What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[grumbler]

LegalEagle's analysis:

The title says it all:  "We're Fucked."

[Barrister]

LegalEagle's analysis:

The title says it all:  "We're Fucked."

So look - I respect Legal Eagle's hustle.  He's out there both working as an attorney plus running a very successful YouTube channel.  So he's almost certainly more successful at monetizing his law degree than I am.

But he primarily does very entertainment-focused youtube videos.  Commenting on the accuracy (or lack thereof) of legal scenes in popular culture.  And he does an admirable job of doing so.

But to the extent I've watched his videos they're really not even remotely in-depth legal analysis.

So while I deeply question the USSC's ruling in Trump v United States (as much as I can for not being a licensed US attorney), Legal Eagle's opinion on it doesn't move the needle one way or another for me.

[grumbler]

So look - I respect Legal Eagle's hustle.  He's out there both working as an attorney plus running a very successful YouTube channel.  So he's almost certainly more successful at monetizing his law degree than I am.

But he primarily does very entertainment-focused youtube videos.  Commenting on the accuracy (or lack thereof) of legal scenes in popular culture.  And he does an admirable job of doing so.

But to the extent I've watched his videos they're really not even remotely in-depth legal analysis.

So while I deeply question the USSC's ruling in Trump v United States (as much as I can for not being a licensed US attorney), Legal Eagle's opinion on it doesn't move the needle one way or another for me.

LE does do entertainment-focused videos, and is explicit about them being for entertainment.  Your conclusion here is essentially saying that any lawyer who sometimes tells jokes cannot be taken seriously in court.

I also reject your implicit assumption that only licensed US attorneys can have a meaningful opinion on the subject.

But I didn't post the vid for those who refuse to get anything out of it, so your opinion does not move me one way or the other.

[Barrister]

So look - I respect Legal Eagle's hustle.  He's out there both working as an attorney plus running a very successful YouTube channel.  So he's almost certainly more successful at monetizing his law degree than I am.

But he primarily does very entertainment-focused youtube videos.  Commenting on the accuracy (or lack thereof) of legal scenes in popular culture.  And he does an admirable job of doing so.

But to the extent I've watched his videos they're really not even remotely in-depth legal analysis.

So while I deeply question the USSC's ruling in Trump v United States (as much as I can for not being a licensed US attorney), Legal Eagle's opinion on it doesn't move the needle one way or another for me.

LE does do entertainment-focused videos, and is explicit about them being for entertainment.  Your conclusion here is essentially saying that any lawyer who sometimes tells jokes cannot be taken seriously in court.

I also reject your implicit assumption that only licensed US attorneys can have a meaningful opinion on the subject.

But I didn't post the vid for those who refuse to get anything out of it, so your opinion does not move me one way or the other.

It's amazing.  No matter how much "throat clearing" I try to do, no matter how much respect I give to the video you posted, it doesn't matter.  I didn't agree so therefore my opinion is meaningless.

Let's be clear - I didn't say Legal Eagle was wrong!  I am in fact troubled by the decision in Trump v United States.  Which means that yes - even people without law degrees (like you) - or people with law degrees who aren't licensed to practice in the US (like me) - are entitled to have an opinion.

I just don't find him effective as any kind of "appeal to authority".  His opinion is no stronger (or weaker) than yours.

[Sophie Scholl]

Out of curiosity, did you watch the video in question?

[crazy canuck]

Out of curiosity, did you watch the video in question?

Cause if he did he missed the in depth analysis of the decision

[grumbler]

It's amazing.  No matter how much "throat clearing" I try to do, no matter how much respect I give to the video you posted, it doesn't matter.  I didn't agree so therefore my opinion is meaningless.

Let's be clear - I didn't say Legal Eagle was wrong!  I am in fact troubled by the decision in Trump v United States.  Which means that yes - even people without law degrees (like you) - or people with law degrees who aren't licensed to practice in the US (like me) - are entitled to have an opinion.

I just don't find him effective as any kind of "appeal to authority".  His opinion is no stronger (or weaker) than yours.

Focusing on his "hustle" and mistakenly claiming that "he primarily does very entertainment-focused youtube videos" to "[monetize] his law degree" are not the compliments that you seem to believe that they are.

Posting his video here is no kind of "appeal to authority" so your argument hat I am engaging in a logical fallacy by sharing it is unwarranted.  The value of the video (which you don't seem to have watched, since you seem to believe that his opinion was what he was trying to communicate, rather than the facts of the case) is in its information content, not its (almost nonexistent) attempt to persuade.

[The Minsky Moment]

I didn't see the video.

There are Supreme Court cases that are very complicated to understand, with lots of nuance. Like interpreting ERISA, or Burford abstention, or the tax code.
This isn't one of those.

Right off the top the Court says the President has absolute immunity for core constitutional functions.  And a quick glance at Article II - there we go, Commander in Chief of the armed forces, directs the entire Executive branch - OK, game over. Yes there is more detail and that detail is important but in terms of the mammoth impact and the complete reversal of the entire rationale of the constitutional system, that first step is enough on its own.  Presidential powers are so extensive and so impactful that absolute immunity effectively means unchecked absolute power for anyone who chooses to wield it.

[The Minsky Moment]

What is truly perverse is that decision is both a road map and an encouragement to abuse of power, at least as directed to Trumpian personality inclined to exploit such opportunities.  Yes the decision holds that unofficial acts can be prosecuted. But that just means that if the President wants to commit a terrible crime, then it can and should be done through direct abuse of Presidential powers.  Do everything officially. If you want to steal an election, don't do it through campaign intermediaries or playing footsie with outside lawyers, get some thuggish flunky of an acting attorney general to use the full powers of the US government to steal it as a matter of administration policy, using some complete bullshit enforcement rationale.

[crazy canuck]

What is truly perverse is that decision is both a road map and an encouragement to abuse of power, at least as directed to Trumpian personality inclined to exploit such opportunities.  Yes the decision holds that unofficial acts can be prosecuted. But that just means that if the President wants to commit a terrible crime, then it can and should be done through direct abuse of Presidential powers.  Do everything officially. If you want to steal an election, don't do it through campaign intermediaries or playing footsie with outside lawyers, get some thuggish flunky of an acting attorney general to use the full powers of the US government to steal it as a matter of administration policy, using some complete bullshit enforcement rationale.

As I read the decision I wondered if the dissenting judges wondered at the wisdom of explaining in stark terms what the majority decision means.

[Syt]

I didn't see the video.

There are Supreme Court cases that are very complicated to understand, with lots of nuance. Like interpreting ERISA, or Burford abstention, or the tax code.
This isn't one of those.

Right off the top the Court says the President has absolute immunity for core constitutional functions.  And a quick glance at Article II - there we go, Commander in Chief of the armed forces, directs the entire Executive branch - OK, game over. Yes there is more detail and that detail is important but in terms of the mammoth impact and the complete reversal of the entire rationale of the constitutional system, that first step is enough on its own.  Presidential powers are so extensive and so impactful that absolute immunity effectively means unchecked absolute power for anyone who chooses to wield it.

Besides the absolute immunity for core constitutional functions, did I understand the ruling correctly that for all other "official functions" the immunity applies if criminal prosecution could in any way hinder the discharge of said function, or the functioning of government?

Plus, that the motive of the President plays no role in the assessment of authority? (And that any documents that fall under any of the immunity clauses can not be used as evidence in cases - if any remain - where the President can be prosecuted?

Can someone explain to me like I'm five years old how these supposed "originalists" argue for this immunity as being in the intention of the Founding Fathers (Peace Be Upon Them ) a quarter millennium ago?

[Admiral Yi]

What is truly perverse is that decision is both a road map and an encouragement to abuse of power, at least as directed to Trumpian personality inclined to exploit such opportunities.  Yes the decision holds that unofficial acts can be prosecuted. But that just means that if the President wants to commit a terrible crime, then it can and should be done through direct abuse of Presidential powers.  Do everything officially. If you want to steal an election, don't do it through campaign intermediaries or playing footsie with outside lawyers, get some thuggish flunky of an acting attorney general to use the full powers of the US government to steal it as a matter of administration policy, using some complete bullshit enforcement rationale.

How could the Justice Department steal an election without warrants and such issued by a court?

[grumbler]

What is truly perverse is that decision is both a road map and an encouragement to abuse of power, at least as directed to Trumpian personality inclined to exploit such opportunities.  Yes the decision holds that unofficial acts can be prosecuted. But that just means that if the President wants to commit a terrible crime, then it can and should be done through direct abuse of Presidential powers.  Do everything officially. If you want to steal an election, don't do it through campaign intermediaries or playing footsie with outside lawyers, get some thuggish flunky of an acting attorney general to use the full powers of the US government to steal it as a matter of administration policy, using some complete bullshit enforcement rationale.

Best of all, the rationale of the majority was based not on the Constitution, but on a single sentence in Federalist 70.  And these are the guys claiming to be "strict constructionists!"

[Razgovory]

Don't worry, when Trump charges Biden with crimes we will find out that Biden does not have immunity for some reason.

[crazy canuck]

Switch of case.  Just got through the case that overturned Chevron.  It might have the biggest effect on the lives of all Americans.

On the surface, the concept that that jurisdiction of an administrative body must be defined by statute rather than the administrative body itself makes a lot of sense.

But here is the catch.  It only makes sense if the legislative branch of government understands that it's role and creates the appropriate legislation properly delegating the appropriate authority to the administrative body.

But that's not how things have been done in the US, in part because there was no need to do so because of the way Chevron was decided.

And the legislative branch in the US is not going to be able to make the significant legislative reforms that are going to be necessary to adapt to this new reality.