3 ms·

"For official acts under core constitutional powers". Arresting all his political enemies is not a core constitutional power (still less having them executed).

"For official acts under core constitutional powers". Arresting all his political enemies is not a core constitutional power (still less having them executed). Everyone is spinning this as "total immunity". It's not. At least, it's not worded that way. What's actually going to happen is that, the first time someone tries to prosecute it, it's going to go all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court, as it is constituted at that time, will judge whether the action in question was an official act under core constitutional powers. Until then, we don't actually know what that line looks like. I suspect it's going to be less blanket than everyone seems to be assuming... but we will see.

acdha 10mo ago
It’s conditional immunity: the Roberts court is openly an instrument of Republican power, but they knew there was a good chance that the Democrats would win an election and so the ruling was carefully crafted to allow them to pick the opposite outcome if a Democrat were accused of abuse of power. You can see a similar play at work with the unprecedented use of the shadow docket to prevent lower courts from restraining the executive branch without having to take credit for positions which are highly dubious from a constitutional standpoint. If the political tides shift, they can quietly unblock the lower court’s ruling and pretend they hadn’t deliberately given this administration a window of opportunity without creating a permanent precedent empowering a future Democratic administration.
- disgruntledphd2 10mo ago
  Yup, I really hoped that it might not get this bad, but the Roberts court is basically doing what the Federalist society has been aiming towards for the past 40-50 years, and it's very very sad for all of the US (longterm, this benefits absolutely no-one except autocrats).
JohnBooty 10mo ago
Arresting all his political enemies is not a core constitutional power Unless he leaves a smoking gun in the vein of a note saying "kill this guy I don't like" -- and perhaps not even then -- nothing will happen. What he will do is... what he is already doing. What every dictator for hundreds of years has done. His enemies will be persecuted and prosecuted under the guise of legal action: tax fraud, national security, whatever. The sort of compromat that exists, or can be fabricated to exist, for every single person on Earth. To even have a hope of stopping Trump (or any other POTUS) there would have to be clear proof of malicious intent completely divorced from his job duties, and you'd need a Congress or Supreme Court that gave half a shit about opposing him.
- disgruntledphd2 10mo ago
  > Unless he leaves a smoking gun in the vein of a note saying "kill this guy I don't like" -- and perhaps not even then -- nothing will happen. This has literally already happpened [0]. [0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-accidentally-posted-message-pressuring-pam-bondi-charge-enemies-rcna236830 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-ac...
jfengel 10mo ago
If they are accused of crimes, then arresting people is not just a power but a mandate. If they just so happen to be his political enemies, that does not make them exempt. If he happens to be dumb enough to say "Arrest Chuck Schumer without charge because I don't like him", then maybe the court might see that as outside his powers. But he has been accusing his political enemies of crimes for years; he'd only have to pick one of them and have them arrested for it. We don't make Presidents justify their actions as core powers. If we believe that he ordered an unjustifiable arrest, the burden of proof would be on us.
- AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
  Let's say, hypothetically, that the president was taking tariff revenue and transferring it into a Trump-owned bank account rather than into the Treasury. Yeah, you'd have to prove it. But that would absolutely be outside the scope of his legitimate presidential power. In real life, it wouldn't be that simple. There would be a veil of plausibility, and so it would be harder to prove. But I claim that he can still be prosecuted. He has the presumption that what he does is within the scope of his office; the burden of proof is very much on the prosecution. But he does not have complete immunity.
  - jfengel 10mo ago
    Complete, no. But the combination of the expansive powers given to him by the court, and the difficulties of burden of proof, means that it's hard to imagine him being successfully prosecuted for just about anything. I think that includes persecution of political opponents. Maybe not for a capital offense, though I wouldn't be so sure. Treason is poorly defined and has capital consequences.

acdha 10mo ago

It’s conditional immunity: the Roberts court is openly an instrument of Republican power, but they knew there was a good chance that the Democrats would win an election and so the ruling was carefully crafted to allow them to pick the opposite outcome if a Democrat were accused of abuse of power. You can see a similar play at work with the unprecedented use of the shadow docket to prevent lower courts from restraining the executive branch without having to take credit for positions which are highly dubious from a constitutional standpoint. If the political tides shift, they can quietly unblock the lower court’s ruling and pretend they hadn’t deliberately given this administration a window of opportunity without creating a permanent precedent empowering a future Democratic administration.

disgruntledphd2 10mo ago
Yup, I really hoped that it might not get this bad, but the Roberts court is basically doing what the Federalist society has been aiming towards for the past 40-50 years, and it's very very sad for all of the US (longterm, this benefits absolutely no-one except autocrats).

JohnBooty 10mo ago

Arresting all his political enemies is not a core constitutional power Unless he leaves a smoking gun in the vein of a note saying "kill this guy I don't like" -- and perhaps not even then -- nothing will happen. What he will do is... what he is already doing. What every dictator for hundreds of years has done. His enemies will be persecuted and prosecuted under the guise of legal action: tax fraud, national security, whatever. The sort of compromat that exists, or can be fabricated to exist, for every single person on Earth. To even have a hope of stopping Trump (or any other POTUS) there would have to be clear proof of malicious intent completely divorced from his job duties, and you'd need a Congress or Supreme Court that gave half a shit about opposing him.

disgruntledphd2 10mo ago
> Unless he leaves a smoking gun in the vein of a note saying "kill this guy I don't like" -- and perhaps not even then -- nothing will happen. This has literally already happpened [0]. [0]: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-accidentally-posted-message-pressuring-pam-bondi-charge-enemies-rcna236830 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/trump-ac...

jfengel 10mo ago

If they are accused of crimes, then arresting people is not just a power but a mandate. If they just so happen to be his political enemies, that does not make them exempt. If he happens to be dumb enough to say "Arrest Chuck Schumer without charge because I don't like him", then maybe the court might see that as outside his powers. But he has been accusing his political enemies of crimes for years; he'd only have to pick one of them and have them arrested for it. We don't make Presidents justify their actions as core powers. If we believe that he ordered an unjustifiable arrest, the burden of proof would be on us.

AnimalMuppet 10mo ago
Let's say, hypothetically, that the president was taking tariff revenue and transferring it into a Trump-owned bank account rather than into the Treasury. Yeah, you'd have to prove it. But that would absolutely be outside the scope of his legitimate presidential power. In real life, it wouldn't be that simple. There would be a veil of plausibility, and so it would be harder to prove. But I claim that he can still be prosecuted. He has the presumption that what he does is within the scope of his office; the burden of proof is very much on the prosecution. But he does not have complete immunity.
- jfengel 10mo ago
  Complete, no. But the combination of the expansive powers given to him by the court, and the difficulties of burden of proof, means that it's hard to imagine him being successfully prosecuted for just about anything. I think that includes persecution of political opponents. Maybe not for a capital offense, though I wouldn't be so sure. Treason is poorly defined and has capital consequences.