Trump has a decent chance of getting absolute immunity

[Obama24]

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

It's almost like certain parts of the far left WANT the SC to rule in favor of immunity so Biden can become a dictator. Something something save democracy by destroying it, Dark Brandon, something something cult of personality.

[Dan the Roman]

This thread has degenerated into fury over an absurd hypothetical.

1. Not one member of the court will rule for absolute immunity

2. Everyone agrees the President has extensive sovereign immunity that is almost total in the civil field.

3. Whether this civil immunity extends beyond official functions is often motivated by partisan hackery but not Republican hackery. Bill Clinton spent years arguing that he was immune from civil lawsuits based upon harassment and sexual assault he engaged in before becoming President due to holding the office, and Larry Tribe, who is the leading voice denouncing the court today, helped run his effort.

#2 is not clearly specified in the Constitution, but is rather an inference from common law, and relates to the fact that a President must be able to exercise the duties of office. Therefore the assumption, which it is likely no member of the court will reject, is that the extent of immunity is the degree necessary for an individual to carry out the duties of the President in office. I also expect every member of the court to agree that a degree requires not just protection while an individual is President, but a degree of continued immunity after they leave office so as to prevent second-guessing.

Bill Clinton should not be civilly, much less criminally liable for Waco.

[Greedo punched first]

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

It's almost like certain parts of the far left WANT the SC to rule in favor of immunity so Biden can become a dictator. Something something save democracy by destroying it, Dark Brandon, something something cult of personality.

Remember Bush v. Gore? “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances”.

[SnowLabrador]

If we don't fight the Supreme Court like hell at the ballot box, we won't have a country anymore.

[Ljube]

This thread has degenerated into fury over an absurd hypothetical.

1. Not one member of the court will rule for absolute immunity

2. Everyone agrees the President has extensive sovereign immunity that is almost total in the civil field.

3. Whether this civil immunity extends beyond official functions is often motivated by partisan hackery but not Republican hackery. Bill Clinton spent years arguing that he was immune from civil lawsuits based upon harassment and sexual assault he engaged in before becoming President due to holding the office, and Larry Tribe, who is the leading voice denouncing the court today, helped run his effort.

#2 is not clearly specified in the Constitution, but is rather an inference from common law, and relates to the fact that a President must be able to exercise the duties of office. Therefore the assumption, which it is likely no member of the court will reject, is that the extent of immunity is the degree necessary for an individual to carry out the duties of the President in office. I also expect every member of the court to agree that a degree requires not just protection while an individual is President, but a degree of continued immunity after they leave office so as to prevent second-guessing.

Bill Clinton should not be civilly, much less criminally liable for Waco.

Yes. I have already posted about this, and my post is still valid.

Will he win the case on the merits?

There are several ways for Trump to win.
He can win on his total immunity claim, though I'm not sure how many votes there are for a total immunity opinion.
He can also win on a narrower interpretation of his case, where the majority could opine that Trump's actions were part of his official duties as President.
A third win would be for the SCOTUS to affirm that Trump was immune for official acts, but refer the case back to the district court for holding hearings to determine which of Trump's individual actions fall under his official duties as President. Each of these individual decisions would be subject to appeal up to the SCOTUS.

Judging by the ballot disqualification case, there was a majority for a sweeping decision, but there was a minority for a narrower decision and Justice Sotomayor was against the sweeping decision initially and started to write a dissent. Then when Kagan, Jackson and Barrett were unable to sway Roberts, they convinced Sotomayor to change her mind and amended her opinion slightly and changed it into a concurring opinion.

A similar dynamic could play out in the immunity case.

Sotomayor will be against immunity, while Thomas and Alito will be for total immunity.
I suspect that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will be for a narrow immunity pertaining only to Trump's case.
Kagan and Jackson would probably also be for a narrow immunity, but rejecting it in Trump's case.
Then negotiations would start for the fifth vote. I suspect Thomas and Alito would hold firm, and if a joint decision is reached, it would probably only be limited to Trump's particular case and not mention the sweeping total immunity claim at all.

[Fuzzy Bear Loves Christian Missionaries]

This thread has degenerated into fury over an absurd hypothetical.

1. Not one member of the court will rule for absolute immunity

2. Everyone agrees the President has extensive sovereign immunity that is almost total in the civil field.

3. Whether this civil immunity extends beyond official functions is often motivated by partisan hackery but not Republican hackery. Bill Clinton spent years arguing that he was immune from civil lawsuits based upon harassment and sexual assault he engaged in before becoming President due to holding the office, and Larry Tribe, who is the leading voice denouncing the court today, helped run his effort.

#2 is not clearly specified in the Constitution, but is rather an inference from common law, and relates to the fact that a President must be able to exercise the duties of office. Therefore the assumption, which it is likely no member of the court will reject, is that the extent of immunity is the degree necessary for an individual to carry out the duties of the President in office. I also expect every member of the court to agree that a degree requires not just protection while an individual is President, but a degree of continued immunity after they leave office so as to prevent second-guessing.

Bill Clinton should not be civilly, much less criminally liable for Waco.

Yes. I have already posted about this, and my post is still valid.

Will he win the case on the merits?

There are several ways for Trump to win.
He can win on his total immunity claim, though I'm not sure how many votes there are for a total immunity opinion.
He can also win on a narrower interpretation of his case, where the majority could opine that Trump's actions were part of his official duties as President.
A third win would be for the SCOTUS to affirm that Trump was immune for official acts, but refer the case back to the district court for holding hearings to determine which of Trump's individual actions fall under his official duties as President. Each of these individual decisions would be subject to appeal up to the SCOTUS.

Judging by the ballot disqualification case, there was a majority for a sweeping decision, but there was a minority for a narrower decision and Justice Sotomayor was against the sweeping decision initially and started to write a dissent. Then when Kagan, Jackson and Barrett were unable to sway Roberts, they convinced Sotomayor to change her mind and amended her opinion slightly and changed it into a concurring opinion.

A similar dynamic could play out in the immunity case.

Sotomayor will be against immunity, while Thomas and Alito will be for total immunity.
I suspect that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will be for a narrow immunity pertaining only to Trump's case.
Kagan and Jackson would probably also be for a narrow immunity, but rejecting it in Trump's case.
Then negotiations would start for the fifth vote. I suspect Thomas and Alito would hold firm, and if a joint decision is reached, it would probably only be limited to Trump's particular case and not mention the sweeping total immunity claim at all.

I would not be surprised if a majority of the SCOTUS issues a decision where the majority concurs in the result that resolves Trump's particular case in Trump's favor without agreeing on a decision that sets precedent, and with Justices concurring in the result writing their own opinions to ensure that the reasoning not have the force of law.

[Obama24]

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

"I hate Trump, because he'd destroy democracy, but I also want Dark Brandon to destroy democracy."

[2016]

After today I am certain that not just former President Trump but all future Presidents will receive some form of Immunity to protect them from these kind of flimsy bogus charges brought forward by Bragg.

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

After today I am certain that not just former President Trump but all future Presidents will receive some form of Immunity to protect them from these kind of flimsy bogus charges brought forward by Bragg.

Why?

[Frodo]

If that were to happen, conservatism will have been effectively redefined by the Supreme Court as monarchism, and we would no longer have a President but a King, for only a King can truly be seen as above the law.  And therefore our republic is gone forever as a meaningful entity as with our centuries-old experiment in self-rule, much like early imperial Rome which still had the now-empty trappings of the old republic but which had effectively become a monarchy under Augustus who considered himself officially as Princeps Civitatus (or First Citizen) but was to all intents and purposes a King.  

[Skill and Chance]

I don't think SCOTUS would ever grant absolute immunity, but I think the odds of Kavanaugh getting 5 votes for his "a criminal law must specifically mention the president as liable, otherwise he can't be charged under it" interpretation just went way up.  That sounds like it would be broad enough to overturn the NY conviction if it applied to both state and federal law.  

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Does this mean Biden can order Trump to be executed and not be held liable for the crime?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This thread has degenerated into fury over an absurd hypothetical.

1. Not one member of the court will rule for absolute immunity

2. Everyone agrees the President has extensive sovereign immunity that is almost total in the civil field.

3. Whether this civil immunity extends beyond official functions is often motivated by partisan hackery but not Republican hackery. Bill Clinton spent years arguing that he was immune from civil lawsuits based upon harassment and sexual assault he engaged in before becoming President due to holding the office, and Larry Tribe, who is the leading voice denouncing the court today, helped run his effort.

#2 is not clearly specified in the Constitution, but is rather an inference from common law, and relates to the fact that a President must be able to exercise the duties of office. Therefore the assumption, which it is likely no member of the court will reject, is that the extent of immunity is the degree necessary for an individual to carry out the duties of the President in office. I also expect every member of the court to agree that a degree requires not just protection while an individual is President, but a degree of continued immunity after they leave office so as to prevent second-guessing.

Bill Clinton should not be civilly, much less criminally liable for Waco.

Well said.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Does this mean Biden can order Trump to be executed and not be held liable for the crime?

     And this is why some cans of worms should not be opened.

[SteveRogers]

I don't think SCOTUS would ever grant absolute immunity, but I think the odds of Kavanaugh getting 5 votes for his "a criminal law must specifically mention the president as liable, otherwise he can't be charged under it" interpretation just went way up.  That sounds like it would be broad enough to overturn the NY conviction if it applied to both state and federal law.  

Even if SCOTUS ruled that sitting presidents have absolute immunity from state and federal prosecution for any and all actions committed while president, it still wouldn’t apply to the NY conviction because he was not the President when he committed the crime.

[Ljube]

I don't think SCOTUS would ever grant absolute immunity, but I think the odds of Kavanaugh getting 5 votes for his "a criminal law must specifically mention the president as liable, otherwise he can't be charged under it" interpretation just went way up.  That sounds like it would be broad enough to overturn the NY conviction if it applied to both state and federal law.  

Even if SCOTUS ruled that sitting presidents have absolute immunity from state and federal prosecution for any and all actions committed while president, it still wouldn’t apply to the NY conviction because he was not the President when he committed the crime.

Actually he was, since the crime was committed starting from February 2017.
However, he was not acting in any official capacity while committing the crime.