So…couldn’t now Biden have Trump killed or maybe just his brain fried and get away with it?
bidens too weak for that
If he uses government resources for it, yes.
Well what is he waiting for?
“I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers I’ve had for three-and-a-half years, but any president – including Donald Trump – will now be free to ignore the law,” Biden said.
Source: CNN
Imagine how fun it would be though if he gave the order anyway
Considering that an ex-president who invaded a country under a proven false pretext and in violation of international law and has a million Iraqi civilians on his conscience is still painting his little pictures in Texas, perhaps the Supreme Court decision is not as big a break as some seem to think?
One could at least argue that the Iraq invasion was within what was generally understood to be the role of the president at the time, specifically leading the military as its commander in chief. No one expected throwing a coup to be within the normal role of the president, but apparently that’s also covered according to this decision.
Would’ve been covered even under qualified immunity. Absolute immunity allows you to break laws you know you’re breaking.
Trump, if he gets in again, can no longer do anything to Biden since he just gave the President absolute immunity.
Biden’s security after his presidency is probably not in the top #1000000 of the problems if Trump becomes a president.
What I don’t get is what would stop Biden from ordering the assassinations of Trump and 1000 of his closest supporters if this gives total presidential immunity?
That immunity is for every president including Trump. Hell yes Trump can assassinate Bidens and be immune from prosecution.
If it was immunity for Biden alone, then and only then would Biden be safe.
Not American, so excuse the silly question.
What is stopping the President from dissolving the Supreme Court?
It’s not within his powers to do so. But he could have the secret service assassinate them. Pardon the perpetrators and then assign whomever he wants the position with threats against the lives of the senate and congress as a whole for all who would vote against assigning this person. Elimate them and have the vote.
What are the chances of Biden doing what’s necessary for the country?
None. If cared about “what’s necessary for the country” he would’ve stepped aside for better candidates in 2020.
He did… then the DNC said “we don’t like these people, please run Mr. Biden, we beg you!”
Zero.
People are getting this all wrong.
They haven’t crowned the POTUS as king. They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered. They’ve crowned themselves, the ones who get to determine what is and what is not an “official act” the kings.
Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
If one of the dissenting justices thinks it likely, we better pay attention. The whole “They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered.” is a pillar built on sinking sand - what defines non-official becomes subjective real fast. Biden could assassinate every conservative justice on SCOTUS and get his own in there to make it all legal. Threats of the same to any in congress who won’t play ball.
And if someone can’t imagine Biden doing it (I can’t), I’m thinking that there are quite a few citizens who believe Trump abso-fucking-lutely would pull that shit. With a majority on SCOTUS already he could just start going after political rivals and keep SCOTUS themselves in check with threats of the same. If SCOTUS has done anything they’ve painted themselves in a corner and only Congress can unfuck us with impeachment (as unlikely as that seems!)
and only Congress can unfuck us with impeachment
Yeah, how’s that been working out so far?
As well as one might imagine!
I read their point as being “because official acts are not defined and they’re the ultimate deciders, the Court can provide or withhold this immunity at will”. Turns out killing Republicans is not an official act and killing Democrats is.
Sure, but the court doesn’t actually have any enforcement mechanism - that’s all held by the executive. Like, a president who orders the military to assassinate a political rival is not gonna wait for multiple months of trial and go ‘oh OK I guess that wasn’t an official act off to jail I go’. They can just intimidate the judges. The Republicans are counting on any Democratic president not doing that, and are probably right.
This ruling is about after leaving office, when they don’t have the power anymore. Biden is still covered under the Justice Department policy that a sitting president can’t be prosecuted, but presumably the fear of being prosecuted after leaving would help restrain the worst and most blatant violations.
that’s all held by the executive
From now on, that’ll all be handled by the most rabid capitol rioters. If they demonstrate their loyalty by murdering undesirable political figures, the president will throw around pardons like it’s his main competence.
All that is left than is to MAGA and consolidate Trumps power. Just look into https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives to see what will happen in the not so distant future.
The rioters will be purged after the power grab instead of the SA. They absolutely stand alone after Trump drops them faster than he can say Covfefe. With the judicative and executive under his boot, there is nothing left inside the USA to fight against. So any guesses what the first target will be after the rioters and LGBTQIA+?
Whoever disagrees on anything with Trump or is too weak to defend themselves when he needs a scapegoat for his failures.
Leftists.
Question for you: was this ruling incorrect? If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way? Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
All I’m saying is that if I’m POTUS and I’m considering a questionable “official act” i know who I’m going to to clear it first.
was this ruling incorrect
Yes. The decision is fundamentally flawed and if the US survives this, it will be discussed in law reviews for decades to come.
If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way
Are you presuming that a reactionary majority in SCOTUS ruling something squares with “correct”? Setting that aside for a second, I’ll answer it by saying their decision makes it legal for the president to commit crimes in an official capacity, and that decision is wholesale incorrect by virtually any standard other than “Conservative Party go Brrrrr”. Say that out loud a few times: “it’s legal for the President to commit crimes in an official capacity”. This is defacto opening to kingship / authoritarianism. If you go read the entire constitution (it’s pretty short) and you’ll recognize that these same 6 jurists cannot back this decision up with anything remotely resembling what the constitution says. It goes against all of the language holding our government officials accountable to the law. So yes… I square it quite easily by saying that all 6 of the majority decision jurists are wrong and just because it’s a majority doesn’t make them right.
Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
This argument doesn’t go as hard as you think. My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself. My opinion here truly doesn’t matter (which I suppose negates my first to responses above, but you asked…) but Sotomayor’s legal opinion surely matters. That was my point.
All I’m saying is that if I’m POTUS and I’m considering a questionable “official act” i know who I’m going to to clear it first.
The SC put it on the lower courts, which means any challenge to “what’s an official act” will just come back to the SC upon appeal. The conservative majority can choose to hear or not and if they do, hear any challenge, they can rule along party lines in favor. Sotomayor is saying, rightly, that other than a mild delay, this is effectively a rubber stamp for the President to commit any crime while in office. Further, my argument is that if Trump gains office again, he won’t bother clearing anything - he’ll go straight into persecuting anyone he deems disloyal. He’s already saying Kinzinger and Biden and Liz Cheney should meet a military tribunal (though there is absolutely zero jurisdiction). In any authoritarian country, this means at least life imprisonment if it doesn’t mean a firing squad. And he can do it and THEN see what the SC says. He’s not going to clear anything because he knows they are in his pocket, and he can use their own decision to eliminate them if they don’t play ball on ruling what is official or not. The SC may think they have power right now, but take this forward a year from “First day dictator Donny” and tell me the Supreme Court can do shit? They’ve created their own monster.
My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself.
Yeah, well, it sounded a whole lot more like you were attacking me and my opinion. You could have absolutely made this point without cursing and without the whole “basement dweller” part. I think we all understand that Sotomayor is a SCOTUS justice.
It’s horrendously incorrect. Listen to the dissenting justices, or constitutional scholars like Luttig and Tribe. Basically anyone who’s serious and not a craven Trump crony.
So, we’re allowed to disagree with scotus judges without being basement dwellers? I agree, both with that and your conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
It’s just funny that I was mercilessly downvoted for pointing this out.
not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller
BTW, I never called you this. I was making an arbitrary comparison to any number of us having a conversation about the ruling and saying “not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller” compared to “a sitting SCOTUS jurist who dissented” in terms of “we better pay attention”
I think you were downvoted because your post implies you agree with the majority. You have clarified it by saying:
[you agree with] conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
Probably should have started with that.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
Probably should have started with that.
I did. At least pretty clearly when I said they were crowning themselves king rather than the POTUS king. Apparently, tho, I have to say I disagree with the ruling in every post or posters will assume that any disagreement with someone who claims the ruling is wrong must mean I think the ruling is correct. I guess I should have known this already tho.
BTW, I never called you this.
“Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:”
Funny to read you say my post, which doesn’t even remotely imply that I think the ruling was correct, implies that. . .but when you respond to my point, saying it is wrong, and throwing in “not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller,” that doesn’t imply you think that about me.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
You’re projecting here, as you were the one cursing at me and insulting people. I said nothing about you and I’m not really irked at all; I understand fully how partisan the average poster is and that any dissent is going to get piled on.
Apologies if it came off that way. Truly meant that as a generalization and pretty much include myself in the snark if it matters at this point…
Strong incentive to not step down if you can just keep being a crook. Watch how quick the republicans start to argue over what is “official” and what isn’t depending on who is president.
fascism has never been reasonable, or it’s self consistent.
And they’re going to quickly find out how much that illusion of power is worth when they try to contain or cross whatever right-wing fascist they help empower.
These idiots think their power structure isn’t going to be gutted like some kind of Mortal Combat move as soon as it is convenient for the king of the US to do so. They have no enforcement of their own, the other branches barely have to listen to them as it is, and by the time whatever CIA maga thug clubs them to death in their bed it’s going to be too late for them to render a judgement on whether it’s an official act. They’ll be dead and replaced with someone who values their life more.
So the POTUS gets to pick his jury, which Trump did.
So let’s say, hypothetically.
The president thought that people shouldn’t eat chocolate ice cream. It’s anti-american.
And “for the good of the country” anyone who eats chocolate ice cream has to be isolated from the rest of society.
That’s not an official act. It’s not really on the periphery of official acts.
But because definitionally anything that, at the president’s sole discretion, is “in the best interest of the United States” is now argued as an official act.
Biden likes vanilla ice cream.
But he isn’t going to detain you for unamerican activities if you prefer chocolate ice cream.Choose freedom! Choose chocolate ice cream!
Then why did they send the decision back to lower court to decide what “official “ acts are?
So that they can be appealed to in any specific case and decide for themselves.
So, if Trump does an official act, and assasinates all the SC justices, who decides then?
If a president is killing off supremes, we’re well past following rules, so that’s anyone’s guess.
We are a nation of cowards and fools.
If you’ll excuse me, I’m off to circus.
Kings and royalty are nowadays mostly entertainment. The king function is now called a dictator
Well the president is still limited in what powers he has, he just now has absolute immunity from legal repercussions to his actions and decisions.
The way I understand it, if he breaks those limitations in what powers he has, there are no consequences
Can the current king please decree that we’re a democracy?
He can do that by officially assassinating the conservative SC justices, nominating new ones, and then having armed marines inside the senate comittees to ensure they are confirmed immediately.
There’s probably a few more steps, but this would get us back on track. He would have to be willing to give up his powers at a certain point, which means installing the legal apparatus (in the form of government officials) with the will to strip those powers.
Justice: “Don’t kill me, it’s illegal!”
Assassin: “I’m on orders from the president.”
Justice: “Oh, well, go ahead then.”
What’s most worrying is that this hasn’t happened yet. Once Trump gets elected, it’s all over, folks. Time to pack it in.
Ah yes, the classic play in which you acquire unchecked power, exercise it to get rid of all your political rivals, then somehow use it to restore democracy. Occurs once in an anime about giant robots and psychic powers, and never in history.
Isn’t it word to word exactly what Sulla did?
The Leninist Grindset
Tankies gonna tank
The one thing we have going for us is that it’ll be a race against mortality to accomplish these things. And I don’t think his failson is likely to be installed as the next Great Leader. Usually the dictators start much younger.
I agree no one is ever letting go of power unless they are explicitly required to do so.
I agree no one is ever letting go of power unless they are explicitly required to do so.
George Washington did that twice. But he was the anti-Trump.
Also: Cincinnatus
“Cincinnatus was an opponent of the rights of the plebeians (the common citizens) who fell into poverty because of his son Caeso Quinctius’s violent opposition to their desire for a written code of equally enforced laws”
Hey, he had at least one thing in common with The Cheeto Man.
King Juan Carlos of Spain.
The next steps would be ordering the justice department to prosecute him, going to court, and appealing all the way to the new Supreme Court so they can overturn the precedent. Which would require either moving very quickly or preventing the other side from taking power, one way or the other.
Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing. It’s a slippery slope not unlike the one that caused Rome to go from being a republic that viewed regicide as a fundamental virtue to an empire that would persecute groups for denying the divinity of the emperor.
Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing.
It would be a genius move for Biden to arrest Trump right now as a terrorist enemy combatant, but give hints that he’s doing this because of the supreme court ruling. And then in order to be prosecuted, the Supreme Court would need to completely reverse this ruling and restore democracy. Even if Biden went to prison after a total reversal of the ruling, he would be regarded by history as a saviour of the country on par with Lincoln.
That’d be fine, but simplest move for Biden is to install Hunter as Veep, then have Hunter declare Joe the winner of the election next January. When Joe kicks the bucket a few months later, the presidency gets handed down from father to son as God intended.
I could’ve sworn Lemmy added a “upvote multiple times” feature, but I can’t find it.
The next official act of president Biden should be to drone strike a terrorist at Mar-a-Lago
King Joe (crowned by his new subject, John Roberts) acts officially by not negotiating with terrorists.
Biden should just have the justices arrested as an official act.
It would be a valuable teaching moment.
*assassinated
Whilst technically immune now, assassinating them is still extremely polarising and likely to make martyrs, forever. And they won’t be able to justify the consequences of their decisions.
Re-arresting them constantly however, from the oval office, interfering with their civil liberties… They themselves would have to describe how it’s not an official act, and why the president shouldn’t be immune.
The moment they make a ruling… destroy their property, seize their assets, etc… Make their lives a living hell.
It’s still polarising, but makes them feel the consequences of their actions. And they’ll have to justify it in the public court of opinion for everyone to see to why this is a good thing.
It’s easy to fix. Joe appoints pro-constitution justices, they in turn prosecute him for murder.
I’ll take dead martyrs over actively corrupt figures of absolute authority any day any how.
Would those who said president can kill anyone after being killed by president be martyrs?
Here’s your bumper sticker…
No Kings, Vote Biden
Well to be fair, it’d be King Biden.
Just a far less scary king who might even work to unking himself.
Or something idk.
This shits scary.
Exactly this. It’s critically important that we prevent trump and his fascist goons from getting control of this power. But that in itself doesn’t address the really big problem here. Living at the whim of a benevolent king is still living under a king. I honestly think this is it. The constitutional republic is over in every meaningful way beyond window dressing. Given the authority of the Supreme Court, I don’t see a legal fix for this. This is dark AF.
This ruling basically covered how ex-Presidents might be prosecuted. The President still has some level of accountability to Congress via impeachment , although we’ve already seen how hard that is.
Of course, when Trump’s second impeachment didn’t stick, one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts. Now that it is in court, the Supreme Court just said “Sike! Congress needed to act all along”.
Edited to add: Another legal fix would be simply packing the court. Democrats should pound this during this election. They should make sure voters know that if Democrats are given the White House and both houses of Congress, they will fix the court by adding 4 new seats.
Mueller: “I can’t do it. Congress should handle it.”
Congress: “We can’t do it. The Court should handle it.”
Supreme Court: “Nah.”
one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts.
The courts that they knew they had stacked in their favor. That was always an intentional copout.
Watching a panel of news anchors discuss this today, I was struck by the ashen looks on their faces. As if they had today witnessed a mortal wound to the nation.
I don’t know. Something tells me that they don’t have the integrity left to hold their own rulings true for the group of people that they don’t personally support.
I’m getting more of a “rules for thee but not for me” vibe but from the supreme Court
It’s not in human nature to limit your own power. I’m voting for Biden, for his appointments and admin, I have nothing against him, but my experience is that no one relinquishes power. Once the office has the power, no one’s going to let it go.
Vote King Joe I
I mean, who has a better story than Biden?
Have you seen the interviews with them? They literally want him to be king. They say yes when asked if he should be dictator.
Great. Let’s put him and Castro in crowns on billboards and stick them in Miami. Let them look at them for awhile.
The irony that Cuban refugees vote for the racist because he’s “not the dictator”
First of all, they aren’t monolithic. Young Cubans vote differently than old Cubans. But, Rick Scott has the formula…no matter the subject call your opponent a socialist. They hate socialism…but always want strongman rule.
Agreed
Biden is the current God King and apart from a 2 minute speech he ain’t doing much about it
What’s the point of impeachment if the president is immune to everything anyways? This ruling makes no sense
The argument, such as it is, is that impeachment is the remedy for a Mad King Trump situation, rather than the courts. In fairness, this is not a completely unreasonable reading of the Constitution, but the framers’ intent is almost completely irrelevant to the reality of our current political system. As originally written, the federal government was basically designed to be a vaguely-representative oligarchy, with states free to appoint senators and presidential electors however their legislatures saw fit – the majority of states did not consistently hold a popular Presidential vote until the 1820s, for example. Impeachment by 2/3rds vote is not an unreasonable bar to set when it’s assumed that everybody in government is going the part of the class and social structure, and the President acting as a class traitor would put all of Congress into uproar. The founders did not anticipate more direct democracy, the two-party system, or the vulnerability to demagoguery that those things would introduce into the system.
So here we are now, with a nakedly partisan Supreme Court majority holding that the only way to interpret the law is to ignore the world as it is and instead imagine things are still as they were at the end of the 18th century (mostly because that philosophy plays into the hands of the right wing) and pretending that a 2/3rds vote in the Senate is still a reasonable bar, when in fact the present political reality is that you will never peel 12+ sycophantic Senators away from a dangerous demagogue’s camp for long enough for an impeachment process to succeed in removing him from power. Of course that’s by design, but textualism and originalism paved the road to this ruling.
At this point I’m not even ironically suggesting that Biden should call their bluff and start offing prominent right wingers. The Roberts court is clearly working in the assumption that Democrats won’t play dirty with the tools they’re laying out for their incipient god-king, and it’s looking increasingly like the only way to keep those tools out of their hands is to strike first.
The founders did anticipate direct democracy, the two-party system, and demagoguery. These were much discussed. They weren’t able to provide perfectly for these eventualities, which also was well understood at the time.
The constitution clearly doesn’t allow a president to be removed from office by a prosecution, but it just as clearly doesn’t offer any immunity to a prosecution for presidents and not to mention ex-presidents. There’s never been a presidency, including Donny’s, where a criminal charge was even contemplated that would have impinged on a president’s legitimate duties.
The founders did anticipate direct democracy, the two-party system, and demagoguery. These were much discussed.
…and notably not a part of the constitution they eventually drafted, which was my point. Rather than try to build a democratic system with effective safeguards against demagoguery, they chose to have a system where only “the right sort of person” got a say in the running of government, and assumed that the separations and limitations of power they wrote in to the rest of the document would be sufficient protection against bad actors in that scenario. Now, we have (more or less) representative democracy, but with no additional guardrails to protect against someone like Trump, and SCOTUS is peeling away what we do have day by day.
Well said.
You can remove court justices via impeachment. They’re not impeaching the president, they’re impeaching the Supreme Court justices. They’re nominated by presidents and confirmed by congress, so it falls on congress to remove them.
Not that I would ever suggest it, but I bet the moment a president even attempted to abuse this official power against these six conservative traitors to democracy, they’d desperately try to walk this decision back - they only care for the potential of abuse when it negatively affects them
They wouldn’t even need to actually abuse power at all.
Just order the secret service to take over their personal security details, and attach members of the seal teams to each detail…. “As advisors”.
It would be an implicit threat, sure, but also, a totally legal one, and they could hardly argue that “ensuring their safety and wellbeing” is not an official act,
Go a step further and detain them in safe houses… claim that because of their decision their have been death threats and its in the interest of natuonal security. Give them basically no freedom of movement or agency of their lives… I bet they would change their tune quickly.
Trust me. Swapping out security details like that is enough. More than enough.
You swap out a single driver unexpectedly, and most these paranoid wankers notice. They’d freak out. You remove every one they’re used to?
Oh they’d be screaming bloody murder before they ever got on the car.
The point is to retain the prima facie moral high ground while making the point…
I’m not advocating for violence. But I’ll put it this way. If I ended up on a jury for a murder trial for someone who killed one of the justices that decided for this. I would dedicate my life to nullifying that jury so hard. Not advocating. Just saying.
Well we’d better not miss then
Oh, indeed.
SCOTUS has been trying to hump democracy to death since 2001. The fuckers have just about finally managed it, and we’re all screwed.
