Dear Internet:
#SCOTUS holding that the President can't be prosecuted for official acts does *not* mean, under *any* non-frivolous reading, that the *federal government,* including all of its officers, is immune from civil suits for *its* official acts.
There's just no equivalency between the two.
#SCOTUS holding that the President can't be prosecuted for official acts does *not* mean, under *any* non-frivolous reading, that the *federal government,* including all of its officers, is immune from civil suits for *its* official acts.
There's just no equivalency between the two.
Comments
We need people with moral courage to say no.
An interesting question is whether a reduced DOJ will be able to effectively argue the onslaught of civil litigation.
I mean, D-list level of federal attorneys.
But for now, we have yet to play that round of Legal Calvinball
https://bsky.app/profile/refreshing.bsky.social/post/3lgj77jjvds2a
I mean, obviously you're right, and that's no defense at all, and the actions need to be unwound, but I feel like they're just going to say random shit, and hope for delays.
Any chance we're going to get a Karen's Korner from @ksvesq.bsky.social on Thursday, politics permitting? We need some normalcy. 😅
I know presidential pardons can negate federal criminal liability but can they negate federal civil liability?
I’m not excusing or normalizing any of it, of course. But the gap between wrong and remedy really matters here.
There is No Rule of Law
Just persecution of the poor
Like walking around with a wallet full of Trump Bucks.
Given that context, again, please explain the relevance of the pardon power... specifically...
That doesn't mean SCOTUS can't rule that the officials acted unconstitutionally and overturn any orders or official actions.
They also ruled against taking all of the 2020 election cases. If they were as much in Trump's bag as ...
I'm not saying they won't rule in his favor on these EOs. But they won't go with everything he wants resulting in an end to the Constitution. B/c that puts them out of a job.
But they are doing a shock and awe attack to throw everything on the wall and see what sticks and in what form.
Really?
okay.
But I'm no legal scholar, so I'm just postulating....
The ruling is clear that it is only about personal criminal liability while the person is President.
If the test fails, a lot of things will happen very quickly but Trump's power COMES FROM that document, so it's chaos.
much as it is a realistic assessment of the facts. I’m not saying that SCOTUS won’t side with Trump on any of these.
But they will do so based on an interpretation of executive power under the Constitution or other issues.
It won’t be done b/c the immunity decision governs.
There’s no equivalency, yet. Give Uncle Tom and the Supremes some time.
Democracy can't protect itself from voters voting in rulers instead of leaders.
And immunity for official acts is intended only for POTUS? If not, then what are the consequences to implement vs to refuse to carry out an illegal or unconstitutional command by POTUS?
Loyalty over law?