• [OT] The Immunity Syndrome (Supreme Court, Donald Trump)

    From John Savard@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 1 09:42:19 2024
    Oh, noes! The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision split directly between conservative and liberal justices, gave Trump loads of immunity
    against prosecution! We're all DOOMED!

    At least, that's what the headlines say. But I think they got it
    wrong.

    A President has immunity for his official acts? The Supreme Court may
    never have ruled on this before, but it's a well-settled principle of
    law. Otherwise, you would have had bereaved parents hauling LBJ into
    court for needlessly drafting their children to go to Vietnam.

    And this is also why nobody tried prosecuting Trump for the needless
    deaths from COVID-19 he caused by obstructing public-health measures.

    Everybody (at least, the DAs making decisions in this area) already
    knew that the job of a legislator is to make decisions - and these
    decisions may have negative consequences for some, but because it may
    be necessary to make such decisions none the less, legislators have to
    be able to *do their job*.

    So the Supreme Court didn't give Trump squat. The existing cases
    against Trump, because the DAs were well aware of this long-settled
    and well-established legal principla, are all, without exception,
    focused on his private acts. (Possibly telling the Capitol Police to
    hold off on January 6th was an official act, but that's about the only
    thing in any of the cases that's arguable.)

    John Savard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to quadibloc@servername.invalid on Tue Jul 2 09:08:09 2024
    On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:42:19 -0600, John Savard
    <quadibloc@servername.invalid> wrote:

    Oh, noes! The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision split directly between >conservative and liberal justices, gave Trump loads of immunity
    against prosecution! We're all DOOMED!

    At least, that's what the headlines say. But I think they got it
    wrong.

    A President has immunity for his official acts? The Supreme Court may
    never have ruled on this before, but it's a well-settled principle of
    law. Otherwise, you would have had bereaved parents hauling LBJ into
    court for needlessly drafting their children to go to Vietnam.

    And this is also why nobody tried prosecuting Trump for the needless
    deaths from COVID-19 he caused by obstructing public-health measures.

    Everybody (at least, the DAs making decisions in this area) already
    knew that the job of a legislator is to make decisions - and these
    decisions may have negative consequences for some, but because it may
    be necessary to make such decisions none the less, legislators have to
    be able to *do their job*.

    So the Supreme Court didn't give Trump squat. The existing cases
    against Trump, because the DAs were well aware of this long-settled
    and well-established legal principla, are all, without exception,
    focused on his private acts. (Possibly telling the Capitol Police to
    hold off on January 6th was an official act, but that's about the only
    thing in any of the cases that's arguable.)

    The few I have bothered to read seem to more concerned that it will
    delay the trials until after the election because (if this is correct)
    the judges involved will have to decide which of the acts he is
    indicted for are acts that he is immune to.

    I long ago (but not necessarily here) pointed out that one of the
    advantages of electing Trump is that many legal questions would be
    cleared up as he tried to implement his agenda. Which has turned out
    to be the case, for better or worse.

    We shall see what we shall see.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)