The Court Just Sealed Everyone’s Fate, Including Its Own

[Gadianton]

2. We aren't in a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

Sure. But I think you know what I mean.

Even so, we do have a 4 year experience where your parade of horribles didn't happen. This is more fear mongering, it seems to me.

It actually did, didn't it? Despite his several very serious efforts to steal the election, Trump failed. Does he have to succeed before we worry about it? Does a bank robber need to clean out the vault before hiring security? If you don't want Democracy as a talking point for the left, (and middle, and everyone but the extreme right) then it's not too much to ask NOT to try every desperate ploy to subvert the election process, for starters.

3. This is why the constitution didn't give the people more power over the day to day governing issues. The founders were afraid of mob rule as well and set out a plan to have power remain with the landowners. This why originally the Senate was elected by the state legislators and why the Senate has the more power than the house in the constitutional scheme.

Yeah, sure, in theory, but if something like the fake electors scheme would have worked, or Mike Pence following orders on Jan 6 succeeded, then none of that really helps. If stupid people are hopelessly drawn to the fox as chief of security over the hens nest, they will eventually get their way. Granted, institutional and representational power is better distributed in the US than Russia, and so it won't go down easy, but it's truly impressive in a very bad way just how widespread the backing of Trump's corruption in broad daylight has been.

[Gunnar]

They haven't reached a decision yet, have they? If not, how can the court have "just sealed everyone's fate?"

This is an appeal to fear, politics as usual. Democracy isn't at stake if the population votes against the billionaire class and their chosen puppets. Neither is it at stake if the Supreme Court grants some immunity to a sitting president like Biden. Here is what another commentator said and it is probably more correct based on the lack of hyperbole:

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/26/f ... -immunity/

In the above article, Prof Turley says the Court will likely try and split the baby. Absolute immunity and no immunity are extremes argued in order to try and tilt the middle path one way or another.

Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. It certainly enlarged my perspective and understanding of the issue. I can't help but agree that both absolute immunity and no immunity at all are dangerous extremes that must be avoided, but I already agreed with that much. You helped me to realize that where to place the line may be harder to determine than I thought. I still am convinced, though, granting immunity from prosecution for something as egregious as assassinating a political opponent is going way too far. Prosecution of a political opponent should not occur unless that opponent has done something so egregiously unlawful that even the opponent's supporters cannot reasonably deny that prosecution and imprisonment are fully warranted.

[Res Ipsa]

I do believe this that the first impeachment trial was a witch-hunt. One of the squad when she took office the first day of the new congress said lets go impeach the m’thr fkr. The first impeachment was a clown-show- case and they would never get a conviction with McConnell as the majority leader of the Senate and those who were under his influence. The second impeachment was about the January 6th 2021, debacle. I believe they did it to prevent a second presidency in the future. I’m not too sure about timelines if the senate could convict after he left office to prevent him from being reelected in four years.

In the God Father the famous line, “It’s not personal, it’s business”. I would say the first impeachment was personal. The second one had merit, but someone needs to explain the process, likely Res Ipsa.

The shame of the United States Government to create kangaroo courts for some of those entering the capital especially Mr. Antler with his red, white and blue face was heart breaking and he should have sued his attorney for malpractice. First, he needed to be assessed by a psychiatrist from the prosecution side and those of the defense. But I don’t think he ever saw one or anyone to deal with his mental health issue.It was a shark frenzy by the media, likely told to plead guilty by his attorney to avoid a longer sentence if he went to trial. He sat in jail and then prison without the needed mental health help.

Trump may be immune to certain things as president but not all. He can’t do what President Nixon did who we all know resigned before impeachment. He can’t break the law while in office, and if he did and it was not a witch hunt, and obvious, both the House and the Senate would convict. I actually believe in the process.

*To be continued

i understand your perspective, but mine is a little different. The problem with term "witch hunt" is that sometimes there are witches. The first impeachment started with a witch -- the transcript of Trump's telephone call with the President of Ukraine. It certainly provided evidence that Trump abused his power as president to pressure the Ukrainian President to start a corruption investigation, not for the benefit of the United States or Ukraine, but purely for the benefit of Donald J. Trump's re-election campaign. The Constitution permits impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, but does not define either. It's up to Congress to decide whether those terms apply. In my opinion, abuse of Presidential power for personal gain, whether it's taking a bribe or threatening another country, should be an impeachable offense.

The process itself, other than the number of votes required for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, is pretty much up to Congress. The leaders of both houses have quite a bit of discretion, and the Supreme Court apparently sees the process as one reserved to Congress. The Constitution designates who will be the judge for a trial in the Senate, but it's not clear that the Senate is even required to hold a trial. That's how loose the process is.

Personally, I think the House should conduct an impeachment inquiry when it has reason to believe the President has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The impeachment power is the Constitutional "check" given to Congress with respect to the executive, and it should take that responsibility seriously. If the inquiry results in persuasive evidence of impeachable conduct, it should vote. I don't think the House should take into consideration the politics of the Senate, as the voters are also a check on abuse of presidential power.

I have less of an opinion about the Senate. If the Senate wants to hold a trial, hold it. Or not. The people can decide whether their Senators are doing their Constitutional duty.

The second impeachment is tougher for me. I agree that the purpose was not to remove Trump from office, as he was only a couple of weeks away from leaving office. The purpose was the vote to bar him from further office holding. I don't think the timing of the process should have been an issue -- otherwise the President could abuse power to his heart's content in the final weeks of his term with no consequences. Because impeachment is a prerequisite to the bar from holding office, I think Congress should have the power to impeach a President even after he leaves office.

But, in my opinion, because of the rush to hold a vote before Trump left office, the necessary investigation wasn't done before the vote. Had the House been able to fully investigate the full extent of the conspiracy to overturn the results of the election, it would have had perhaps the strongest case in history for impeachment. in my opinion, the President shouldn't be able to escape the bar from holding office by running out the clock.

I don't know why antler guy was not given a psychiatric evaluation. I don't know that much about him, but he looked like a good candidate for one.

On the information known at the time of the impeachment vote, I tend to think the first impeachment had more merit than the second. With all the facts in, I'm convinced that the second had far more merit.

[Res Ipsa]

This is an appeal to fear, politics as usual. Democracy isn't at stake if the population votes against the billionaire class and their chosen puppets. Neither is it at stake if the Supreme Court grants some immunity to a sitting president like Biden. Here is what another commentator said and it is probably more correct based on the lack of hyperbole:

https://jonathanturley.org/2024/04/26/f ... -immunity/

In the above article, Prof Turley says the Court will likely try and split the baby. Absolute immunity and no immunity are extremes argued in order to try and tilt the middle path one way or another.

Thanks for your contributions to this discussion. It certainly enlarged my perspective and understanding of the issue. I can't help but agree that both absolute immunity and no immunity at all are dangerous extremes that must be avoided, but I already agreed with that much. You helped me to realize that where to place the line may be harder to determine than I thought. I still am convinced, though, granting immunity from prosecution for something as egregious as assassinating a political opponent is going way too far. Prosecution of a political opponent should not occur unless that opponent has done something so egregiously unlawful that even the opponent's supporters cannot reasonably deny that prosecution and imprisonment are fully warranted.

Good topic and good discussion.

[Gunnar]

I don't understand what the billionaire class and puppets has to do with these cases, given that we can't vote against Clarence Thomas.

I agree with you that this piece is political fear mongering of the kind I expect to see from Fox News. Ms. Tannehill doesn't seem to understand what Justices typically do during oral argument. In general, they are acutely aware of the law of unintended consequences (unless they slept through law school), and so they will ask questions at the extremes and at the edge of any proposed boundaries. Even experienced court watchers make incorrect predictions base on what they see and hear in oral arguments.

SCOTUSblog is a good place to find summaries and analyses of Supreme Court oral argument. Here's the one for the EMTALA case. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supr ... rtion-ban/ Contrary to Ms. Tannehill's claim, the case has nothing to do with "gutting" the "life of the mother" protection. The Idaho statute permits abortions when necessary to save the life of the mother. What's at stake is the difference between "necessary to save the life of the mother" and "necessary to stabilize the condition of the mother before transferring the mother to another hospital."

Idaho and other states are going to have come to grips with the consequences of their religiously motivated intrusion into medicine. To date, Idaho has lost about 25% of its obstetricians. Given a choice between watching patients suffer and unnecessarily risking both their life and health and going to jail, many take the sensible third option -- change specialties or move. The result is reduced availability of pre-natal care for all mothers. Yay! more health problems for all mothers and children. But they got what they've always said they wanted, and they're going have to deal with the fallout. Even if the Court holds that EMTALA preempts state anti-abortion laws, that won't fix the negative consequences of the laws.

As always, your insights and expertise manage to enlighten and reinvigorate my aging mental processes. I can't find any fault with the above points. Your inputs to this discussion are what I looked forward to the most. Thank you so much for that!

On the immunity issue, although I rarely agree with Turley, I think his analysis is spot on (except for his political rant against DA Bragg). This is terra incognito for our country, and anyone who claims that the answer is obvious doesn't understand the issue. Gunnar, suppose the Court agrees with you that any result other than no immunity would be absurd, what would happen to Joe Biden if Trump wins the election? Given his revenge rhetoric, what are the odds that he would trump up criminal charges against Biden and order his politicized DOJ to prosecute with all its resources? I'd say approaching 100%.

That's a scary prospect indeed! All the more reason why re-electing Trump would be insane! But I don't think I really meant that absolutely no immunity would be a good idea. I do still think, though, giving any president immunity even from so blatant a crime as assassinating his political opponents and critics is going way too far, and will very probably lead inevitably to despotism and the eventual death of democracy, regardless of who wins the next election.

Now, rather than rely on Ms. Tannehill's claims, read a summary of what the Court is actually grappling with: https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supr ... -immunity/ The Court is acutely aware that this case is a BFD and smack dab in the center of a Constitutional minefield. There are significant separation of powers issues: to what extent does the Congress have the Constitutional power to criminalize the exercise of powers specifically given to the executive branch in the Constitution? The case that will likely trouble the Justices the most is the President carrying out his duties as commander in chief. But let's take an extreme case -- shouldn't the President be able to exercise his veto power without having to worry about possible criminal prosecution by the next President? Don't we want the President to be thinking about what is in the best interest of the country instead of how to cover his ass to avoid criminal prosecution?

The pressure to try Trump before the election is a purely political issue that the Court should not consider at all. This may be, Constitutionally, the most important decision this Court will be faced with making. It's worst decisions have come when it moves quickly (shadow docket, anyone?). It should take the time it needs to get this issue right. I think that involves finding some type of immunity (whether absolute or qualified) over at least core powers given to the executive branch by the Constitution and a delineation of the boundary between protected and non-protected conduct, followed by a remand to the District Court to apply the law as defined by the Court. That may very well result in another trip up to the Supreme Court. So be it. Getting this issue right is far more important than getting it done quickly.

Very thought provoking comments, inspired me to think more deeply about the issue than I have, so far, and conclude that, perhaps, the conservative Justices on court might not be quite as blindly unreasonable as I first assumed. I'm not persuaded though, that trying Trump is a purely political issue. Would you be okay with trying him for real crimes he has committed were he not currently running for political office? I am convinced that he is running largely, if not mainly, in the hope that he might thereby escape just prosecution and punishment for crimes he knows darn well that he is guilty of. Trying him before the election certainly has a strong political component, but the chances of successfully trying him after he wins are essentially zero, aren't they? We already know from poll data that convicting him before the election will lessen his chances of winning the election and may make the difference between whether he wins or not. If he wins, many of the horrors you pointed out are likely to become true, regardless of the eventual outcome of the Court's final ruling on the immunity issue.

In closing, I want to thank you again for the valuable insight you provided on this topic. As I said, your take on this is what I most eagerly looked forward to when I started this thread.

[Gunnar]

I do believe this that the first impeachment trial was a witch-hunt. One of the squad when she took office the first day of the new congress said lets go impeach the m’thr fkr. The first impeachment was a clown-show- case and they would never get a conviction with McConnell as the majority leader of the Senate and those who were under his influence.

I don't agree that the first impeachment was nothing more that a witch-hunt. I heard the recording of the conversation between Trump and Ukraine's President Zelensky. It was very clearly a blatant extortion attempt to get Zelensky to present or manufacture some dirt Trump could use against Biden. I agree, though, it was doomed to failure with McConnell as the majority leader of the Senate and those who were under his influence. In a just world, Trump would and should have been convicted.

[yellowstone123]

Thank you Gunnar and Rep Ipsa. I'll have to look closer at the Ukraine issue more closely. Per a quick check on Google, the first impeachment charges were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I think that's kind of vague.

[Res Ipsa]

Thank you Gunnar and Rep Ipsa. I'll have to look closer at the Ukraine issue more closely. Per a quick check on Google, the first impeachment charges were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I think that's kind of vague.

Love the Potter Stewart quote.

[yellowstone123]

Thank you Gunnar and Rep Ipsa. I'll have to look closer at the Ukraine issue more closely. Per a quick check on Google, the first impeachment charges were abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I think that's kind of vague.

Love the Potter Stewart quote.

Thanks, Rep Ipsa. I couldn't put the whole quote on as it was too long. This quote I had right in front of me at my desk and on my clip board:

"One of the important things for anybody in power is to distinguish between what you have the right to do and what is right to do. The moment that any profession, including the press, truly insists that something is proper simply because it’s legal, they lose all moral authority. And with that, they will lose credibility.”

[Gunnar]

i understand your perspective, but mine is a little different. The problem with term "witch hunt" is that sometimes there are witches. The first impeachment started with a witch -- the transcript of Trump's telephone call with the President of Ukraine. It certainly provided evidence that Trump abused his power as president to pressure the Ukrainian President to start a corruption investigation, not for the benefit of the United States or Ukraine, but purely for the benefit of Donald J. Trump's re-election campaign. The Constitution permits impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, but does not define either. It's up to Congress to decide whether those terms apply. In my opinion, abuse of Presidential power for personal gain, whether it's taking a bribe or threatening another country, should be an impeachable offense.

The process itself, other than the number of votes required for the House to impeach and the Senate to convict, is pretty much up to Congress. The leaders of both houses have quite a bit of discretion, and the Supreme Court apparently sees the process as one reserved to Congress. The Constitution designates who will be the judge for a trial in the Senate, but it's not clear that the Senate is even required to hold a trial. That's how loose the process is.

Personally, I think the House should conduct an impeachment inquiry when it has reason to believe the President has committed High Crimes and Misdemeanors. The impeachment power is the Constitutional "check" given to Congress with respect to the executive, and it should take that responsibility seriously. If the inquiry results in persuasive evidence of impeachable conduct, it should vote. I don't think the House should take into consideration the politics of the Senate, as the voters are also a check on abuse of presidential power.

I have less of an opinion about the Senate. If the Senate wants to hold a trial, hold it. Or not. The people can decide whether their Senators are doing their Constitutional duty.

The second impeachment is tougher for me. I agree that the purpose was not to remove Trump from office, as he was only a couple of weeks away from leaving office. The purpose was the vote to bar him from further office holding. I don't think the timing of the process should have been an issue -- otherwise the President could abuse power to his heart's content in the final weeks of his term with no consequences. Because impeachment is a prerequisite to the bar from holding office, I think Congress should have the power to impeach a President even after he leaves office.

But, in my opinion, because of the rush to hold a vote before Trump left office, the necessary investigation wasn't done before the vote. Had the House been able to fully investigate the full extent of the conspiracy to overturn the results of the election, it would have had perhaps the strongest case in history for impeachment. in my opinion, the President shouldn't be able to escape the bar from holding office by running out the clock.

I don't know why antler guy was not given a psychiatric evaluation. I don't know that much about him, but he looked like a good candidate for one.

On the information known at the time of the impeachment vote, I tend to think the first impeachment had more merit than the second. With all the facts in, I'm convinced that the second had far more merit.

Everything you said here makes perfect sense to me (as usual), and I thank yellowstone123 for the thoughtful post that led to that reply.