What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Jacob]

If Biden loses he should carry out a coup, then. First order if business should be to arrest perfidious Supreme Court justices.

[HVC]

Soon Sulla shall emerge once more.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you want to look at things from the glass half full perspective, America had almost a 250-year run as a functioning democracy, which is pretty good by historical standards. We'll always have those fond memories to look back on.

[The Minsky Moment]

If Biden loses he should carry out a coup, then. First order if business should be to arrest perfidious Supreme Court justices.

Sure, he could order the AG to arrest them and detain them on nonsense charges.
He could order the military to stick them in black hoods and dump them in Gitmo as suspected terrorists
He could order the military to kill them as rebellious traitors.

Doesn't matter if any of it is true - under the Court's opinion all of that would be immune from prosecution.

[The Minsky Moment]

As to all the gobbledygook in the opinion about official vs unofficial acts, let me cut through the verbiage from my perspective as a trial lawyer. The opinion is written to leave open the potential of a prosecution based on unofficial acts in theory while denying any reasonable way to pursue such a successful prosecution in practice.

[frunk]

I think Biden's infirmity is no longer a bug but a feature.  The only way to make sure US democracy continues is if we have presidents incapable of using their presidential powers.

[Sheilbh]

As to all the gobbledygook in the opinion about official vs unofficial acts, let me cut through the verbiage from my perspective as a trial lawyer. The opinion is written to leave open the potential of a prosecution based on unofficial acts in theory while denying any reasonable way to pursue such a successful prosecution in practice.

Also presumably to argue it's just an extension of the Nixon case? (That was civil liability right?)

[Valmy]

I think Biden's infirmity is no longer a bug but a feature.  The only way to make sure US democracy continues is if we have presidents incapable of using their presidential powers.

Oh there is an endless list of conspiracy theories one might come up with to explain why the Democrats insist on running this guy. That is an unusually noble one though   

[The Minsky Moment]

As to all the gobbledygook in the opinion about official vs unofficial acts, let me cut through the verbiage from my perspective as a trial lawyer. The opinion is written to leave open the potential of a prosecution based on unofficial acts in theory while denying any reasonable way to pursue such a successful prosecution in practice.

Also presumably to argue it's just an extension of the Nixon case? (That was civil liability right?)

Yes, ironically for a court majority whose interpretive hallmark is invoking original meaning and "history and tradition" grounded in late 18th century understanding, the Court almost exclusively relies on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a civil case for damages against Nixon decided in the 1980s.  But the reliance on Fitzgerald is bizarre and preverse, because the court in Fitzgerald specifically relied on the distinction between civil and criminal actions to find immunity appropriate:

"When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests -- as when the Court acts not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra -- the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not."

This is a classic example of what conservatives used to attack the Warren Court for doing: making up rules of law on the spot without any supporting text or precedent - indeed, contrary to such text and precedent - purely on the basis of the Court's analysis of policy rationales.

[Valmy]

Yes, ironically for a court majority whose interpretive hallmark is invoking original meaning and "history and tradition" grounded in late 18th century understanding, the Court almost exclusively relies on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a civil case for damages against Nixon decided in the 1980s.  But the reliance on Fitzgerald is bizarre and preverse, because the court in Fitzgerald specifically relied on the distinction between civil and criminal actions to find immunity appropriate:

"When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests -- as when the Court acts not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra -- the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not."

This is a classic example of what conservatives use to attack the Warren Court for doing: making up rules of law on the spot without any supporting text or precedent - indeed, contrary to such text and precedent - purely on the basis of the Court's analysis of policy rationales.

Oh so Presidential immunity is not in the Federalist Papers? James Madison didn't answer anti-Federalist concerns that the President was going to be like a King by saying "basically, isn't that great?"

[HVC]

Yes, ironically for a court majority whose interpretive hallmark is invoking original meaning and "history and tradition" grounded in late 18th century understanding, the Court almost exclusively relies on Nixon v. Fitzgerald, a civil case for damages against Nixon decided in the 1980s.  But the reliance on Fitzgerald is bizarre and preverse, because the court in Fitzgerald specifically relied on the distinction between civil and criminal actions to find immunity appropriate:

"When judicial action is needed to serve broad public interests -- as when the Court acts not in derogation of the separation of powers, but to maintain their proper balance, cf. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, supra, or to vindicate the public interest in an ongoing criminal prosecution, see United States v. Nixon, supra -- the exercise of jurisdiction has been held warranted. In the case of this merely private suit for damages based on a President's official acts, we hold it is not."

This is a classic example of what conservatives use to attack the Warren Court for doing: making up rules of law on the spot without any supporting text or precedent - indeed, contrary to such text and precedent - purely on the basis of the Court's analysis of policy rationales.

Oh so Presidential immunity is not in the Federalist Papers? James Madison didn't answer anti-Federalist concerns that the President was going to be like a King by saying "basically, isn't that great?"

Washington should have taken the American crown. Maybe you'd have a functioning parliamentary system now

[Grey Fox]

If Biden loses he should carry out a coup, then. First order if business should be to arrest perfidious Supreme Court justices.

Why wait? The US Military should be arresting any Republican officials right now.

[crazy canuck]

Republic of the United States of America, it's been nice knowing you. Sorry to see you go. 

[Zanza]

Is only the President immune or also the people that follow his orders?

[Zanza]

If Biden loses he should carry out a coup, then. First order if business should be to arrest perfidious Supreme Court justices.

Why wait until the election?