing for no division between acts, and therefore total immunity, or risk coming under fire for every act.

I freely admit I may be reading it wrong, Im certinly not a legal scholar.

[Marfrilau]

It would seem to be they are arguing for no division between acts, and therefore total immunity, or risk coming under fire for every act.

I freely admit I may be reading it wrong, Im certinly not a legal scholar.

What they are saying is that the opinion effectively has made it so that the "test" to define whether it's an official or unofficial will more or less always make it official.

[Sorshen]

It's not the win conservatives think (Trump wanted total immunity, stuff done outside EOs and shit), but it has that asterisk in defining what was or wasn't official, that will go thru the courts back up to them when needed based on the potus political color.

Still, so ironic that small gov. conservatives cheering for executive branch potentially becoming royalty.

[Mayhem]

What they are saying is that the opinion effectively has made it so that the "test" to define whether it's an official or unofficial will more or less always make it official.

Would it be an official act by President Biden to declare the things Trump did were unofficial?

[CastletonSnob]

Can we please stop saying "Just vote!"?

We're WAY past the point of voting being able to fix things.

[Shadowferal]

Can we please stop saying "Just vote!"? We're WAY past the point of voting being able to fix things.

Alright genius, what are you considering?

[Spectral]

Can we please stop saying "Just vote!"?

We're WAY past the point of voting being able to fix things.

You're gonna need to vote harder buddy.

[Slant]

Can we please stop saying "Just vote!"?

We're WAY past the point of voting being able to fix things.

Given that your "vote" choice is between insanity and senility... yeah, you are way beyond that point. I'm with Jon Stewart... that is the best you came up with? Such a big nation, so many smart people and THAT is who's supposed to represent you? Either one?

[Marfrilau]

Would it be an official act by President Biden to declare the things Trump did were unofficial?

Good question. You certainly can't question his motive for it!

[Celista]

Welp it was a ̶g̶o̶o̶d̶ mostly not great run, USA. Where's everyone moving to?

Yes, Biden ordering Seal Team 6 is part of his official constitutional powers, so Biden can now order them to assassinate Trump and Biden would be immune from prosecution.
Oh and he can kill these moron conservative justices while he's at it.

He should kidnap them to prove a point. Hope he televises it.

[Inuyaki]

Congrats on finally having a king!
I guess having a president got boring after around 250 years?