|
Popehat@kenwhite.bsky.social |
There are two elements to the immunity decision that are particularly extreme in a way that many will miss: (1) motive is irrelevant and (2) immune acts are not just excluded from prosecution, they’re excluded from evidence. /1
50 replies 905 reposts 2436 likes
|
marcosantana
@marcosantana.bsky.social
[ View ] |
There’s no way around this. The Republic is lost now there are Kings and Kingmakers. Civil war is inevitable.
0 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
Monkeybones
@monkeybones.bsky.social
[ View ] |
📌
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Paul Tree
@paultree10.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Curious what you make of the “presumption” language
0 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
Flint Hills Human
@jimbeasley.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Now I really hate everything.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
KI7BDA
@ki7bda.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I was hoping for Kenny Raincloud to rain on Trump by telling us that the decision wasn't as bad everyone is saying it is....
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Conductor
@chanchan.bsky.social
[ View ] |
What is legally stopping Biden as CiC from telling a Marine sniper to just do it?
2 replies 0 reposts 11 likes
|
Steph Scythes
@stephscythes.bsky.social
[ View ] |
From this day forward, all the discussion about replacing Biden needs to stop as it is, literally, yesterday's news. The new question is: 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 Which new and mighty "official act" executive powers has Joe Biden used TODAY to stop Mango Hitler ll and bring the corrupt SCOTUS 6 to heel?
5 replies 10 reposts 68 likes
|
Skippy
@jwheat.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It's my understanding that there is no real difference between the parties so voting for president is a waste of time. I presume that means that this exact decision would have come down with Obama/Biden-appointed justices, right? Right? I'm so funny.
0 replies 0 reposts 7 likes
|
|
Popehat
@kenwhite.bsky.social
[ View ] |
/2 Motive being irrelevant means that the President can do a thing for expressly lawless reasons so long as the thing is within the extremely broad range of official acts. So question isn’t “can the President conspire to defraud,” it’s “can the President call a state official about an election.”
11 replies 155 reposts 1090 likes
|
The Book of the Void
@eddyrobinson.bsky.social
[ View ] |
gotta love the footnote suggesting 'you can put the facts before a jury but not invite them to think about what it means'
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Robert Ferry
@robertferry.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Under this ruling can a president officially order the EPA to ignore court orders, for example regarding reviewing permits for new LNG terminals?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Semiosmith - Bradley A. Smith
@semiosmith.bsky.social
[ View ] |
My gut feeling is that this is a huge own goal by the Federalist Society and Project 25 mob: I think it will spook the ordinary voter, and energise those who had the intention of sitting out this election, except in the case of collective insanity Germany 1930s-style
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
🏳️⚧️ Minority Report from my Right Boob 🏳️⚧️
@rowenagold.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The Xtofascist controlled SCOTUS is in violation of the Constitution because it has failed to uphold it on several counts. Ironically they have given Biden the power to arbitrarily remove them under some nebulous definition of his presidential "powers".
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Luke Garrett
@lukegarrett.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Plus: people are going to end up conflating "can" and "should" in the dumbest possible way.
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
sabler
@sabler.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Does all of this apply to trial/conviction in the Senate? Does this ruling shield someone like Trump from the impeachment and removal process?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Sharon Helms
@sharonhelms.bsky.social
[ View ] |
📌
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Potomatic
@onbluskysku.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It’s particularly rich that the Supreme Court will fret about applying the exclusionary rule in privacy cases since there are so many other remedies but a president does a coup and suddenly the jury can’t hear about it
1 replies 1 reposts 45 likes
|
AnneZo
@annezo.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Okay, now I get it. I gotta stop skeeting before I've had time to think things through.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
|
@hwestiii.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Shorter SCOTUS: Don’t count on us as long as the Constitution still offers impeachment
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
PlaceboMessiah
@placebomessiah.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Always try to negotiate & reason with sociopaths, esp sociopaths who inhabit the highest echelons of power & wealth. Do not perform perfectly synchronized precision international *********** with high powered heavy barrel ************s. u would be forced to privately coordinate so many skilled ppl
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
NYPinTA🌻
@nypinta.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So.... did SCOTUS just give Biden the power to do whatever he wants to? I mean: goose/gander.
1 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Phil Strickland
@drphilstrickland.bsky.social
[ View ] |
“Official Act” is now part of the Trump lexicon along with “Locker room Talk,” “No Collusion,” and “Fake News”—phrases meant to dismiss and paper over very real, unethical, and scandalous behaviour.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Hal 10000
@hal10000.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It just seems like Roberts looked at everything we joked about -- seal team six, is it a crime to do [euphemised version of illegal thing], etc. -- and said, "Oh, that's good. Totally including that."
0 replies 2 reposts 15 likes
|
Andrew Horn is freshly shaven and shorn.
@bbofun.bsky.social
[ View ] |
You won't see this, but anyway- Does his immunity mean that, if called as a witness in, say, his co-defendants' Georgia cases, he would be unable to take the Fifth? Or would the "excluded from evidence" part of the ruling mean he wouldn't be allowed to testify?
2 replies 2 reposts 37 likes
|
Arkancrow
@arkancrow.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Biden should just change the Constitution and put it there, that no one is above the law, Including the President. And then he should fire all the justices and open the positions to the popular vote and change the way it works. Does he have that power, now ?
1 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
the legend in his own mind
@legendinmyownmind.bsky.social
[ View ] |
That is the lynchpin. Because if motive does not matter then the act itself can be couched as an official act because the pres talking to DOJ is supposed to be normal. What they are talking abt dose not matter, the convo is an official act. If motive applies, you can break in and get to criminality.
1 replies 1 reposts 32 likes
|
David F. Soros
@wiselineprt.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So all Trump has to do is say "I never said that," and poof the evidence vanishes.
1 replies 0 reposts 10 likes
|
Tom (kid codger) O'Neill
@doctecazoid.bsky.social
[ View ] |
With today's SCOTUS ruling, Joe Biden has an invaluable (albeit temporary) opportunity to demonstrate to the justices, the Federalist Society, and indeed the entire GOP, an object lesson in The Law Of Unintended Consequences.
0 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
Constantine von Hoffman
@curseyoukhan.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The image of a free constitution was maintained with a decent reverence. – Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Reporting History
@reportinghistory.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This is exactly what a 5 3/5 originalist majority SCOTUS will get you...
1 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
Brian Bruce
@brianvancebruce.bsky.social
[ View ] |
A 43-page opinion when he could've just said, "The king can do no wrong."
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
@derfelif.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It would seem that "high crimes and misdemeanors" are all covered if they are official acts. What does that leave for impeachment? Liquor store stick-ups? Wife beating?
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
homosexual overlord
@daledidporn.bsky.social
[ View ] |
re: 2)
www.nytimes.com/2024/07/01/n...
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Evo Daily
@evodaily.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Long live the King? Just in time for Independence Day.
1 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
RobinK
@templeofhate.com
[ View ] |
Brilliant thread, easier to read in this format:
2 replies 0 reposts 6 likes
|
The chicken lady
@chickenlady.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Didn't miss This completely derails Jack Smith's case in FL
1 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Head Like A Hat
@prettyhatmachine.bsky.social
[ View ] |
To confirm this ruling applies to all Presidents? So by simply declaring Trump a Russian asset (don’t need the evidence) Biden can have Trump removed with extreme prejudice? Biden could do just that and if the Supreme Court are willing to resign over the consequences, he will stand down?
0 replies 2 reposts 19 likes
|
JoyComethInTheMorning
@sheadapts.bsky.social
[ View ] |
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
lynnaean.bsky.social
@lynnaean.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So does anyone know what our new constitution will say? Because they’re in for a complete rewrite of everything we have trusted for decades.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
Michael D
@saltymichael.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This is how democracies crumble….
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
n highlands ♎ ☮ ☯️ 🐢 ♻️ 💚
@nancyhighlands.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Holy shit !
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
KC Momkin
@kc-momkin.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It seems we will have no Judiciary Branch or Executive Branch if the President can "officially" order the arrest of Judge Merchan or the arrest of Justice Sotomayor. There is no separation of powers, the guy with the nuclear codes is the strong man.
0 replies 0 reposts 20 likes
|
Dog Walker
@trsmidget.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Is this retro-active? Such as: does it cover past crimes before the ruling?
2 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
Doug Moffett
@liberallibra.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Sounds like a really great opportunity for a clever Democratic President to make some serious changes and not have to fear consequences. Oh, for a leader with the courage to act. Well, we still have Joe.....oh, goody!
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Evan Hess
@ehess.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I remember you used to have a pinned tweet: "Your feelings are not the law." A wise attorney, I thought. -- Well, with this Supreme Court, we can toss that right out the window
0 replies 0 reposts 5 likes
|
Pez
@pezt.bsky.social
[ View ] |
The whole 'well if the president is impeached for their act then they can be held criminally liable' thing is funny because I think the president could legally drone strike a bunch of Justices then resign before impeachment proceedings began, meaning you can't impeach him. So the drone strike was ok
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
Tom Higgins
@interestedparty.bsky.social
[ View ] |
No one will ever again be required to answer the question, "What did the President know, and when did he know it?"
1 replies 3 reposts 131 likes
|
William Li
@williamlidc.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Ken, SCOTUS banned adverbs when it comes to evaluating Presidential conduct, I’m going crazy over here
0 replies 0 reposts 12 likes
|
Bijan Moini
@bijanmoini.de
[ View ] |
I would argue there is a third one: The majority left a door open for official acts that do not touch core executive powers to not only be presumably but absolutely immune from criminal prosecution (p. 14). So even if Jack Smith can refute the presumption, SCOTUS may still opt to accept immunity.
0 replies 0 reposts 0 likes
|
strive for pithiness. land on glib.
@scruffymane.bsky.social
[ View ] |
suppress evidence, create false evidence, or hell why even bother. this crap needs to be on ads describing the most vile crap imaginable:
bsky.app/profile/bren...
0 replies 4 reposts 22 likes