Trump has a decent chance of getting absolute immunity

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.