@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Let's emphasize.
1. "In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President's motives."
2. "Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law." 4/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika So.
Suppose you take the most charitable read of the text we discussed before, and claim that a prosecution that had no basis on "tak[ing] Care that the Law be faithfully executed" would be render it an unofficial act, despite appearing from the outside every bit like an official act. 5/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Then for a court to touch the President for that out-of-bounds prosecution, it would have to somehow be established that what appears to be a valid prosecution, based as all prosecutions are on an allegation that the law was violated, is not in fact that. 6/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika How, without "inquir[ing] into the President's motives" can you establish that the alleged violation of the law is not only baseless (thin prosecutions happen sometime, that can't render a prosecution unofficial) but malicious? 7/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Even if you can credibly allege some violation of law by which the President is still ostensibly bound — perhaps the President was bribed to prosecute someone! — that can't weigh into the determination. You can't examine motive, and you can't examine a role in some larger crime. 8/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika If you want to read a limitation in the "tak[ing] Care" clause — a reading the decision does not support, because it grants Trump absolute immunity without suggesting the actions he is accused fall anywhere near inside the "tak[ing] Care" clause — how in practical terms could you demonstrate that the prosecution was an "unofficial act", without inquiring into motive? /fin
@interfluidity @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins @volkris @Hyolobrika You make a good point here. The only counter I can think of is, what if #POTUS makes the motive clear, ruling out any need for speculation? Let’s say #Trump says publicly, or in a leaked text, that he wants the #DOJ to investigate, say, #AlvinBragg, for everything he’s done to him in regards to the lawfare he made him face.
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world The key is not to give presidents the authority to do bad things.
It doesn't really matter WHY a president is doing something. If a president is saving the environment through bad motives, well, he's saving the environment!
The US government design was based on the idea that everybody was going to operate selfishly. That's really the core of checks and balances. That's why we pay people and we don't just trust in their angelic motivations.
We want want incentives to be set up such that selfish motives result in positive outcomes. If the law allows presidents to do bad things, then we need to fix the laws.
@AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika @interfluidity
@volkris @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika The Supreme Court just said, quite plainly and openly, that the Constitution, not merely the law, allows the President to do bad things. All we can do is fix the Constitution (or the Court, that rewrites the Constitution by interpreting it).