Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)
Tuesday, July 02, 2024 at 2:03:10a EDT
I read a story, not here, today saying that the majority decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts which gave immunity to US Presidents for actions which they take while undertaking Official Acts; was based on NOTHING in the Constitution.
They just made it up.
I agree with that idea, because the Constitution says they can’t do it.
Issue #1:
Granting Immunity to a sitting President for all actions which they take while undertaking Official Acts
a) conflicts directly with Article II, Section 4 and
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
Presidents, like all other civil Officers of the United States are subject to be removed from Office on Impeachment for… high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
A Senate affirmation of a House Impeachment shall not extend further than removal from Office, and disqualification to hold any Office under the United States again.
BUT — the Party convicted of same, shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.
So, in plain English, a President is Impeached and removed from Office for a crime WHILE President and removed from the Office, once removed from Office they can still be indicted and prosecuted for the crime.
The John Roberts Court just said that isn’t true. But to my knowledge, no one has altered those portions of the Constitution, which means they remain in effect and the SCOTUS decision today is in conflict with the Constitution. When something new in Law is found to be in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. Every time.
Issue #2
The decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts creates immunity out of thin air.
The problem is, there is a very good reason to believe that Presidents have no immunity because the founders never meant them to. The proof?
So I've been thinking for nearly 8 years now, that Donald Trump was the most dangerous man in America.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
You are free to peruse the entirety of Article II at this link:
There is not an iota of a hint of Immunity for the President in Article II. In fact when referring to behavior which might be corrupt, the only mention is of Impeachment and the reasons why a President might be impeached, in Article II, Section 4 (as noted above).
If the Constitutional Convention attendees of 1787 meant to provide Presidents with immunity, seeing as how they noted the immunity for Congress in Article I, wouldn’t they have ENUMERATED the form and style of immunity they meant for Presidents to have?
Since they absolutely did not enumerate any such immunity — it follows that the Founders never meant Presidents to have immunity.
As an aside, the Supreme Court is an appellate court, the Court of the last resort for appeals from the lower Federal Courts.
They are not empowered to create new law or to ALTER the Constitution with one of their decisions.
The only path to cure this damage is to limit the power and authority of the US Supreme Court via Article III, Section 2, Clause 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
That to my knowledge is the only place wherein the SCOTUS bench is liable to regulation, by Congress.
To make that happen?
The Democratic Party and President Biden need to rile up the Liberals and Moderates across America to come out and vote in numbers high enough to scare the living daylights out of the conservatives, in the Congress and the Legislatures. To come into power on Jan 3, 2025 with such a large majority in both Houses of Congress that the first 100 days of the new Congress will see such legislation as is necessary to rein in this corrupt and dangerous Court Bench.
Add seats to the Bench ( four to bring it to 13 seats to match the number of Circuit Courts) and force them to abide by the same Law which currently guides the actions and ethics of all the rest of the Federal Judges by updating The Judiciary Act.
This will bring balance back to the court (which would be 7 (D) appointed and 6 (R) appointed Justices), and prevent future overreach like that committed by the majority in the John Roberts Court in 2024.
Biden and Trump each had 40% support among registered voters in the two-day poll that concluded on Tuesday. A prior Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted June 11-12 showed Trump with a marginal 2 percentage point lead, 41% to 39%.
The two faced off in a televised debate last Thursday, where Biden stammered throughout and failed to challenge Trump’s attacks. The new Reuters/Ipsos poll also showed that, following the debate, about one-in-three Democrats think Biden should drop out of the race, something he has pledged not to do.
The poll, which gathered responses online and nationwide from 1,070 U.S. adults, had a 3.5 percentage point margin of error for registered voters, many of whom remain on the fence with about four months left before the Nov. 5 election. One in five registered voters said that they weren’t sure for whom to vote, that they would pick a different candidate or that they would not vote at all.
The latest poll did not include a question on support for independent candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. The June poll found that 10% of registered voters would back him if he appeared on the ballot.
While nationwide surveys give important signals on American support for political candidates, just a handful of competitive states typically tilt the balance in the U.S. Electoral College, which ultimately decides who wins a presidential election.
Both candidates carry significant liabilities. For Biden, these include concerns about his age – 81 – that were magnified by his debate performance.
The latest Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 83% of Democrats and 97% of Republicans agreed with a statement that in the debate, “Biden stumbled and appeared to show his age.” Only 58% of Democrats and 11% of Republicans had the same assessment of Trump’s debate performance.
Trump, 78, in May became the first U.S. president to be convicted of a crime, whether in office or after leaving the White House. He is scheduled to be sentenced in September and faces potential prison time after a jury found him guilty of 34 charges stemming from a hush money payment to an adult film actress before the 2016 presidential election.
Get weekly news and analysis on the U.S. elections and how it matters to the world with the newsletter On the Campaign Trail. Sign up here.
Reporting by Jason Lange; Editing by Scott Malone and Trevor Hunnicutt
“So, if I went back to NBC right now to do something, they would do anything I wanted to do, showbiz-wise, I’m talking about. Doing a show, anything I wanted to do right now, 100%.
“Because one thing I know about that business, and I learned more about that business than anybody else could learn in a short period of time.
“It’s about one thing: ratings. If you have ratings, you can be the meanest, most horrible human being in the world. There’s only one thing that matters: ratings.
“You can be nice, or you can be mean. You can be evil. You can be horrible. You can be crude or elegant. There’s only one thing that matters and that’s ratings.
“If you don’t have ratings, it doesn’t matter.” – Trump, in newly released audio from his interview with author Ramin Setoodeh.
Trump: If you have ratings, you can be the meanest, most horrible human being in the world. There's only one thing that matters. Ratings. You can be evil, horrible, cruel, or elegant. There's only one thing that matters and that's ratings… pic.twitter.com/eOYkHvnp69
This is who tRump is, a vindictive kid with a lot of authority who only wants his way, never be corrected, allowed to do anything he wants, be a king, be worshiped and idolized, and punish anyone who displeases him. And the right wing republican Ideologues on the SCOTUS just gave him immunity for doing any of it. We simply must not let him become president. Hugs. Scottie
Former President Donald J. Trump has escalated his vows to prosecute his political opponents, circulating posts on his social media website invoking “televised military tribunals” and calling for the jailing of President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Senators Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and former Vice President Mike Pence, among other high-profile politicians.
One post that he circulated on Sunday singled out Liz Cheney, the former Wyoming congresswoman who is a Republican critic of Mr. Trump’s, and called for her to be prosecuted by a type of military court reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.
A separate post included photos of 15 former and current elected officials that said, in all-capital letters, “they should be going to jail on Monday not Steve Bannon!” Those officials included Mr. Biden, Ms. Harris, Mr. Pence, Mr. Schumer and Mr. McConnell — the top leaders in the Senate — and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker.
Former President Donald Trump canceled an interview with military reporter Mike Gooding after the campaign asked what questions the reporter was going to ask Trump.
Trump held a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia on Friday — the day after a CNN debate with President Joe Biden at which Trump rattled off as many as 50 falsehoods that went unchallenged by the moderators.
During that debate, President Biden also challenged Trump about his reported remarks calling U.S. military casualties “suckers” and “losers” — remarks that were confirmed by Trump’s then-Chief of Staff John Kelly.
Gooding, military correspondent for ABC affiliate WVEC’s 13News Now — was scheduled to interview Trump after the rally. On Friday morning, they even teased the interview on the air.
But when 13News Now’s Preston Steger and Alex Littlehales covered the rally online, they noted that Trump abruptly canceled the interview — after asking for questions in advance:
It was a winding speech, meandering back and forth on a lot of different talking points and policies.
After the rally, 13News Now’s military reporter Mike Gooding was scheduled to interview Trump, but his campaign team canceled the interview after asking Gooding what his questions would be, and telling him there was no more time and Trump only wanted to talk about the debate.
Ahead of Trump’s visit, WVEC covered Virginia Democrats who held a press conference with veterans to denounce Trump over the “suckers” and “losers” remarks.
The Biden campaign flagged the cancellation and tied it to the debate in a campaign memo:
Here are just a few questions Donald is running away from answering – many of which he either dodged or lied about on the debate stage:
Why can’t you commit to accepting the results of the 2024 election?
What do you say to voters who believe that you violated your oath through your actions and inaction on January 6 and worry that you’ll do it again?
What do you say to the service members who you insulted as “suckers” and “losers”?
Do you think women forced to give birth in states with total abortion bans, risking their lives, is still a “beautiful thing”?
13News Now’s reporting doesn’t say what questions Gooding was going to ask Trump, or whether they provided the subject matter for the interview to Trump’s team — although the reporting notes the campaign said “Trump only wanted to talk about the debate.”
Mediaite has reached out to Gooding for comment but has not received a response as of this writing.
I don’t care if Biden is in a wheelchair and shakes like an out of balance washing machine on spin cycle or a tea cup Chihuahua, I will vote for him. The people he puts in positions, in departments, the judges he appoints are far too important to not vote for him. No do not switch him out now, too late, plus the people saying to do it admit they don’t all want the same person to replace him. Regardless of how old Biden is, tRump is a hateful tyrant con man crook. Hugs. Scottie
Photo illustration: Brendan Lynch/Axios. Photo: Samuel Corum/Getty Images
Former President Trump, if re-elected, plans to immediately test the boundaries of presidential and governing power, knowing the restraints of Congress and the courts are dramatically looser than during his first term, his advisers tell us.
Why it matters: It’s not just the Supreme Court ruling on Monday that presidents enjoy substantial legal immunity for actions in office. Trump would come to office with a Cabinet and staff pre-vetted for loyalty, and a fully compliant Republican coalition in Congress — devoid of critics in positions of real power.
That’s a big reason many Democrats worry President Biden is making one of the biggest gambles in U.S. history by staying in the race amid acute concerns about his age.
The big picture: Trump promises an unabashedly imperial presidency — one that would turn the Justice Department against critics, deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally, slap 10% tariffs on thousands of products, and fire perhaps tens of thousands of government staff deemed insufficiently loyal.
He’d stretch the powers of the presidency in ways not seen in our lifetime. He says this consistently and clearly — so it’s not conjecture.
You might like this or loathe this. But it’s coming, fast and furious, if he’s elected.
Thanks to Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, Trump could pursue his plans without fear of punishment or restraint.
What to watch: To hear Trump and his allies tell it, this is how early 2025 would unfold if he wins:
1. A re-elected Trump would quickly set up vast camps and deport millions of people in the U.S. illegally. He could invoke the Insurrection Act and use troops to lock down the southern border.
3. He’d centralize power over the Justice Department, historically an independent check on presidential power. He plans to nominate a trusted loyalist for attorney general, and has threatened to target and even imprison critics. He could demand the federal cases against him cease immediately.
4. Many of the Jan. 6 convictscould be pardoned — a promise Trump has made at campaign rallies, where he hails them as patriots, not criminals. Investigations of the Bidens would begin.
5. Trump says he’d slap 10% tariffs on most imported goods, igniting a possible trade war and risking short-term inflation. He argues this would give him leverage to create better trade terms to benefit consumers.
6. Conversation would intensify about when Justices Clarence Thomas, 76, and Sam Alito, 74, would retire.
Lists of potential successors are already drawn up.
President Biden said last month that “the next president is likely to have two new Supreme Court nominees.”
If Trump were to win and the two oldest justices retired, five of the nine justices would have been handpicked by Trump.
Top Democrats privately predict Republican majorities in the House and Senate if Biden loses.
Most of Trump’s most prominent critics — Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, et al. — will be gone. Even the few who remain, including Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), will be substantially less powerful.
Trump would be backed by an overwhelmingly Trump-friendly Senate and House — loaded with loyalists, top to bottom. Many were elected since his 2016 win, and many thanks to his endorsement.
Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) in the spin room after the CNN debate in Atlanta. Photo: Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
What they’re saying: Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), a top prospect as Trump’s VP, told us Trump would have more allies — and more loyal allies — in Congress this time.
“You have to ask yourself: How many true allies of the agenda existed in the United States Capitol in January 2017, and how many will exist in January of 2025?” Vance told us.
“You have a Republican Party that, in some ways, was divided against itself in January of 2017,” Vance added. “I think now it recognizes that Trump is effectively leader of the party. And you’ll see that in governing style and certainly in agenda,” with “much less infighting between Republicans, which will make us much more effective as a governing coalition.”
The freshman senator said that while Trump was “very much a newcomer to politics” when he ran the first time, he now “understands how to pull the levers of power much better, because he’s coming at this as a subject matter expert.”
The media would investigate, report, and illuminate all of it — but probably with less impact. A second Trump term would start with TV ratings in the tank, mainstream media shrinking, and public attention shattering into dozens of information ecosystems, many built around popular and often partisan celebrities.
So the ability to do more with fewer real restraints is real — and hard to change.
The bottom line: Think of Trump 2025 as a better prepared, much better organized, much more powerful version of Trump 2017 — minus Republican brakes and any mystery about immunity.
Scottie's Playtime 