It Is Impossible to Be Too Alarmed About the Immunity Decision
Added 2024-07-05 07:30:00 +0000 UTCOA1048
This decision is absolutely outrageous. It is in the hall of fame of worst Supreme Court Decisions in our nation's history. It's that bad. As such, we recorded a ton, there is yelling involved. And cursing. And we even did an extra length patron episode to answer some of your questions.
Neil Gorsuch recently promised that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on presidential immunity would be one “for the ages,” and Chief Justice John Roberts has certainly delivered here. In this special episode recorded on the 248th anniversary of history’s most famous rejection of monarchical tyranny, we review the historical context and (alleged) legal foundations of Trump v. U.S. (July 1, 2024). How much power has the Supreme Court just given future presidents? Are the unusually stark warnings of the authoritarian consequences of this decision from the liberal dissenters as “disproportionate” as Roberts claims, or are they exactly proportionate to the broad protections against investigation and prosecution which it seems to provide?
Matt shares his perspective from nearly two decades of working with people seeking asylum from failed (and failing) democracies, and we close with our hopes for a better American future.
Trump’s motion to dismiss DC federal charges on the basis of presidential immunity
DC Circuit’s unanimous decision affirming denial of Trump’s motion to dismiss
Comments
I’m a licensed Texas attorney who lives in Austin. I heard a lot about the Daniel Perry case (the guy Abbott pardoned) in part because of my husband’s connections (criminal defense attorney). That trial was held in Travis County, where Austin is located. While I can’t speak with certainty about the makeup of the jury, I can say for certain that Travis County, and Austin, is Blue. Despite Austin being the seat of TX government, it is about as liberal as a city can be, notwithstanding it being in Texas. So. Likely the jury was not very conservative. That said, they still came to the right decision.
Democratize the Law
2024-07-14 18:03:06 +0000 UTCWe need some major black flag Henry Rollins influenced punk rock to come back and teach all the young people about how fucked up things are getting punk rock hell yeah
Oso Hermoso
2024-07-09 02:31:46 +0000 UTCWe need some major black flag Henry Rollins influencde punk rock to come back and teach all the young people about how fucked up things are getting punk rock hell yeah
Oso Hermoso
2024-07-09 02:18:25 +0000 UTCAnyone else notice Matt says that John Adams was the 3rd president? He was the 2nd president. Jefferson was 3rd.
David Crafti
2024-07-08 06:11:07 +0000 UTCMaga would still try to prosecute Obama for wearing the tan suit if they could. They don’t want immunity, they want power no matter what it costs or who it hurts.
Katie Byrum
2024-07-07 21:03:31 +0000 UTCNot from America, still scared by the precedent... Isn't the force of the decision to prevent a (hostile) congress/senate from criminalising [innocuous official act X] And being as it is that the corrupt among us telegraph their wet dreams - is that their plan also? Maybe then, once their president is in power, that president will decree the act _un_official, and open Biden up for prosecution... Please, America, please save yourself
I am a philosophical hole
2024-07-07 12:10:30 +0000 UTCNo. There is no affirmative action taken to vacate the presidency. The presidency ends on a specific date and time. The election and inauguration of the next president does not end the current presidency. So some official acts might be taken to prevent the inauguration of the next president but that would, from a legal point of view, simply leave the presidency vacant.
Drew Vogel
2024-07-06 19:11:20 +0000 UTCThe best part is that I don't even know what it conveys! I had no context to visualize what "borking" is so my brain had the fill in the blanks. Given the word that followed it, one could imagine an Urban Dictionary definition that went in a different direction lol. If anything I was confused why it didn't get a laugh.
Jon C
2024-07-06 18:24:55 +0000 UTCI do see upon reading that back that "borked Cox" does seem to convey something much more sillier than I had intended
Matt Cameron
2024-07-06 18:02:56 +0000 UTC“He Borked Cox” sounds mighty … um … personal!
Emma Joy Jampole
2024-07-06 04:23:34 +0000 UTCLol I was kind of hoping that it was pure silliness, but I'm glad to have learned something from it!
Jon C
2024-07-05 22:59:22 +0000 UTC"Borked" is officially a verb, at least in legal English. It really means more keeping someone from getting a job than firing them from one but I couldn't resist
Matt Cameron
2024-07-05 22:51:15 +0000 UTCThis is effing scary.
Maria Kladaki
2024-07-05 21:18:27 +0000 UTCPeople. Get out of your homes. Go to the streets, wake up your fellow Americans. Go to your senators, go to your governors, make it CLEAR: The only issue to guide your vote will be impeachment of this SCOTUS and maybe Constitutional amendments. But you have to amass the people
Maria Kladaki
2024-07-05 21:17:39 +0000 UTCDoing a coup by directing the military to prevent your successor from taking office? Immunity. You get immunity, you get immunity ... ALL YOU PRESIDENTS GET IMMUNITY!!
Vehicular Man's Laughter ... Oh I just realized it's 'car' from WTW ... he's so good at Codenames he can play it blind
2024-07-05 21:09:51 +0000 UTCI'm dumb, honest question, can't the *government* still by liable? Can trump pardon *an institution of government* for a crime? Could *the office* be held liable for a crime that Trump the person could not be?
Jon C
2024-07-05 18:25:18 +0000 UTCOk so I'm a queer person married to a queer person. We fly a pride flag in our yard. Call me crazy, but I'm terrified that in a few months that flag is going to become a target for political violence, even by some of my neighbors. What the fuck am I supposed to do? Taking it down is tantamount to kowtowing to fascists. Leaving it up could land me in a camp someday soon.
Unlikable Internet Goblin
2024-07-05 18:25:03 +0000 UTC"He borked Cox" did I hear that correctly, Matt?
Jon C
2024-07-05 17:50:17 +0000 UTCId like to know this too
Reese
2024-07-05 17:02:05 +0000 UTCSo basically Roberts is Jar Jar Binks and he just made Trump Emperor. Not a perfect analogy I realize but I really just want to refer to Roberts as Chief Justice Jar Jar for the rest of his tenure.
Ariadne Jewell
2024-07-05 16:14:48 +0000 UTCOn the show Matt mentioned mutual aid. Another big proponent of mutual aid is Robert Evans. His podcast It Could Happen Here seems particularly relevant this week. Perhaps he would make a good guest for the 2025 anniversary of this decision, recorded from an undisclosed location in Canada?
Drew Vogel
2024-07-05 16:12:24 +0000 UTCIt seems like all of the key facts in the insurrection case are undisputed by the defense. Their argument is that everything happened as the prosecution says it did but it was all legal. The Trump v US decision seems to prevent a similar case from getting as far as it has. The presumption makes it difficult to avoid a motion to dismiss (I think?). If you survive that motion then being unable to probe motivations makes it nearly Impossible to obtain evidence to establish mens rea. However both of those hurdles have been overcome in this case. So if I was judge Chutkan I would say in light of Trump vs US, since we cannot probe motivations then it must also be unnecessary to establish motivation in this case and rely on the admission of the defendant as a sole basis for conviction. This would obviously go right back to the supreme court but isn't forcing them to clarify (and hopefully constrain) some of this decision our best hope at avoiding the worst? What legal principles or federal procedures would be violated if they were to follow this approach? For the record, I think Chutkan should say "since the Supreme Court of the United States has chosen to make itself irrelevant with their opinion in Trump vs U.S. this case will continue without regard to that decision". There is never, ever going to be a better opportunity for the federal courts to avoid the complete disqualification and irrelevance of the supreme court and by extension the judicial branch more generally.
Drew Vogel
2024-07-05 16:02:32 +0000 UTCWould "refusing to vacate the Presidency" be considered an "official act"?
Timothy High
2024-07-05 15:40:45 +0000 UTCOh it was still a big part, the thing I didn’t realize is he weasel worded it so as not to technically commit to it. It’s not something he did just once or twice, it was a consistent part of his campaign. In my recollection I gave him too much credit and thought he changed his mind later and went back on a promise after the fact as the political reality shifted, instead of lying about it by implication the entire time.
Test Ease Interpreter
2024-07-05 14:44:38 +0000 UTCAre there places where only the federal government has jurisdiction such that no state crime (like murder) can be prosecuted?
Apprentice of Adventure
2024-07-05 14:24:10 +0000 UTC2024: US Supreme Court grants immunity to the leader of US for official acts. 1934 German Parliaments grants immunity to the leader of Germany for official acts. 🥴
Udo אודו
2024-07-05 13:42:51 +0000 UTCOk, I have to admit that I was in the group of people thinking "why is everyone so mad? they only granted immunity for official acts, and surely interfering in an election isn't an official act?" but this episode has shown me the error of my ways. shame on me for thinking this court was reasonable in any way. Thomas also inspired this meme: https://imgflip.com/i/8w0o19
can I get a CHEE-HOOOOO
2024-07-05 13:38:21 +0000 UTCSo it went from "a big part" and a "promise" to a vague implication? Sounds like a reach to me.
Jason Valasek
2024-07-05 13:23:17 +0000 UTCUSA, it's time to stop being ridiculous and pack up your toys, or the grownups will take them away. Umm... grownups?? Nope.. they're too busy trying to form some kind of mutant transeuropean fascist party. As you were
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-07-05 12:34:14 +0000 UTC“Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise” Appearing to promise it without technically saying the words is worse not better.
Test Ease Interpreter
2024-07-05 10:40:13 +0000 UTCHe never made that promise. https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/4718993-did-biden-break-his-one-term-pledge/
Michael McElroy
2024-07-05 10:29:16 +0000 UTC“Even under more liberal presidents they don’t give up power” Remember than a big part of Joe Biden’s first presidential campaign was a promise that he would only be a one term president and would step aside for someone younger in 2024.
Test Ease Interpreter
2024-07-05 10:06:57 +0000 UTC
