In providing as broad an endorsement of "preclusive" executive power as any we've seen from the Supreme Court, the majority opinion will have implications far beyond criminal prosecutions
Could a sitting President now refuse producing any evidence or testimony before Congress - claiming privilege with or without basis -without fear of a subpoena and criminal obstruction charges, official acts?it appears that in "defending" the separation of power baby the Supreme Court just threw out the check and balances baby.
A military friend told me after this decision, not to worry about a future President Trump issuing an order to military to commit a crime, because “chain of command,” and all officers are trained to disobey an illegal order. It does seem military chain of command is set by statute. But now perhaps those statutes are unconstitutional? Nice.
From a naive reader - this reads like notes for a case of US Constitution v SCOTUS 2024. Do hope US Constitution wins the ruling and SCOTUS is then recalled.
Just when I thought Trump v. United States could not get any worse or its implications more profound. While on that subject, is it possible that the case also effectively redefines what is and is not a high crime or misdemeanor in the context of the President and thus constrains Congress' power of impeachment?
The Trump immunity case is in its fashion the Korematsu of our times. The rule of law and limits of executive power are in some fashion not as raw as wrongly imprisoning over a hundred thousand people. But, still pretty darn important.
SCOTUS needs to be addressed. Mild reforms won't do it.
The difficulty here is the Court returned the case to the lower court with the mission of determining if the President was acting within his core functions while at the same time giving broad examples of what the President’s core functions are, thus hamstringing the lower court. The Majority says conversations between the President and Vice President are protected under core function. Does that include planning to overthrow the United States? Justice Barrett is correct by saying the Majority went beyond the scope of the question before the Court. Disappointingly she did not join the Minority Opinion on that alone.
Could the president (or future president) now use Impoundment to block The functioning of, say, the Department of Education as he would be immune from prosecution and can break and law he wishes. His new powers seem almost limitless.
Could a sitting President now refuse producing any evidence or testimony before Congress - claiming privilege with or without basis -without fear of a subpoena and criminal obstruction charges, official acts?it appears that in "defending" the separation of power baby the Supreme Court just threw out the check and balances baby.
Andrés L. Córdova
Inter American University Law School
...correction... I check and balances water.
A military friend told me after this decision, not to worry about a future President Trump issuing an order to military to commit a crime, because “chain of command,” and all officers are trained to disobey an illegal order. It does seem military chain of command is set by statute. But now perhaps those statutes are unconstitutional? Nice.
From a naive reader - this reads like notes for a case of US Constitution v SCOTUS 2024. Do hope US Constitution wins the ruling and SCOTUS is then recalled.
A great column today, especially as you closed with the quote from Jackson’s opinion.
Just when I thought Trump v. United States could not get any worse or its implications more profound. While on that subject, is it possible that the case also effectively redefines what is and is not a high crime or misdemeanor in the context of the President and thus constrains Congress' power of impeachment?
Fewer things will be more nauseating than having to hear that the executive branch has played its Trump card again.
Something something loaded gun something.
The Trump immunity case is in its fashion the Korematsu of our times. The rule of law and limits of executive power are in some fashion not as raw as wrongly imprisoning over a hundred thousand people. But, still pretty darn important.
SCOTUS needs to be addressed. Mild reforms won't do it.
Is it common for a decision to rely so heavily on a concurrence—which is, if i understand it, not the actual decision?
I’m not a lawyer so this may be naive.
The difficulty here is the Court returned the case to the lower court with the mission of determining if the President was acting within his core functions while at the same time giving broad examples of what the President’s core functions are, thus hamstringing the lower court. The Majority says conversations between the President and Vice President are protected under core function. Does that include planning to overthrow the United States? Justice Barrett is correct by saying the Majority went beyond the scope of the question before the Court. Disappointingly she did not join the Minority Opinion on that alone.
Have we gone over the hill now and are rolling down the other side headed for aristocracy…?
Could the president (or future president) now use Impoundment to block The functioning of, say, the Department of Education as he would be immune from prosecution and can break and law he wishes. His new powers seem almost limitless.
.. Break any law he wishes