|
Post by gardawg on Apr 25, 2024 11:27:35 GMT -5
If the conservatives on the court give Trump's argument any credence, the attorney for the justice department should just say, "According to Mr. Sauer, if you rule in his favor, President Biden could order Seal Team Six to come to this courtroom the very next day, shoot the six justices appointed by republicans, order Seal Team Six to shoot every republican in the house and senate so that he can't be impeached or convicted, and would never have to face a single consequence for those acts. Then fill the vacancies with justices who will restore Roe, restore the Voting Rights Act, overturn Citizens United, and over turn Heller, McDonald, and Caetano (gun rights cases). Is that the America in which you want to live? More bluntly, is that the America in which you want to die?"
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 25, 2024 12:10:47 GMT -5
If the conservatives on the court give Trump's argument any credence, the attorney for the justice department should just say, "According to Mr. Sauer, if you rule in his favor, President Biden could order Seal Team Six to come to this courtroom the very next day, shoot the six justices appointed by republicans, order Seal Team Six to shoot every republican in the house and senate so that he can't be impeached or convicted, and would never have to face a single consequence for those acts. Then fill the vacancies with justices who will restore Roe, restore the Voting Rights Act, overturn Citizens United, and over turn Heller, McDonald, and Caetano (gun rights cases). Is that the America in which you want to live? More bluntly, is that the America in which you want to die?" They won’t give any credence to that argument. Its beyond the pale to argue that the President has absolute, unqualified, immunity. None of the Justices will sign on to that. They’re a smart lot. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument a majority were predisposed to look for a way to get Trump off. Even then, that wouldn’t be the argument they’d put forward. There’s two questions. First, what is the extent of a president’s immunity. Second, how does that immunity cary over until after a president has left office? He’s most assuredly going to have less immunity out-of-office than in office, for no other reason that his immunity in-office is tied to his official responsibilities as President. Once his official responsibilities are over, how can he be acting in a President’s capacity after his term is done?
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Apr 25, 2024 12:50:36 GMT -5
What if SCOTUS just passes the buck back down to a lower court. They dont have to rule. Just delay the trial.
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Apr 25, 2024 12:55:17 GMT -5
That’s what’s gonna happen. Send it back down to Washington court, She rules and Trump will appeal again.
|
|
|
Post by OhMy on Apr 25, 2024 13:04:39 GMT -5
If the conservatives on the court give Trump's argument any credence, the attorney for the justice department should just say, "According to Mr. Sauer, if you rule in his favor, President Biden could order Seal Team Six to come to this courtroom the very next day, shoot the six justices appointed by republicans, order Seal Team Six to shoot every republican in the house and senate so that he can't be impeached or convicted, and would never have to face a single consequence for those acts. Then fill the vacancies with justices who will restore Roe, restore the Voting Rights Act, overturn Citizens United, and over turn Heller, McDonald, and Caetano (gun rights cases). Is that the America in which you want to live? More bluntly, is that the America in which you want to die?" Immunity should be interpreted based on the official duty of the president and not personal vendetta. What you describe above is not official duty of the president but personal vendetta. I personally do not think the justices will vote for complete immunity if any immunity at all.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 25, 2024 16:46:21 GMT -5
If the conservatives on the court give Trump's argument any credence, the attorney for the justice department should just say, "According to Mr. Sauer, if you rule in his favor, President Biden could order Seal Team Six to come to this courtroom the very next day, shoot the six justices appointed by republicans, order Seal Team Six to shoot every republican in the house and senate so that he can't be impeached or convicted, and would never have to face a single consequence for those acts. Then fill the vacancies with justices who will restore Roe, restore the Voting Rights Act, overturn Citizens United, and over turn Heller, McDonald, and Caetano (gun rights cases). Is that the America in which you want to live? More bluntly, is that the America in which you want to die?" They won’t give any credence to that argument. Its beyond the pale to argue that the President has absolute, unqualified, immunity. None of the Justices will sign on to that. They’re a smart lot. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument a majority were predisposed to look for a way to get Trump off. Even then, that wouldn’t be the argument they’d put forward. There’s two questions. First, what is the extent of a president’s immunity. Second, how does that immunity cary over until after a president has left office? He’s most assuredly going to have less immunity out-of-office than in office, for no other reason that his immunity in-office is tied to his official responsibilities as President. Once his official responsibilities are over, how can he be acting in a President’s capacity after his term is done?
|
|
|
Post by tonyroma on Apr 25, 2024 22:38:11 GMT -5
Trump better watch his 6, he’s fiten to get corn popped.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 26, 2024 10:17:47 GMT -5
They won’t give any credence to that argument. Its beyond the pale to argue that the President has absolute, unqualified, immunity. None of the Justices will sign on to that. They’re a smart lot. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument a majority were predisposed to look for a way to get Trump off. Even then, that wouldn’t be the argument they’d put forward. There’s two questions. First, what is the extent of a president’s immunity. Second, how does that immunity cary over until after a president has left office? He’s most assuredly going to have less immunity out-of-office than in office, for no other reason that his immunity in-office is tied to his official responsibilities as President. Once his official responsibilities are over, how can he be acting in a President’s capacity after his term is done? That’s what Trump’s attorney is arguing. The Court isn’t going to accept that.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 26, 2024 10:20:47 GMT -5
That’s what Trump’s attorney is arguing. The Court isn’t going to accept that. Justice Alito has entered the chat.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 26, 2024 10:23:22 GMT -5
That’s what Trump’s attorney is arguing. The Court isn’t going to accept that. Justice Alito has entered the chat. How so?
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 26, 2024 10:25:29 GMT -5
Justice Alito has entered the chat. How so? He appears receptive to Trump's position.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 26, 2024 10:35:51 GMT -5
He appears receptive to Trump's position. No, he’s only questioning Jack Smith’s extreme position. Jack Smith is arguing 2 contradictory arguments (which is normal in these situations). He’s claiming that a president is entitled to NO immunity in any circumstance from Federal criminal prosecution (so qualified immunity in the criminal context doesn’t exist for a president). But alternatively, if qualified immunity does exist for the president, his conduct is still outside that immunity. Only that latter argument is the legitimate one. Just as on the Trump side, the only valid argument is that Trump’s conduct is within the bounds of qualified immunity. But they’re no penalty for either side to throw it all against the wall to see what will stick. That approach will sometimes confuse juries or trial court judges but it isn’t as likely to offend the Supreme Court beyond being an object of ridicule for making the ridiculous arguments.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Apr 26, 2024 10:56:59 GMT -5
A part of me hopes that Trump's argument prevails and Biden can just solve the problem with Seal Team Six and drone strikes. Just like Trump sychophants want him to have the power to do.
Of course it's ridiculous, and nothing but the court helping Trump delay his trials, but that's what the end result is.
Oh, and I suppose the appearance of impropriety is a none issue considering Justice Thomas' wife is a potential witness, and was an active, documented, participant in the very case before the court.
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Apr 26, 2024 10:59:05 GMT -5
As I said on another thread, the President has to have immunity in performing his official duties. The court should rule presidential immunity does not apply in this specific case or kick it back down to lower courts to decide if Trump was within his capacity as President or as a candidate. If it is kicked back down to the lower court, it will be a win for Trump as all he is doing is trying to delay the trial until after the election in hopes that he wins and then can make the federal case go away. Kick it back to the lower court, lose there, and then appeal whether or not he acted under Presidential authority back to SCOTUS later on. That should ensure no trial until some time next year. Trump loses the election though, he is fucked.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Apr 26, 2024 11:31:36 GMT -5
There are questions of law and questions of fact. Judges decide questions of law and juries decide questions of fact (unless its a bench trial, where the judge does both).
Whether Trump did X conduct is a question of fact. Whether X conduct constitutes a crime is a question of law.
So if Trump says “no I didn’t do X, I did Y,” the jury decides if its proven Trump did X instead of Y beyond a reasonable doubt. The matter of what law applies can’t be fully decided until X v. Y is sorted out.
If both the prosecution and defense agree on X (meaning there’s no dispute as to the facts), then the question of law is ripe. If the facts are in dispute, then the jury has to decide the facts.
I assume some facts are in dispute. There is likely at least some conduct Jack Smith says Trump did that Trump denies ever doing at all. On any matter that is in that realm, the Supreme Court probably won’t rule on, unless they think that even if Jack Smith is right, Jack Smith’s charged conduct still isn’t a crime.
|
|