Jacob T. Levy @jacobtlevy.bsky.social

The Constitution says that in cases of impeachment, "the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law." It does not except the president. But what impeachable offenses aren't covered by the new doctrine of immunity?

21 replies 72 reposts 350 likes

Indiscreet Function @homotopic.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 12:32 UTC

Whatever the original expected application, we have to draw out the implications of the Constitution's structure, understood at a high level of generality through a functional lens

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Mariam Watt 🍉 @mariamwatt.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 14:06 UTC

In what world would an impeachment ever happen again when a President is above the law? The President at risk could simply send the national guard to place Senators under arrest as threats to the country. They’d never be allowed to vote.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Adam Bonin @adambonin.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:53 UTC

Crimes independent from his exercise of official powers. Prosecuting Clinton for perjury in the Jones Deposition would still be allowed. And *some* aspects of the J6 stuff are still not-yet-foreclosed-but-who-knows.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

thrillcat @thrillcat.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 14:51 UTC

Biden needs to instruct his justice department to go after the Federalist Society and find the points of coordination that connect them with trumps legal team, Cannon and SCOTUS.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Tim Just Tim @timkrauss.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 13:16 UTC

Yeah, these cult member on the Supreme Court only care about their about their treasonous cult leader. They don't care about the Constitution, law and order or America They are there to serve Trump and the downfall of the USA Thanks, Heritage and Federalist Societies!

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

David Froomkin @dfroomkin.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 14:40 UTC

And "according to Law" here is a constitutional term of art meaning that statutory law controls. I.e. whether there is a presidential exception is for Congress, not the court, to decide.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Matthew Budman, book guy @matthewbudman.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 12:28 UTC

It's as though Roberts crafted the opinion specifically to shield Trump from a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives—no impeachment #3!

2 replies 0 reposts 7 likes

amdiamanti @amdiamanti.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 13:02 UTC

Now why would you go and let “the Constitution says” get in the way of what the GOP wants? If you ask Roberts he’d say of course you can still prosecute him for any unofficial acts. And if you point out the conflicting language, he’d pat you on the head and say “the law is what WE say it is.”

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Richard Heppner (see also id. @ 🐘, 🧵, ❎) @rlheppner.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 12:32 UTC

Purely personal (nonofficial) criminal acts, I guess? 🙄

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Garret @garretevans.com [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 13:15 UTC

The conservative justices didn’t think that far.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Al Petterson @eyelessgame.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 15:09 UTC

Ooh! Ooh! I know! Blowjobs!

0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes

Christian Mott @cjmott.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 13:29 UTC

The actions underlying Clinton's impeachment probably would not be immune.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Michael Kaplan @differance.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 13:29 UTC

If a republican president does it, it’s not illegal

0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes

John Doyle @jdoyleoss.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 13:22 UTC

Private acts of criminality.

1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

KC Momkin @kc-momkin.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 12:56 UTC

SCOTUS, in my opinion, did not actually have the authority to present an alternative interpretation of the Constitution that is so grossly inconsistent with what it actually says. They did it in the disqualification case and in the immunity case. They tried to break the system.

0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

mxhrad @mxhrad.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 14:39 UTC

Here’s how it’ll work. Dems impeach, get enough votes to convict and remove. GOP president takes it to the far right Supreme Court and they’ll come up with something to say he can’t be impeached. GOP does the same with a Dem president and the Supreme Court will finally read the constitution.

0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes

Gorgon Zola @bobbryan2.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 12:29 UTC

I mean... with the separation of powers issue, I would think Roberts would still say they can impeach him for whatever they want. I'm just confused as to why he thinks the judicial separation of powers means courts can't even look at this stuff.

1 replies 0 reposts 2 likes

Jacob T. Levy @jacobtlevy.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 03, 2024 at 17:39 UTC

As I was saying:

bsky.app/profile/jbou...

0 replies 1 reposts 2 likes

Jacob T. Levy @jacobtlevy.bsky.social [ View ] Jul 02, 2024 at 12:28 UTC

Barrett's concurrence at least leaves a trial imaginable, but Roberts' controlling majority opinion ends up defining everything one might impeach a president for as either immune from criminal prosecution or impossible to prove because of the new limits on evidence and ban on considering motive.

1 replies 13 reposts 87 likes