@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 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
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 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?
@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.