@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika We already know, I think, that the mere public act of a pardon subsequent to some nice "donations" is insufficient in practice to establish a bribe. In fact, this Supreme Court has dramatically tightened standards, clarified that only a clear quid-pro-quo is actionable, outright legalized after-the-fact gratuities to state and local officials. 7/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Note that neither Amy Coney Barrett nor John Roberts relied upon the possibility that motive might leak. Evidence of motive (I think!) already exists in Jack Smith's case against Trump. The Court does not consider it, I think because it's now inadmissible, under the may-not-inquire-into-motives standards. 8/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika But suppose evidence of motive was just brazenly public? A whistle-blower leaks a memo to the New York Times, in which a President (idiotically) instructs a pardon be issued in consideration of the spouse's loyal financial support. 9/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika I don't think, under this decision, that changes anything. The Court may not inquire. To bring a public New York Times article into evidence, for the prosecutor to subpoena from the Times a copy, to validate it by interviewing and examining its author or the reporter would be the court inquiring into motive. 10/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika And without some degree of validation, some degree of "inquiry", even what is fully public can only be rumor and hearsay to a court of law. I don't think the court would be able to take into account information about motive that "everybody knows", because converting common knowledge to vetted evidence would be a inquiry to far. 11/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika John Roberts seems to suggest that at least conjectures or allegations about motive might have a role (how else could the mere public act of a pardon become the *quo* of quid-pro-quo?), but i think a plain reading of "courts may not inquire into the President's motives" would also prohibit entertaining conjectures and allegations about motive. 12/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika And even if it did not, how could mere conjecture and allegation form the basis of any criminal prosecution? /fin
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika You also wonder, what if it's not a leak, what if the President himself states his motive on the public record somehow? Could courts at least use that, in deciding whether an act was an official act?
I don't know! 1a/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika The way I characterize this decision is not that it's automatic immunity for anything a President does. Trump, if he loses the election, might still be on the hook, because some of the allegations against him involve actions that may well be unofficial acts. 2a/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika What the decision is is a *roadmap* to Presidents who want to break the law and get away with it. It's fine to instruct your Attorney General to gin up a prosecution against a political opponent. Your discussions and prosecutorial decisions have absolute immunity. 2b/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Even with several of your too-charitable-I-think reading of a limitation in the taking-Care clause, there'd be no way to demonstrate that the prosecutorial decisionmaking was out of bounds without any ability of courts to inquire into motive, even when there is a credible allegation of lawbreaking. 2c/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika But Presidents can still do stupid stuff and get in trouble. If the President instructed his driver to mow down a Congressperson he disliked, Courts would probably pretty easily find that an unofficial act. 2d/
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @volkris @Hyolobrika Openly confessing a corrupt motive for actions that would otherwise enjoy immunity I think falls into that category. Yes, there are still ways that a President can be stupid or careless and shed His immunity. But the decision presents a clear roadmap, which if followed, permits a President to act very flexibly without deference to general law, with no way for Congress to regulate or the courts hold accountable. /2fin
There is so much focus on motive, but the thing is, the law so often doesn't really care about motive, and that's part of the point.
We have law that gives presidents authorization to act regardless of why they are acting. Maybe we should change those laws. Maybe we should change the law to consider motive, although I would say that is a really thorny direction to go, but that's what we have right now.
The Supreme Court is pointing out that our democratic process produced law that doesn't care about motive. The Supreme Court is merely respecting that outcome.
Again, we can reform that if we want. We can change the law if we want. It would be a democratic process that in some cases involves constitutional amendment, but we have that power.
In the end, until we make that change, though, this is the law. The Supreme Court is merely working with what we have today, not how you or I might want the law to be.
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika
@volkris @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika Criminal law almost always cares about motive. Mens rea. Please tell me where any act you could call “democratic” removed consideration of motive from criminal law in the case of the President, but no one else. Please. I think the Supreme Court made it up all by itself. 1/
@interfluidity Yes and that is itself problematic, that is one thing that's being highlighted by this whole case, the mess that we have made with criminal law over the generations.
Criminal law has really wound itself up into a ball, and we're going to have to deal with that going into the future.
It was always a house of cards. We're beginning to see how it crumbles.
So we have these legal grants of authority that didn't involve motivation running up against criminal law that does involve motivation, and you see what a mess that is?
That's what the Supreme Court is dealing with here, the mess of law that has been created through statute. Aunt this is really just reflecting the mess that has been made of it all.
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika
@volkris @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika I don’t understand why, if the issue is criminal law as a whole is such a terrible mess, it should crumble only for the President of the United States while the rest of us remain on the hook.
That seems like a very particular, engineered outcome, not the result of sone unwieldy chaotic accretion over the centuries.
@interfluidity It doesn't only crumble for the president of the United States. That's not what happened.
In fact, a whole lot of people are pissed off that that's not what happened.
The Supreme Court didn't judge Trump. That's not its role in the system. That's for lower courts. Instead, the Supreme Court issued an opinion that applies to everybody, with a general rule that really applies to officers in general.
The Supreme Court said that the the executive branch may not prosecute anybody for carrying out their legal duties as per law. No matter the mess that might exist out there, the president cannot, effectively, harass people for doing what is legal.
That's the long and short of it.
It was basically saying that no matter what mess the criminal statutes may be, the president may not harass people for doing legal things.
I remember hearing all of the criticisms of the court after oral argument when people were pulling their hair out that justices weren't laser focused on getting Trump. But they weren't because that's not their job.
So you say you don't know why it would crumble only for the president, and that's not the case, it doesn't, the Supreme Court laid out a general rule regardless of the people complaining that it was looking to lay out a general rule.
And regardless of the dissenters who often seem completely oblivious of what the Supreme Court is supposed to do in the first place.
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika
@volkris @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika i mean, yeah, i agree, this puts us all at risk.
but the enforceability of criminal law crumbles only for the President here. the rest of us are granted no immunity from the accreted skein of criminal law.
@interfluidity Oh we are!
This decision reinforces the idea that invalid prosecutions need to be nipped in the bud. This is a restatement of the idea that when the administration takes a run at anybody without a valid process, that has to be kicked out of court right away without having to go through trial and appeals process.
This decision does apply to all of us, most directly to any government officials, but more generally to all of us if the administration tries to charge someone without solid legal basis.
Again, that's why despite criticism the Supreme Court was looking to a general rule and not focusing on Trump himself, because this rule applies to all of us.
@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika
@realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
I might be repeating myself, I can't keep track, but when people talk about this being about immunity, too often they don't specify immunity from what.
This is not immunity from punishment. This is immunity from prosecution.
The accused could always go through the whole process, go through the prosecution go through trial get convicted and then appeal and go through the case involved in the appeal. That doesn't really change here.
What changes here is that the court clarified that you can't even prosecute someone, much less bring them to trial. This clarifies that a person accused without legal basis doesn't have to go through the whole rigmarole, they can immediately halt all of the proceedings at the beginning, with needing to go through the whole thing to get to appeals.
So that's why I say this nips it in the bud. And that's the major result.
This whole thing was purely procedural. And it clarified the procedure of avoiding a legally invalid prosecution, before court.
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika
@volkris @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika it nips the whole thing in the bud, but only for the President and thosr he pardons, and irrespective of whether the President did the crime or not. obviously, without prosecution there is also no punishment. it nips it all away, only for the President and those He pardons.
@volkris @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social @Hyolobrika it does not. it grants immunities to the President (and anyone He pardons). none to the rest of us.
@volkris @interfluidity @realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world @AltonDooley @Hyolobrika
> This decision reinforces the idea that invalid prosecutions need to be nipped in the bud.
How does it do that?