The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[Vol423]

Taking Trump’s interactions with Pence, for example (IMO one of the most problematic situations in the whole thing). They don’t explicitly say it’s immune, but it is official.

I heard that a section of the majority opinion specifically stated that Trump's communications with Pence would be presumed to to be an official act.

 

[Vol423]

The Supreme Court also issued another opinion today in the case of Corner Post v. Board of Governors. The summary I just read online basically states this is another blow to the administrative state. Combined with last week's decision, it further opens up the federal administration to legal challenges.

 

[LibertyVol]

Okay, so if I called the VP and said don't certify, I'm going to get criminally prosecuted.

I thought the Democrats in Congress did the same thing when Trump was elected. China Joe to his credit shut that down fast.

 

[RockyTop85]

Different decision, but do you have any thoughts on Chevron?

I think that there will be good and bad. Optimistic there will be more good than bad.

A lot of the media coverage (“iT’s a JUDicIaL pOwER GraB”) is garbage.

The whole term, including the Trump immunity case, can be summarized as “congress do your job.” Who you vote for on congress matters. If you want a healthy country, stop voting for ****ing Instagram influencers and people who just want to get on cable news.

Congress can avoid all of the predicted bad outcomes by writing clearly articulated, more well-researched statutes and they can conscript agencies into that research function. Using the facts of the case: a follow up where the NMFS comes to congress and says “hey we’ve done our research and talked it over and we feel that we need these observers. We need you to fund them or pass a law requiring the licensed fishing companies to fund them.” And congress can either say “no, find a better way” or do one of the things the agency requested. That seems like how things were always supposed to work, to me.

 

[LSU-SIU]

I heard that a section of the majority opinion specifically stated that Trump's communications with Pence would be presumed to to be an official act.

I'm not sure if Pence had not certified the results if that would be criminal act, so how can Trump or the administration talking to him about what his duties may or may not be a crime. Is that interfering? Like I said, Trump isn't the only one that was feeding him that he had other options. Heck, people were in the open saying it to him.

Attempted conspiracy to interfere ???? To me unless he was actively doing something other than verbal, its a nothing burger.

 

[Vol423]

I think that there will be good and bad. Optimistic there will be more good than bad.

A lot of the media coverage (“iT’s a JUDicIaL pOwER GraB”) is garbage.

The whole term, including the Trump immunity case, can be summarized as “congress do your job.” Who you vote for on congress matters. If you want a healthy country, stop voting for ****ing Instagram influencers and people who just want to get on cable news.

Congress can avoid all of the predicted bad outcomes by writing clearly articulated, more well-researched statutes and they can conscript agencies into that research function. Using the facts of the case: a follow up where the NMFS comes to congress and says “hey we’ve done our research and talked it over and we feel that we need these observers. We need you to fund them or pass a law requiring the licensed fishing companies to fund them.” And congress can either say “no, find a better way” or do one of the things the agency requested. That seems like how things were always supposed to work, to me.

Exactly. If Congress actually performs its job the way it was intended under the Constitution then there will be few issues.

 

[RockyTop85]

I heard that a section of the majority opinion specifically stated that Trump's communications with Pence would be presumed to to be an official act.

Correct, they are official acts that are presumed immune.

What I’m saying is I don’t see how the government can overcome the presumption without courts being able to look at the president’s motive.

I do somewhat understand not wanting to subject presidents to invasive searches based only on allegation. However, there is evidence of motive that is already in the public record from Trump’s tweets and speech and communications with those outside of government. It seems silly to ignore all of that when considering whether his communication with Pence was “manifestly or palpably beyond the scope of his authority.”

 

[LSU-SIU]

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Here ya go @lawgator1

 

[LSU-SIU]

Without actually reading the ruling yet.

I would say it probably says they can be prosecuted for unofficial acts. The U.S. government has to give due process to Americans. Working under color of law comes to mind. Congress can't give the executive branch permission to kill Americans without due process as that power was never given to them by The People.

(but the /s noted as well with the post)

I believe there is enough information to charge the Chosen One for criminal prosecution for murder.

 

[whodeycin85]

Correct, they are official acts that are presumed immune.

What I’m saying is I don’t see how the government can overcome the presumption without courts being able to look at the president’s motive.

I do somewhat understand not wanting to subject presidents to invasive searches based only on allegation. However, there is evidence of motive that is already in the public record from Trump’s tweets and speech and communications with those outside of government. It seems silly to ignore all of that when considering whether his communication with Pence was “manifestly or palpably beyond the scope of his authority.”

Is the intent portion personal intent or presidential intent... There could be a difference there.

 

[Vol423]

Can you please fix this? That was not my statement that is showing in the quote.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

Without actually reading the ruling yet.

I would say it probably says they can be prosecuted for unofficial acts. The U.S. government has to give due process to Americans. Working under color of law comes to mind. Congress can't give the executive branch permission to kill Americans without due process as that power was never given to them by The People.

(but the /s noted as well with the post)

It was referring to an earlier post made by one of our resident loony dem lawyer.

 

[LSU-SIU]

Can you please fix this? That was not my statement that is showing in the quote.

Its an example. I'll take your quote out.

 

[hog88]

I think that there will be good and bad. Optimistic there will be more good than bad.

A lot of the media coverage (“iT’s a JUDicIaL pOwER GraB”) is garbage.

The whole term, including the Trump immunity case, can be summarized as “congress do your job.” Who you vote for on congress matters. If you want a healthy country, stop voting for ****ing Instagram influencers and people who just want to get on cable news.

Congress can avoid all of the predicted bad outcomes by writing clearly articulated, more well-researched statutes and they can conscript agencies into that research function. Using the facts of the case: a follow up where the NMFS comes to congress and says “hey we’ve done our research and talked it over and we feel that we need these observers. We need you to fund them or pass a law requiring the licensed fishing companies to fund them.” And congress can either say “no, find a better way” or do one of the things the agency requested. That seems like how things were always supposed to work, to me.

Well put

 

[Vol423]

Its an example.

It wasn't me that you quoted. It was @LibertyVol .

 

[hog88]

Correct, they are official acts that are presumed immune.

What I’m saying is I don’t see how the government can overcome the presumption without courts being able to look at the president’s motive.

I do somewhat understand not wanting to subject presidents to invasive searches based only on allegation. However, there is evidence of motive that is already in the public record from Trump’s tweets and speech and communications with those outside of government. It seems silly to ignore all of that when considering whether his communication with Pence was “manifestly or palpably beyond the scope of his authority.”

Did the ruling prevent using possible motive?

 

[LSU-SIU]

It wasn't me that you quoted. It was @LibertyVol .

Thanks. Fixed.

 

[Vol423]

It wasn't me that you quoted. It was @LibertyVol .

You're making me feel like Dementia Joe with that post. I read it and I was thinking, "I never posted that."

 

[RockyTop85]

Is the intent portion personal intent or presidential intent... There could be a difference there.

They don’t distinguish. I guess a lower court could determine that the president and vice president are not authorized to unilaterally decide results of an election, so it’s “palpably beyond the scope of his authorization” and not immune, but it would be challenged and the majority seems like they would strike that down.

 

[WoodsmanVol]

Far as I'm concerned, the SCOTUS is saying if Trump used the original Constitution paper to wipe himself after pooping, he's immune. Of course, MAGA-lovers just support that arrangement.

 

[whodeycin85]

Did the ruling prevent using possible motive?

I believe so. IMO it was put that was too stop using a POTUS statements out of context and proof of motive.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

LMAO ... Democrats running around, after hearing this ruling, w/their hair on fire.

 

[whodeycin85]

They don’t distinguish. I guess a lower court could determine that the president and vice president are not authorized to unilaterally decide results of an election, so it’s “palpably beyond the scope of his authorization” and not immune, but it would be challenged and the majority seems like they would strike that down.

I think official duties will be challenged and SCOTUS will be forced to rule.

 

[Vol423]

They don’t distinguish. I guess a lower court could determine that the president and vice president are not authorized to unilaterally decide results of an election, so it’s “palpably beyond the scope of his authorization” and not immune, but it would be challenged and the majority seems like they would strike that down.

Or they could do something really radical and stop wasting taxpayer money trying to invent ways to twist and fabricate laws to persecute their political enemies.