@Hyolobrika @AltonDooley @volkris People understandably presume reasonableness of the Court, try to fill gaps in in such a way as you could say, look, this is a balanced measure to prevent harassing or politically motivated prosecution while continuing to ensure that Presidents follow the law. But read the text. It is not that, not at all. It provides absolute immunity for actions with sufficient scope to order violent lawlessness and protect perpetrators from any criminal accountability. /fin
@interfluidity the key point is, absolute immunity is only recognized for legal actions.
Can you cite legal basis for ordering violent lawlessness? Seems like a tall hill to climb.
If you can't cite legal basis for that action, then no, the text does not provide it.
@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.
@interfluidity you say there is no reason for that, but the reason for that is staring us in the face: IF a person is being prosecuted for something that's not illegal in the first place, that's a strong call for immunity from improper prosecution!
And that's what this is all about, reigning in an administration that's overreaching in its prosecution.
When people get hung up on the motivation aspect they're missing that there are some things that current law allows regardless of motivation. AND we can democratically change that law if we wish, adding in the motivation aspect.
Other authorizations are more limited, hence the categorical tiers that came out in this ruling.
Regardless, to claim immunity from prosecution the accused would first have to demonstrate that their actions have legal basis.
There's no automatic get out of jail free card here.
@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/
Again, if they were acting illegally then this ruling doesn't protect them.
This ruling only provides protection from prosecution over legal actions.
@volkris It does not! What do you think “absolute immunity” means?
@interfluidity people keep saying "absolute immunity" without finishing the phrase.
It's absolute immunity *from invalid prosecution*.
The Court and the parties before the Court are all clear that it's perfectly fine to prosecute a former president--he has no immunity at all from prosecution if the charges are valid.
@volkris read the effing decision. i have read all 119 pages.
the phrase "invalid prosecution" DOES NOT APPEAR.
you are making that up. you are lying, i think not out of malice, but out of hope and misinformation, but i have informed and informed you so it starts to seem just like a lie.
you have eyes and a brain. read.
@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
Except that this case and its resolution was *itself* an exercise of accountability against an executive that was engaging in faulty prosecution.
To ignore the overstepping of the Biden administration here, THAT would have been letting the executive go without accountability.
The Supreme Court decision here made clear that former presidents are still to be held accountable for following the law, are still subject to prosecution for lawlessness.
It's just that, the current president too has to be subject to law in his decisions to bring down the hammer of prosecution on civilians.
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley my god you are wrong. you might think Trump's prosecution's are malicious or not, whatever. but this is not a narrowly tailored decision that would only affect malicious prosecutions. it is explicitly immunity, explicitly even for acts that are alleged to be, and might prove to be if examined, unlawful.
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley This case *explicitly* grants *absolute* immunity to Presidents for their compelling a justice department to engage in prosecutions, political, malicious, or otherwise.
It does not protect civilians at all, other than the President himself, and those the President pardons.
If Joe Biden hates your grandma and tell Merrick Garland to throw the full weight of the Justice Department into finding dirt to lock her up, the decision IMMUNIZES Biden for that conduct.
I don't see how this changes anything, functionally. Presidents have controlled the #DOJ for awhile.
@realcaseyrollins @AltonDooley @volkris @Hyolobrika Yes, but until a week ago, if Presidents used that control to contrive malicious prosecutions, once they became a private citizen they faced risk of prosecution for that crime.
Now they face no such risk, are absolutely and explicitly immunized for whatever they do in directing their DOJ
This decision has *legalized* malicious prosecution for everyone else, ostensibly in order to remedy the possibility of malicious prosecution of a President.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @volkris @Hyolobrika I'm sorry, I haven't read the full ruling yet and am hesitant to panic without doing so. Maybe you can educate me here. Can you cite the part of the ruling that allows the #POTUS to weaponize the #DOJ?
@interfluidity sure acquittal is A remedy, but there's nothing particularly unique about getting the case thrown out before trial based on the unlawful prosecution.
It's a practical way to deal with an overreaching administration, one that saves all the time and expense of going through a trial that was inappropriate in the first place.
Heck, for a prosecutor to approach the courts with an unlawful process is itself a pretty big problem, that the courts recognize in cases like these!
Yeah, the administration could haul a person through an unlawful process and the person can appeal after... but why?
@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.
@interfluidity that IS a form of immunity!
So that's all this is, just a statement that courts must throw out invalid (malicious or otherwise faulty) prosecution upon first contact.
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley
No. Courts must always throw out cases that are on their face "invalid (malicious or otherwise faulty)". The problem is, when a lawsuit or prosecution occurs, there is often a dispute over whether a suit is "invalid (malicious or otherwise faulty)". 1/
@volkris @Hyolobrika @AltonDooley Courts then must inquire into the dispute as a factual matter.
Immunity is quite distinct.
"The essence of immunity 'is its possessor’s entitlement
not to have to answer for his conduct' in court."
That's John Roberts, from the decision. That is quite distinct from saying Courts must examine a prosecution in any way at all, and dismiss the bad ones. It says Courts have no business examining or evaluating an allegation at all. That is what immunity means. /fin
@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/