Schumer pushing bill to strip Trump of court-granted immunity

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4760638-schumer-trump-immunity/

24 comments

  2. This doesn’t change anything, and anything short of removing the Republican justices or making their votes irrelevant won’t either. They ruled that Trump’s immunity came from Article 2 of the Constitution and the separation of powers. I.E., can’t be legislated away. Not to mention prohibiting the use of any serious evidence to prosecute Trump.

    Maybe throw Biden overboard so you can focus on the court and not running cover for an awful nominee.

  3. Yeah, maybe they should have done more when they had control of both the house and the Senate, especially when it comes to putting up guardrails to prevent another trump and giving things like the emoluments clause actual teeth. So far democrats have been completely ineffectual at protecting democracy. Even when Republicans stage a coup Democrats can’t aren’t I muster more than a stern warning. I wish democratic voters would demand more of their party. It’s the only real defense we have, and they have utterly failed in that regard. 

  4. Almost like our country has checks and balances

  5. Hold up. SCOTUS derived their fucked up crazy ruling from their interpretation of the constitution. Unless you amend the constitution I don’t see how you can change that. You think SCOTUS would uphold a law made by congress to bypass their ruling? I doubt it.

  6. >“We’re doing this because we believe that in America no president should be free to overturn an election against the will of the people, no matter what the conservative justices may believe.”

    You GO, Schumer!

  7. I love how writer Alexander Bolton begs the question in his own piece …

    >Some legal analysts, however, think the ruling may protect Trump entirely **from being prosecuted for the attempts to overturn the election results**, which resulted in a mob storming the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, because it would bar prosecutors from presenting actions related to official conduct to a jury as evidence.

    Logical fallacies for the win, I guess lol.

  10. Anything that hints at the possibility of ending this national nightmare is welcome. This is not a banana republic with a wanton dictator answerable to nobody but himself. We need to fix this monstrous situation ASAP. To Hell with the SCOTUS 6. To Hell with the GOP enablers in Congress. And to the lowest level of Hell with Trump.

  11. As a lawyer who read the most relevant parts of the Supreme Court’s presidential immunity decision last week, I don’t see any way this can be quickly addressed via legislation. The Supreme Court found (with very little basis for doing so) that the president has absolute immunity under the constitution for his/her official acts. What the Supreme Court did is not easily fixable. I only see two (or possibly three) ways to take that back:

    – we pass a constitutional amendment overruling the Supreme Court (highly unlikely)

    – the Supreme Court overrules itself in a couple of years (highly unlikely with the current composition of the Court, but that could change)

    – The unlikely third possibility: The Andrew Jackson Route. Biden declares the Supreme Court’s opinion to be null and void on this matter. This would be a very dangerous thing to do if we want to maintain the rule of law. Plus, Republicans would try to do the same when they are in power next.

    Here, however, Schumer is proposing a bill to classify Trump’s election subversion attempts as unofficial acts. While it’s probably better than nothing, it’s unlikely to change what happens in Trump’s criminal cases. First, such a law would essentially just be advisory. They’re no easy way to force federal courts to use it in their proceedings. Second, if the new law were found to be binding, then Trump’s team might be able to argue that it’s an unconstitutional ex post facto law (i.e., a law that holds someone liable for a crime that they had already done when the law was passed) and/or an unconstitutional bill of attainder (i.e., a law primarily targeted at a single individual).

  12. Given the current Senate composition, this would need the support of all Democratic senators and potentially some Republican senators to reach a majority.

  14. With a majority in the Senate and no majority in the house this is next to meaningless.

  15. Not like this would pass. Sound and fury signifying nothing unfortunately.

  16. Good start but uh nobody should have that kind of power. Not just Trump.

  17. Does he have the numbers to pass this or is this purely performative?

  18. This is purely theater.

    1) He doesn’t have the votes in either house

    2) Even if it passes, I’m not sure congress can make a law overruling the SCOTUS interpretation of the constitution. It would need ammendment

  19. Isn’t that what the lawmakers should be doing? It’s their jobs to make and codify the laws of our country.

  23. Crimes committed in furtherance of stealing an election are already not official acts, according to established precedent. But since the SCOTUS can’t be trusted with the long tradition of legal precedent, here we are.

  24. If it’s constitutional immunity a bill would naturally be unconstitutional correct?

Leave a Reply