Trump has a decent chance of getting absolute immunity

[Greedo punched first]

The chances of absolute immunity for Trump are pretty good.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Those here who told us that this Supreme Court isn't partisan are looking more and more foolish.

And this is the case even for those who don't think much of the writer of the linked article Ian Millhiser, because one doesn't have to think much of him to recognize that this Supreme Court is, at a minimum, determined to find a way to at least send the case back to a lower court thereby delaying any of the federal criminal cases against Trump until the election.

When President Nixon claimed "when the President does it, that means it is not illegal" even Republican lawyers at that time called that absurd. Yet, now we even have a Republican Supreme Court seriously judging just that.

[Greedo punched first]

If Trump gets immunity, does this mean Biden gets immunity too?

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

If Trump gets immunity, does this mean Biden gets immunity too?

Well, Biden doesn't need immunity. But, certainly if Trump got immunity and I were Biden, the first thing I'd do is order something to be done that can't be mentioned on this board.

[Greedo punched first]

If Trump gets immunity, does this mean Biden gets immunity too?

Well, Biden doesn't need immunity. But, certainly if Trump got immunity and I were Biden, the first thing I'd do is order something to be done that can't be mentioned on this board.

Biden won’t get immunity, there might be a Bush v. Gore type footnote not to use the case as precedent, so that only Republican presidents have absolute immunity, which means if Trump wins, Biden could very well be prosecuted.

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

Gorsuch is a man of strong opinions. He has made many decisions I strongly dislike. I loathe his Bostock ruling. I loathe his Indian rulings. But I don't doubt that they are made on principle. I don't doubt that whatever his ruling is here too, it will be made on principle as well.

I think the odds this decision directly ("very quickly") leads to a civil war are essentially nil.

As for it being what the Founders intended, I'll admit that I (having not read either brief) instinctively lean against absolute immunity. But if Gorsuch endorses absolute immunity, my first response is not to say that he must be a hack, but to be more receptive to the argument.

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

Gorsuch's ruling on native territorial treaty rights might be impractical but it certainly wasn't insane and it did show a consistency that is completely lacking from all the other Republican Justices. He correctly reasoned that since the U.S Constitution is still in effect even though it's over 200 years old, so are treaties and that just because one side hadn't sincerely honored the treaties over that time (which is why the tribes took the state to court) that doesn't invalidate them.

Certainly the other Republican Justices have not been consistent but, for instance, have cited 'practicality' when it helped them justify the ruling they wanted to make all along, and have dismissed 'practicality' when it didn't help them justify the ruling they wanted to make all along.

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

But if Gorsuch endorses absolute immunity, my first response is not to say that he must be a hack, but to be more receptive to the argument.

Why? Even if absolutely somehow was supported by a plain text reading of the Constitution and even if you could somehow argue it was the Founders’ intent that a president could assassinate political opponents and require a conviction from the Senate to face legal consequences (which the president could easily work around by assassinating any Senator he suspects will vote to convict him),  that would be such an obvious disaster for the country that it would be ridiculous to say that judicial activism isn’t warranted here

[VBM]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

But if Gorsuch endorses absolute immunity, my first response is not to say that he must be a hack, but to be more receptive to the argument.

Why? Even if absolutely somehow was supported by a plain text reading of the Constitution and even if you could somehow argue it was the Founders’ intent that a president could assassinate political opponents and require a conviction from the Senate to face legal consequences (which the president could easily work around by assassinating any Senator he suspects will vote to convict him),  that would be such an obvious disaster for the country that it would be ridiculous to say that judicial activism isn’t warranted here

No, because:

1. Judges are bad at activism. Judges trying to guide society to a "better path" will often (most of the time? Always?) lead to a worse path. Many examples of this and ways it can manifest. There are many reasons for this -- lack of knowledge, the imperfections inherent to government decisionmaking, loss of faith in judicial system, etc.

2. Judicial activism is inherently bad because the constitution is moral will of people and unelected judges have no right to revise constitution even if good to do so.

Dude, if the SC rules that presidents have absolute immunity, the only thing stopping them from assassinating their dissidents in Congress and replacing them with sycophants or cowards who will vote however the president wants in order to save their lives is the president’s own moral code and whether or not enough of the military will go along with it. A president with full immunity could force Congress and state governments to pass an amendment which declares him dictator for life. Do you really not see how dangerous full presidential immunity would be. It is insane to say that judicial activism would not be warranted here

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

But if Gorsuch endorses absolute immunity, my first response is not to say that he must be a hack, but to be more receptive to the argument.

Why? Even if absolutely somehow was supported by a plain text reading of the Constitution and even if you could somehow argue it was the Founders’ intent that a president could assassinate political opponents and require a conviction from the Senate to face legal consequences (which the president could easily work around by assassinating any Senator he suspects will vote to convict him),  that would be such an obvious disaster for the country that it would be ridiculous to say that judicial activism isn’t warranted here

No, because:

1. Judicial activism is inherently bad because the constitution is moral will of people and unelected judges have no right to revise the constitution even if it is good to do so.

2. Judicial activism leads to bad consequences. Judges trying to guide society to a "better path" will often (most of the time? Always?) lead it onto a worse path because they are unable to properly calculate foreseen and unforeseen consequences.

For example, what if SCOTUS engages in judicial activism to "fix" the problem of absolute immunity, only for Trump to win anyway and indict Biden, Obama, and Clinton for various actions during their presidencies?

Side note: Note how this discussion has changed. Originally we were discussing whether Gorsuch is a hack. Now we are discussing whether he is morally obligated to engage in judicial activism. Does that mean you agree that he is being principled (in the sense of following the law as he believes it to be), even if you think he should be willing to cede those principles to put the best interests of the country first?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Any blue avatar who defends any conservative Justice that votes in favor of absolute immunity is exposing themselves as a total hack.

Seems like a bold statement. You think Neil Gorsuch is a total hack?

If he says that Trump gets full immunity, then yes.

Are we talking about the same Neil Gorsuch? Bostock Gorsuch? The guy who interpreted the Civil Rights Act as stopping funeral home directors from firing transgender employees despite that not being mentioned once in the debates on the law at the time or by any of the representatives/senators involved in writing or passing it? The guy whose opinion made half of Oklahoma native reservations?

There's a lot that can be said about Neil Gorsuch. But no GOP hack putting outcomes first would vote the way Neil Gorsuch has.* If he thinks Presidents have absolute immunity (which is what at least some observers interpreted him as arguing for earlier), then I take at face value that he really believes that Presidents have absolute immunity.

*Ironically, applying this same analysis to the Dem justices would lead to the conclusion that many of them are hacks, but that's a different story.

So your argument is that Gorsuch isn’t a hack, but a total idiot who would make a ruling that could very quickly lead to a civil war based off of some insane interpretation of the Constitution that clearly wasn’t the Founders intent?

But if Gorsuch endorses absolute immunity, my first response is not to say that he must be a hack, but to be more receptive to the argument.

Why? Even if absolutely somehow was supported by a plain text reading of the Constitution and even if you could somehow argue it was the Founders’ intent that a president could assassinate political opponents and require a conviction from the Senate to face legal consequences (which the president could easily work around by assassinating any Senator he suspects will vote to convict him),  that would be such an obvious disaster for the country that it would be ridiculous to say that judicial activism isn’t warranted here

No, because:

1. Judges are bad at activism. Judges trying to guide society to a "better path" will often (most of the time? Always?) lead to a worse path. Many examples of this and ways it can manifest. There are many reasons for this -- lack of knowledge, the imperfections inherent to government decisionmaking, loss of faith in judicial system, etc.

2. Judicial activism is inherently bad because the constitution is moral will of people and unelected judges have no right to revise constitution even if good to do so.

Dude, if the SC rules that presidents have absolute immunity, the only thing stopping them from assassinating their dissidents in Congress and replacing them with sycophants or cowards who will vote however the president wants in order to save their lives is the president’s own moral code and whether or not enough of the military will go along with it. A president with full immunity could force Congress and state governments to pass an amendment which declares him dictator for life. Do you really not see how dangerous full presidential immunity would be. It is insane to say that judicial activism would not be warranted here

I apologize for deleting my previous reply -- I assumed you hadn't seen it yet and wanted to make a revision without leaving it up. Glad to repost this again if you want to reply to more recent version, but I agree that this seems like a bad idea in practice. But that's not a reply to the points I raised above -- either about how this shouldn't be done because it can't morally be done or that we can't judge the end properly.

[kwabbit]

Trump's not going to be given full immunity. It does seem likely that the Supreme Court will decide that Presidential Immunity is quite far-reaching, but not to the extent where Trump is cleared for Jan 6th, then send it down to lower courts to figure out the details for months. It's pretty clear that the case will not be a factor in 2024 and would obviously be toast if Trump becomes President again.

To me, it seems like Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh probably just don't want Trump to face any consequences because of their partisanship. Gorsuch and Barrett think Trump should face consequences but don't care if that happens and delaying the trial washes their hands. Robert probably wants Trump to be convicted but is obsessed with not being too political so basically the same as the prior two.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Just because Neil Gorsuch sincerely believes something doesn't mean it's true or a good idea. A lot of Neil Gorsuch's sincere beliefs are absolutely bonkers. (I'd love to hear an absolutist "constitutional conservative" argument against his approach to Indian law, though; that is an area in which it is the right whose jurisprudence has traditionally been "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and dare people to try to get it to stop.") I do agree that "hack" is manifestly not the right word for him, though.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Just because Neil Gorsuch sincerely believes something doesn't mean it's true or a good idea. A lot of Neil Gorsuch's sincere beliefs are absolutely bonkers. (I'd love to hear an absolutist "constitutional conservative" argument against his approach to Indian law, though; that is an area in which it is the right whose jurisprudence has traditionally been "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and dare people to try to get it to stop.") I do agree that "hack" is manifestly not the right word for him, though.

I have a strong inclination against his views on Indian law based on my skepticism of treating Indian treaties as actually recognizing or granting land ownership, and of reservations as a concept based on the Reconstruction amendments, but that’s a separate conversation, although I’d be interested in a thread on the subject (presuming that necroing a old thread on McGirt would be in bad taste.)

I also think there are some specific details of McGirt that made his ruling there wrong, but that’s a separate point.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I wouldn't be surprised anymore. This Supreme Court basically just has carte blanche to do whatever they want, no matter the inconsistencies.

The most likely outcome to me still seems to be a narrower than expected majority ruling against the absolute immunity claim, but completely upending the Smith case and requiring a do-over. That wouldn't even matter because they'll take their sweet time to draw out the ruling and delay the trial anyway, no matter the ruling.

Them deciding to take up this case at all was always going to end in disaster. We were never going to be fortunate enough to have them just let the DC Court panel's ruling stand.

F*** the Supreme Court.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Just because Neil Gorsuch sincerely believes something doesn't mean it's true or a good idea. A lot of Neil Gorsuch's sincere beliefs are absolutely bonkers. (I'd love to hear an absolutist "constitutional conservative" argument against his approach to Indian law, though; that is an area in which it is the right whose jurisprudence has traditionally been "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and dare people to try to get it to stop.") I do agree that "hack" is manifestly not the right word for him, though.

FWIW Clarence Thomas's view is that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 rendered all tribal treaties and agreements null and void, and thus now all Reservations and federal recognition of tribes is illegal.

[MasterJedi]

If they do rule the President has absolute immunity Dark Brandon needs to fully rise and save the country with his new power

[brucejoel99]

If they do rule the President has absolute immunity Dark Brandon needs to fully rise and save the country with his new power

https://twitter.com/_sn_n/status/1783656503745839130

[Benjamin Frank 2.0]

Just because Neil Gorsuch sincerely believes something doesn't mean it's true or a good idea. A lot of Neil Gorsuch's sincere beliefs are absolutely bonkers. (I'd love to hear an absolutist "constitutional conservative" argument against his approach to Indian law, though; that is an area in which it is the right whose jurisprudence has traditionally been "the government can do whatever the hell it wants and dare people to try to get it to stop.") I do agree that "hack" is manifestly not the right word for him, though.

FWIW Clarence Thomas's view is that the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 rendered all tribal treaties and agreements null and void, and thus now all Reservations and federal recognition of tribes is illegal.

Obviously absurd because one party to an agreement can't simply alter or abrogate the agreement without the consent of the other party.

I'm sure Thomas would admit that as well if he weren't bought.

[President Johnson]

Even the most hackish justice must understand that "absolute immunity" for the president would mean a Democratic head of state gets the same privilege then. Something tells me Republicans wouldn't even grant this the next time a Democrat even wears a tan suit.