- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
You must log in or register to comment.
Sadly no. The way they turned it around was very clever.
So they said that only official presidential business is immune, but were ambiguous what that actually means, so inevitably they made it so it would go through them to determine what is the official business.
Second thing is that they picked up from their ass that Constitution also says that no official business can be used in any trial, even if it is unrelated. This not only jeopardizes all the indictments he had, it possibly will negate the New York trial.
trump already submitted request to have it referred based on this SCOTUS ruling.
This election might be the last free election we have. And even if trump loses it will still not be over.
Please vote and make your friends and family vote. And not just for president but also for the Congress.
Edit: I also recommend everyone a book “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century” (there’s also reading on YouTube) all the warning signs are present. The more people are aware what it is at stake the higher chance that this can be stopped.
I also recommend everyone a book “On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century”
In case it makes a difference to someone, it’s a pretty short book.
Removed by mod
For all intents and purposes does. Just SCOTUS made itself as a final check on what is an official act and what isn’t.
So officially dissolve the Supreme Court and instate a new pack of judges and let those judges decide if it was an “Official Act” and thus totally legal.
I don’t think this immunity applies to states. So the NY trial was unrelated.
The NY trial was unrelated to his presidential business anyways. It was about private property and fraud relating therein.
But also, other states that have indicted him for Jan 6th activity are unaffected by this, regardless of how Trump could spin this.
We are dealing with an openly partisan court. Normally this wouldn’t affect it, but they already broke a lot of rules.
Under this new standard, a president can go on a four-to-eight-year crime spree and then retire from public life, never to be held accountable.
Uhhh, that already happened.
Yeah, but now the Supreme Court said that’s perfectly ok and totally legal.
Well, we’ve already had a president assassinate US citizens, so let’s rev up those predators and go looking for whatever billionaire’s yacht Coney Barret, Kavanuahh, and Roberts are chilling on
If you want to get a bit more cynical, you could very easily describe the deaths of Fred Hampton and the Freedom Summer murders as presidential assassinations. If you want to take the extra step down the rabbit hole, there’s very real reason to suspect MLK was assassinated by the FBI.
Maybe Obama should have been charged, just to set the record straight, but likely this wasn’t attempted because (1) Trump was too busy grifting to put any weight behind this, (2) all of those killed were on foreign soil, and (3) they were all working with Al Qaeda. This is getting into the realm of whether or not killing an enemy combatant is murder and what really defines an enemy combatant. I’m sure there was also pressure from both sides to specifically not answer these questions.
Either way I’d rather live in a country where a President gets charged after leaving office as a rule, than live in a country where a President can practically burn everything to the ground and walk away untouched.
Except the extreme court gets to decide who is immune and what actions are okay.
Not if they’ve been forcibly removed from office.
With a 6-3 vote either way.
EXTREME
Most presidents have done this. Whether it be bombing countries they’re not at war with, trafficking drugs to enrich the war machine by arming enemies of the state, or invading foreign countries and committing war crimes based on their own manufactured lies.
bombing countries they’re not at war with
Fun fact. We haven’t officially declared war since 1941.
Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and now Ukraine? All NATO led military interventions or AUMF policing actions. No articles of war required.
trafficking drugs to enrich the war machine
One of the craziest “America just be like that” stories I’ve ever heard was the time Bush Sr set up a drug buy right outside the White House, by having the DEA extort a teenager picked up for selling crack on the opposite side of town to show up on Pennsylvania Avenue the night of a State of the Union Address and do a straw sale to another agent, just so he could talk about it on national TV an hour later like it happened organically.
Bush dangling a bag of crack on national TV and saying in his Father-Knows-Best voice that we need to go full-on Phoenix Program across every major American city, because of his little kabuki crack sale, is one of those “burned into my conscience” factoids that really changed how I saw our country operating.
deleted by creator
Except for the whole retiring from public life part. I wish Trump would just retire from life entirely.
Would this same ruling have happened if Trump wasn’t involved? No, I don’t think so.
Stop the
stealoverthrow.I heard a good argument that while these justices are appointed for life to be judges, it doesn’t specify which branch. Reappointment them to a lower court and appoint new justices. They voted for this let them reap the consequences. Outline enforceable ethics standards.
The rules of the Senate, as undermined by McConnell and inexplicably tolerated by Schumer ensure it won’t happen.
That co-equal branches thing was nice while we had it.
Just dismiss the senators as official business. What still stands in the way of a total power grab by a US president?
As long as it’s official business and they keep it official by officially removing all obstacles, they are legally perfectly in the clear. IANAL obviously, but total power seems just a matter of being audacious enough to grab it.
The president can’t dismiss them. That’s adding executive power. They took away criminal liability. He’d need to kill/kidnap/imprison them. And who knows if they’d rule that as an official act. They didn’t actually outline what counts and what doesn’t. So maybe for Biden that wouldn’t count and for Trump it would.
Move them to Florida or Alabama.
I think the more viable option is just packing the court but biden would have to get two Republicans to flip and all Democrats to agree. It’s embarrassing he didn’t do it when the Democrats had Senate in 2020
The President Can Now Legally Assassinate You, Officially if it Supports the SCOTUS Majority’s Agenda
Anything Biden did would be determined to be “not official” by them because he’s a Democrat.
Sounds like a reason for Biden to set a whole bunch of legal precedent while he’s still president.
He just needs to drone strike Trump officially
As I mentioned on another comment, there is no mechanism for the court to enforce that. The DOJ is under the President. Who will arrest the President? The SC may think this empowers them more, but it really does not.
The conservative court acts in tandem with the GOP. Any government organization run by them will provide the support.
The SCOTUS agenda is to collect maximum gratuities.
And advance Christofascism.
It’s settled law so not to worry, they can just change their minds later when it doesn’t benefit their conservative bosses.
The president can also now legally dissolve the Supreme Court and instate a new supreme Court who can then make the decision if it was an official act or not.
wash; rinse; repeat
Welcome back to another episode of “Where’s Humanity Going to Shit Next?”, where we tackle the depressing consequences of the actions of the human race to our beloved planet Earth. This episode we visit the US once again, where the president decides he now has the power to kill you himself if he feels like it.
Join us next time to see where humanity is really gonna shit next.
This election will be the final free and fair one. God help us all
The pres can now assassinate a billionaire and take all their wealth for themselves as an official act, and be immune.
Anything can be defined to suit their needs.
isn’t that the definition of, I don’t know, a king?
The US has already extrajudicialy murdered a US citizen on purpose. The US under Obama sent a drone to murder a citizen without a trial.
Precedent was publicly set then.
The US 3 letter agencies have been doing this in secret for their entire time in power. But those are widely considered outside the law but necessary. Whatever that means.
Agree but I feel like pointing that out is implying this somehow doesn’t make things worse which I feel like is missing the point. This removes the implicit threat of prosecution for anything the president does.
Now no matter how much political will exists for the prosecution, the president is fully and unequivocally immune.
Biden needs to commit to overturning this, and ideally Citizen’s United, if he is re elected
Screw that, he’s elected now. Just do it.
Outside of embracing the facist rules and cementing the precedent, how would he do this? Or are we just full on giving up on democracy completely?
deleted by creator
Just do an official act on the 6 servative SCOTUS judges.
All this murder crap is lame; why has nobody been parroting how the president can do other crimes, like tax fraud or lie under oath or buying drugs or literally anything but murder?
Because the point is to scare you. “Breaking news president buys crack” is not as scary as “Breaking news president axe murders cabinet.”
The ruling is not good, but it’s not Seal Team Six executes its political rival bad. It’s more likely to be President sells nuke secrets to Saudi Arabia under the new official “I Get to Sell Nuclear Secrets to Saudi Arabia Act” he just made up right now.
The President can fire employees that refuse to have sex with him. Firing executive branch employees is well within the President’s power. If they don’t submit to him, he can fire them. Official act.
literal killing if human beings is lame? we already know to white collar criminals are doing tax fraud and use drugs. old news.
Lame like an overbeaten dead horse, I mean. I was just trying to put out there that there’s worse ways to try and ruin our country like Madoff did but worse. And plenty of others I didn’t even mention.
No, the murder isn’t crap.
Biden can now murder the billionaires. Never mind the small fries.
You would think that somebody that called themselves a journalist would actually have journalistic integrity. Nothing the ‘journalist’ claimed was in the SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled that the president has immunity for many of his presidential actions and none for personal actions such as going on a murder streak
Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole “official” vs “non official” acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
Quoting from Sotomayer’s dissent (pp 29-30, paragraphing my own):
This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Kore- matsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting).
The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world.
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 as- sassinate a political rival? Immune.
Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in ex- change for a pardon?
Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
They go on with an incisive critique of the majority’s reasoning:
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trap- pings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Sotomayor is behind the times.
They’re not “bribes” anymore, they’re “donations” now.
That’s not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
The ruling doesn’t even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.
As for the “decision made by trials court” that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
“When the president does it, it is not illegal”
This has been a long time coming and the presumption is that he is allowed to until that is somehow challenged.
Again, incorrect. Stop reading headlines and making decisions. Read the ruling. You are spreading misinformation.
Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you’re refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you’re wrong. You’re not arguing in good faith. Go away.
Direct from the decision (page 31):
If official conduct for which the President is immune may be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the “intended effect” of immunity would be defeated.
Please tell me what capacity any court has to enforce a ruling against a sitting President. I’ll wait.
As that bastard Andrew Jackson once (allegedly) said “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
SCOTUS ruled that the president has immunity for many of his presidential actions and none for personal actions such as going on a murder streak
Right, that’s literally the point. All a malfeasant president would need to do is declare that assassinating political rivals is an official presidential action. If the president argues that it’s an official act of their office and not of their own personhood, there’s little room to hold them accountable for it.
It may seem like an absolutely ridiculous argument, and that’s because it is. What constitutes an “official” presidential action was left intentionally un-defined by the court, so that such ridiculous arguments could be treated as legitimate if the immunity is challenged.
Perhaps Biden could firmly establish precedent for that…two birds, etc.
deleted by creator
Why should we listen to you and not Sotomayor?
The only remedy the current court’s ruling really allows is impeachment. It essentially means that (absent a later ruling specifying exactly what counts as a President’s “official acts,”) the President can do literally anything he wants and never suffer any consequences. Don’t agree that what he was doing was an official act? Impeach him or stfu. He’s not going to jail for breaking any law, ever.
Who’s going to impeach him? They will file the articles of impeachment then get waxed that night on their way home.
As President my FIRST OFFICIAL ACT is to get a 3 Kill Streak UAV!
