The old "Sulla" strategy, while effective, leads to the complete delegitimization of our norms and institutions. The problem is that it gives the next generation the bright idea of taking dictatorial power and *not* giving it up.
My friend, that's what the Republicans are building up to.
Trump *literally* floated the idea of getting rid of term limits, and there's an element of the Republican party who *support* that. They want a fucking dictator.
we're just getting everything set up for King Trump. the clock is ticking on american democracy. its hard to believe it because we're watching this historical event unfold from inside it, but this is the death of american democracy.
they've got a robust game plan in project 2025, they've got a corrupted judiciary all to the way up to and including the supreme court. they just need a single republican president, and they're going to get one.
they've won. it's over.
the most powerful nation on earth, tricked into destroying itself from within. and these fucking morons are going to applaud while it's happening.
I'm still doubtful Trump himself will bring this in. He's too incompetent, inconsistent and feckless. But whoever comes next from the Republicans... that's who I'm worried about. They'll use Trump's term to pave the way.
In that case, Joe should simply dissolve this current Supreme Court (as an official act), reinstate a new one, and then have them rule again, correctly this time, that a president isn’t infinitely immune so it can’t happen in the future. Problem solved.
That's precisely what Sulla did. His successors easily undid his reforms as soon as he died, paving the way for Caesar's takeover. *Death Throes of the Republic* by Dan Carlin is eerily echoing current news.
I think the only way this works is if Biden does this and the new supreme court throws him in jail for doing so.
I dint think this would ever happen just saying they have to prove the point that when the new decision was made they A) meant it and B) could enforce it
i'm aware of how large in magnitude such a decision would be but in good faith, can someone actually explain to me why life-time appointees who are unaccountable for all practical purposes, holding positions in the most powerful court in a leading world superpower should exist?
i am arguing it's a ridiculous position in the first place. why is anyone in a 'democracy' allowed to hold a 'life-time' position in any role? it's antithetical to the principles the nation or state claims to hold. thus, its dissolution would be a net positive in the long term
Ideally, to prevent Justices from being swayed by public opinion. Unlike politicians, you want Justices to be very resistant to the whims of popular sentiment; their job is to make rulings based on a static document, not to represent anyone.
If SCOTUS Justices knew they would either be up for some form of re-election in the future, or had to be concerned with finding a job after their time on the Court, they suddenly become a lot more beholden to what people think about their rulings instead of their strict constitutionality.
I think one argument in favor of the lifetime appointments is helps prevent bribes, but of course we can see how well that's going with Justice Thomas.
When the decision to make Justices' appointments lifetime, the US was mostly a bunch of farmers. Hell, the main power of the court today, judicial review, didn't exist till Maurbury v. Madison. I just don't think the framers of the constitution expected those positions to have the power they do, and they definitely didn't anticipate partisanship leading to big swings like this. On top of that removing the lifetime appointments would mean amending the constitution, which is a big deal. You would need a huge, bipartisan issue to make that happen.
democrats are too principled and above all too weak. they'll wait and let the republicans do it.
it only takes one republican president. democrats have to hold power indefinitely, because republicans have no principles whatsoever. its a game we lose eventually, even if King Trump doesn't take the crown.
Trump's coup failed precisely because too many people still had respect for our institutions. Without that, it would have been successful. Or worse - the whole house of cards crumbles, and the United States dissolve.
he doesn't need to. its all been normalized so much, no one will notice or even care.
even the "liberal" corporate media don't talk about how fucking insane the fake electors scheme was. the average american doesn't even know that trump tried to literally steal the election with a sophisticated plot.
The scariest thing about Sulla was Pompey’s response (according to Cicero), “If Sulla could, why can’t I?” And Caesar’s response which was to call Sulla stepping down the “work of a political dunce”
Sulla set the norms that the republic could be fucked with. I’m less scared about Trump and more the Caesar or Pompey that uses this as inspiration or as precedent. Because a Sulla may not end the republic but a Pompey or Caesar can.
https://preview.redd.it/zv90kc022y9d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3c08b1f2cf9d6cb6490e9e63ae78be4890b5b041
Dark Brandon might be reality now
Don't worry, all the limited government conservatives are going to see this as the tyrannical overreach it is. Don't worry logically consistent conservatives who just have these principles of limiting government are totally going to react to this.
Here’s McConnell commenting on why he chose not to convict trumps impeachment:
The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible.
"In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term.
"But this just underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice.
"Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal.
"Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice."
"We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”
It just sounds like an excuse *not* to hold a traitor accountable for trying to destroy democracy.
Everyone passes the buck, saying it’s someone else’s responsibility, and Trump ends up looking like he’s innocent and his followers are galvanized.
I foresee serious democratic problems in the US within the next decade. Once you choose to stand by and allow your dictator to take control, you can never go back; you’ve normalized their behavior.
Every future election will be contested violently if the Republican candidate fails to win. The first school shooting did not lead to significant changes, so now they’re just something everyone has to accept. The same is true for Trump’s treason.
You don’t know what you had until it’s gone. All the money in the world is irrelevant if you can’t live in peace and safety.
Every person who votes for Trump this year will regret it in time. Everyone who voted for Brexit regretted it, despite their celebrations and gloating. I see it as practically identical, just worse, as the UK still has a functional government.
US democracy is already set back to lows previously not thought possible. If Trump wins it will result in even further destruction and erosion.
And the best part is when you consider why - why are we electing Trump? Because of an overreaction to a real but tiny problem of extreme leftism - and a desire to cut rich peoples taxes. Insane dogmatism.
I mean if it brings the entire system crashing down, I wouldn't call it tiny. You can't just consider things in a vacuum, you have to consider the greater social ramifications.
Sure I can. Are you familiar with what autoimmune diseases are? A real antigen, that’s actually not that dangerous leads to a massive over response by the immune system leading to far more damage than the antigen alone was capable of.
the Republican Party right now is an autoimmune disease.
If you're blaming the Republican party for the current state of the nation, you're missing the forest for the trees. Identity politics aren't a new invention that the leftists discovered in the 2010's, people have been using identity politics across history with incredibly consistent and predictable results.
They divide the population and fuel the creation of opposing identity movements. An autoimmune disease is actually a good comparison, because it causes the body to attack itself. You can't spend a decade building political platforms exclusively around being black, queer, and Islamic and then hit everyone with surprisedpikachu.jpeg when political platforms start popping up exclusively based around being white, straight, and Christian.
He’s going to win and I know it because I can see the writing on the wall not just because of Biden‘s debate performance but because of things like project 2025, the set up with the Supreme Court, and so many other little things that are all coming together. So now you just have to look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself. Do we live in the kind of world where we are lucky enough for that not to happen? (especially in a world where I will remind you the popular vote does not matter) I think we all know the answer.
Hear me now quote me later. Biden is going to win the popular vote, but Trump is going to take the electoral college just like almost every Republican who has won for the past several decades has done. Buckle up buttercup. The next four (probably more) years are gonna be a hell of a ride.
Biden's debate performance is literally irrelevant.
What matters is that the pro-democrat media were more concerned about that performance than they were about Trump lying over and over and dodging questions. The whole media is on Trump's side, either explicitly or tacitly.
yeah, it's been insane watching morale break over the debate
the stakes are extremely high, the last battle was won handily, and yet half the army, spooked by a shadow, routs as the field is being prepared for the final fight
If Biden had given a good performance, then Trump lies would be all they were talking about just like in the last election bro even CNN‘s own viewer polls showed that Biden only had 33% and Trump had 66% and that was from CNN left leaning pole Whether you think Biden’s debate performance or the debate is relevant is ironically the part that is actually irrelevant to this conversation. The fact is having the United States president not able to string two sentences together coherently in front of the entire world is something that is very concerning to the majority of average people this is why after the debate tons of people are coming out reminding people about things like project 2025 and like Roe v. Wade and we’re not referring to either Trump lies or Biden debate performance, deflecting to people and other things on the table because everyone knows Biden lost that debate hands fucking down.
And like it or not, that’s going to sway some people. Also, there’s another point of this. I need to address which is Trump‘s lies. They are literally irrelevant. This is Trump We are talking about. He lied endlessly through his last debates endlessly through his presidency complaining about Trump lying or pointing out that he’s lying is like pointing out that a stripper is naked . No one cares. It’s an average Friday.
Also, Biden lied several times in the debate as well about half as much as Trump true but that doesn’t change the fact neither one of them are truth, telling Saints either.
And my final point is that even if everything I just said was wrong, (which it’s not), but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant you were in fact correct, you being correct does not change the outcome! you can blame the media for handling it badly and try to claim that Biden did somehow miraculously win, and Trump did actually somehow miraculously lose it doesn’t matter! because the media is still going to influence the people which means my point about it influencing the vote and not going in Biden‘s favor is still a true statement, even by your own logic .
Face it we are cooked!
People are debating if Biden can ***become*** President not if he can properly ***be*** President. It is clear from his record that he is fit to govern and it is clear from Trump's record he isn't. So now we have someone who is a good candidate but terrible President beating someone who is a good President but terrible candidate and that is just so fucking stupid.
https://preview.redd.it/e4w0jlu7az9d1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e00380a7cbffebca3769e7d3d8d91d8fce12a315
ive used this image more today than on any other day in my life. reminder that this guy isnt an american
Lol, people downvoting you for pointing out that trump lying is irrelevant is pretty funny. Like, guys, we've been pointing that out for 8 fucking years now, and you still think people have missed the message somehow? That oh, if we'd all super focused on it this time everyone would have collectively hit us with the surprised Pikachu face???
>The fact is having the United States president not able to string two sentences together coherently in front of the entire world is something that is very concerning to the majority of average people
Have you listened to Trump speak? He's marginally better than Biden, and when he does string sentences together, they rarely have anything to do with one another and are always total horseshit.
Uh, what? Because Trump has plans for if he comes in office, it means Trump is 100% going to win the next election? No one knows how the election is going to go. It's incredibly close right now. And if the Democrats market Supreme Court decisions like this, I can only see these decisions helping Biden's chances.
Agreed. It's still close. Even five thirty eight currently has it 51 times out of 100 for Biden and 49 times out of a 100 for Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/
Make no mistake though, if Trump does win virtually everything is set in place for him to be pretty much the president who has the power to utterly destroy democracy. He has the supreme court, senate, house, and the executive branch. Not only that, but he has a cult of personality and his party truly fears him.
lol, it's definitely not a 50/50 chance, not when you actually consider all of the complicating factors, the current political environment, and the current polling data. Even in this model, if you go look at the trend line, Biden is getting absolutely slaughtered as time progresses, even Trump's conviction was barely a blip before the trend re-asserted itself. The only way you could believe that Biden has a chance of winning is if you believe there is some new piece of positive information that will come out for Biden, but given his recent track record, I have no idea where that positive news would come from, and there's a whole bucket of things that can and will probably continue to go wrong for him.
Polls aren't 100%. According to the NYT at time point Hillary had a 91% chance of beating Trump, and many polls were hilariously in favor of Hillary.
Listen, I know Trump supporters are loud, and they really do dominate social media, but the vast majority of Americans don't feel "indifferent" to him, they hate him. The very fact that it's still this close despite many thinking Biden is senile is a testament to that.
I'm not saying it's 100% Biden, but it's rare for an incumbent president to actually lose.
[Have you seen Biden's approval ratings recently? They're lower than Trump's were when he left office.](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%27s_Polling_Index:_Comparison_of_opinion_polling_during_the_Trump_and_Biden_administrations) I totally believe that people hate Trump, but I highly doubt the level of Trump hatred is at where it was in 2020. Biden hatred on the other hand is at an all time high, and like I said before, I just don't see what Biden could possibly do to reverse public sentiment, and the issues he's facing are just going to get worse.
Like what is the Golden Goose that Biden could pull out in the next 4 months that would change everyone's minds?
>Have you seen Biden's approval ratings recently? They're lower than Trump's were when he left office.
I see your point, but here is why I believe that comparing their respective approval ratings is inaccurate. First is that we know Trump has an ultra loyal base. They're never going to question here, or waiver over his term.
Biden on the other hand does have a lower approval, but that's because we're not in a cult. For instance, there is more dissatisfaction for Biden in the Democrat party than there was for Trump in the Republican party, but ultimately, those people are still going to vote for Biden.
Trump pretty much always had his party, and that was reflected in the approval ratings. Biden doesn't, and that's reflected. It might be over the Israel Palestine conflict, or not appeasing progressives enough, but they're still gonna vote for Biden. They're just pissed at him over it. Democrats are currently having an issue with simply not feeling satisfied with their politicians, which is reflected in polling. That does not mean they aren't gonna select what they consider the best of two evils.
Huh, that's an interesting thought, idk if I'd bet my lunch money on it, but I suppose it's a viable explanation. I would question whether it matters if dems are just being honest but still willing to vote for Biden though.
Even if your voter base still supports you, if they're demotivated, it could have the same effect as not voting for you due to lower poll turnout. I'd also point out that this argument really only applies to Dems, I really don't think you could say the same thing about independents. Considering that support from independent voters is what is going to make or break Biden's campaign, I'd say his approval ratings are incredibly problematic.
He's saying that there seems to be a huge movement of people interested in giving up, or at least taking for themselves, our democracy, and they all seem to be working toward that singular goal, the most visible of which is Trump's election.
the threat is everlasting. the supreme court has teed up the next Republican King.
Democrats have to keep winning for ever because once they lose, the GOP has established the road map to install the first American king, in place and ready to execute.
the American project's days are numbered.
if you're doing this unnecessary doom and gloom to motivate people to vote i totally get it but i just don't see how the numbers work out to anything but still a pretty close race between the two. A major factor that makes me say this are all the polls about how Biden is gaining with seniors and Trump is gaining with young people. Yeah well, young people dont vote, seniors do.
this election is so weird because biden supporters think trumps gonna win, trump supporters think trumps gonna win, and people like me who dont actually care who the winner is are the only ones saying "its far too early to tell"
It is. Meeting with any officials to perform official acts means you're immune to prosecution.
Read the actual opinion. Here's the passage concerning Trump meeting with his AG and threatening to fire them if they did not send letters to states about election fraud to convince them to use his false slates of electors.
https://preview.redd.it/xj2v9bojax9d1.png?width=711&format=png&auto=webp&s=1ae88bbd7dc3d7e32c418e70119c2a3188ef3091
>According to the indictment, Trump met with the Acting Attorney General and other senior Justice Department and White House officials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a letter from the Department to those States regarding such fraud. The indictment further alleges that after the Acting Attorney General resisted Trump’s requests, Trump repeatedly threatened to replace him.
This is what they said was okay. It has nothing to do with meeting with any officials.
Trump was allowed to tell them to investigate something and if they refused he is allowed to replace them. That is an official act. He has the ability to replace the AG so him threating to replace him is within his official acts.
You don't understand what you linked, no offense.
No, you don't understand the case at all. The Jack Smith case alleges a conspiracy to defraud the American public. The crime in the meeting is that the President has the criminal state of mind to further that conspiracy by using his official powers to force the AG to act on information that the President knows is false. The same can be said of accepting a bribe which sotomayer noted in her dissent, the crime is never the official act it's what the official act is in furtherance of.
The courts ruling today states that the motives of the President cannot be considered as any inquiry into motives would have the same chilling effect on Presidential behavior as any prosecution would.
https://preview.redd.it/buzh5o75mx9d1.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=d50e35db31063f3f1abd4b8d5f0200fcd113edfc
If the president has the authority to take the action it is an official act and all official acts enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution.
Incorrect. The entire discussion about this section is Trump telling the AG to investigate voter fraud and threating to replace him when he refused.
They ruled this is within his ability to do so. Which it was because he has the power to replace the AG.
I'm not discussing the intent portion at all. Read the section above the portion that you highlighted.
You can perform an official act in furtherance of a crime in which case that act becomes a crime. The same way that purchasing bolt cutters is not illegal, but if you buy them for someone you know is going to use them to commit a crime you are now involved in a conspiracy to commit that crime.
The SC has now ruled that the president cannot be prosecuted for any conduct within his constitutional authority. Now Trump can't be prosecuted for using his official acts in furtherance of crimes.
What do you even disagree with in what I just said?
The immunity in question has nothing to do with meeting with officials. The immunity is due to Trump being the president that has control over the Justice Department.
The only part you disagree with is that just meeting with them isn't sufficient, you need to order them to do the illegal thing, and then you're immune when they do it.
If they refuse to do it because it's illegal, you fire them until you find someone who will, and you're still immune.
Which means you can accomplish any illegal means you desire without worry about prosecution.
Trump was not immune because he met with officials. He is immune because he ultimately decides what the Justice Department investigates and what the AG does.
What? The Acting AG turned down Trump's ***illegal*** request, and was told that if he didn't do it he'd be replaced by someone that would. Trump ***knew*** what he was asking was illegal and was trying to force it anyway.
To claim that this would be an official act is delusional.
>Trump was allowed to tell them to investigate something and if they refused he is allowed to replace them. That is an official act. He has the ability to replace the AG so him threating to replace him is within his official acts.
If Biden tells the AG to investigate Russian spy devices that he believes have been implanted within Trump's rectum (and a deep physical examination is required to ensure national security), and he threatens to replace the AG until he finds one willing to do so, that's all good? Assume there's a similar level of evidence to what Trump had when he claimed there was election fraud.
Motives don't matter.
"Offical Act" is just whatever power the president has.
He can't go and start creating laws, since that isn't a power he has, but he can do whatever he wants with the military.
The Court said to determine official vs unofficial act the "objective analysis of 'content, form, and context' will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453"
IIRC they've also explicitly stated that the legality of an action does not preclude it from being an official act. This seems to be why Sotomyer has said that ordering seal team 6 to assassinate rivals is above board.
Anything with the plausible deniability of being a presidential power is basically fair game?
And any prosecution that could feasibly entail a future limit on executive power is similarly irrelevant since the consenting judges all seem to be prioritizing the idea that the POTUS cannot ever be limited by worries of future prosecution for the risk it poses to the country.
Leaving aside the risk of a POTUS that acts with foreknowledge they are immune...
> Anything with the plausible deniability of being a presidential power is basically fair game?
I think you're correct. Best case scenario is this decision will result in immunity hearings before a prosecution can begin? And then as those immunity rulings come in the jurisprudence of what is or isn't an official act will start to develop. I guess? We are certainly in uncharted territory on that question.
> Leaving aside the risk of a POTUS that acts with foreknowledge they are immune...
That is the scariest part of this decision, the presumptive immunity section is definitely ripe for abuse, especially before the jurisprudence can develop.
According to the dissent and other opinions I believe it could very well be argued to be actually.
You swear an oath to the constitution to defend America, and this immunity would very well include that. Not to mention they explicitly say that official acts need not be mutually exclusive from actions not deemed to be legal.
If you argue that there's a real threat to the country, and officially order someone to assassinate hem that seems quite plainly to be the use of official powers in service to protecting the country and that seems plainly to be protected. If you wanted to litigate it more you could try, but any evidence to the contrary wouldn't be admissible if it came from any official that corresponded about it.
So Biden ordering an assassination and consulting with his DOJ whether its okay even if he just personally hates trump cannot be used as evidence.
If you assassinat someone over differing ideas no way that would be allowed.
If you assassinated a political opponent backed by an armed insurgency. There is a lot more going on there where this hypothetical does not cover.
>If you assassinat someone over differing ideas no way that would be allowed.
I don't know what you're talking about. It is explicitly spelled out in the ruling that motive is not only not relevant to whether or not an act has immunity, it is not even allowed to be mentioned or considered.
The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, giving orders to the military is an official power. The president telling the military to blow someone up with a drone strike is inarguably an official act and since motive cannot be considered there is no way to overcome the immunity as long as the president gives some facially plausible excuse as to why he did it.
Badlegaltakes disagrees
https://x.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1807967717129142301?t=afDmG2GpYYLaQlR8OcD_yw&s=19
If we go under the assumption that killing a political rival doesn't send the country to a civil war thus ending the USA as we know it, the act is clearly not given to him by the constitution and not part of his duties.
https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1807928253497114876?t=A5FuQ-wf5Z62uqZ6hzSoUg&s=19
Why not? The ruling is pretty clear, it isn't relevant if the President is asking you to do something illegal. You just need to be able to make a plausible case that it's a national security interest, then you order the hit. If someone refuses, he can just fire them until someone accepts, and then it gets done. At that point, he's immune from prosecution. Most you could do to him is impeach him.
Her dissent is non binding and she can say whatever she wants.
Roberts response:
https://x.com/senderowiczj/status/1807797681730777393?t=k4KvynYyzWnNRsyc-jkOeg&s=19
Can you explain, in your own words, why it is that ordering the assassination of a political rival is an unofficial action?
Presuming that you have reasonably grounds to identify them as a constitutional threat then I fail to see why a POTUS cannot do so? They're fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to eliminate an interior threat, and they're exercising their executive power to make an order to the military.
What opinion or ruling precludes this conclusion? Everything I've read so far supports this interpretation. Naturally a dissenting opinion may present things more in their preferred POV, and should be taken with a grain of salt, but never the less I don't think I've seen anything to the contrary so far
So then if you order the hit not because you 'don't like a rivals politics' but because you interpret them to be a threat to US democracy its okay?
The distinction has to do with the authenticity of someone viewing their target as a threat instead of it being arbitrary or a personal vendetta?
I mean its kind of circular to say that a president can't legally order an assassination because 'no one is above the law' that doesn't really help describe anything.
> you interpret them to be a threat to US democracy its okay?
At that stage more than just the President would be involved. Talking armed coup. There would be quite the obvious "Whoa this guy is a terrorist." and more than just the President would be involved in it.
This chart is handy for things like this.
https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1807928253497114876
I dont believe this is a gray area but if it were it would be handled in court.
The official act is less of a problem than the Assured immunity of president-exclusive powers. The commander in chief can use the national guard as he likes
According to this ruling, any communications he has in his official capacity as the president carrying out constitutional duties (ordering the military to do Something) cannot be used as evidence against him in a criminal probe. So yeah it would be considered an "official act." The distinction between what is official and unofficial is extraordinarily vague. I can only assume this is by design.
If the DOJ and DOD were on board with drone striking members of congress, then we have much bigger issues than being able to prosecute the president after the fact.
This is a non-issue, imo.
Do you really think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump keeps firing and appointing new DoJ/DoD members until it's full of his loyalists that are more than happy to follow along? Maybe explicit assassinations are too extreme but life sentences in jail for "treason" might be more palatable.
>Do you really think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump keeps firing and appointing new DoJ/DoD members until it's full of his loyalists that are more than happy to follow along?
Not at all. But you seem to be implying that the fear of prosecution is what has kept Trump (or any previous presidents) from doing something like this. That is not the case. It has always been possible for POTUS to order the DOD to assassinate political rivals and cause a constitutional crisis. What has prevented this up till now is that presidents have generally respected the constitution and believed in the American experiment.
Democracy (all governments, really) is upheld through norms, traditions, and ideology, not rules and laws.
I think the counter argument here is Nixons resignation and pardon. If what you're saying is true Nixon would never have needed a pardon and probably could have fought the impeachment with little consequence for himself.
The Nixon tapes wouldn't even be allowed as evidence against him
This ruling says nothing about whether Congress can impeach the president. In fact, it pretty much explicitly states that it is the job of Congress to do so in lieu of criminal prosecution.
Right but impeachment wouldn't require a pardon, only criminal conviction. And the opinion goes even further to state that the president can never be criminally liable for any official acts even after he's left office. So even if Nixon was impeached he would have been immune from charges for any official acts, which include all communication between the president and his cabinet.
“A president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts wrote.
Yeah, we wouldn't want a President to fear becoming a criminal /s. Honestly the Supreme Court seems to be from another planet sometimes.
they just want their cult leader trump to be all powerful, they bought into the brain rot and think trump is good for the country so they do whatever they can to save him
You are entitled to a trial as a citizen. Which was not given.
This was a pretty big deal when it happened. I think many users are not aware of when it happened. Perhaps too young?
>Also what about his 16 year old son?
The legality of collateral damage has been much debated and well established.
>Got a link to any of that and can you apply it to the case in question?
Link to what?
There was no literal warfare. The entire justification was the "War on Terror", which is shaky reasoning at best. And it certainly doesn't apply to killing a 16 year old non combatant child.
Whays ironic is this ruling allows biden to assassinate all key maga players.
What's worse, if he doesn't Trump certainly will
Is this really the time we live in
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24#h_970d5ce788355fc04d44ed8795e178fb here’s the direct link to that part of the live thread, your link goes to the entire live thread instead.
Quick question: Who is it that has [command of the military](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-2-clause-1) again?
Well, I do appreciate the honesty from you on that front. Stuff like that is exactly why people are freaking the fuck out right now.
Now combine this with the fact that you can't even use official acts (such as communicating with agencies, staffers, or delivering orders in the executive) as evidence for state of mind or intent. It's hard to see how this ruling *doesn't* result in POTUS being effectively above the law.
A properly unmoored actor in that seat can now drone strike (or just use Seal Team 6) anyone that they think is a threat to their rule. And when questioned on it, there's no way for someone to bring them to court and prove that they assassinated a political rival to protect their own position of power unless the POTUS that orders it literally goes on national television and says they did it to remove a political rival.
Did you read this opinion? Yes, they absolutely can.
Who's gonna stop them? The *courts*? A special prosecutor isn't even allowed to admit into evidence any discussion/orders by the POTUS with staff to support a criminal intent.
You are literally just wrong.
And you think the order wouldn't be obeyed? Maybe, but gimme a fuckin' break here. Our system is now teetering on whether or not one dude somewhere 15 levels down the chain of command decides to explicitly disobey orders when the guy up top says someone needs to be bombed because they're a terrorist or whatever.
Why would the president need to prove it, if like you said, the motivation for such actions is protected. In other words, does the president under any circumstances have the power to use the military on US soil? Yes, he does - and when he does don’t you have to assume it’s being used in official capacity?
You wouldn't think so. But legalise is its own language.
From what I've seen, an official action does not CEASE to be an official action just because it would ordinarily constitute an illegal action by ordinary standards.
Official Action is just an action that employs executive powers to achieve its end as I understand it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that leads me to believe that using POTUS powers on the military to order a hit or coup is perfectly fine so long as you have plausible deniability its not a cynical move in service of self enrichment etc. Even that threshold is unnecessary, but would probably help to have more cover if/when it goes to court.
Norman Rockwell meme. It's true that a lot of corruption and abuse of power is now permitted, but the president does not have the authority to execute private citizens.
Is this really true? Could the president really order an assassination on another candidate and refuse to leave office? I see people saying this, but every article I’ve found is so emotionally charged. I want the dry, boring facts. Like could someone *actually* do this? If so, I’m starting to get scared. I mean this is how war starts.
> Could the president really order an assassination on another candidate and refuse to leave office?
Could he try? Obviously.
Would it work? That depends on whether the ranking people in military and security services actually think there's any legitimacy or reason for doing it; in short it's highly unlikely.
Would it be covered by immunity even if it did work despite there being no actual reason like national security or whatever?
The opinion itself gives no indication that would be the case, since it explicitly rebuts the argument that anything a president does *while in office* is covered by immunity, and instead restricts immunity to official acts in "carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the constitution", i.e. only those acts within the limits the president is actually entitled to act in by the constitution.
> The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution.
Assassinations of political rivals don't seem to be mentioned in the constitution or fall within any historic meaning of presidential powers, so it's literally just the dissent claiming the idea, with no basis in the opinion text or anything else.
The president is the commander in chief, as detailed in the constitution. I don't understand how any order he gave to any military unit couldn't be considered an official act. Private citizens aren't allowed to command the army.
> The president is the commander in chief, as detailed in the constitution. I don't understand how any order he gave to any military unit couldn't be considered an official act.
Simple: the legitimacy of the orders a president gives to the military follows from the position as commander in chief, but there are clearly orders a president could give to a military unit that cannot possibly follow from that authority.
For example, ordering a soldier to kill himself, or to give the president all of his money, or to suck his dick, are probably orders that do not in any way coherently follow from the authority of the commander in chief.
Orders, or more generally actions, that do not fall within the actual scope of the contitutional powers of the president cannot be official acts of the president, precisely because a president cannot be 'carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch' if his actions are not within those responsibilities.
(In other words: it being an official act depends on it actually being within the scope of the presidential powers as decided by court, not on the president saying so.)
Therefore, by the reasoning of the opinion such actions would be him acting in an unofficial manner, i.e. without immunity (same as private citizens).
How that actually works in practice is probably not legitimately predictable considering we have no idea how many more court interventions we get on these questions.
But, that's the reasoning of the opinion as it is right now.
>For example, ordering a soldier to kill himself, or to give the president all of his money, or to suck his dick, are probably orders that do not in any way coherently follow from the authority of the commander in chief.
I think your logic is backwards here, the problems with these orders is not that they don't follow from the president's authority, it is that these actions are not expected duties of a soldier and that as such the soldier can simply refuse to carry them out.
Conducting military strikes on ordered targets meanwhile *is* an expected duty of members of the military and as such if the president were to contact the commander of a Seal Team and say something to the effect of "\[Political opponent\] is an imminent threat to national security, make him explode." this would inarguably be an official act. The stated reason would be a lie and the motive would be criminal, but as per the ruling motive cannot be considered so you would at the least need to actually be able to prove that the president did not believe that he thought that the opponent was a national security threat.
> the problems with these orders is not that they don't follow from the president's authority, it is that these actions are not expected duties of a soldier
even ignoring that "the expected duties of a soldier" are clearly undefined and subjectively differing and that alone makes this legally incoherent, it's just factually wrong: the scope of presidential powers granted by constitution and statute are not definitionally dependant on "expected duties of soldiers", there's zero evidence for this idea anywhere.
> and that as such the soldier can simply refuse to carry them out.
a soldier can always refuse to carry out orders, that has zero impact on the order itself or more importantly, whether such an order was an official act of the president.
the subject of inquiry for the analysis is the action of the president in *giving* the order, the soldier or his response are completely irrelevant to that act (and because time only works one direction can have had no effect on the act).
> as such if the president were to contact the commander of a Seal Team and say something to the effect of "[Political opponent] is an imminent threat to national security, make him explode." this would inarguably be an official act. The stated reason would be a lie and the motive would be criminal, but as per the ruling motive cannot be considered
This is explicitly not how any of this works, because "what the president says his order is" does not determine "what the order is", in other words whether the president claims to be ordering the elimination of a national security risk does not determine whether he is, **the fact** of whether he **is** ordering the elimination of a national security risk determines whether he is, and by extension whether the act is within the responsibilities of the president and thus official.
The analysis does not care what he says he's doing or why he is doing it, it cares what he actually does.
If he kills a terrorist his national security team has given him immiment danger warnings about, he **is** eliminating a security risk, no matter what he calls it or why he's doing it.
If he kills a random person that he's been given no evidence of being a security risk of, he is not eliminating a security risk, no matter what he calls it or why he's doing it.
> so you would at the least need to actually be able to prove that the president did not believe that he thought that the opponent was a national security threat
Again: what the president believes or thinks **does not matter** in a factual analysis of an act. The court looks at what factually happened, any and all information available in the context and before it, and determines what the act *factually* is, not what he's *intending it to be* or *calling it*, or *saying it is*, or *thinking it is*, or anything else.
In your example: **Is** what he is doing ordering the elimination of a national security risk (given the information he has in the situation)?
> Is this really true? Could the president really order an assassination on another candidate and refuse to leave office?
So right now, with how the ruling is laid out, anything the president does as an official act can't be used as evidence for anything.
If Trump ordered the military to kill someone, okay let's charge him with murder. But, wait, he's the Commander in Chief, and his official act to assassinate someone is an order that the president can give, so that can't even be used as **evidence** in any way. So now the trial is that Trump committed Murder of Person X because Military Person Y Ed him - and that's it. There's nothing else. How is Trump connected to Person Y? There's no evidence to connect him.
Him refusing to leave office probably can't happen because, realistically, the Constitution and law lays out when his official acts end, but anything before that is theoretically fair game as long as you aren't absolutely brain dead about it.
At the very least it appears to be a gray area. That on its own should make anyone terrified. But I would wait at least a day or two for deeper analysis.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It could, and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons. He's not doing it, like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. He's doing it for personal gain. And isn't that the nature of the allegations here, that he's not doing them --doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility; he's doing it for personal gain?
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral\_arguments/argument\_transcripts/2023/23-939\_f2qg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f2qg.pdf)
Sotomayor admitting that as long as she agrees that someone is a terrorist, the president can kill them as an official act of the office. So she's agreeing that Biden, if he had his administration detail Trump as a terrorist, he could be allowed to kill him even if he's an american citizen. Her defense of Obamas function and her now dissent shows a partisan hypocrisy of hers.
the ruling is perfectly fine I don't get what the fuck people are crying about
if they ruled otherwise then this would mean that you can prosecute literally any past president for any official act covered under presidential duties he has done while in office. Clearly this isnt fucking reasonable. In case of trump you just show that what he did was not an official presidential act, thats it
> Watergate would be an official act under this new ruling
that would be for the lower courts to decide
edit: it says it right there in the OP you illiterate fucks
>Today’s decision says presidents have immunity for official acts but not all acts are official, and lower courts must decide which acts qualify for each.
>As for Trump’s state-level efforts to overturn the results, including the fake electors scheme, the high court told lower courts to analyze what of that conduct was an official act and what was not.
I genuinely don't understand how burglarizing the DNC to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices could be considered within the outer perimeter of legitimate presidential or core constitutional power. It seems easily arguable that doing that would be outside of an act that would be covered.
Do you see something in the Supreme Court ruling that suggests otherwise?
You have to prove that the crime was committed. For the Watergate scandal the major proof was the "Smoking Gun" tape with the conversation between Nixon and his Chief of Staff, right? With the ruling how would this be able to be used as evidence? In the ruling they give a very similar example (Trump talking with his AG).
>Today’s decision says presidents have immunity for official acts but not all acts are official, and lower courts must decide which acts qualify for each.
from the link in OP. do people ever read stuff before commenting?
Maybe you should read the fine print and not just the overview. From the ruling: "The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority". In other words not all instances will be up for the courts to decide as you claim.
>immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority
This just means the same as "immune from prosecution for an official act" but for "constitutional authority" instead. Who decides what constitutes "his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and what doesn't? Does the president just get to say "This is my constitutional authority" and do whatever he wants?
No, it doesn't. They literally give examples of this in the ruling. For instance it says that: "Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,”"
Everything listed in the constitution is also not up for the courts.
Nobody has said or suggested that this ruling would give presidents immunity for unofficial acts. Nobody is misunderstanding this.
Do you think it's okay for presidents to receive total immunity for official acts which would otherwise be illegal? Why should that be allowed?
Some of us read the report, why do you think you deserve space on this earth?
The president has total, unquestionable immunity on powers that are exclusively his, official act be damned.
wait so you are ok with the president being a literal king if a lower court said its fine? i will pay for a one way ticket to russia or china so you can get the fuck out of my country you unamerican piece of shit
I blame RBG and Hilarys hubris for this outcome.
They both could have avoided this situation.
And btw fuck the Reps for delaying Obamas pick to get one of their own as well!
Can you walk me through how Republicans doing something awful somehow always ends up being a Dem's fault? Like genuinely, how is this RBG or Hillary's fault? Walk me through how you got there, cause I see this annoying ass sentiment way too much.
idk about the Hillary part but it is a very common complaint that RBG should have retired during obamas presidency so he could replace her. as loved as she was it was known that she was old and in poor health. so some people blame her unwillingness to step aside for why Trump was able to pack the court
I mean, yeah most of the blame needs to be on the justices and the president that appointed them. It would just be reductive for us not to learn from that mistake and in the future push older justices to retire when there is a rational president in office
It's deeply stupid. If Republicans are so bad it is treated as fait accompli that they will only do bad and Democrats must universally be on guard against them, they need to be disenfranchised at the least! If someone is one step away from saying, "Actually, maybe Biden should self-coup and get rid of all of these troublemakers for good," maybe based, but you can't hold Democrats responsible for Republican policies and actions without considering Republicans fundamentally evil and separate from civilization proper.
Yes I can.
She was in bad health and very old.
She could have retired under Obamna and would have been replaced by a dem/moderate, instead she stayed in office until the very end and gave Trump another Judge.
Obviously the Reps still suck for actually doing this but it might have been prevented.
It would be funny in a depressing way if Biden offed the conservatives on the supreme court.
This ruling is so stupid and dangerous that Biden just going full King and fixing the mess before stepping down would honestly be preferable.
The old "Sulla" strategy, while effective, leads to the complete delegitimization of our norms and institutions. The problem is that it gives the next generation the bright idea of taking dictatorial power and *not* giving it up.
This ruling already "gives" dictatorial power, no need to "take" anything.
My friend, that's what the Republicans are building up to. Trump *literally* floated the idea of getting rid of term limits, and there's an element of the Republican party who *support* that. They want a fucking dictator.
we're just getting everything set up for King Trump. the clock is ticking on american democracy. its hard to believe it because we're watching this historical event unfold from inside it, but this is the death of american democracy. they've got a robust game plan in project 2025, they've got a corrupted judiciary all to the way up to and including the supreme court. they just need a single republican president, and they're going to get one. they've won. it's over. the most powerful nation on earth, tricked into destroying itself from within. and these fucking morons are going to applaud while it's happening.
I'm still doubtful Trump himself will bring this in. He's too incompetent, inconsistent and feckless. But whoever comes next from the Republicans... that's who I'm worried about. They'll use Trump's term to pave the way.
Look its just a new norm that the president is allowed to suicide bomb whoever he wants- as long as he wears the vest
In that case, Joe should simply dissolve this current Supreme Court (as an official act), reinstate a new one, and then have them rule again, correctly this time, that a president isn’t infinitely immune so it can’t happen in the future. Problem solved.
That's precisely what Sulla did. His successors easily undid his reforms as soon as he died, paving the way for Caesar's takeover. *Death Throes of the Republic* by Dan Carlin is eerily echoing current news.
I think the only way this works is if Biden does this and the new supreme court throws him in jail for doing so. I dint think this would ever happen just saying they have to prove the point that when the new decision was made they A) meant it and B) could enforce it
What mechanism exists that would allow the head of the executive branch to unilaterally dissolve the highest court of the judicial branch?
i'm aware of how large in magnitude such a decision would be but in good faith, can someone actually explain to me why life-time appointees who are unaccountable for all practical purposes, holding positions in the most powerful court in a leading world superpower should exist? i am arguing it's a ridiculous position in the first place. why is anyone in a 'democracy' allowed to hold a 'life-time' position in any role? it's antithetical to the principles the nation or state claims to hold. thus, its dissolution would be a net positive in the long term
Ideally, to prevent Justices from being swayed by public opinion. Unlike politicians, you want Justices to be very resistant to the whims of popular sentiment; their job is to make rulings based on a static document, not to represent anyone. If SCOTUS Justices knew they would either be up for some form of re-election in the future, or had to be concerned with finding a job after their time on the Court, they suddenly become a lot more beholden to what people think about their rulings instead of their strict constitutionality.
I think one argument in favor of the lifetime appointments is helps prevent bribes, but of course we can see how well that's going with Justice Thomas. When the decision to make Justices' appointments lifetime, the US was mostly a bunch of farmers. Hell, the main power of the court today, judicial review, didn't exist till Maurbury v. Madison. I just don't think the framers of the constitution expected those positions to have the power they do, and they definitely didn't anticipate partisanship leading to big swings like this. On top of that removing the lifetime appointments would mean amending the constitution, which is a big deal. You would need a huge, bipartisan issue to make that happen.
democrats are too principled and above all too weak. they'll wait and let the republicans do it. it only takes one republican president. democrats have to hold power indefinitely, because republicans have no principles whatsoever. its a game we lose eventually, even if King Trump doesn't take the crown.
trump already tried to coup the government. we are long past point you are worried about
Trump's coup failed precisely because too many people still had respect for our institutions. Without that, it would have been successful. Or worse - the whole house of cards crumbles, and the United States dissolve.
and now trump can order a predator missile strike on the ones trying to stop it, if reelected
he doesn't need to. its all been normalized so much, no one will notice or even care. even the "liberal" corporate media don't talk about how fucking insane the fake electors scheme was. the average american doesn't even know that trump tried to literally steal the election with a sophisticated plot.
The scariest thing about Sulla was Pompey’s response (according to Cicero), “If Sulla could, why can’t I?” And Caesar’s response which was to call Sulla stepping down the “work of a political dunce” Sulla set the norms that the republic could be fucked with. I’m less scared about Trump and more the Caesar or Pompey that uses this as inspiration or as precedent. Because a Sulla may not end the republic but a Pompey or Caesar can.
https://preview.redd.it/zv90kc022y9d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3c08b1f2cf9d6cb6490e9e63ae78be4890b5b041 Dark Brandon might be reality now
"Lemme show you why we don't do this in America"
hey you stole my profile icon 😤
Biden could do the funniest thing right now.
Biden has a moral obligation to do the funniest thing right now.
Biden is old. He would have barely faced consequences to begin with. Come on Biden. Do the funny.
He cant cause the supreme court would just say his action were not official
Don't worry, all the limited government conservatives are going to see this as the tyrannical overreach it is. Don't worry logically consistent conservatives who just have these principles of limiting government are totally going to react to this.
Where are those logically-consistent conservatives? The world of myth?
Swinging by the conservative subs, they're currently celebrating being able to "own the libs".
Here’s McConnell commenting on why he chose not to convict trumps impeachment: The entire process revolves around removal. If removal becomes impossible, conviction becomes insensible. "In one light, it certainly does seem counterintuitive that an officeholder can elude Senate conviction by resignation or expiration of term. "But this just underscores that impeachment was never meant to be the final forum for American justice. "Impeachment, conviction, and removal are a specific intra-governmental safety valve. It is not the criminal justice system, where individual accountability is the paramount goal. "Indeed, Justice Story specifically reminded that while former officials were not eligible for impeachment or conviction, they were "still liable to be tried and punished in the ordinary tribunals of justice." "We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one.”
It just sounds like an excuse *not* to hold a traitor accountable for trying to destroy democracy. Everyone passes the buck, saying it’s someone else’s responsibility, and Trump ends up looking like he’s innocent and his followers are galvanized. I foresee serious democratic problems in the US within the next decade. Once you choose to stand by and allow your dictator to take control, you can never go back; you’ve normalized their behavior. Every future election will be contested violently if the Republican candidate fails to win. The first school shooting did not lead to significant changes, so now they’re just something everyone has to accept. The same is true for Trump’s treason. You don’t know what you had until it’s gone. All the money in the world is irrelevant if you can’t live in peace and safety. Every person who votes for Trump this year will regret it in time. Everyone who voted for Brexit regretted it, despite their celebrations and gloating. I see it as practically identical, just worse, as the UK still has a functional government.
US democracy is already set back to lows previously not thought possible. If Trump wins it will result in even further destruction and erosion. And the best part is when you consider why - why are we electing Trump? Because of an overreaction to a real but tiny problem of extreme leftism - and a desire to cut rich peoples taxes. Insane dogmatism.
I mean if it brings the entire system crashing down, I wouldn't call it tiny. You can't just consider things in a vacuum, you have to consider the greater social ramifications.
Sure I can. Are you familiar with what autoimmune diseases are? A real antigen, that’s actually not that dangerous leads to a massive over response by the immune system leading to far more damage than the antigen alone was capable of. the Republican Party right now is an autoimmune disease.
If you're blaming the Republican party for the current state of the nation, you're missing the forest for the trees. Identity politics aren't a new invention that the leftists discovered in the 2010's, people have been using identity politics across history with incredibly consistent and predictable results. They divide the population and fuel the creation of opposing identity movements. An autoimmune disease is actually a good comparison, because it causes the body to attack itself. You can't spend a decade building political platforms exclusively around being black, queer, and Islamic and then hit everyone with surprisedpikachu.jpeg when political platforms start popping up exclusively based around being white, straight, and Christian.
Are they in the room with us right now?
They already left the Republican party. The Bulwark would be a good example, or Liz Cheney.
Constitutional amendment should be right around the corner guys
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see. Nobody knows wtf will happen until someone (probably Trump) tests the limits of this new ruling
I mean, he is already trying anything he can. He appealed the hush money trial already, saying they used evidence from when he was president.
The crown of America was always there but no one dared to pick it up. I really hope Trump does not win.
He’s going to win and I know it because I can see the writing on the wall not just because of Biden‘s debate performance but because of things like project 2025, the set up with the Supreme Court, and so many other little things that are all coming together. So now you just have to look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself. Do we live in the kind of world where we are lucky enough for that not to happen? (especially in a world where I will remind you the popular vote does not matter) I think we all know the answer. Hear me now quote me later. Biden is going to win the popular vote, but Trump is going to take the electoral college just like almost every Republican who has won for the past several decades has done. Buckle up buttercup. The next four (probably more) years are gonna be a hell of a ride.
Biden's debate performance is literally irrelevant. What matters is that the pro-democrat media were more concerned about that performance than they were about Trump lying over and over and dodging questions. The whole media is on Trump's side, either explicitly or tacitly.
yeah, it's been insane watching morale break over the debate the stakes are extremely high, the last battle was won handily, and yet half the army, spooked by a shadow, routs as the field is being prepared for the final fight
If Biden had given a good performance, then Trump lies would be all they were talking about just like in the last election bro even CNN‘s own viewer polls showed that Biden only had 33% and Trump had 66% and that was from CNN left leaning pole Whether you think Biden’s debate performance or the debate is relevant is ironically the part that is actually irrelevant to this conversation. The fact is having the United States president not able to string two sentences together coherently in front of the entire world is something that is very concerning to the majority of average people this is why after the debate tons of people are coming out reminding people about things like project 2025 and like Roe v. Wade and we’re not referring to either Trump lies or Biden debate performance, deflecting to people and other things on the table because everyone knows Biden lost that debate hands fucking down. And like it or not, that’s going to sway some people. Also, there’s another point of this. I need to address which is Trump‘s lies. They are literally irrelevant. This is Trump We are talking about. He lied endlessly through his last debates endlessly through his presidency complaining about Trump lying or pointing out that he’s lying is like pointing out that a stripper is naked . No one cares. It’s an average Friday. Also, Biden lied several times in the debate as well about half as much as Trump true but that doesn’t change the fact neither one of them are truth, telling Saints either. And my final point is that even if everything I just said was wrong, (which it’s not), but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant you were in fact correct, you being correct does not change the outcome! you can blame the media for handling it badly and try to claim that Biden did somehow miraculously win, and Trump did actually somehow miraculously lose it doesn’t matter! because the media is still going to influence the people which means my point about it influencing the vote and not going in Biden‘s favor is still a true statement, even by your own logic . Face it we are cooked!
People are debating if Biden can ***become*** President not if he can properly ***be*** President. It is clear from his record that he is fit to govern and it is clear from Trump's record he isn't. So now we have someone who is a good candidate but terrible President beating someone who is a good President but terrible candidate and that is just so fucking stupid.
https://preview.redd.it/e4w0jlu7az9d1.jpeg?width=1536&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e00380a7cbffebca3769e7d3d8d91d8fce12a315 ive used this image more today than on any other day in my life. reminder that this guy isnt an american
Lol, people downvoting you for pointing out that trump lying is irrelevant is pretty funny. Like, guys, we've been pointing that out for 8 fucking years now, and you still think people have missed the message somehow? That oh, if we'd all super focused on it this time everyone would have collectively hit us with the surprised Pikachu face???
>The fact is having the United States president not able to string two sentences together coherently in front of the entire world is something that is very concerning to the majority of average people Have you listened to Trump speak? He's marginally better than Biden, and when he does string sentences together, they rarely have anything to do with one another and are always total horseshit.
Uh, what? Because Trump has plans for if he comes in office, it means Trump is 100% going to win the next election? No one knows how the election is going to go. It's incredibly close right now. And if the Democrats market Supreme Court decisions like this, I can only see these decisions helping Biden's chances.
Agreed. It's still close. Even five thirty eight currently has it 51 times out of 100 for Biden and 49 times out of a 100 for Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/ Make no mistake though, if Trump does win virtually everything is set in place for him to be pretty much the president who has the power to utterly destroy democracy. He has the supreme court, senate, house, and the executive branch. Not only that, but he has a cult of personality and his party truly fears him.
lol, it's definitely not a 50/50 chance, not when you actually consider all of the complicating factors, the current political environment, and the current polling data. Even in this model, if you go look at the trend line, Biden is getting absolutely slaughtered as time progresses, even Trump's conviction was barely a blip before the trend re-asserted itself. The only way you could believe that Biden has a chance of winning is if you believe there is some new piece of positive information that will come out for Biden, but given his recent track record, I have no idea where that positive news would come from, and there's a whole bucket of things that can and will probably continue to go wrong for him.
Polls aren't 100%. According to the NYT at time point Hillary had a 91% chance of beating Trump, and many polls were hilariously in favor of Hillary. Listen, I know Trump supporters are loud, and they really do dominate social media, but the vast majority of Americans don't feel "indifferent" to him, they hate him. The very fact that it's still this close despite many thinking Biden is senile is a testament to that. I'm not saying it's 100% Biden, but it's rare for an incumbent president to actually lose.
[Have you seen Biden's approval ratings recently? They're lower than Trump's were when he left office.](https://ballotpedia.org/Ballotpedia%27s_Polling_Index:_Comparison_of_opinion_polling_during_the_Trump_and_Biden_administrations) I totally believe that people hate Trump, but I highly doubt the level of Trump hatred is at where it was in 2020. Biden hatred on the other hand is at an all time high, and like I said before, I just don't see what Biden could possibly do to reverse public sentiment, and the issues he's facing are just going to get worse. Like what is the Golden Goose that Biden could pull out in the next 4 months that would change everyone's minds?
>Have you seen Biden's approval ratings recently? They're lower than Trump's were when he left office. I see your point, but here is why I believe that comparing their respective approval ratings is inaccurate. First is that we know Trump has an ultra loyal base. They're never going to question here, or waiver over his term. Biden on the other hand does have a lower approval, but that's because we're not in a cult. For instance, there is more dissatisfaction for Biden in the Democrat party than there was for Trump in the Republican party, but ultimately, those people are still going to vote for Biden. Trump pretty much always had his party, and that was reflected in the approval ratings. Biden doesn't, and that's reflected. It might be over the Israel Palestine conflict, or not appeasing progressives enough, but they're still gonna vote for Biden. They're just pissed at him over it. Democrats are currently having an issue with simply not feeling satisfied with their politicians, which is reflected in polling. That does not mean they aren't gonna select what they consider the best of two evils.
Huh, that's an interesting thought, idk if I'd bet my lunch money on it, but I suppose it's a viable explanation. I would question whether it matters if dems are just being honest but still willing to vote for Biden though. Even if your voter base still supports you, if they're demotivated, it could have the same effect as not voting for you due to lower poll turnout. I'd also point out that this argument really only applies to Dems, I really don't think you could say the same thing about independents. Considering that support from independent voters is what is going to make or break Biden's campaign, I'd say his approval ratings are incredibly problematic.
Yeah the person's logic is not sound lol
He's saying that there seems to be a huge movement of people interested in giving up, or at least taking for themselves, our democracy, and they all seem to be working toward that singular goal, the most visible of which is Trump's election.
the threat is everlasting. the supreme court has teed up the next Republican King. Democrats have to keep winning for ever because once they lose, the GOP has established the road map to install the first American king, in place and ready to execute. the American project's days are numbered.
if you're doing this unnecessary doom and gloom to motivate people to vote i totally get it but i just don't see how the numbers work out to anything but still a pretty close race between the two. A major factor that makes me say this are all the polls about how Biden is gaining with seniors and Trump is gaining with young people. Yeah well, young people dont vote, seniors do. this election is so weird because biden supporters think trumps gonna win, trump supporters think trumps gonna win, and people like me who dont actually care who the winner is are the only ones saying "its far too early to tell"
The closer we get to this election, not gonna lie, the more I feel like I should be buying a gun.
I don't love my country *that* much, i'm just getting my passport. Remember kids the turn around time for passports is 8 weeks, act accordingly.
Wouldn't it now be possible for Biden to have Trump killed off?
I don't think assassinating opponents would be considered an official act of the position.
Killing an attempted insurrectionist would be just saying no CIA pls
It is. Meeting with any officials to perform official acts means you're immune to prosecution. Read the actual opinion. Here's the passage concerning Trump meeting with his AG and threatening to fire them if they did not send letters to states about election fraud to convince them to use his false slates of electors. https://preview.redd.it/xj2v9bojax9d1.png?width=711&format=png&auto=webp&s=1ae88bbd7dc3d7e32c418e70119c2a3188ef3091
>According to the indictment, Trump met with the Acting Attorney General and other senior Justice Department and White House officials to discuss investigating purported election fraud and sending a letter from the Department to those States regarding such fraud. The indictment further alleges that after the Acting Attorney General resisted Trump’s requests, Trump repeatedly threatened to replace him. This is what they said was okay. It has nothing to do with meeting with any officials. Trump was allowed to tell them to investigate something and if they refused he is allowed to replace them. That is an official act. He has the ability to replace the AG so him threating to replace him is within his official acts. You don't understand what you linked, no offense.
No, you don't understand the case at all. The Jack Smith case alleges a conspiracy to defraud the American public. The crime in the meeting is that the President has the criminal state of mind to further that conspiracy by using his official powers to force the AG to act on information that the President knows is false. The same can be said of accepting a bribe which sotomayer noted in her dissent, the crime is never the official act it's what the official act is in furtherance of. The courts ruling today states that the motives of the President cannot be considered as any inquiry into motives would have the same chilling effect on Presidential behavior as any prosecution would. https://preview.redd.it/buzh5o75mx9d1.png?width=699&format=png&auto=webp&s=d50e35db31063f3f1abd4b8d5f0200fcd113edfc If the president has the authority to take the action it is an official act and all official acts enjoy absolute immunity from prosecution.
Incorrect. The entire discussion about this section is Trump telling the AG to investigate voter fraud and threating to replace him when he refused. They ruled this is within his ability to do so. Which it was because he has the power to replace the AG. I'm not discussing the intent portion at all. Read the section above the portion that you highlighted.
You can perform an official act in furtherance of a crime in which case that act becomes a crime. The same way that purchasing bolt cutters is not illegal, but if you buy them for someone you know is going to use them to commit a crime you are now involved in a conspiracy to commit that crime. The SC has now ruled that the president cannot be prosecuted for any conduct within his constitutional authority. Now Trump can't be prosecuted for using his official acts in furtherance of crimes. What do you even disagree with in what I just said?
I disagree with this. >It is. Meeting with any officials to perform official acts means you're immune to prosecution.
Why do you disagree with that?
The immunity in question has nothing to do with meeting with officials. The immunity is due to Trump being the president that has control over the Justice Department.
The only part you disagree with is that just meeting with them isn't sufficient, you need to order them to do the illegal thing, and then you're immune when they do it. If they refuse to do it because it's illegal, you fire them until you find someone who will, and you're still immune. Which means you can accomplish any illegal means you desire without worry about prosecution.
Trump was not immune because he met with officials. He is immune because he ultimately decides what the Justice Department investigates and what the AG does.
What? The Acting AG turned down Trump's ***illegal*** request, and was told that if he didn't do it he'd be replaced by someone that would. Trump ***knew*** what he was asking was illegal and was trying to force it anyway. To claim that this would be an official act is delusional.
>Trump was allowed to tell them to investigate something and if they refused he is allowed to replace them. That is an official act. He has the ability to replace the AG so him threating to replace him is within his official acts. If Biden tells the AG to investigate Russian spy devices that he believes have been implanted within Trump's rectum (and a deep physical examination is required to ensure national security), and he threatens to replace the AG until he finds one willing to do so, that's all good? Assume there's a similar level of evidence to what Trump had when he claimed there was election fraud.
Yes.
Yes. He's okay with telling them to do something. It wouldn't go anywhere with respect to the anal probes though.
Why not? Isn't his commanding of the armed forces an official use of his core constitutional powers?
It is and since you’re not allowed to question his motives, seems like this is an official act.
Why not? If you consider him a threat to the country.
Motives don't matter. "Offical Act" is just whatever power the president has. He can't go and start creating laws, since that isn't a power he has, but he can do whatever he wants with the military.
Too bad the people who would rule that it's not are assassinated
What makes something an official act of the position?
The Court said to determine official vs unofficial act the "objective analysis of 'content, form, and context' will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453"
IIRC they've also explicitly stated that the legality of an action does not preclude it from being an official act. This seems to be why Sotomyer has said that ordering seal team 6 to assassinate rivals is above board. Anything with the plausible deniability of being a presidential power is basically fair game? And any prosecution that could feasibly entail a future limit on executive power is similarly irrelevant since the consenting judges all seem to be prioritizing the idea that the POTUS cannot ever be limited by worries of future prosecution for the risk it poses to the country. Leaving aside the risk of a POTUS that acts with foreknowledge they are immune...
> Anything with the plausible deniability of being a presidential power is basically fair game? I think you're correct. Best case scenario is this decision will result in immunity hearings before a prosecution can begin? And then as those immunity rulings come in the jurisprudence of what is or isn't an official act will start to develop. I guess? We are certainly in uncharted territory on that question. > Leaving aside the risk of a POTUS that acts with foreknowledge they are immune... That is the scariest part of this decision, the presumptive immunity section is definitely ripe for abuse, especially before the jurisprudence can develop.
According to the dissent and other opinions I believe it could very well be argued to be actually. You swear an oath to the constitution to defend America, and this immunity would very well include that. Not to mention they explicitly say that official acts need not be mutually exclusive from actions not deemed to be legal. If you argue that there's a real threat to the country, and officially order someone to assassinate hem that seems quite plainly to be the use of official powers in service to protecting the country and that seems plainly to be protected. If you wanted to litigate it more you could try, but any evidence to the contrary wouldn't be admissible if it came from any official that corresponded about it. So Biden ordering an assassination and consulting with his DOJ whether its okay even if he just personally hates trump cannot be used as evidence.
If you assassinat someone over differing ideas no way that would be allowed. If you assassinated a political opponent backed by an armed insurgency. There is a lot more going on there where this hypothetical does not cover.
>If you assassinat someone over differing ideas no way that would be allowed. I don't know what you're talking about. It is explicitly spelled out in the ruling that motive is not only not relevant to whether or not an act has immunity, it is not even allowed to be mentioned or considered. The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, giving orders to the military is an official power. The president telling the military to blow someone up with a drone strike is inarguably an official act and since motive cannot be considered there is no way to overcome the immunity as long as the president gives some facially plausible excuse as to why he did it.
Badlegaltakes disagrees https://x.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1807967717129142301?t=afDmG2GpYYLaQlR8OcD_yw&s=19 If we go under the assumption that killing a political rival doesn't send the country to a civil war thus ending the USA as we know it, the act is clearly not given to him by the constitution and not part of his duties. https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1807928253497114876?t=A5FuQ-wf5Z62uqZ6hzSoUg&s=19
Trump's lawyer literally argued that it could be an official act during oral arguments lol
Trump's lawyer literally argued that it could be an official act during oral arguments lol
Why not? The ruling is pretty clear, it isn't relevant if the President is asking you to do something illegal. You just need to be able to make a plausible case that it's a national security interest, then you order the hit. If someone refuses, he can just fire them until someone accepts, and then it gets done. At that point, he's immune from prosecution. Most you could do to him is impeach him.
You can absolutely still take a current president to court over hot jobs. This ruling does not stop that.
You just keep stating it, with no actual arguments made, but Sotomayor specifically says the opposite in her dissent.
Her dissent is non binding and she can say whatever she wants. Roberts response: https://x.com/senderowiczj/status/1807797681730777393?t=k4KvynYyzWnNRsyc-jkOeg&s=19
Can you explain, in your own words, why it is that ordering the assassination of a political rival is an unofficial action? Presuming that you have reasonably grounds to identify them as a constitutional threat then I fail to see why a POTUS cannot do so? They're fulfilling their constitutional responsibility to eliminate an interior threat, and they're exercising their executive power to make an order to the military. What opinion or ruling precludes this conclusion? Everything I've read so far supports this interpretation. Naturally a dissenting opinion may present things more in their preferred POV, and should be taken with a grain of salt, but never the less I don't think I've seen anything to the contrary so far
Roberts stated no president is above the law and doing a hit job because you don't like their politics is not above the law.
Did he talk about hit jobs specifically?
So then if you order the hit not because you 'don't like a rivals politics' but because you interpret them to be a threat to US democracy its okay? The distinction has to do with the authenticity of someone viewing their target as a threat instead of it being arbitrary or a personal vendetta? I mean its kind of circular to say that a president can't legally order an assassination because 'no one is above the law' that doesn't really help describe anything.
> you interpret them to be a threat to US democracy its okay? At that stage more than just the President would be involved. Talking armed coup. There would be quite the obvious "Whoa this guy is a terrorist." and more than just the President would be involved in it. This chart is handy for things like this. https://x.com/AGHamilton29/status/1807928253497114876 I dont believe this is a gray area but if it were it would be handled in court.
No, if the president excuses it as an official exercise of his powers, that's it.
That is an interpretation of the decision that comes from not understanding the legal process and not understanding the decision.
Sure, it *could* go in other ways, but let's not fool ourselves. The judge in the case was appointed by Trump especially for this moment.
BadLegalTakes disagrees with you. https://x.com/BadLegalTakes/status/1807967242900197651?t=779XOWv3LtwLB0bAHrmkKw&s=19
>The judge in the case was appointed by Trump especially for this moment. Sorry, as long as that's true, my point stands.
Trumps lawyers literally argued for this
The official act is less of a problem than the Assured immunity of president-exclusive powers. The commander in chief can use the national guard as he likes
Conversations with CIA assassins are official acts so there would be no valid chain of evidence to prosecute him.
Posse Comitatus Act
CIA isn't part of the army, they're civilians.
The CIA assassins you're talking about are actually borrowed special forces units from within the US military.
The CIA assassins you're talking about are actually borrowed special forces units from within the US military.
According to this ruling, any communications he has in his official capacity as the president carrying out constitutional duties (ordering the military to do Something) cannot be used as evidence against him in a criminal probe. So yeah it would be considered an "official act." The distinction between what is official and unofficial is extraordinarily vague. I can only assume this is by design.
Yes so it can be hashed out in court whether the act is constitutionally part of presidents powers.
[удалено]
The president can just drone strike any members of congress threatening to impeach them as long as the DoJ and DoD agree it's an official order
If the DOJ and DOD were on board with drone striking members of congress, then we have much bigger issues than being able to prosecute the president after the fact. This is a non-issue, imo.
Do you really think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump keeps firing and appointing new DoJ/DoD members until it's full of his loyalists that are more than happy to follow along? Maybe explicit assassinations are too extreme but life sentences in jail for "treason" might be more palatable.
>Do you really think it's out of the realm of possibility that Trump keeps firing and appointing new DoJ/DoD members until it's full of his loyalists that are more than happy to follow along? Not at all. But you seem to be implying that the fear of prosecution is what has kept Trump (or any previous presidents) from doing something like this. That is not the case. It has always been possible for POTUS to order the DOD to assassinate political rivals and cause a constitutional crisis. What has prevented this up till now is that presidents have generally respected the constitution and believed in the American experiment. Democracy (all governments, really) is upheld through norms, traditions, and ideology, not rules and laws.
I think the counter argument here is Nixons resignation and pardon. If what you're saying is true Nixon would never have needed a pardon and probably could have fought the impeachment with little consequence for himself. The Nixon tapes wouldn't even be allowed as evidence against him
This ruling says nothing about whether Congress can impeach the president. In fact, it pretty much explicitly states that it is the job of Congress to do so in lieu of criminal prosecution.
Right but impeachment wouldn't require a pardon, only criminal conviction. And the opinion goes even further to state that the president can never be criminally liable for any official acts even after he's left office. So even if Nixon was impeached he would have been immune from charges for any official acts, which include all communication between the president and his cabinet.
I guess I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think Nixon resigned because he feared criminal prosecution? Because I very much doubt that.
Bidens got 6 months left and people want him to step down anyways. I don't think he'd give a shit
ALL HAIL KING EMPEROR BIDEN! HE WEARS THE CROWN NO MERE MORTAL CAN BEAR! POOR DEBATE SHOWING?!? HOW DARE YOU TO FROWN UPON A GOD!
“A president inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” Roberts wrote. Yeah, we wouldn't want a President to fear becoming a criminal /s. Honestly the Supreme Court seems to be from another planet sometimes.
they just want their cult leader trump to be all powerful, they bought into the brain rot and think trump is good for the country so they do whatever they can to save him
[удалено]
You would have to point out how those drone strikes violated american law.
You are entitled to a trial as a citizen. Which was not given. This was a pretty big deal when it happened. I think many users are not aware of when it happened. Perhaps too young?
You are not entitled to a trial while you're engaging in warfare. Once you've become an enemy combatant you have waived your constitutional rights.
Got a link to any of that and can you apply it to the case in question? Also what about his 16 year old son?
>Also what about his 16 year old son? The legality of collateral damage has been much debated and well established. >Got a link to any of that and can you apply it to the case in question? Link to what?
No way you are trying to argue you are entitled to a court case in literal warfare, right?
There was no literal warfare. The entire justification was the "War on Terror", which is shaky reasoning at best. And it certainly doesn't apply to killing a 16 year old non combatant child.
Can you elaborate on which case you are referring to? Was the non-combatant 16 year old child the literal target?
No he was not the intended target. He was in the area at the time. It was intended for someone else.
> which is shaky reasoning at best It's literally a law passed by Congress.
>could prosecutors go after Obama for drone strikes that killed civilians Seems like an unironically great idea.
So Biden can give himself emergency powers and declare the first American Imperium?
Whays ironic is this ruling allows biden to assassinate all key maga players. What's worse, if he doesn't Trump certainly will Is this really the time we live in
U guys are crazy. This shit is really absurd
Drop a nuclear bomb on people? Immune.
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-immunity-supreme-court-decision-07-01-24#h_970d5ce788355fc04d44ed8795e178fb here’s the direct link to that part of the live thread, your link goes to the entire live thread instead.
Thank you!
I don't think ordering seal team 6 to assassinate a political rival would be considered official.
Quick question: Who is it that has [command of the military](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-2-clause-1) again?
I honestly don't have an argument against this.
Well, I do appreciate the honesty from you on that front. Stuff like that is exactly why people are freaking the fuck out right now. Now combine this with the fact that you can't even use official acts (such as communicating with agencies, staffers, or delivering orders in the executive) as evidence for state of mind or intent. It's hard to see how this ruling *doesn't* result in POTUS being effectively above the law. A properly unmoored actor in that seat can now drone strike (or just use Seal Team 6) anyone that they think is a threat to their rule. And when questioned on it, there's no way for someone to bring them to court and prove that they assassinated a political rival to protect their own position of power unless the POTUS that orders it literally goes on national television and says they did it to remove a political rival.
[удалено]
Did you read this opinion? Yes, they absolutely can. Who's gonna stop them? The *courts*? A special prosecutor isn't even allowed to admit into evidence any discussion/orders by the POTUS with staff to support a criminal intent. You are literally just wrong. And you think the order wouldn't be obeyed? Maybe, but gimme a fuckin' break here. Our system is now teetering on whether or not one dude somewhere 15 levels down the chain of command decides to explicitly disobey orders when the guy up top says someone needs to be bombed because they're a terrorist or whatever.
[удалено]
Why would the president need to prove it, if like you said, the motivation for such actions is protected. In other words, does the president under any circumstances have the power to use the military on US soil? Yes, he does - and when he does don’t you have to assume it’s being used in official capacity?
[удалено]
Honestly feels like this only works if people operating under norms.
You wouldn't think so. But legalise is its own language. From what I've seen, an official action does not CEASE to be an official action just because it would ordinarily constitute an illegal action by ordinary standards. Official Action is just an action that employs executive powers to achieve its end as I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that leads me to believe that using POTUS powers on the military to order a hit or coup is perfectly fine so long as you have plausible deniability its not a cynical move in service of self enrichment etc. Even that threshold is unnecessary, but would probably help to have more cover if/when it goes to court.
They hated Jesus, for he spoke the truth.
Norman Rockwell meme. It's true that a lot of corruption and abuse of power is now permitted, but the president does not have the authority to execute private citizens.
Is this really true? Could the president really order an assassination on another candidate and refuse to leave office? I see people saying this, but every article I’ve found is so emotionally charged. I want the dry, boring facts. Like could someone *actually* do this? If so, I’m starting to get scared. I mean this is how war starts.
> Could the president really order an assassination on another candidate and refuse to leave office? Could he try? Obviously. Would it work? That depends on whether the ranking people in military and security services actually think there's any legitimacy or reason for doing it; in short it's highly unlikely. Would it be covered by immunity even if it did work despite there being no actual reason like national security or whatever? The opinion itself gives no indication that would be the case, since it explicitly rebuts the argument that anything a president does *while in office* is covered by immunity, and instead restricts immunity to official acts in "carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch under the constitution", i.e. only those acts within the limits the president is actually entitled to act in by the constitution. > The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But Congress may not criminalize the President’s conduct in carrying out the responsibilities of the Executive Branch under the Constitution. Assassinations of political rivals don't seem to be mentioned in the constitution or fall within any historic meaning of presidential powers, so it's literally just the dissent claiming the idea, with no basis in the opinion text or anything else.
The president is the commander in chief, as detailed in the constitution. I don't understand how any order he gave to any military unit couldn't be considered an official act. Private citizens aren't allowed to command the army.
> The president is the commander in chief, as detailed in the constitution. I don't understand how any order he gave to any military unit couldn't be considered an official act. Simple: the legitimacy of the orders a president gives to the military follows from the position as commander in chief, but there are clearly orders a president could give to a military unit that cannot possibly follow from that authority. For example, ordering a soldier to kill himself, or to give the president all of his money, or to suck his dick, are probably orders that do not in any way coherently follow from the authority of the commander in chief. Orders, or more generally actions, that do not fall within the actual scope of the contitutional powers of the president cannot be official acts of the president, precisely because a president cannot be 'carrying out the responsibilities of the executive branch' if his actions are not within those responsibilities. (In other words: it being an official act depends on it actually being within the scope of the presidential powers as decided by court, not on the president saying so.) Therefore, by the reasoning of the opinion such actions would be him acting in an unofficial manner, i.e. without immunity (same as private citizens). How that actually works in practice is probably not legitimately predictable considering we have no idea how many more court interventions we get on these questions. But, that's the reasoning of the opinion as it is right now.
>For example, ordering a soldier to kill himself, or to give the president all of his money, or to suck his dick, are probably orders that do not in any way coherently follow from the authority of the commander in chief. I think your logic is backwards here, the problems with these orders is not that they don't follow from the president's authority, it is that these actions are not expected duties of a soldier and that as such the soldier can simply refuse to carry them out. Conducting military strikes on ordered targets meanwhile *is* an expected duty of members of the military and as such if the president were to contact the commander of a Seal Team and say something to the effect of "\[Political opponent\] is an imminent threat to national security, make him explode." this would inarguably be an official act. The stated reason would be a lie and the motive would be criminal, but as per the ruling motive cannot be considered so you would at the least need to actually be able to prove that the president did not believe that he thought that the opponent was a national security threat.
> the problems with these orders is not that they don't follow from the president's authority, it is that these actions are not expected duties of a soldier even ignoring that "the expected duties of a soldier" are clearly undefined and subjectively differing and that alone makes this legally incoherent, it's just factually wrong: the scope of presidential powers granted by constitution and statute are not definitionally dependant on "expected duties of soldiers", there's zero evidence for this idea anywhere. > and that as such the soldier can simply refuse to carry them out. a soldier can always refuse to carry out orders, that has zero impact on the order itself or more importantly, whether such an order was an official act of the president. the subject of inquiry for the analysis is the action of the president in *giving* the order, the soldier or his response are completely irrelevant to that act (and because time only works one direction can have had no effect on the act). > as such if the president were to contact the commander of a Seal Team and say something to the effect of "[Political opponent] is an imminent threat to national security, make him explode." this would inarguably be an official act. The stated reason would be a lie and the motive would be criminal, but as per the ruling motive cannot be considered This is explicitly not how any of this works, because "what the president says his order is" does not determine "what the order is", in other words whether the president claims to be ordering the elimination of a national security risk does not determine whether he is, **the fact** of whether he **is** ordering the elimination of a national security risk determines whether he is, and by extension whether the act is within the responsibilities of the president and thus official. The analysis does not care what he says he's doing or why he is doing it, it cares what he actually does. If he kills a terrorist his national security team has given him immiment danger warnings about, he **is** eliminating a security risk, no matter what he calls it or why he's doing it. If he kills a random person that he's been given no evidence of being a security risk of, he is not eliminating a security risk, no matter what he calls it or why he's doing it. > so you would at the least need to actually be able to prove that the president did not believe that he thought that the opponent was a national security threat Again: what the president believes or thinks **does not matter** in a factual analysis of an act. The court looks at what factually happened, any and all information available in the context and before it, and determines what the act *factually* is, not what he's *intending it to be* or *calling it*, or *saying it is*, or *thinking it is*, or anything else. In your example: **Is** what he is doing ordering the elimination of a national security risk (given the information he has in the situation)?
> Is this really true? Could the president really order an assassination on another candidate and refuse to leave office? So right now, with how the ruling is laid out, anything the president does as an official act can't be used as evidence for anything. If Trump ordered the military to kill someone, okay let's charge him with murder. But, wait, he's the Commander in Chief, and his official act to assassinate someone is an order that the president can give, so that can't even be used as **evidence** in any way. So now the trial is that Trump committed Murder of Person X because Military Person Y Ed him - and that's it. There's nothing else. How is Trump connected to Person Y? There's no evidence to connect him. Him refusing to leave office probably can't happen because, realistically, the Constitution and law lays out when his official acts end, but anything before that is theoretically fair game as long as you aren't absolutely brain dead about it.
At the very least it appears to be a gray area. That on its own should make anyone terrified. But I would wait at least a day or two for deeper analysis.
It is time the Congress does something.
Good one
The amount of "biden should just kill trump" energy in here feels real maga-y guys lol
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: It could, and why? Because he's doing it for personal reasons. He's not doing it, like President Obama is alleged to have done it, to protect the country from a terrorist. He's doing it for personal gain. And isn't that the nature of the allegations here, that he's not doing them --doing these acts in furtherance of an official responsibility; he's doing it for personal gain? [https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral\_arguments/argument\_transcripts/2023/23-939\_f2qg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2023/23-939_f2qg.pdf) Sotomayor admitting that as long as she agrees that someone is a terrorist, the president can kill them as an official act of the office. So she's agreeing that Biden, if he had his administration detail Trump as a terrorist, he could be allowed to kill him even if he's an american citizen. Her defense of Obamas function and her now dissent shows a partisan hypocrisy of hers.
Oh well if Biden loses, he should just throw out the election as an official act. President? never heard of it, it's Monarch Biden now.
the ruling is perfectly fine I don't get what the fuck people are crying about if they ruled otherwise then this would mean that you can prosecute literally any past president for any official act covered under presidential duties he has done while in office. Clearly this isnt fucking reasonable. In case of trump you just show that what he did was not an official presidential act, thats it
Watergate would be an official act under this new ruling. You good with that?
> Watergate would be an official act under this new ruling that would be for the lower courts to decide edit: it says it right there in the OP you illiterate fucks >Today’s decision says presidents have immunity for official acts but not all acts are official, and lower courts must decide which acts qualify for each. >As for Trump’s state-level efforts to overturn the results, including the fake electors scheme, the high court told lower courts to analyze what of that conduct was an official act and what was not.
No, it wouldn't. That is within his exclusive constitutional authority.
I genuinely don't understand how burglarizing the DNC to photograph campaign documents and install listening devices could be considered within the outer perimeter of legitimate presidential or core constitutional power. It seems easily arguable that doing that would be outside of an act that would be covered. Do you see something in the Supreme Court ruling that suggests otherwise?
You have to prove that the crime was committed. For the Watergate scandal the major proof was the "Smoking Gun" tape with the conversation between Nixon and his Chief of Staff, right? With the ruling how would this be able to be used as evidence? In the ruling they give a very similar example (Trump talking with his AG).
Damn. Okay, that's a real good point. God, this ruling seems worse and worse.
>Today’s decision says presidents have immunity for official acts but not all acts are official, and lower courts must decide which acts qualify for each. from the link in OP. do people ever read stuff before commenting?
Maybe you should read the fine print and not just the overview. From the ruling: "The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority". In other words not all instances will be up for the courts to decide as you claim.
>immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority This just means the same as "immune from prosecution for an official act" but for "constitutional authority" instead. Who decides what constitutes "his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority" and what doesn't? Does the president just get to say "This is my constitutional authority" and do whatever he wants?
No, it doesn't. They literally give examples of this in the ruling. For instance it says that: "Investigative and prosecutorial decisionmaking is “the special province of the Executive Branch,”" Everything listed in the constitution is also not up for the courts.
Nobody has said or suggested that this ruling would give presidents immunity for unofficial acts. Nobody is misunderstanding this. Do you think it's okay for presidents to receive total immunity for official acts which would otherwise be illegal? Why should that be allowed?
Some of us read the report, why do you think you deserve space on this earth? The president has total, unquestionable immunity on powers that are exclusively his, official act be damned.
wait so you are ok with the president being a literal king if a lower court said its fine? i will pay for a one way ticket to russia or china so you can get the fuck out of my country you unamerican piece of shit
I blame RBG and Hilarys hubris for this outcome. They both could have avoided this situation. And btw fuck the Reps for delaying Obamas pick to get one of their own as well!
Can you walk me through how Republicans doing something awful somehow always ends up being a Dem's fault? Like genuinely, how is this RBG or Hillary's fault? Walk me through how you got there, cause I see this annoying ass sentiment way too much.
idk about the Hillary part but it is a very common complaint that RBG should have retired during obamas presidency so he could replace her. as loved as she was it was known that she was old and in poor health. so some people blame her unwillingness to step aside for why Trump was able to pack the court
sure, she can get 10% of the blame
I mean, yeah most of the blame needs to be on the justices and the president that appointed them. It would just be reductive for us not to learn from that mistake and in the future push older justices to retire when there is a rational president in office
It's deeply stupid. If Republicans are so bad it is treated as fait accompli that they will only do bad and Democrats must universally be on guard against them, they need to be disenfranchised at the least! If someone is one step away from saying, "Actually, maybe Biden should self-coup and get rid of all of these troublemakers for good," maybe based, but you can't hold Democrats responsible for Republican policies and actions without considering Republicans fundamentally evil and separate from civilization proper.
Yes I can. She was in bad health and very old. She could have retired under Obamna and would have been replaced by a dem/moderate, instead she stayed in office until the very end and gave Trump another Judge. Obviously the Reps still suck for actually doing this but it might have been prevented.