A Different Kind of #RapidResponse Friday
Added 2024-07-03 22:31:09 +0000 UTCWe've got our topic but would love to hear from you all!
For Friday's episode, we'll be covering the Supreme Court's decision on presidential immunity. What questions do you have? And be sure to heart your favorites in the thread to help us prioritize coverage!
Comments
Can you explain the legality of this recent trend of anti class action lawsuit waivers many companies are now incorporating? Printer driver update example: https://photos.app.goo.gl/tGE2H5yHsyHKDyCQ6 Website example: https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us.html
Raymond Szebert
2024-07-04 22:17:21 +0000 UTC@Susan Nope. The Congress can pass any law they want governing how they will respond to SCOTUS justice proposals from POTUS, but future Congresses can repeal or replace that any time they feel like it, and Congress certainly can't use simple legislation to place new limitations on the Constitutional powers of the presidency (i.e. president can only consider candidates proposed by Congress, rather than vice versa). The only way to change the SCOTUS selection system we have now (President proposes a new justice, Senate confirms) is via Constitutional amendment.
Chris Conley
2024-07-04 18:40:06 +0000 UTCIf Biden loses, can he and Harris follow through with the fake elector scheme Pence refused to do? It sounds like it would have worked, and there's no down side to trying.
General Jigglypuff
2024-07-04 18:11:19 +0000 UTCThat’s what I thought but heard some pundits claiming that this ruling would directly impact impeachments.
Kate
2024-07-04 17:39:38 +0000 UTCTruly it’s making studying for Constitutional Law torture because it’s like, should I just assume they won’t test us on this topic? Should I try to remember the old rules? To be fair, I’m busy studying the “law of nowhere” in half the other subjects, but at least those are supposed to be a farce
Jenessa Lynn
2024-07-04 14:29:14 +0000 UTCThat is and has always been the deciding factor in holding anyone at all legally accountable for criminal acts.
Chris Conley
2024-07-04 14:11:22 +0000 UTCYou should sue them for rewriting the rules underpinning the bar every session.
Chris Conley
2024-07-04 14:08:15 +0000 UTCGorsuch has shown a willingness to buck the conservative line on issues he cares about like native rights. Barrett might be the smartest, but that ideology...
Chris Conley
2024-07-04 14:05:14 +0000 UTCYeah the House can impeach for anything and everything they feel like.
Chris Conley
2024-07-04 14:00:16 +0000 UTCThat's why at least four of the six need to be the first target of the funniest thing ever.
Chris Conley
2024-07-04 13:58:23 +0000 UTCAllied question - Is Barrett the best of the Trump-appointed Judges or are they all as bad as one another? (I've seen some left-leaning lawyers say that Barrett writes well and has shown herself to be an independent thinker even when they don't agree with her ideology. Agree? Disagree Matt?)
Kaetrin Allen
2024-07-04 08:04:46 +0000 UTCI think MAGA-SCOTUS will have different rules for Democratic presidents.
Kaetrin Allen
2024-07-04 08:02:23 +0000 UTCThat's my main question too. If the Democrats win big in November and then go on to expand the Court, could the the new and expanded SCOTUS go on to review this case when inevitably Judge Chutkan's decision on what is and isn't an official act comes back up? Beyond that, what is actually doable in the sense that it is feasible to happen. Do you think Democrats would actually expand the court? Is impeachment of Justices a realistic option?
Kaetrin Allen
2024-07-04 08:01:21 +0000 UTCRight, I do get that. I just mean that if they really wanted to, say, go after Obama for that, they could just argue it was outside the authority of his position and thus not an official act. That's pretty much why I'm asking the question, because it seems like the political will to prosecute, convict, and not overturn has always been and will still continue to be the primary deciding factor in actually holding presidents legally accountable for criminal acts.
Michael Morrisson
2024-07-04 03:30:59 +0000 UTCI don’t get why no one tried to prosecute Obama for that murder (or anyone who participated in carrying it out), but he did have some legal cover. This decision makes it clear that it’s 100% immune from prosecution even without the most frivolous shred of justification being necessary.
Apprentice of Adventure
2024-07-04 01:59:35 +0000 UTCBasically this discussion on the OA Facebook (a quick back and forth between me and a couple others that I can copy here if it's easier): https://www.facebook.com/share/p/d2bvseM5KjfqPjut/?mibextid=oFDknk
Matt Barber
2024-07-04 01:39:22 +0000 UTCMy question is simply; how does the ruling on presidential immunity functionally change how presidents can behave? I understand the outrage and in fact share it because even if it changes absolutely nothing, philosophically speaking, this ruling goes against the very foundations this country was laid upon. They want to mind-read lawmakers and the writers of the constitution, but then just blatantly turn a blind-eye when it suits them. Beyond infuriatiing... That all said, under the system of government prior to this ruling, Trump was the first former president EVER to be charged with a crime and there have undoubtedly been presidents who have committed crimes while in office. Hell, people are talking a lot about how this ruling opens up the president ordering assassinations when Obama already did assassinate a US citizen and was never remotely held accountable for it. Surely going forward, if this ruling isn't overturned, because of the distinction between official and unofficial acts, it will still come down to whether or not the political will is present to punish a president and if that will is there, they will simply say whatever the president did, did not constitute an official act. Again, I am NOT saying that this ruling isn't a big deal or that it doesn't matter. What I am saying is that I don't understand how it practically changes how we've been treating presidents for the entire history of this country until Trump.
Michael Morrisson
2024-07-04 01:39:04 +0000 UTCCouple the six subversive extremists immunity ruling with their bribery ruling to gage their morality and how they might rule on a President ordering an assassination. Excerpt: There were 2,243 drone strikes in the first two years of the Trump presidency https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207
Susan
2024-07-04 00:41:11 +0000 UTCA whole slate of amendments to fix the Roberts Court bungles would be great: 1. Citizens United - permit caps on spending by explicitly segregating money from speech 2. Dobbs - recognize a right to bodily autonomy/healthcare decision-making 3. Trump - explicit denial of presidential immunity (was thinking about this on the commute home and thought it might be ratifiable in deep red states with a provision that it only applies to acts committed after ratification) I *think* most other bungles are fixable by Congress (e.g., amend the APA to reinstate Chevron deference, amend "666" to be more clear (lol) on "rewards" and more)
Vehicular Man's Laughter ... Oh I just realized it's 'car' from WTW ... he's so good at Codenames he can play it blind
2024-07-04 00:41:04 +0000 UTCThis will sound facetious but in all seriousness... it feels we are reaching the point of genuine need for an OA spin-off mini-series that basically amounts to the legal version of practical survival prep. What kind of things do people, especially those most vulnerable with increasing losses of civil rights alongside rule of law and regulatory protections, need to get in order, legally and practically, in a country rapidly descending into fascism and institutional & societal collapse at every level?
Patreonymous
2024-07-04 00:20:30 +0000 UTCWhy did Roberts include “The President isn’t above the law” as a stand alone sentence, but start the next sentence with “But”?
Susan
2024-07-04 00:08:04 +0000 UTCThen expand the SCOTUS. Can Congress pass a rule to require six justices chosen by Republican Senators and six chosen by Democratic Senators so we have 12 justices. Start by allowing the Democratic Senators to chose three so we’ll have six each.
Susan
2024-07-04 00:05:26 +0000 UTCI mean, it can. Sotomayor even stated those were the implications in her dissent. The limitation on that would be impeachment I suppose.
Brendan O'Brien
2024-07-03 23:58:53 +0000 UTCThis might be too basic; maybe most listeners know the answer. If Drew’s interpretation of Barrett’s concurrence is accurate, how do lower courts reconcile the two?
Susan
2024-07-03 23:56:09 +0000 UTCCan I sue the Supreme Court for distracting me from studying for the bar with this bullshit?
Jenessa Lynn
2024-07-03 23:45:12 +0000 UTC1. Is anyone working on a constitutional amendment to fix this? 2. After mulling this over pretty much constantly since the release, and knowing that Biden isn’t going to do anything crazy…what would it look like if Chutkan just ignored the immunity decision? Or went with something like a presumption of immunity for official acts, but one that can be rebutted by the evidence. And then everyone below SCOTUS just went along with that? Reasonable people can disagree about a lot of things. In almost every case, I can see where the other side is coming from, and even when they must torture the factual record, precedent, etc. they at least try to cloak it in some appearance of reasonableness, but this decision is IMO one with which NO reasonable person can possibly agree. And there’s essentially no hope of the only existing mechanism for fixing it to work in the foreseeable future (unless Dark Brandon scares the south straight). So what realistically can prevent this dramatic blow to the constitution other than the rest of the government refusing to comply?
Apprentice of Adventure
2024-07-03 23:40:51 +0000 UTCIn the wake of this ruling, and in the face of a very possible Trump presidency, what are your plans (broadly speaking)?
Philly Basement Bar is back open, and isn't taking this shit lying down.
2024-07-03 23:39:48 +0000 UTCI believe that’s what most people expected them to do, but no one seems to have predicted the rest of it.
Apprentice of Adventure
2024-07-03 23:32:12 +0000 UTCWhat discovery powers does Congress have during impeachment proceedings of SCOTUS justices?
Sean
2024-07-03 23:29:35 +0000 UTCDo the new rules of evidence apply to state-level prosecutions of presidents?
Sean
2024-07-03 23:19:38 +0000 UTCDo we have impeachment anymore, if POTUS can't commit high crimes and misdemeanors?
Erin Hutton
2024-07-03 23:11:29 +0000 UTCThe Declaration of Independence says "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,-That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Does this require a civil war, or can we somehow just demand better?
Erin Hutton
2024-07-03 23:07:29 +0000 UTCDoes the immunity for the president extend to preventing the same information from being used to prosecute his allies? I.E. if evidence can't be presented against him, could it be presented against Rudy? Additionally, if he is immune, can he be required to testify against someone who is not since he doesn't have to worry about 5th amendment issues, just like someone granted immunity by a prosecutor? If so, could he be penalized for contempt or perjury, as a separate crime, if he choses not to testify or lies when he does?
Michael Blank
2024-07-03 23:05:31 +0000 UTCJust a few questions on the ruling: 1. What? 2. The? 3. Fuck?
Fraa Paul
2024-07-03 23:04:38 +0000 UTCWhat can Biden do with the new power? Is there actually anything GOOD that can be done with criminal immunity?
Erin Hutton
2024-07-03 23:02:39 +0000 UTCStep -1: super majority in Senate. Majority in the house.
Bathing Atheist--cleanliness is next to godlessness
2024-07-03 23:02:35 +0000 UTCIf one assumes this is as bad as I've heard, and Trump wins the election, my question is: How much food should I stock in my bunker to wait out the inevitable shit storm that's going to happen?
Scott Seligman
2024-07-03 22:59:00 +0000 UTCBiden could order the treasury secretary to delete their records of loan holders and then pardon the secretary. Assuming the treasury keeps those records.
Frank Toro
2024-07-03 22:59:00 +0000 UTCBoth can be overturned by a future supreme court opinion, stare decisis is dead anyway. Abortion rights could also be codified through a law in congress (if not struct down by SCOTUS for some made up constitutional reason). This decision however, a law wouldn't be enough. It would have to be a constitutional amendment explicitly stating that the president doesnt have these powers..
Frank Toro
2024-07-03 22:56:17 +0000 UTCCan the official OA method for reading SCOTUS rulings be: start at the Jackson dissent?
Bathing Atheist--cleanliness is next to godlessness
2024-07-03 22:54:04 +0000 UTCThanks, Jed
Kate
2024-07-03 22:52:46 +0000 UTCHow fucked are we, and is there any way to unfuck this civilly?
Skiff
2024-07-03 22:52:18 +0000 UTCThat's not cynical--that's accurate.
Jed
2024-07-03 22:52:10 +0000 UTCNo impact on that, but as you noted, pretty much no chance of getting through the Senate....
Jed
2024-07-03 22:51:38 +0000 UTCUnrelated to the podcast, but I'd love to know how this moment compares to the end of the Weimar Republic from a historical perspective. This feels like the Enabling Act of 1933.
Frank Toro
2024-07-03 22:50:28 +0000 UTCWhat are the practical and procedural implications of the word "presumption" of immunity? This is being reported as the President having immunity for all official acts. The only other place I know of the word presumption used in the law is being presumed innocent until proven guilty. Are there any questions a court simply won't get able to probe because of this presumption? Or is this just a matter of degree like the difference between jury instructions in criminal vs civil cases? Second question, IANAL but when I read Barrett's concurrence it sounded more like a dissent to me. She said she agreed with the two parts that weren't very controversial and then focused all her disagreement on the meat of the opinion, the official acts. Call me crazy but the way I read it (probably wrong in many ways) it sounded like the most workable decision. Her focus on a two stage analysis seems to be much more principaled. Am I crazy?
Drew Vogel
2024-07-03 22:49:46 +0000 UTCMaybe I've just become too cynical but does anyone else think the court avoided the question of is and is not an official act in his Trump's trial in order to: 1. Delay the case further by allowing Trump to appeal the lower court's decision. 2. Clarify what is an official act once the time is right (aka Biden is out of office).
Frank Toro
2024-07-03 22:48:26 +0000 UTCIn the absence of legal remedy, will we see more vigilante action?
Argle bargle, claptrap and jibber-jabber
2024-07-03 22:47:18 +0000 UTCNow that SCOTUS has crowned him our current king, which felonies should Dark Brandon commit before leaving office?
Tara Churchill
2024-07-03 22:46:52 +0000 UTCOmg! I hope they pick this question!
KeepingThePlatesSpinning
2024-07-03 22:46:39 +0000 UTCSimply because the justices have the power to do what they want. They can rule on any question even if its not the one before the court and they have their own voluntary ethics rules.
Frank Toro
2024-07-03 22:44:51 +0000 UTCAre y’all ready to rejoin the UK. Asking for my friend Charlie.
127dot0dot0dot1
2024-07-03 22:44:39 +0000 UTCHow does this affect impeachment inquiries if a President can order the Executive Branch to stonewall subpoenas?
Rick & Sara
2024-07-03 22:42:50 +0000 UTCAlso how the hell does Justice Thomas issue that concurrence on an issue that isn't before the Court, that hasn't been briefed, and that Justice Thomas is thoroughly compromised on due to his wife's involvement in the scheme as an unindicted coconspirator?!
Jed
2024-07-03 22:42:44 +0000 UTCA. Impeach and remove justices. B. Expand the court. C. Constitutional amendment explicitly stating presidential powers and criminal liability.
Frank Toro
2024-07-03 22:42:40 +0000 UTCI'll be blunt with my question--do you have any hope for the future of the rule of law in the US? I'm finding it difficult to have faith--the President has become a King, under this Court no precedents seem safe; justices with massive conflicts of interest are nevertheless deciding cases; the entire field of administrative law has just been upended with SCOTUS setting itself up as the ultimate decider of administrative policy and allowing despotic judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk in tiny districts where the odds of getting them are high to be the ones to hear things at the lower levels; and with Corner Post, effectively doing away with statute of limitations for challenges, all regulatory decisions, no longer how old, are fair game to be heard anew under our new deferenceless standards. Whole subsets of administrative law, such as minor things like, oh, food, drugs, medical device and cosmetics safety, are all at risk of being upended. As a lawyer, it's hard not to feel like the judiciary has been fully politicized. It is baffling that Biden apparently doesn't have the power to forgive student loans under the HEROES Act, but apparently can use the military to round up and execute student loan servicers until they agree to forgive student loans, with the only punishment he might face being impeachment from office and nothing more.
Jed
2024-07-03 22:40:33 +0000 UTCIs there any way that this decision can be reversed a la Roe/Dobbs?
Donna W (uk listener)
2024-07-03 22:39:37 +0000 UTCHow will this affect impeachments of presidents? I know a president has a snowball’s chance of getting convicted and removed from office by the Senate but will it at all hamper an impeachment/indictment by the House?
Kate
2024-07-03 22:38:17 +0000 UTCI came here to basically post this
Tacos are a sandwich, change my mind
2024-07-03 22:37:45 +0000 UTCMy recommendation is: some people are looking to be calmed down, so maybe you start with “OK, it’s bad, we can’t deny that, but here are a few things it DOESN’T do.” A few things you think may be hyperbole, or misconstrued online. Then get to the bad stuff.
Mike
2024-07-03 22:37:32 +0000 UTCAlso, not a question, but F everything about the Clarence Thomas concurrence.
Bathing Atheist--cleanliness is next to godlessness
2024-07-03 22:37:08 +0000 UTCMainly what parts of the existing Trump trials are completely dead or possible affected, what a trial to determine if an act was official might look like, and if there is any historical or legal theory backing up the majority opinion. Side note, I dont understand how this fits into their theory of what is an official act at all: "And some Presidential conduct—for example, speaking to and on behalf of the American people, see Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701 (2018)—certainly can qualify as official even when not obviously connected to a particular constitutional or statutory provision."
Frank Toro
2024-07-03 22:36:40 +0000 UTCMy vote serious be to convince Biden to use the military to create 6 vacancies on the Supreme Court. That's legal now.
Help, I'm trapped in a podcast factory!
2024-07-03 22:36:15 +0000 UTCIs there any upside to the ruling. That is, can it help a law-abiding president in any way.
Bathing Atheist--cleanliness is next to godlessness
2024-07-03 22:36:03 +0000 UTCAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH?
No name
2024-07-03 22:35:10 +0000 UTCSecond question: How long before Canon comes up with a way to dismiss the document case?
Michael Rops
2024-07-03 22:34:57 +0000 UTCThe running joke of “Biden could do the funniest thing ever…” and have Seal Team 6 unalive a certain someone obviously can’t happen (i hope that it can’t). What is now within the President’s power because of this ruling?
Alexander Johnstone
2024-07-03 22:34:55 +0000 UTCIs this the end of the US legal system?
Argle bargle, claptrap and jibber-jabber
2024-07-03 22:34:45 +0000 UTCCan a president sleep in a park if they’re on the clock?
Austin Flake
2024-07-03 22:34:43 +0000 UTCI just have one question about this topic: WHAT THE ACTUAL EVERLOVING *FUCK* DO THEY THINK THEY ARE DOING!?!?!?!? That may not be a answerable question.
ADHDProgrammer
2024-07-03 22:34:32 +0000 UTCNot so much of a question but more of a weird, gross feeling of dread (scott?) But really, does this mean that Biden could order the justice department to investigate members of the Supreme Court for possible bribery, or possible order the military to send them to Guantánamo and it would be totally legal in their eyes?
Matt McLain
2024-07-03 22:34:28 +0000 UTCIf Matt were the prosecutor in DC what arguments would he make to include as much of the original indictment as he could?
Michael Rops
2024-07-03 22:34:19 +0000 UTCWTF?
MrHolbyta
2024-07-03 22:33:09 +0000 UTCIs Aileen Cannon immediately going to disqualify Jack Smith based on Justice Thomas's concurrence?
Dr. Clerk
2024-07-03 22:33:08 +0000 UTCSo now that the supreme court has fundamentally changed the game, how do we go about fixing it?
Itswulfy
2024-07-03 22:32:54 +0000 UTC
