@jenzi The Supreme Court pretty clearly extended the shield of "official acts" around all conversations within an administration, and does not permit any inquiry into the motivations for those acts. I don't think this Supreme Court was considering precedent, except as raw material from which to form precisely the collage they decided to produce for other reasons.
@Johnhurley (i thought it an interestingly poetic use of "laptop" that i didn't quite understand, but the gist was clear!)
A great irony of Trump v. United States:
The "steelman" proposition is that it's intended to deter politically motivated malicious prosecution. But the decision *explicitly underlines* the President's authority to and absolute immunity for encouraging or compelling malicious prosecutions.
Text, from the majority holding in Trump v. United States: The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the Presi- dent cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitu- tional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. Pp. 19-21.
Henry Kissinger: "The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a little longer."
US Supreme Court: The Executive branch needs more immunity.
france provides a glimmer of hope during a deeply hopeless time.
@sliminality i don’t understand why we don’t just ban the practice.
@isomorphismes maybe. emigration is not a small thing, and my options are much narrower than they once were. this decision has thrown me personally, and indirectly my family, into a state of great insecurity, much more than anything that happened during Trump’s presidency. i didn’t really think it was Germany 1933 then. i do now. my urgency does depend on the outcome of the presidential election too. a Democratic administration might expand the court and fix this.
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley Courts can and should absolutely throw out a malicious prosecution upon first contact. Usually there is an immediate motion by the defense to dismiss, have it thrown out because the prosecution lacks basis. All of us have the right to make such a motion, and any judge has a right to rule in favor of the defense and the case is over. That’s ordinary in criminal law. No immunity required.
@volkris It does not! What do you think “absolute immunity” means?
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley again, you are just wrong on the facts. if a person is being prosecuted for something not illegal, the remedy is acquittal, not immunity. 1/
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley there is nothing about this decision we can democratically change. the Supreme Court has declared absolute immunity for exercise of the President’s “conclusive and preclusive” powers part of the Constitution itself (defying history and literacy to do so). they have not conditioned this immunity on the exercise being otherwise legal. only the Supreme Court itself or a Constitutional amendment can undo this. 2/
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley There is absolutely an automatic “get out of jail card” here. Not for all of the current Trump prosecutions, because some of what he’s being prosecuted for are arguably not “official acts”, and not “conclusive and preclusive” official acts. Trump’s prosecutions are now extraordinarily unlikely to succeed, but they can continue. But future Presidents have a clear map of how to act illegally without consequence. 3/
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley this decision is not at all what a Supreme Court would have done if its concern was reigning in politically motivated prosecution while retaining an accountable executive. in its own words, it places as ensuring “energetic”, “unhesitating” executive above any concerns about accountability. https://drafts.interfluidity.com/2024/07/05/if-the-issue-was-the-lawfare/index.html /fin
Just a reminder that, since July 1, 2024, if you live in the United States you no longer live in a liberal democracy. You live in a tyranny.
For the moment you live under a tyrant who happens not to be much of a brute. Don’t worry, though. As John Roberts enthused, sooner or later you’ll have a President who is “energetic”, “unhesitating”.
From a brilliant essay by @radleybalko on John Roberts' coup. Read the whole thing. https://radleybalko.substack.com/p/the-supreme-court-folds ht @ryanlcooper
Text: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. United States is its worst decision of my lifetime. John Roberts’s sloppy, arrogant, contradictory majority opinion provides license for any future president to lie, cheat, steal, suppress dissent, and — if they have the stomach for it — assassinate. It obliterates a guardrail for executive power that’s fundamental to a functioning democracy. So fundamental, in fact, that until the country elected an aspiring autocrat brazen enough to engage in open-air corruption, it was a guardrail few thought necessary to actually define. Of course the president can be prosecuted for actual crimes. When Trump initially made his claim of “absolute immunity” for presidents from criminal charges, it was widely derided among constitutional scholars as a hopeless Hail Mary. Then John Roberts answered Trump’s prayers. This opinion isn’t a stain on Roberts’s legacy. It is his legacy. He will be remembered as the “institutionalist” who destroyed the legitimacy of the institution entrusted to his care. And if that’s the worst of the damage, we’ll all be lucky.
@marick This was largely intended for you, I thought replying to the thread would catch you, but it seems it may not have? Sorry! https://zirk.us/@interfluidity/112742768514714841
@norootcause at a moral or philosophical level, you can blame the electorate if you want. at a practical level, it is a dumb, useless. critics and pundits who do it are at best to be ignored and usually disingenuously mischievous or running interference for someone evading accountability. the broad electorate is not a point of accountability or reform. the electorate is the raw wood, the marble, those of us who intervene in politics or commentary or institution design have to work with. 1/
@norootcause however “true” by someone’s framing it may be that a bad electorate is the problem, there is no value whatsoever in the framing. unless collective punishment or reeducation or such is the reform you’d advocate, in which case the fault lies with those who failed to institute those reforms, not the electorate. so still no value in blaming the electorate. /fin
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley that is simply not true. absolute immunity is not distinguished by lawful or unlawful actions. there’d be no reason for that. no one needs immunity for lawful actions. prosecutors are explicitly enjoined from even *inquiring* into whether “official acts” are motivated in order to break the law. for “conclusive and preclusive” official acts, including commanding the military + providing pardons, immunity is absolute and automatic.
you misunderstood the decision.
@Geoffberner @LouisIngenthron unfortunately there is an explanation that reconciles competence and clinging, if they are selfish. 30% chance of everything is better than a 100% chance of nothing, from a pure personal influence perspective.
mostly i think highly of the Bidenistas, so i am skeptical of this rather terrible view. but the better they play diehard—even if it’s a negotiating tactic and ultimately wise—the harder it becomes, from the outside, to keep the faith.
@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner yes. my view exactly. but that makes it all very nerve wracking from the outside, it’s impossible to distinguish potential fatal pigheadedness from potentially wise mastery of the process.
@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner I certainly agree that, right now, it’d be best if there could be a smooth transition to a stronger candidate with a lot of policy and personnel continuity. I think that’s unusually possible right now, because the Democratic coalition is unusually unified, both against Trump, and broadly in support of Biden’s policy direction. (I don’t think that’s always the case.) 1/
@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner I don’t think the issue is that the Biden team doesn’t “get that”. Unfortunately, I think we have almost no visibility into what’s going on in the inner circles. Are they stubborn because I’m wrong, and they just do have an indefensibly high expectation of their odds? Are they held back by personal ambition, the circle around Biden loses opportunity and influence if Biden cedes, while they have ~30% change of keeping it if he doesn’t? 2/
@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner Or are they claiming to be diehards as a negotiating position, so they can negotiate succession on their own terms? That’s my hope, but I don’t know, I don’t think outsiders can. /fin
@barrkel yeah, it was more a prescriptive than descriptive claim.
@LouisIngenthron @Geoffberner i agree, but we can’t sustain cohesive parties in a two party system. the electorate has more to express than only two parties can sustainably stick to. in the moment, i agree with you it’d be better if we had a strong party that could change inadequate management to advance a virtuous underlying agenda. but we don’t, and can’t in a two party system, unless we really insulate the parties from the fractious public very bad for different reasons).