Thread by @DirkSchwenk

I'm reading the US v. Trump SCOTUS opinion myself. It is much worse than I expected. My thoughts below. A thread.

First off, the "absolute immunity" SCOTUS invents is Absolute. If it falls within "core constitutional powers" there is no order than can be given that can be reviewed by the courts AT ALL.

I'll expand on this later, but that means no court can review acts under Art. II, Sec 2 powers. Those powers include those of Commander in Chief, including state militias if called to fed service; AND THE POWER TO PARDON/COMMUTE. So corrupt pardons are off the table.

SCOTUS affirmatively green-lights a number of very scary points in which it holds POTUS immune. LIKE FIRING ANY FEDERAL EXECUTIVE BRANCH EMPLOYEE AT WILL. Goodbye federal civil service.

Neither Congress nor the Courts - in SCOTUS's dystopian vision - can limit or "examine" POTUS powers. This even throws Congressional oversight into doubt.

If a foreign enemy gave a POTUS's son-in-law 2 Billion dollars in exchange for a core powers official act like blockading Qatar, I do not see how Congress or the Courts could do anything about that under this ruling.

This is one of the most terrifying sentences in the history of the Supreme Court. "We thus conclude that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority."

Moving on to non-core powers. I assumed that SCOTUS would be skeptical of immunity there. I was dead wrong. SCOTUS imposes a virtually impossible test to any prosecution. Off the top of my head I cannot think of a single act a POTUS could not claim was immune

And so, POTUS is immune from basically any act related to any conduct that is discussed in the US code; or anything that any court has said is related to the US Code. That's not everything, but its everything if one is the slightest bit creative about claiming its everything

SCOTUS does conclude that there is no immunity for "unofficial acts" which sounds like it might be useful, but it isn't. Trump and the prosecution AGREED that some charged conduct was unofficial - Trump will never make that mistake again.

SCOTUS calls it a "difficult question" about whether ordering the VP to break the law was official. But its an easy question that illegal orders to the DOJ were official. Discussions with private parties? "difficult." The proposed test will mean that any savvy POTUS is immune.

SCOTUS outlaws inquiry into MOTIVE. So any act that can be said to be within the scope of any authority remains official and immune EVEN IF DONE AS THE RESULT OF A BRIBE.

Under any normal analysis of whether an act is within the scope of their job, one of the first questions is whether the act was illegal. But that doesn't matter for a POTUS. They can do corrupt, illegal things and be immunized, as long as it relates to an official act

Threatening DOJ officials who resist illegally weaponizing the DOJ? Official acts immunity.

Ordering the DOJ to aggressively pursue specific prosecutions and discussing individual investigations and prosecutions with the DOJ? Official acts immunity.

And of course we have already established that POTUS is immune from prosecution for firing a DOJ employee who won't play ball. And that no court or congress may inquire into whether that act was corrupt. (I wrote this before realizing SCOTUS specially emphasized this)

ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FOR ORDERING SHAM INVESTIGATIONS. HOLY SHXT THIS IS WORSE BY THE SECOND.

Immunity for ordering your VP not to allow the peaceful transfer of power.

The headline is that the case is remanded to see which acts were unofficial, but the tests above mean that they were all official because they involved federal elections. The case is over. We lost.

Trump's exhorting the crowd to attack the capital? "most of a President's public communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities." THE CASE IS OVER. WE LOST.

I'm going to read the dissents too, but here is Chief Justice's snipe - it is absolutely gaslighting. This decision is a complete grant of immunity to POTUS for everything especially including corrupt pardons - which means its EVERYTHING and no can do anything about it.

Fxn "Justice" Thomas concurs that a POTUS can anything that he wants in weaponizing the justice department but finds an exception Special Counsel.

The dissenters agree with my conclusions above - this is a grant of absolute immunity, because it will be impossible to prove unofficial acts (and no POTUS would ever agree to that again).

The dissenters make an important point - the framers could have provided immunity - but they did not. (As I have repeatedly noted, Scalia, Thomas, Alito et al only go to the text when its convenient to their predetermined outcomes).

Justice Sotomayor attempts to game out how this works - and she agrees with my conclusion - POTUS is no longer subject to criminal law.

Assassinations of political rivals are only a crime if a prosecutor could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not an official act. FCK.

Only judges can hold that a POTUS act is not immune. But POTUS can execute the judges. So that's that. The republic as we knew it last week is gone. I'm not sure what to say or do.