Supreme Court Immunity Decision

[wing2000]

So how would they force subordinates to violate the law?

Simple, comply or you're fired.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Simple, comply or you're fired.

Saturday Night Massacre​

During a single evening on Saturday, October 20, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox; Richardson refused and resigned effective immediately. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus refused, and also resigned. Nixon then ordered the third-most-senior official at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out the dismissal as Nixon asked.

The political and public reactions to Nixon's actions were negative and highly damaging to the president. The impeachment process against Nixon began ten days later, on October 30, 1973.

[Ultimately, of course, Nixon resigned and was pardoned for whatever he might have done criminally.]

--

Quoting from the immunity decision:

So Nixon was well within his rights to determine (at his absolute discretion) that he did not want the DOJ investigating and prosecuting his own crimes.
While a corrupt police chief or DA might face obstruction of justice charges, SCOTUS says the president is immune from such prosecution.

 

[wing2000]

If pardoning someone is an "official act" (and it's hard for me to see how it isn't, as an explicit constitutional power of the office of the presidency), then Roberts' decision makes that official act immune to prosecution, regardless of any corrupt motivation.

"The Court went further still. Not only is the former president absolutely or presumptively immune for all official acts in the sense that he cannot be charged with them as crimes, he is immune from their use as evidence against him in a prosecution for some other crime.

As Roberts writes, “If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the ‘intended effect’ of immunity would be defeated.” The result is that the president is at least presumptively immune and maybe absolutely so for taking a bribe in exchange for some official act, because the evidence of the official act could never be used.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett notably declined to join this portion of the opinion, writing that “[t]he Constitution does not require blinding juries to the circumstances surrounding conduct for which Presidents can be held liable.”

A Decision of Surpassing Recklessness in Dangerous Times

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States would have been wrong and dangerous at any time. It’s uncommonly so with Trump poised to retake power.

www.lawfaremedia.org

 

[essentialsaltes]

"The Court went further still. Not only is the former president absolutely or presumptively immune for all official acts in the sense that he cannot be charged with them as crimes, he is immune from their use as evidence against him in a prosecution for some other crime.

Right, I think this is the basis for the current challenge to the falsifying documents conviction. Then-President Trump blabbing to Hope Hicks in the White House about paying off a pornstar should be considered an official act with presumptive immunity, so the portions of her testimony relating to events that she witnessed while he was president should be tossed out. And the judge will have to determine whether that's the case.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Simple, comply or you're fired.

I guess you don't know much about the AFGE then, do you?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Saturday Night Massacre​

During a single evening on Saturday, October 20, Nixon ordered Attorney General Elliot Richardson to fire Archibald Cox; Richardson refused and resigned effective immediately. Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox; Ruckelshaus refused, and also resigned. Nixon then ordered the third-most-senior official at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox. Bork carried out the dismissal as Nixon asked.

The political and public reactions to Nixon's actions were negative and highly damaging to the president. The impeachment process against Nixon began ten days later, on October 30, 1973.

[Ultimately, of course, Nixon resigned and was pardoned for whatever he might have done criminally.]

--

Quoting from the immunity decision:

View attachment 351080

So Nixon was well within his rights to determine (at his absolute discretion) that he did not want the DOJ investigating and prosecuting his own crimes.
While a corrupt police chief or DA might face obstruction of justice charges, SCOTUS says the president is immune from such prosecution.

The political and public reactions to Nixon's actions were negative and highly damaging to the president. The impeachment process against Nixon began ten days later, on October 30, 1973.

[Ultimately, of course, Nixon resigned and was pardoned for whatever he might have done criminally.]"

So, your are saying the system worked?

So why not link the entire immunity decision along with posting what you consider the most damaging evidence? Context always matters and no one can grasp the context of your post with the little bit you posted.

 

[wing2000]

I guess you don't know much about the AFGE then, do you?

Perhaps you have not heard of Trump's plan to revoke "Schedule F"

Trump’s civil service plans unsettle labor leaders at start of campaign season

Lawmakers and leaders of the American Federation of Government Employees warned that the former president represents a “threat to democracy” at the union’s annual legislative conference.

www.govexec.com

 

[wing2000]

The political and public reactions to Nixon's actions were negative and highly damaging to the president. The impeachment process against Nixon began ten days later, on October 30, 1973.

[Ultimately, of course, Nixon resigned and was pardoned for whatever he might have done criminally.]"

So, your are saying the system worked?

So why not link the entire immunity decision along with posting what you consider the most damaging evidence? Context always matters and no one can grasp the context of your post with the little bit you posted.

Nixon resigned when it was made clear he not support in the Congress. [Of course, today's GOP will never hold Trump to account...we already have seen the spineless GOP during two impeachment proceedings. So unless the GOP looses big time in both houses, we can not rely on impeachment to contain an empowered Trum in a 2nd term]

The delegation that visited Nixon was headed by Sen. Barry Goldwater of Arizona, the GOP’s unsuccessful presidential candidate in 1964. Goldwater, who had a long tenure as a party elder, was joined by Sen. Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania, a Republican known for his strong support for civil rights, and Rep. John Rhodes of Arizona — the GOP leaders in their respective chambers.


They told Nixon there were no longer enough Republican votes to spare him from impeachment, given the release two days earlier of a 1972 tape recording contradicting Nixon’s tenacious denial of any role in cover-up of the Watergate break-in.

GOP unlikely to reprise role it played in Nixon's 1974 exit

NEW YORK (AP) — On Aug. 7, 1974, three top Republican leaders in Congress paid a solemn visit to President Richard Nixon at the White House, bearing the message that he faced near-certain impeachment due to eroding support in his own party on Capitol Hill.

apnews.com

 

[civilwarbuff]

Perhaps you have not heard of Trump's plan to revoke "Schedule F"

Trump’s civil service plans unsettle labor leaders at start of campaign season

Lawmakers and leaders of the American Federation of Government Employees warned that the former president represents a “threat to democracy” at the union’s annual legislative conference.

www.govexec.com

Are you aware that FDR himself resisted unionization of government employees? He had good cause as demonstrated by union strike tactics that can absolutely paralyze a government and put entire populations at risk.

And it’s easy to see why: The president’s Aug. 16, 1937 correspondence with Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. (Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service | The American Presidency Project)


Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organization’s 20th jubilee convention.


In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers.


Organizations of government employees "have a logical place in Government affairs," he wrote.


But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government."


Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walker’s comment:


"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."


Roosevelt didn’t stop there.


"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.


When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind.


"The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."


Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFE’s bylaws rejected strikes.


The letter, the FDR Presidential Library site points out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's "official position" on collective bargaining and federal government employees.

Did FDR oppose collective bargaining for government workers?

Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining

www.politifact.com

Reclassifying workers who work for the Executive and are expected to carry out the decisions and policies of the executive is a good way to help ensure that. Too many times there are people disgruntled with election results and simply try their best to obstruct the executive. It is best, however, they not be excused from civil service exams; they need to be competent in their jobs so we don't return to the old 'spoils system' of appointments.

There is always one more side to a story.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Nixon resigned when it was made clear he not support in the Congress. [Of course, today's GOP will never hold Trump to account...we already have seen the spineless GOP during two impeachment proceedings. So unless the GOP looses big time in both houses, we can not rely on impeachment to contain an empowered Trum in a 2nd term]

Yes we have also seen the dems waste time and money pursuing impeachment over unproven allegations and outright lies. That knife cuts both ways.

 

[wing2000]

Are you aware that FDR himself resisted unionization of government employees? He had good cause as demonstrated by union strike tactics that can absolutely paralyze a government and put entire populations at risk.

And it’s easy to see why: The president’s Aug. 16, 1937 correspondence with Luther C. Steward, the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees, is bluntly worded -- to say the least. (Letter on the Resolution of Federation of Federal Employees Against Strikes in Federal Service | The American Presidency Project)


Roosevelt was responding to an invitation to attend the organization’s 20th jubilee convention.


In the letter, FDR says groups such as NFFE naturally organize to present their views to supervisors. Government workers, he observed, want fair pay, safe working conditions and review of grievances just like private-industry workers.


Organizations of government employees "have a logical place in Government affairs," he wrote.


But Roosevelt then shifted gears, emphasizing that "meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government."


Then, the most-famous line and the one directly on point to Walker’s comment:


"All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," he wrote. "It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management."


Roosevelt didn’t stop there.


"The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations," he wrote.


When Walker claimed FDR said "the government is the people," he had Roosevelt’s next line in mind.


"The employer," Roosevelt’s letter added, "is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters."


Roosevelt concluded with a strong stance against strikes by unions representing government workers, noting that NFFE’s bylaws rejected strikes.


The letter, the FDR Presidential Library site points out, was released publicly by the Roosevelt White House and became the administration's "official position" on collective bargaining and federal government employees.

Did FDR oppose collective bargaining for government workers?

Reaction was swift and strong after Republican Gov. Scott Walker said the curbs he enacted on the collective-bargaining

www.politifact.com

Reclassifying workers who work for the Executive and are expected to carry out the decisions and policies of the executive is a good way to help ensure that. Too many times there are people disgruntled with election results and simply try their best to obstruct the executive. It is best, however, they not be excused from civil service exams; they need to be competent in their jobs so we don't return to the old 'spoils system' of appointments.

There is always one more side to a story.

Different times. Different President. So as not to detract from the topic of this thread, I will leave it at that.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Different times. Different President. So as not to detract from the topic of this thread, I will leave it at that.

As will I.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It seems to me that most everyone on the left here are only thinking how this applies to Trump and not the bigger picture. This decision applies to ALL presidents past, present and future. When you think about it, this most likely lets Obama off the hook for ordering the killing of Bin Laden based on his guarantees under the 6th Amendment. Maybe even Joe for the death of the soldiers during the withdrawal from Afghanistan which was carried out with complete ineptitude. So maybe try not to have too narrow a viewpoint about this decision.

 

[FenderTL5]

It seems to me that most everyone on the left here are only thinking how this applies to Trump and not the bigger picture. This decision applies to ALL presidents past, present and future. When you think about it, this most likely lets Obama off the hook for ordering the killing of Bin Laden based on his guarantees under the 6th Amendment. Maybe even Joe for the death of the soldiers during the withdrawal from Afghanistan which was carried out with complete ineptitude. So maybe try not to have too narrow a viewpoint about this decision.

Nixon and Watergate, Reagan Iran-Contra.. Clinton

 

[essentialsaltes]

So maybe try not to have too narrow a viewpoint about this decision.

I agree with what Roberts and other Justices said at their confirmations.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I agree with what Roberts and other Justices said at their confirmations.

View attachment 351119

And the decision of SCOTUS has stated there are boundaries to that law. It will take more rulings by them to further refine it. That is how the system works.

 

[christian-surfer]

I have not read the ruling yet, but be honest, does anyone think a President should be immune from carrying out acts that are crimes under criminal law?

<excerpt from the dissent opinions>

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Sotomayor added: “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was more measured, warning only that a president could now be immune from such charges.
“Thus, even a hypothetical President who admits to having ordered the assassinations of his political rivals or critics … or one who indisputably instigates an unsuccessful coup … has a fair shot at getting immunity under the majority’s new Presidential accountability model,” Jackson wrote.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/07/01/4-takeaways-supreme-courts-trump-immunity-decision/

Military orders to assassinate a political rival should not be obeyed. That is similar to another thread where i mentioned constitutional sheriffs. That is how Ted Cruz explained how that should be resolved but it’s nothing I had not already heard of previously. Such a president should also be impeached and once impeached I think criminal charges could happen

The way the military currently operates, I could not be a part of but if you are a true warrior which is not easy then you have to do what’s right. Jesus was a true warrior.

Obama did order the assassination of US citizens without any oversight and drone attacked civilians. Bush lied about WMD without any consequences. If that came from intelligence sources there was no consequences for them either.

I think the CIA has already been involved in killings, torture, drug smuggling and unethical behavior to the highest degree and doesn’t have any oversight. I believe it was admitted that they lost the ability to have oversight of these agencies after 911

 

[civilwarbuff]

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
“Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Sotomayor added: “The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”

And this justifies the opinion of many that Sotomayor is simply a political appointee and not a true Supreme Court Justice qualified for her position. Her hyperbole does her and her position a great injustice.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And this justifies the opinion of many that Sotomayor is simply a political appointee and not a true Supreme Court Justice qualified for her position. Her hyperbole does her and her position a great injustice.

Haha, she was politically appointed by a president to curtail the powers of the president.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And this justifies the opinion of many that Sotomayor is simply a political appointee and not a true Supreme Court Justice qualified for her position. Her hyperbole does her and her position a great injustice.

Was she appointed by a politician or something?