The big thing everyone is missing here is the ruling says the president cannot be prosecuted for actions that are constitutional. So this does not mean the end of democracy or whatever people are saying. The president can’t stay in office after his term expires. The president cannot order his political opponents killed- in fact, the Supreme Court issued a statement on that just this year.
Yes, and that is very important and I did not know that, so thank you for clarifying.
That said, this supreme court interprets the constitution however they want. The court in its current form (as a whole) is not ethical, lawful, or legitimate. As soon as a republican takes the presidency, there is no stopping them.
You say that like it’s a defined thing that will keep a president in check. SCOTUS rules on constitutionality. Are you really that confident that they’ll keep Trump in line if he gets another term and starts really getting to work? The road to fascism isn’t paved with goods intentions, it’s paved with mealy mouthed, two faced decisions like this that give more and more leeway until it’s too late to take back.
Amici curae aren’t Supreme Court decisions. “Amici curae” means “friend of the court”. It’s an argument from third parties submitted for a pending case. The dissents by the actual Supreme Court justices explicitly reference the assassination potential.
That is true, thank you for explaining that to me. Although I read the dissent and what Sotomayor said was that the president would get their day in court to determine if those actions were constitutional, not that this ruling pre-approves them to do so. Meanwhile Roberts said these concerns are overblown… idk really, I don’t like the ruling, it basically feels like an expansion of qualified immunity to the president, which makes things more difficult for prosecuters but not impossible.
They’re only pre-approved for explicit constitutional duties, but they’re presumed immune for all others and their reasoning can’t be questioned. “I believed they were an imminent national security threat and took the hard choice.” It’s like “I feared for my life” for gun nuts, but you can apply it to nearly anything because the president has expansive emergency responsibilities and the only way to prove he wasn’t actually taking an action “officially” would be using his private communications, but any communications with “advisors” are precluded from being used.
And anything that makes it through that gauntlet to the Supreme Court rather than being dismissed earlier will be decided on ideological grounds.
Are the Dems gonna do anything or is America as we know it just going to die, “get out and vote” isn’t going to cut it when they can just say it doesn’t count
Why bother, the president can just make an official act to suspend the elections as the country is being “invaded” by the southern border, and call it treason for anyone to oppose it. A lower court would do what? Say it is wrong and commit treason? Can arrest them faster than judges can have required cases.
Civil immunity makes sense because anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime, and allowing people to sue the president for official acts would leave him vulnerable to a nonstop barrage of lawsuits. Crime doesn’t work that way. The only way the president should be facing criminal prosecution is if he’s breaking the fucking law. That’s kind of the opposite of what the president is supposed to be doing. You know, faithfully executing the laws and all that. If a presidential action violates the law, it can’t really have the legitimacy that’s being presumed for all official acts here, because by definition it violates his official duties under the constitution.
Now, I would never suggest that a sitting president order the unlawful detention or summary execution of political opponents and/or corrupt justices. But I might suggest that, in the interest of national security, that he order intelligence agencies to troll through communications records, financial records, etc. to search for signs of treason and corruption at the hands of foreign powers. And if that search should happen to find evidence of any kind of illegal activity among his political opponents or on the Court, well…
He doesn’t even have to assassinate 1 or 2. Thomas committed tax fraud on his RV deal and Alito probably did on his bribes. Joe Biden apparently has dictatorial powers over the IRS and DOJ. Start arresting people and when Trump supporters act up, use emergency powers to drone strike Mar-a-Lago. Those are all official acts.
No. No, it would not. The cooler thing would be to deny SCOTUS in this. Their interpretation of this is far and away the wrong decision. Playing by the new rule only legitimizes it. Pull an Andrew Jackson, deny SCOTUS their ruling and continue as though nothing happened. Same with the end of Chevron deference and Roe.
Andrew Jackson was a racist pursuing genocide, but he was right that the court doesn’t have any inherent power to enforce its edicts. That was explicitly outlined in the Federalist Papers as a reason giving court “ultimate decider” powers wasn’t a problem.
Ah, right, certainly the next President will also behave the same way…
This feels terribly naive. It would be one thing if we could cement into the Constitution that the President does not have immunity, but Congress can barely pass a funding bill, let alone an amendment. But failing to use the power granted to try and set the country on a better path just ensures that a dictator will rise who does not care about keeping the status quo. And Trump will have a rubber-stamp SC that will say any act he seems to be official is.
You know as well as I do that this ruling will only apply to Trump. They’ll have some other bullshit to come up with if Biden wants to do literally anything, but Trump will have absolute immunity.
Trump IS going to win and with this ruling we just created a king…
Biden, I urge you to, once your cold has passed, begin officially eating treasonous Supreme Court justices. Who’s going to say it’s unconstitutional? Not the Supreme food Court.
Welp. The Supreme Clergy that now rules what used to be the US has established King Trump as the leader of the Christian Caliphate that’s coming. Conservatives are gonma love living in the white version of Iran.
Can you believe all the conservative Supreme Court justices eat lunch together in the same room? Like the ideas that must be floating around that relatively unsecured… what were we talking about again?
Biden can now legally shoot Trump on stage during the next debate. Gotcha.
I don’t think having a raspy voice will be the biggest talking point in the aftermath this time.
And if anyone raises a stink and somehow manages to prove that this was illegal anyway, I’m sure it’s the same people who have claimed that he’s senile, ergo not fit to stand trial.
“The only way to solve this is by voting harder.” They leave out the “for the next 30 years, continuously, until the court is rebalanced through natural causes and decides to undo what is now ‘precedent’”.
Edit: Funny how people refuse to recognize the body still consist of 9 people, and the key is that it needs to be a majority of those 9.
The level of corruption of the court is another matter.
at which point 3 people’s views were ignored which is why they dissented to the majority opinion. Joe Biden in 2020 had 51.5% of the vote, under your same logic 155 million people as a group decided to elect Joe Biden. Which, while technically true, you’re pushing semantics at that point that minimizes the differences in views and opinions.
I was never was and never will be a Trump supporter, or even Republican so you see wrong.
But I can see from your comment that you are one to jump to conclusions without reason, so “Not someone I’d listen about anything”.
The person you’re arguing with made the point that if you hold the ones who voted against the bad thing happening as partly responsible, by the same logic, you should hold people who voted for Clinton in 2016 partly responsible for the election of Trump.
I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either the entire USA including you is responsible for Trump becoming president and the entire SCOTUS is responsible for today’s ruling, or you’re not responsible for Trump winning and the three dissenters are also not responsible for today’s ruling.
I get that you’re angry, and it’s a good day to be angry, the day that they ended democracy, but maybe be more selective about who you’re angry with and sometimes try to check if maybe there are some valid things people can disagree with you about.
Yes, but the comment didn’t say that the SCOTUS decided, it said 9 people did. Would you say that 53 people played badly? That’s how many are on the team, after all.
Funny how people refuse to recognize the body still consist of 9 people
funny how you are proud of your kindergarten logic
and the key is that it needs to be a majority of those 9.
and the majority in this case was… wait for it… SIX PEOPLE 😂
so “the court decided to…” or “6 members decided to…” is true, but “9 members decided to…” is not true, because 3 members decided not to.
similarly you can say “51% of people voted for biden” or “people voted for biden”, but not “100% of people voted for biden” - because that would simply not be true.
if you have any other difficult question, like why is water wet, don’t hesitate to ask 😂
Trump’s appointments tipped the balance. They didn’t “decide” as much as been taken over. It’s a part of the judicial system gone rogue and Congress is supposed to reign it back in.
Someone must always make decisions, a world where no decisions are made would devolve into a Mad Max type thing, where the fact that we are members of the animal kingdom would become very readily apparent. We used to decide these things with trial by combat, where the most skilled warrior (or who chose the most skilled as their champion) was right because God apparently said so, by making him so good at fighting. Still a person making a decision. Not far off from a world where you decide if someone was a witch by trying to build a bridge out of them.
The modern trick is dividing up the decision-making power so much that nobody can assemble it all into their personal toolkit and fully embrace corruption with no consequences.
What he did was not official. Now the lower court gets to decide what is official, and it’s being intentionally slowed down until AFTER the election so the current admin can’t go ballswild with the new allowances. Fuck these Maga-locing shitheads on the SC.
It happened before AND after he was out of office, and they were caught on tape moving locations. Knowingly relocating Presidential documents outside of the chain of command in itself is a crime. It’s technically treasonous.
Intent is proven by subjective knowledge of what he knew about the law, and his internal staff have already testified he knew of the existing laws. There’s also recent recodings of him saying so and worrying about a crime being committed. He knew, and illustrated such, it’s not a hearsay case if he’s on tape, and others acted at his direction, which again, is already on record.
The ruling explicitly states that those things on the record are not admissible if they were not through some public form of communication. So his phone call to the Georgia governor would be inadmissible even though it is currently public knowledge since it was originally a private call he claims was official business.
Add comment