LaffyMEANWHILE, at #SCOTUS, via Ryan Reilly:
Supreme Court Trump immunity arguments underway.
"There can be no presidency as we know it" without presidential immunity, Trump lawyer John Sauer argues. 🤦🏻♀️
2/ Emptywheel:
Thomas: How do we determine what an official act is?
Ut oh.
3/ Via Scott MacFarlane:
Here comes the first hypothetical question. Chief Justice John Roberts asks ... what about an official act taken by a President (appointing an ambassador)... "for a bribe?"
Roberts - the bribe isn't an official act. But the appointing of an ambassador is one
(NOTE: I’M HAVING ENOUGH PROBLEMS TRYING TO DO ONE THREAD, LET ALONE 2, LET ALONE HAVING A DR APPT SOON… SO I’LL BE CUTTING ALL OF THIS SHORT SOON)
4/ Via MacFarlane:
Justice Sotomayor interjects with next hypothetical.... about what happens if a President orders an assassination.. "for personal reasons"
The DC appeals court used similar hypotheticals in January (Bribes and assassination)
Sotomayor cites amicus briefs received by Supreme Court in this case detailing how founding fathers once considered immunity for President, but didn't include immunity in founding documents of our nation
5/ I’m sure I’ve messed up the thread, and I’m posting when I can.
Elie Mystal:
Every Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch question is frankly code for "remand."
Roberts is not for remand. This could come down to Barrett.
#SCOTUS
6/ Oy.
Mystal:
Kagan: Can the president order a coup?
Sauer: If it's.. I did the job...
Kagan: CAN THE PRESIDENT ORDER A COUP?
Sauer: YOU'RE GODDAMN RIGHT HE CAN!
7/ Emptywheel:
Kav now imagining that bc none of the statutes charged have a clear statement that POTUS could be charged.
Murder does not have a clear statement.
Scott MacFarlane:
A Trump-appointed Supreme Court Justice (Gorsuch) and Trump's attorney (Sauer) just did a round of hypothesizing about a future President pardoning himself
Both emphasize that such a prospect is untested and uncertain
8/ Emptywheel:
Kav seems set to say POTUS can't be prosecuted FOR ANY OFFICIAL act unless the crime says POTUS can be prosecuted. But may be willing to let DC District to review for official acts.
9/ Mystal:
Gorsuch is basically pulling his questions from Truth social
Barrett kind of moves us to the ridiculous argument that the President must be impeached first before being prosecuted.
And Barrett is *killing* that argument
10/ Mystal:
Folks... I *think* we might have Barrett on team "no immunity, no remand." But I'll have to see how she handles the government's argument before I'm more confident.
Also, Barrett dissembles a lot in oral arguments about her position. She talks one way but often votes another.
11/ Mystal:
Thomas says presidents in the past have participated in coups, "yet there have been no prosecutions"??
Is this motherfucker serious? His argument is "Every president coups, why is mine getting charged?"
Show more replies
Roberts: "The court of appeals did not get into a focused consideration of what facts we're talking about or what documents we're talking about... they did not look at what courts usually look at when... taking away immunity."
And... that could be the ballgame
12/ Mystal:
Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are more worried about a prosecutor going after a president for *political* reasons than A PRESIDENT TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT.
13/ Emptywheel:
SCOTUS now really bothered that Trump would have to go to trial. This is insanity.
Kav: It's a serious constitutional question whether statutes can be applied to the President.
This is insane.
But I guess he heard Trump's demands.
Gorsuch now wanting to claim an Article II challenge is immunity.
Gorsuch: Let's say President leads mostly peaceful protest in front of Congress, delays proceedings before Congress.
Gorsuch is simply ignoring the violence.
14/ Mystal:
This is just about over.
And by "this" I mean the rule of law and by "over" I mean delayed indefinitely to help Trump.
Gorsuch suggesting that under the government's standard a president could be prosecuted for leading a "civil rights protest" in front of Congress and sought to "influence an official proceeding."
Yes, because Jan 6 and a fucking sit in are the same thing, Neil.
15/ Griffin:
Justice Sotomayor: The president is only explicitly mentioned in a few federal statutes. "Justice Barrett made the point that if we say a president can't be included in a criminal law unless explicitly named, then that would bar the Senate from impeaching him for high crimes or misdemeanor because that means that he's not subject to the law at all."
16/ Justice Jackson: "Why .... [would] the president ... not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts? Everyone else — there are lots of folks who have very high-powered jobs and they do so against the backdrop of potential criminal prosecution."
17/ Justice Jackson tells Trump's lawyer that he seems to be "worried about the president being chilled." She argues a "significant opposite problem" would emerge:
"If the pres wasn't chilled, if someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world … could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country."
18/ Griffin:
Alito: "Did I understand you to say, 'Well, you know, if he makes a mistake, he makes a mistake. He's subject to the criminal laws just like anybody else' You don't think he's in a peculiarly precarious position?"
Michael Dreeben, representing the U.S.: "He's under a constitutional obligation ... he's supposed to be faithful to the laws of the United States and the Constitution of the United States."
"And making a mistake is not what lands you in a criminal prosecution."
19/ Rupar:
so according to Trump's lawyers, if Trump returns to power he could sell all of our most sensitive military secrets to the CCP and he would be completely immune from prosecution so long as he kept it quiet until he left office. This is something SCOTUS is taking seriously!
20/ Via Emptywheel:
Alito again stops Dreeben from talking about the facts of the case.
We're at the point of this horrid hearing where Alito is suggesting it would be bad if the interned Japanese-Americans had recourse for their false imprisonment.
Roberts doesn't want to talk about history.
21/ Emptywheel:
LOLOL. Alito is horrified by the possibility that Presidents will appoint AGs who will rubber stamp their activities.
You know. Like Bill Barr.
Dreeben pretends that hasn't happened.
Alito suggests that if someone loses a close election and thinks they'll be prosecuted, they'll violently oppose it.
Alito really has flipped this entire thing on its head.
Dreeben not pointing out that SCOTUS ruled against Trump. yet?
(((Cindy Weinstein)))@GottaLaff. NFL. Anyone else's #Supreme Court Derangement Syndrome flaring up to levels (perhaps) heretofore unseeen?
So‑Called Vaughn@GottaLaff NFL A thousand times this: POTUS is bound under oath to faithfully execute the laws… it’s already in the job description. Doesn’t have to be specified in every statute. Besides one can point out that no statute reads ‘PS Except the President, obvs’
George Liquor, American@GottaLaff That this debate is happening at all in our country is completely absurd.
That it's happening in the Supreme Court is brain-breakingly stupid.
Literally "should we let the president be an unrestrained criminial?"
Come on.
Jomomma@GottaLaff finally some common sense. Go Justice Jackson.
RalfMaximus@GottaLaff NFL
> turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country
Not even a hypothetical. This actually happened.
joe•iuculano 
jules / cowbell as fuck
D C Fitzgerald
TinkNFL
Here's where we find out if really no one is above the law. If POTUS is when they're Republican and not Democrat, we have a dictatorship, not a democracy.
Michael Gemar@GottaLaff (NFL) It’s really notable that none of these conservative clowns seem worried that their arguments would *also* apply to Biden. It’s as if they realize that he’s a decent person who wouldn’t actually abuse the office, and that only Trump needs this kind of cover for criminal action.
Sean McCabe@GottaLaff
Yep...I heard that question and realized he was talking about J6 as a 'mostly peaceful protest'
SMFH.
Yep...I heard that question and realized he was talking about J6 as a 'mostly peaceful protest'
SMFH.
Lawrence@GottaLaff NFL ok, I am now officially terrified.
jimbodon@GottaLaff I had people in my church saying there was no difference between BLM 'riots' and Jan 6.
Quincy Peck@GottaLaff NFL - This court is wildly illegitimate. If impeachment of these judges isn’t possible, pack the damn court and do it now.
Mary Ann Horn@GottaLaff
This frees up Biden to legally go after him. Right? Unless they delay handing out immunity to Trump, and they will, Biden gets to the immunity first.
And he can prosecute trump plus throw the scotus out.
This frees up Biden to legally go after him. Right? Unless they delay handing out immunity to Trump, and they will, Biden gets to the immunity first.
And he can prosecute trump plus throw the scotus out.
Martha Lemert@GottaLaff if I become president I can lead a similar “peaceful protest” inside the Supreme Court? And not get prosecuted?! Cool!
arceuthobium@GottaLaff affecting the outcome of an official proceeding by threatening to withhold votes is not the same as affecting the outcome of an official proceeding by threatening to hang Mike Pence.
Steven Capobianco@GottaLaff
“Arresting the President for high crimes and misdemeanors would be a bad look”
Ok, fine I guess. Know what would also be a bad look, Kavanaugh?
LETTING TRUMP GET AWAY WITH WHATEVER HE WANTS!
Gorsuch “a mostly peaceful protest in front of Congress!!!!!”
bouriquet@GottaLaff NFL
So it’s okay for a special prosecutor to go after anyone else in Congress for political reasons though? Why is just a President immune?
What makes something a political reason vs a legitimate concern? There needs to be a circuit breaker to protect the country against a rogue President. No one should have absolute power.
So it’s okay for a special prosecutor to go after anyone else in Congress for political reasons though? Why is just a President immune?
What makes something a political reason vs a legitimate concern? There needs to be a circuit breaker to protect the country against a rogue President. No one should have absolute power.
ArtemesiaNFL because it's a GOP president. President Clinton was not considered immune. This is like playing football with a ref who alters the rules after every change of possession. #SCOTUS
Aviva Gary@GottaLaff Well yeah... they saw Bill Clinton and what Rs did to him
They have no problems with T though 😉
D. G. MarshallI just read an article that said Kavanaugh was on the legal team prosecuting then-sitting President Bill Clinton.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-justices-pro-trump-immunity-arguments-make-zero-sense
Nonilex@GottaLaff love Mystal. He says outloud my inner narrative
@GottaLaff
Brilliant Af-Am jurist
argues classic teenager comeback:
"Everybody Does it"
Ie, that every pres does coups.
.., just like slavery I guess…everybody did it…ho hum.
Toot Ωncommon - SHUT 🇺🇸 DOWN@GottaLaff Just going by the audio, it doesn’t seem like ANY of the justices are on board for absolute immunity no matter how vociferously RFK Jr. argues in favor of it.
Unabogie has voted Kamala!It's also not in a "named statute" that POTUS can't order assassins to take out corrupt SCOTUS justices.
I wish someone would mention that.
Or stage a “peaceful protest” that might interrupt the oral arguments.
𝐉𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐫@GottaLaff Weirdly, Barrett is turning out to be somewhat less horrible than everyone thought she would be. That, admittedly, is a bar low enough that the average earthworm would have no trouble clearing it, but still. It's true that the thrust of her questions could be "here's a position; please give me a reason to reject it because I really want to"; judges do that sometimes. But I am cautiously hopeful that maybe she's starting to experience the same sort of leftward slide that got so many people pissed off at Earl Warren.
Amoshias@jonberger @GottaLaff what are you basing that off of?
@Amoshias @GottaLaff For one thing, her questioning during the EMTALA oral argument, during which she appeared to momentarily forget that she's a Republican and remember that she's a woman. I'll be interested to see how she comes down on the immunity issue.
@jonberger @GottaLaff she has frequently sounded that way during orals. I'm not sure her actual VOTES reflect what you're saying though.
Rora BorealisNFL Barrett is smart and competent, no doubt. But I just don't trust her.
Chris Dudley@GottaLaff SOMEONE CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH.
Judgment DaveNFL - "I suggest the jury be dismissed so that we can move to an immediate Article 39a Session"