Democrats to hold hearing on Supreme Court's Trump immunity decision

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

09/09/24 3:09 PM ET


Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Monday announced his panel will hold a hearing on the Supreme Court’s controversial 6-3 ruling giving former President Trump broad immunity from prosecution for crimes related to his official acts as president.

Democratic lawmakers have seethed for weeks over the court’s conservative majority’s ruling in July, which dealt a major setback to special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution against Trump for obstructing the certification of President Biden’s 2020 election victory.

On Monday, Durbin announced the Senate Judiciary Committee will take action later this month to highlight what Democrats say could be the far-reaching consequences of the ruling, announcing a hearing date of Sept. 24.

“Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a full committee hearing on the ramifications of the ruling from the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority in the Donald Trump immunity case on September 24,” Durbin announced. “Congress can’t turn a blind eye to the dangers of the Donald Trump immunity decision by the Supreme Court. We’re going to highlight the blaring dangers of this far-right ruling for the American people,” he said in a statement posted on the social platform X.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4870075-senate-judiciary-hearing-trump-immunity/

---

Link to tweet

Senate Judiciary Committee
@JudiciaryDems
·
Follow
BREAKING: Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a full committee hearing on the ramifications of the ruling from the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority in the Donald Trump immunity case on September 24.
12:04 PM · Sep 9, 2024

[Qutzupalotl]

1. Presidential immunity is an invention by Trump.

The fact that he swayed a majority of justices to grant it is extraordinarily embarrassing.

[Think. Again.]

2. That ruling must be abolished, annulled, overturned, or stricken in any way possible.

It is off-the-charts insane to give ANYONE immunity to our nation's laws, ESPECIALLY someone with Presidential powers and considerations.

[BWdem4life]

3. Perhaps a strongly-worded letter is in order.

[JoseBalow]

4. Charge them with Conspiracy to Obstruct Justice

[Bluethroughu]

5. Newsflash everyone has been talking, it's time for action

Remove the 6 traitors that chose party over the Constitution.

[summer_in_TX]

6. In a past era, the Judiciary Committee would have condemned it in a bipartisan manner.

But look at the likes of the Republicans they have on that committee. Only a couple of them are in the normal conservative range. They've stacked it mostly with sycophants and rabid haters. It explains a lot about how that important committee has been less effective than it should be of recent years.
Lindsey Graham
Chuck Grassley
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Josh Hawley
Tom Cotton
John Kennedy
Thom Tillis
Marsha Blackburn

[Evolve Dammit]

10. Seeing the names really puts it in perspective. Thanks.

[summer_in_TX]

19. Wouldn't it be awful to have to serve on a committee with most of those Rs?

I so hope the blue wave crashes down on their heads and sweeps some of them out of office.

[Evolve Dammit]

20. Youd have to haul me off some of them. Decorum be damned

[V850i]

7. Refuse to acknowledge the Supreme Court usurping the power to Amend the Constitution

Reading that decision is seems like it was made up from whole cloth. There is nothing in the Constitution to hint at Presidential immunity from criminal actions, there are no statutes passed into law by Congress regarding presidential immunity for criminal actions thus they made it up. That is clearly usurping Congressional power and Congress can simply say no we won't abide by this attempt to diminish Congress' role in amending the Constitution.

[FakeNoose]

8. K & R

September 24 - mark this day!

[Hekate]

9. KnR

[msfiddlestix]

11. It's about damn time, but still not soon enough . The late action on a matter that was totally predictable the moment we

knew Alito etc Al were intending to take the matter up and hand down a ruling favoring TSF which was also an extremely delayed process, intended to give TSF all the time in the world to campaign and get to this point on the eve of election day.
I'd really like to ask them why they waited so long to act.

[BumRushDaShow]

12. "I'd really like to ask them why they waited so long to act."

The "immunity" ruling only happened on July 1st.

The D.C. Court of Appeals had rejected the "absolute immunity" nonsense, which was then appealed to the SCOTUS, which sat on it until finally scheduling oral arguments in April and then waiting until the very last day of their session - a rare July one - to rule on it.

Right after the July 4th holiday recess, the Judiciary Committee had announced this hearing back July 11 - Durbin Announces Judiciary Committee Hearing On Supreme Court Ruling in Donald Trump Immunity Case

In the interim between that July announcement and this current one with an actual date, I expect that the Committee had already sent out formal requests for information that will be used as part of the hearing, with document production deadlines set to be prior to the actual hearing. Often that type of minutia doesn't make it into news reports.

In general, during election years involving Congressional elections (1/3rd of the Senate is up this year), there is very little that goes on in the summer although the Senate has still had much more in the way of work, including some hearings and confirmation votes throughout the summer, whereas the House went on a complete August break (the entire House is up for reelection).

That Committee has also been focusing their time on confirming federal judges because if we lose the Senate, we will be SOL - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143304321

[msfiddlestix]

13. fair points. and thank you for the details.

[BumRushDaShow]

14. This is what happens when one becomes a CSPAN junky!

[msfiddlestix]

15. :) I used to be cspan junky once upon a time, back during the dumbya;s "reign of terror" cut the cord no longer have

access on TV. But these years I've been otherwise occupied with making music for my mental health! LOL!

[BumRushDaShow]

16. I hear ya

They do have a CSPAN Radio mobile app that I use every once in awhile when I remember that I have it!

[msfiddlestix]

18. that's interesting ..I'll try and remember that when something important on the hill is happening TY!

[LetMyPeopleVote]

17. This will be a fun hearing to watch

Link to tweet

BREAKING: Democratic Senator Dick Durbin drops a bomb on MAGA world and announces that his Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the Supreme Court's absurdly fascist ruling that gave Donald Trump broad immunity for crimes committed in office.

This comes not a moment too soon...

"Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a full committee hearing on the ramifications of the ruling from the Supreme Court’s right-wing supermajority in the Donald Trump immunity case on September 24,” said Durbin in a statement on X.

"Congress can’t turn a blind eye to the dangers of the Donald Trump immunity decision by the Supreme Court. We’re going to highlight the blaring dangers of this far-right ruling for the American people," Durbin added.

The ruling in question has been lambasted by legal scholars and threw up a major road bump for Special Counsel Jack Smith's prosecution.

Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has correctly warned that the right-wingers on the court have now put the president in a pedestal above other Americans. They quite literally want him to be above the law — an idea that would have horrified the Founding Fathers.

If this disastrous ruling is not overturned America could find itself sliding into a full-blown monarchy, which increasingly appears to be exactly what Republicans intend.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

21. How Roberts Shaped Trump's Supreme Court Winning Streak

Here is a NYT article on Roberts' role is the SCOTUS efforts to help re-elect TFG. Roberts actions in these cases are really sickening and show that Robert and the other five conservatives have been actively attempting to help TFG in his legal issues. I have had issues with Roberts since the Shelby County case where Roberts gutted the voting rights act. Robert has now confirmed that he is a partisan hack.

This a NYT article that has some good facts. I think that the facts in this article show that Roberts is a partisan hack. The NYT does not go that far but provides enough facts to show that control of the SCOTUS is a key issue. This immunity ruling needs to be either overturned by adding more justices to the court or with the Presidential Immunity Act which contains a provision divesting SCOTUS with jurisdiction over this issue. The naked partisanship of the SCOTUS needs to be addressed if VP Harris wins and the Democrats have control over the Senate and the House.

Link to tweet

https://www.nytimes.com/subscription/onboarding-offer?EXIT_URI=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.nytimes.com%252F2024%252F09%252F15%252Fus%252Fjustice-roberts-trump-supreme-court.html%253Funlocked_article_code%253D1.K04.mC2X.k9K6vnKaQdt6%2526smid%253Dem-share&auth=login-google1tap&campaignId=7JFJX&login=google1tap

Last February, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. sent his eight Supreme Court colleagues a confidential memo that radiated frustration and certainty.

Former President Donald J. Trump, seeking to retake the White House, had made a bold, last-ditch appeal to the justices. He wanted them to block his fast-approaching criminal trial on charges of attempting to overturn the 2020 election, arguing that he was protected by presidential immunity. Whatever move the court made could have lasting consequences for the next election, the scope of presidential power and the court’s own battered reputation......

The chief justice wrote the majority opinions in all three cases, including an unsigned one in March concluding that the former president could not be barred from election ballots in Colorado.

Another case involved a highly unusual switch. In April, the chief justice assigned Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. to write a majority opinion saying that prosecutors had gone too far in bringing obstruction charges against some Capitol rioters. But in late May, the chief justice took it over.

I read the immunity opinion and was shocked at how poorly reasoned such opinion was. This opinion looked like it was written by a non-lawyer like Stephen Miller. Robert's analysis was really weak. I am happy to see that I was not the only lawyer who was truly offended by Roberts' reasoning in the immunity opinion

In his writings on the immunity case, the chief justice seemed confident that his arguments would soar above politics, persuade the public, and stand the test of time. His opinion cited “enduring principles,” quoted Alexander Hamilton’s endorsement of a vigorous presidency, and asserted it would be a mistake to dwell too much on Mr. Trump’s actions. “In a case like this one, focusing on ‘transient results’ may have profound consequences for the separation of powers and for the future of our Republic,” he wrote. “Our perspective must be more farsighted.”

But the public response to the decision, announced in July on the final day of the term, was nothing like what his lofty phrases seemed to anticipate.......

“It’s a strange, sprawling opinion,” said William Baude, a University of Chicago law professor and a former clerk to the chief justice. “It’s hard to tell what exactly it is trying to do.”

Others said the ruling was untethered from the law. “It’s certainly not really tied to the Constitution,” said Stephen R. McAllister, a law professor at University of Kansas and former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas.

Roberts has shown himself to be a partisan hack. The immunity ruling was really poorly reasoned and has the effect of making the POTUS into a king as noted by Justice Sotomayor

Chief Justice Roberts’s language in the opinion seemed intended to stay above the fray, extending protections to “all occupants of the Oval Office, regardless of politics, policy or party.” But in a withering dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote that the majority opinion gave Mr. Trump “all the immunity he asked for and more.” It also, she wrote, protected “treasonous acts,” transformed the president into “a king above the law” and ultimately caused her to “fear for our democracy.”

The court’s leader shot back that the liberal justices “strike a tone of chilling doom that is wholly disproportionate to what the court actually does today.”

There at least two proposals pending to undo the immunity ruling that need to be addressed. Roberts proving himself to be a partisan hack makes control of the SCOTUS a key issue this cycle.