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. π€¦π»ββοΈ
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: IβM HAVING ENOUGH PROBLEMS TRYING TO DO ONE THREAD, LET ALONE 2, LET ALONE HAVING A DR APPT SOONβ¦ SO IβLL 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/ Iβm sure Iβve messed up the thread, and Iβm 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.
ππ¨π§ πππ«π ππ«@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.