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

[John Savard]

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

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:42:19 -0600, John Savard

Post by John Savard
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.