4 ms·

'We lack the power': Justice Barrett basically admits SCOTUS can do nothing if Trump violates rulings https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/we-lack-the-power-j

by c420 11mo ago

'We lack the power': Justice Barrett basically admits SCOTUS can do nothing if Trump violates rulings https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/we-lack-the-power-justice-barrett-basically-admits-scotus-can-do-nothing-if-trump-violates-rulings/ https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/we-lack-the-power-just...

pfdietz 11mo ago
All they need to do is rule that violation of court orders is not protected by qualified immunity from civil lawsuits, a principle SCOTUS invented itself.
- wl 11mo ago
  Qualified immunity in no way limits a court’s contempt powers.
  - pfdietz 11mo ago
    Civil actions aren't subject to presidential pardon.
ocdtrekkie 11mo ago
I suspect many of the more ridiculous rulings come less from Roberts agreeing with Trump, and more fear of actually placing Trump in a position to straight ignore the court, which he will do. There is likely a pragmatic view that if they appear to remain relevant they might continue to have some power, even though they already don't.
- ethbr1 11mo ago
  It would have precedent in the Supreme Court... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Political_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Political_d...
- Larrikin 11mo ago
  They could have let him go to jail before the election instead of ruling that the president is a king.
  - ethbr1 11mo ago
    There's pros and cons to that decision. At the very least, it's not great to send an ex-president who still has substantial support to prison while same ex-president is also spouting conspiracy theories about election fraud and deep state. That doesn't end well. On the other hand, a strong executive is a feature of the American political system and has its benefits. Imho, my hope is that the Supreme Court punted on that one by deliberately leaving "official acts of office" vague. And that if push came to shove, election related activities would be defined as not part of presidential duties.
    - ocdtrekkie 11mo ago
      I think this is a hindsight is 20/20 issue. In 2021, we really should've prosecuted Trump and sent him to prison. We wouldn't be dealing with the incredible litany of crimes and economic damage we deal with now if we had. But in 2021, I don't think anyone seriously imagined Trump would actually be President again, and if you don't think he'll actually have any power, yeah, in 2021 it probably looked like a bad optics thing that probably wouldn't make any positive impact to do. And not for nothing, we were also still very much in the middle of COVID-19 as an active crisis.
      - ryandrake 11mo ago
        > But in 2021, I don't think anyone seriously imagined Trump would actually be President again I don't think anyone who spends any significant time around the Trump cult would say this. These people are absolutely devoted to and worship him. When he lost in 2020, my first thought is, he's going to run again in 2024 and every election thereafter until he's dead, and he'll get tens of millions of votes each time.
      - ethbr1 11mo ago
        I'd make the case that even if you thought he wasn't going to run again / would lose, it would be a bad idea to send him to prison on a less than black and white charge. The clearest Constitutional line would have been impeachment, but the current Republican party cult nixed that one. At some point, preserving widespread support (including Trump supporters) of elections and the judiciary is more important than not having a dumbass in office for 4 years. To say nothing of the worst outcome if he had been sent to prison and won an election.

by c420 11mo ago

pfdietz 11mo ago

All they need to do is rule that violation of court orders is not protected by qualified immunity from civil lawsuits, a principle SCOTUS invented itself.

wl 11mo ago
Qualified immunity in no way limits a court’s contempt powers.
- pfdietz 11mo ago
  Civil actions aren't subject to presidential pardon.

ocdtrekkie 11mo ago

I suspect many of the more ridiculous rulings come less from Roberts agreeing with Trump, and more fear of actually placing Trump in a position to straight ignore the court, which he will do. There is likely a pragmatic view that if they appear to remain relevant they might continue to have some power, even though they already don't.

ethbr1 11mo ago
It would have precedent in the Supreme Court... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Political_dilemma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison#Political_d...
Larrikin 11mo ago
They could have let him go to jail before the election instead of ruling that the president is a king.
- ethbr1 11mo ago
  There's pros and cons to that decision. At the very least, it's not great to send an ex-president who still has substantial support to prison while same ex-president is also spouting conspiracy theories about election fraud and deep state. That doesn't end well. On the other hand, a strong executive is a feature of the American political system and has its benefits. Imho, my hope is that the Supreme Court punted on that one by deliberately leaving "official acts of office" vague. And that if push came to shove, election related activities would be defined as not part of presidential duties.
  - ocdtrekkie 11mo ago
    I think this is a hindsight is 20/20 issue. In 2021, we really should've prosecuted Trump and sent him to prison. We wouldn't be dealing with the incredible litany of crimes and economic damage we deal with now if we had. But in 2021, I don't think anyone seriously imagined Trump would actually be President again, and if you don't think he'll actually have any power, yeah, in 2021 it probably looked like a bad optics thing that probably wouldn't make any positive impact to do. And not for nothing, we were also still very much in the middle of COVID-19 as an active crisis.
    - ryandrake 11mo ago
      > But in 2021, I don't think anyone seriously imagined Trump would actually be President again I don't think anyone who spends any significant time around the Trump cult would say this. These people are absolutely devoted to and worship him. When he lost in 2020, my first thought is, he's going to run again in 2024 and every election thereafter until he's dead, and he'll get tens of millions of votes each time.
    - ethbr1 11mo ago
      I'd make the case that even if you thought he wasn't going to run again / would lose, it would be a bad idea to send him to prison on a less than black and white charge. The clearest Constitutional line would have been impeachment, but the current Republican party cult nixed that one. At some point, preserving widespread support (including Trump supporters) of elections and the judiciary is more important than not having a dumbass in office for 4 years. To say nothing of the worst outcome if he had been sent to prison and won an election.