Pt2: had to split in two because of length. See other comment first

_______continued…

my response to this is: if there is immunity, but not for criminal prosecution, what does the immunity apply to?

moving forward, the dissenter discusses the “framework for prosecution of unofficial acts”

Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” Ante, at 15. Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial acts Even Trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible

essentially saying, yes. unofficial immunity would be absurd.

It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action

they are arguing that the statement is too broad. that it would be effectively impossible to distinguish an item from “official” to “unofficial”

so their problem is not that there doesn’t exist a method to prosecute a president for criminal actions, but that the proposed framework is not going to be effective in doing so

to conclude: i’ve read a couple dissenters and i’ve read a couple of the majority. i personally don’t think this ruling is as important as everyone is making it out to be

why?

1. the president already has these powers, except it has been in a gray legal area up until now. it is essentially writing down active policy. the president had presumed immunity for official acts before this

2. it creates a framework to determine whether or not a president is acting in his official capacity. this power gets thrown to the courts.

what this does is it gives the legislative branch [edit: judicial] a check against the president. i support more checks against the president because i think the executive is too powerful in general

now, i understand the viewpoint that should the courts want to, they could rule everything the president does as “official” and therefore the president is effectively immune should the court politically be aligned with the president.

however, i would repond that is the courts are politically aligned, they would have inevitably ruled in the same manner should this case have come up 10 yearse from now.

this case, while important in the sense that it officially reinforces this precedence, it doesn’t functionally change anything going forward

now that i’ve written out my reasoning, if you disagree with any specific points, feel free. i’m not an expert i’m a layman with a mild interest in constitutional law. i’m more than happy to admit i’m wrong. i’m not a conservative so please believe me i’m not partisanly motivated to see one side or another here. i’m going off of my own independent interpretation

Pt1:appeal to authority means nothing to me, and it shouldn’t to you, because experts and authorities can be wrong just like anyone else. i care about the merits of the argument, as everyone should

and for that, we need to critically think and analyze reasoning on its own merits.

so let’s actually read the court opinion, which you can easily find on the supreme court website if you’re actually curious.

Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts

so essentially - that’s exactly what i said. president has immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. what is the court’s reasoning?

Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”

It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.

So, the court’s opinion is that when a President is within his constitutionally defined powers he cannot be held criminally liable. Otherwise, for example, virtually every president for the last few decades could be held criminally liable for some crime. I brought up the examples of the classified document mishandling previously, but there are many more should you go looking.

Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers

So, not everything a president does falls within this immunity bubble. How do we decide what is official and what isn’t? Well, first we look at the seperation of powers outlined in the constitution. You know, the stuff you were taught in elementary school. 3 branches of government. What is within the scope of the executive branch, president has authority over.

The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”

Essentially, the argument is: the President should not be afraid to act because of fear of criminal prosecution. For example, if something like killing a political leader of an enemy state is deemed critical to national security - he has the ability to choose this course of action without fear of being charged for murder. If we did not allow for this, the president’s office would be weaker. The opinion shares many court cases and items of the constitution that reinforces this authority the president is granted.

At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”

So he can actually be prosecuted for specific acts if the proseuction can show that it doesn’t impede on the use of his constitutionally appointed powers.

As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct.

Again, like my previous comment - unofficial acts do not hold immunity. Items outside of his legal presidential powers are not protected.

The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.”

So, how do we determine what is “official” versus “unofficial”? Well, the courts decide. However, as the Supreme Court is intended by the constitution to be a “final destination” the process must start at the lower courts and work its way up to the Supreme Court.

So essentially, the decision states a) president has immunity for official acts, b) does not have immunity for unofficial acts, and c) it presents a framework and process for determining the difference between the two

the decision was ruled 6-3

so what did the dissenters say? well here’s justice Sotomayor

Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President

They are saying that the argument that the president neesd to act “bold and unhestitatingly” as specified by the constitution is not enough reason to warrant immunity.

the next couple pages, which i won’t quote here for brevity, outlines the crimes that Trump committed circa Jan 6th. None of this has anything to do with the argument above, but has more to do with how Trump blatantly broke the law during this event and lists several examples

The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.

self explanatory, we’re going back to the topic at hand

The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.”

i disagree with the statement “completely insulate presidents from criminal liability”. as we showed before, there is a framework for prosecuting presidents should they act in a manner outside of their constitutionally protected powers. the next statement, of course, is just a rehashing of the decision. president has immunity for his “core presidential powers”

a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.

this is patently false. if they act in an unofficial manner, they do not get immunity. the courts have the power to determine acts “unofficial” and prosecute him

The Constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former Presidents

well, this is up for debate and interpretation. it’s been widely recognized that presidents have immunity for official acts. this has been the accepted situation for very long time. if you want to read about the history of this precedence: https://constitution.findlaw.com/article2/article-ii--presidential-immunity-to-criminal-and-civil-suits.html

that article from way before this court case, goes over both the constitutional basis for the precedence as well as supreme court cases that reinforced the precedence

so while the constitution does not explicitly state that the president has immunity, it can be implied that these powers arise from both the powers and responsibilities vested to the office of president

the dissenting judge says as much in the next statement

Of course, “the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.”

essentially saying - the lack of explicit mention does not by itself necessarily mean the opinion of the court is incorrect.

they then make the argument, which i will summarize for brevity, that a) the framers of the constitution provided for limited immunity for legislators and b) state constitutions at this time period had immunitities

therefore, the framers would have been aware of this and would have explicitly mentioned this if they intended this. therefore, they argue it was not intended by the framers of the constitution

my statement is - this is a valid argument. perhaps the framers not only did not intend for immunity, they left it explicitly unmentioned because they did intend for the president to have immunity.

however i believe this statement alone is not enough to justify a dissent with the opinion. mainly because there’s a lot of things that framers intended or didn’t intend that we have modified since. i don’t think i have to elaborate here.

then the dissenter goes on

Aware of its lack of textual support, the majority points out that this Court has “recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.’” Ante, at 10 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749). That is true, as far as it goes.

essentially saying - yes, the majority points out the established precedence that the Supreme Court has on this topic, and they are correct in using that as an argument

Nothing in our history, however, supports the majority’s entirely novel immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.

however, nothing in the precedence applies explicitly to criminal prosecution. essentially saying - the precedence holds for presidential immunities but not from criminal prosecution.

Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran’s Suleinami (I’m probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.

Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn’t a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.

Acts done in an “unofficial manner” are not immune. So let’s say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.

So who decides what is official and what isn’t? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.

It’s an interesting question. For example- Reagan’s Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?

I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan’s Iran Contra)

Telecommunications. Administration for a company that constructs fiber networks.

This is why my personal opinion is we should allow trans athletes if they didn’t go through male puberty. If they did, sorry you’re out. If they didn’t, it’s OK.

And you’re right not all mtf athletes are going to end up at the top echelon but given enough time statistically speaking they will be drastically overrepresented.

Edit: also the data is quite clear trans women are stronger, have more lung capacity, etc even 5+ years into hormone therapy. Iirc I even saw 10+ years on a paper once

But the ones that went through male puberty. I think this is why we should try and find gender dysphoria earlier and treat b4 puberty. It’s much more effective the younger you start

Of course issue is you don’t want to be too broad with diagnosis because of false positives and the conservatives going nuts. So it’s a difficult thing to do. Maybe we will identify what causes gender dysphoria some day and that will help

I’ve read multiple papers on this topic. I’m a 2000 rated player and have tutored girls in chess. This is an interest of mine.

There is a very large gap in performance. The research overall implies a complex variety of factors. This includes what you mentioned, along with other inequities. It also includes the fact that women players are roughly 11 years younger on average and therefore haven’t peaked yet, which will account for some.

But there is evidence that there is also an innate biological difference. Men score better on visuospatial intelligence tests when compared to women. Chess, especially at a high level, involves a lot of this type of thinking.

I’m not arguing that women are bad at chess. Humans are individuals and there are varying levels of players in both genders.

Just that if you look at the extremes (which the top chess players will be) you’re going to see a higher level of males even if we fixed all of the inequities currently influencing the gender gap in chess.

We don’t know if the 10x difference is 5% due to biology or 50% due to biology. But we know it’s a non zero number

Essentially I used it as an example in the wider context of why we have women’s leagues and men’s league in sports.

Women make up roughly 15% of US Chess Federation members. They make up roughly 1.5% of grandmasters.

That’s an order of magnitude difference.

Show me. Link me a couple.

I don’t think this effect can account for more than a small fraction of the difference. Let’s look at the research. I couldn’t find anything from a quick search but maybe I’m using wrong terms.

You think that accounts for the differences? 42 of 2500 grandmasters are women because all the women are scared and intimidated of the men?

Maybe this plays some small effect but I doubt it’s statistically significant enough in this context

Like you said, it happens to men playing higher rated men. In order to go up in ranking, you need to play and beat progressively higher rated opponents.

By the very nature of being a high level player, that player would have had to go through that.

The unfortunate reality is that men are much better at women at sports. This is why we have women leagues. There are pronounced biological differences that would essentially prevent women from competing if everything was one league.

MTF trans, because they were born male, have all of these advantages. They can take hormone blockers / estrogen pills and that reduces some of the advantage. But not all.

So it results in a MTF trans being a) weaker than males and b) stronger than females

What other solution except a trans league would be just to all parties involved?

He addresses them with that statement. There are plenty of women that are in similar weight classes as men but you don’t see any in male sports.

Even though male sports does not have a gender requirement. This is essentially an indirect way of saying that there are biological differences between male and female that go beyond weight.

There are various differences you could point out. Males have lower body fat %, which means more muscle. Their bones are shaped differently and are more dense. Men tend to be more aggressive and competitive. Men tend to have stronger bones, joints, tendons, and ligaments.

Men have more red blood cells, their hearts are bigger so they can pump more blood, and greater lung volume relative to body mass. So even a male and women same weight and height the man will be able to circulate oxygen more quickly.

There are many more examples if you go do some reading.

One of the differences may not be huge by themselves. But when you take the differences above and combine them, it creates a situation where in almost all sports, men play virtually unopposed by women.

Look up the Serena Williams interview. She’s undoubtedly the best female player in the world. She doesn’t stand a chance against a the 203rd best tennis male player.

This difference even applies to areas like chess. The highest ranking a woman ever got was 6th in the world, Judith Pulgar. Amazing player, but out of the 2500 or so grandmasters in the world, 42 are women.

Some of these differences can be explained by women around the world not being encouraged to play chess, but that does not explain all.

There are large biological differences when you look at the population in a statistical sense. And when you look at the most extreme samples from the edge of the normal distribution… that’s where the best athletes / chess players are going to come from.

I’m a bit cynical here and I think the country is headed down the same path whether Trump or Biden wins in November. We’re seeing pseudo-fascist rhetoric increase in frequency. We’re seeing authoritarian and militaristic policies pass virtually unopposed through our political system. War is virtually guaranteed with either candidate.

I know this opinion may be unpopular but I don’t think this election matters very much. There are of course potential differences- such as access to abortion. If Biden wins, maybe there’s more hope. But that’s really it- just hope. Democrats have had majorities dozens of times since Roe V Wade was ruled and never wrote abortion into law.

I don’t think it’s suddenly going to change in the next 4 years which looks to be a potentially very dangerous period of time geopolitically speaking. Biden isn’t going to have very much political capital to spend and the Overton Window is gradually shifting right.

Instead of looking only at this election, look at the next. And the one after. Do people think MAGA will go away? The world is in economic and geopolitical restructuring- instability breeds radicalism. The problem will likely only get worse. Especially with another weak Democratic administration.

Which brings me to the answer to your question. I have dual citizenship in South America. The only reasons I would leave the US are if there is a WW3 scenario or some sort of clear descent into a form of fascism. We’re toying with it right now, but it can get a lot worse.

It probably won’t be much better in my home country if I’m being honest, but there will be less chances for war. Any global war will inevitably involve the US in some capacity.

There are benevolent kings every once in a while. Doesn’t mean monarchy is a good system in the long term. Nordic countries have some of the highest wealth inequalities in the world. They keep the working class content with the programs and benefits. They have been able to afford it up to now, but the system is straining.

In the long term they cannot sustain this and we see it with their indicators slowly falling over time to match other Western European countries.

French & UK citizens are not fans of their government.

Less power the government has unnecessarily, the better. Doesn’t mean the government shouldn’t have power, just we need a mentality that we always need to be trimming the fat.

I consider myself a libertarian and I believe in free healthcare. I think certain industries should not be run for profit. It creates perverse incentives that harm the common man. For example healthcare.

If there’s a profit incentive in bealthcare, there is incentive for drug companies or hospitals to raise their prices. This would mean less people getting treatment or more people in medical debt.

Another industry I think shouldn’t be for profit is education. We want an educated population. It should be encouraged, so it should be free for anyone who wants it.

In my view, libertarianism is a perspective that the government should interfere with the personal liberties of the individual as little as possible.

Every single government action should be heavily scrutinized and challenged. Some actions are justified. For example regulating healthcare I think is justified. You are taking away the liberty of starting a hospital - but the benefits outweigh the costs.

I believe that cooperatives should be encouraged if not explicitly mandated for large companies.

I think to Chomsky’s conception of anarchism. Look at all hierarchies of power and challenge them. Some are justified - the power a father has over his child. Some are not - the power a cash advance place has over their customer base.

I think governments often make mistakes and through heavy handed actions end up screwing the average person. By dramatically limiting government action, you help prevent this.

Remember the government is not your friend.

It’s all just fancy statistics. It turns words into numbers. Then it finds patterns in those numbers. When you enter a prompt, it finds numbers that are similar and spits out an answer.

You can get into vectors and back propagation and blah blah blah but essentially it’s a math formula. We call it AI but it’s not fundamentally different than solving 2x + 4 = 10 for x.

I’ve lived in a few different states and I was born in a foreign country. I absolutely love Florida. South Florida is an amazing place with great weather and great people.

It all depends on the cultural lens which you use to look at it. One shopping plaza looks different to a Jew then it does to a Brazilian then it does to a Haitan. The Jew may come for the hummus lunch place and the Brazilian goes for the Brazilian nightclub. They exist in the same physical space but it’s like a parallel universe because they don’t see each other. I find this so fascinating.

When you take the time to really explore you see a massive depth of different cultures. I love living among immigrants, including many fresh people right off the boat.

Up north it simply isn’t the same. In Chicago there’s a lot of Latinos, but they’re virtually all Mexican. In South Florida you get every single type. Brazilian, Venezuelan, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Colombian, Central American… Mexicans are a minority.

I don’t know if there’s another place in the world that has such a diverse mix of people from around Latin America. So many opportunities and interesting things to do.

I wouldn’t trade it for the world. I hate the government, but I refuse to move.

Couple of things

There was a 62% voter turnout in the 2020 election. 46.8% of voters voted for Trump.

0.62 x 0.468 = .290

So actually, 29% of people voted for Trump.

If we do the same calculation for AfD in 2021. 76.6% voter turnout in Germany and AfD got 10.4% of votes.

0.766 x 0.104 = 0.799

So the difference looks like 29% to 8% US to Germany.

But you have to remember the US and Germany are different political systems. There are only two parties in the US, so each of the big parties (DNC, GOP) have many different factions. Moderate Republicans would be an entirely different party from Trumpian “MAGA” Republicans if the US had a party system like Germany.

They functionally ally together in order to form a government, much like different parties will do in parliamentary systems in Europe.

So if we for example take the center-right Christian conservative party and add that to AfD, which in my opinion more closely resembles the GOP, we get the following numbers.

76.6% voter turnout. AfD got 10.4% of votes. CDU got 24.1% of votes.

0.766 x (0.104 + 0.241) = .264

So we’re actually looking at a ratio more like 29% US to 26% Germany. Fundamentally not that different.

And last thing I’d like to add. Shifts in the political Overton window like we’re seeing right now happens at an exponential rate. It’s why Germany in the early 1900s went from a liberal democratic society to full blown Fascist dictatorship fairly quickly.

I think the process has started in the US first, but the movement is shifting to other countries too. US news is emphasized because of the importance of the US as a superpower, but this process of the hard shift to the right is happening in many countries.

We see it not only in certain parties gaining ground like Fratelli d’Italia, Sweden Democrats, Rassemblement National, Alternative für Deutschland, etc - but the rhetoric changing. Anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim rhetoric that would be rare a decade or two ago is seeing a large increase.

We see populist like Argentina’s Milei, Brazil’s Bolsonaro, Canada’s Poilievre, etc all following the footsteps of Trump and being wildly successful. People globally feel insecure and it’s a ripe environment for these types of right-wing populists.

I view the US as the leader of the Zietgiest right now, much like Germany was the leader of the Zietgiest during WW2. It’s leading the pack, but we’re all headed towards the same destination.

It’s because our media is manipulated. When Saudi Arabia commits war crimes, it’s more or less ignored. When Russia does it, it’s plastered all over the media. China suppresses protests, it’s an authoritarian hellhole. When we do it, it’s law and order. In China the great firewall is censorship, here when we ban TikTok it’s justified.

I suggest everyone read Chomsky’s manufacturing consent. It goes over many historical examples like above and the mechanisms by which it happens

There are right wing populists in virtually every democracy these days. It’s not an issue unique to the US. I think it’s a byproduct of our times. Economic uncertainty + geopolitical tensions and war = hard shift to the right.

I looked through out of curiosity and I believe you can say with a bit of a stretch that I hit about 3.

I’m never going to go vegan. I was raised in a part of South America with a very strong cattle / meat culture. I don’t want to live without nice steaks every week.

If that means some animal has to live in what’s essentially slavery then it’s the price I’m willing to pay.

Just like we’re both willing to live with poor 3rd worlders mining lithium and cobalt for us in abysmal conditions so that we can communicate on our fancy electronic devices.

The system is a pyramid. Is it our fault we were born near the top? Reminds me of the part in the Bible, the rich man comes up to Jesus and asks him what he should do to get into heaven

Jesus says “sell all of your belongings, give the money to charity, and follow me”. What’d the rich man do? He cried.

The point is that people wanna be good and ethical but don’t actually want to give up quality of life. It’s not just veganism, it’s for everything. Capitalist/imperialist exploitation, climate change, etc.

Try to lead by example, sell your stuff and follow Jesus.