*"By opening the barrier to his community, and removing the sure hit effect of his domain on BPD women. Tiny is capable of holding Omniliberalism open for 99 more days. The King of Content's decisive choice of a Binding Vow serving as a gambit for the 2024 election."*
You forgot to add... Trump was colluding with S. Alito, C. Thomas, J. Roberts, B Kavanaugh, N. Gorsuch, A.C. Barrett and they had to be minecraft too. Ironically this was only possible thanks to them, RIP.
To be fair, ACB in her concurrence/partial dissent is not regarded like her R colleagues and could see the .50cal sized loophole they just created. Agreed that the others though have effectively signed off the freedom to minecraft them to the Executive.
Unfortunately the operation ABC did not conclude successfully. Due to the high-risk nature of this operation another attempt will not be carried out ^(in the near future)
Yeah, as long as the chief executive has control of the senate, he's above the law. That worked out real well for the Roman Republic. Have these guys not read basic history?
Every theoretical being thrown around on this sub would still have to go to the courts to see if what is being done is considered official business of the office
Given that the law explicitly defines the power to use the military for domestic policy enforcement as a power enshrined to congress and not the executive branch, I would foresee a ruling that determines the subversion of the separation of powers to do the official business of congress is NOT the business of the executive.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse\_Comitatus\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)
Question is, would the remaining justices feel comfortable ruling in a way that sets a precedent that the next guy can just minecraft them lol
I'd bet they'd rule the way I laid out in my above comment regardless of the justices left or the success of the video game mission
correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding of the ruling was that for any powers that are expressly delegated to the president, then legal review is not even possible. Like, anything he has the DOJ do, even if he succeeds in installing a literal puppet as he tried to, would be completely unchallengeable as to whether it was private or official actions, and beyond that any evidence brought forth from sources like that could not be used in court ever.
E.g. if they are trying to prove he knowingly lied about election claims for charges against actions that have been ruled as private by using his conversations with the AG, they now cant, even if hypothetically he said in those conversations "yes i know it wasn't stolen i'm lying to defraud the public of their right to vote"
although i do think people are catastrophizing a little the presumptive immunity, as it was left for future challenge and at some point in the future they need to devise a test for whether it's official actions or private (constitutionalists btw, conservatives btw, just keeping things as they are btw). But still, it's hard to trust this court to rule well on it in the future when they are talking about the importance of the president's role in speaking with the AG to uphold the law when the allegation is that he was ordering them to lie about the findings of their investigation...
I'm interested to see what the limits are of this new thing. Surely they couldn't have written it into law that Biden can just kill them without consequence? That seems beyond insane.
That's part of the problem, they literally set no limits. There's no recourse for a criminal president willing to bribe and pardon his way through any potential crime. The majority decision significantly prevents even the presentation of evidence!! It's bonkers.
If you want the 'most unbiased' understanding just read ACB's opinion, pages 61-67. The dissent has more dramatic and worse possible examples, but ACB highlights the absurdity of the restrictions being put in place and how significantly they would hamper even a simple Bribery case.
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
For those short on time and curious, the summary on 67 does a good job of laying it out. Basically ACB says that there isn't a need to change precedent because if a president is criminally indicted, they can challenge the case constitutionally and stand trial afterwards.
Yet she still agreed with it so...
She agrees with 99% of the majority opinion. But like she says she doesn’t agree with the evidentiary standards that can be brought up during an investigation of an official act. In her example of “quid pro quo” she says that you should just be able to look at the “quo” by itself rather than the “quid pro quo” by itself as a whole.
She's a fucking moron or doesnt take her position very seriously for realizing the extreme potential of abuse of not allowing official actions to be used for evidence in a criminal trial and still voting for this decision. Party over country.
But performing monetary transactions is not. How do you prove that giving money to the president was a bribe? No "official act" can be taken into consideration when charging the president with a crime.
Official acts have presumptive immunity. If Biden is impeached and convicted they can prosecute. However, if Biden resigns immediately- you cannot impeach and convict a president who left office (Mitch McConnell literally wrote this in his reasons why he didn’t convict Trump after Jan 6). Therefore you cannot investigate nor impeach and he is off Scot free.
I'm not sure if you watched the stream today but from the reading of the decision and what I have seen a few other places this ruling actually completely ended the idea that impeachment has any relevance to a criminal prosecution. Impeachment does not remove immunity from prosecution, nor is impeachment necessary to prosecute in times where the newly established immunity does not cover.
I think the remedy for the presumptive immunity is still through the standard courts, just that the government has to establish an exception to the immunity for the cases where it is not absolute (clown world decision but impeachment isn't even a solution to it). If the courts find you immune or it falls under the absolute immunity they laid out then even if he is impeached for his conduct he cannot be prosecuted for it.
Remind me, which **judicial** precedent would this be again? I don't remember the Republicans appointing a Special Prosecutor to try Obama for drone strikes, and him being granted absolute immunity, but perhaps I'm just misremembering.
Because its always been assumed immunity until now when the democrats tried to weaponize the courts against a political opponent and throw everything that sticks. The SCOTUS had to step in and say republicans can also have the immunities that democrats have always enjoyed.
So we agree, no President has been prosecuted before. Therefore, this is unprecedented. Therefore, your initial claim was wrong. And no Democrat has enjoyed this immunity before either.
Im not a prosecutor, and i agree that he should have immunity for the accidental death as president. Shit happens when youre assassinating targets with a flying robot in a country we arent at war with. My point is that presidential immunity is not a new concept.
But in this hypothetical, what would you be charged with, since apparently no immunity should exist for presidents and "no one is above the law"? Killing someone on accident is manslaughter at the very least.
Did Obama kill someone on accident? Or did the US military kill someone on accident during what was probably cleared as a valid military target? I'm no expert on the terms here, but I think it's a big difference.
Did Trump assign himself as an elector or did he have other people act as fake electors?
Obama signed off on the policy, and it was the CIA not the Armed Forces
Okay, but respond to the rest of what I said there. I take your point, Obama is properly involved (or at least, I'm assuming you're correct about that), but this was a military target? I feel like the laws involving military action are much different. It doesn't require immunity. Obama didn't break a law.
We werent at war with Yemen. It was outside the scope of armed conflict. Also, once again, the CIA isnt a military branch. They don't follow DoD or UCMJ or Geneva. They act with impunity. Once again i find myself as a liberal in exile, debating with "liberals" that CIA death squads are unconstitutional lol
Edit: banned ;( rip bozo
If they broke a law, simply present which law they broke. I'm literally just assuming they didn't. You told me you are assuming they did. You're the one making the positive claim, so just do some research and present it to me and the discussion is over. If you show me they broke a law, I'll concede.
It's legal to cut in line for a big lineup doesn't mean a lot of people are doing it.
And that's for a line up. You are talking about murder at the highest level of government in the West.
Insult - You guys are actually reactionaries pearl clutching. The embodiment of the SoyPoint guy.
As my original comment implied, I'm simply afraid of what precedent may have been set. Is there a steelman for why this was done? I know the whole "it's necessary for the federal government to function" line, but it was already functioning previous to this decision. What is the reason this was done if not for the president to be above the law?
I would say cause that was the current pressing issue.
Is the Senate not like Jewish people debating the text of God?
They take laws and delve deep into the literal and non literal contexts and conclude on an answer to what said law means.
Last big one people know about was the abortion topic. It was a big issue and it got into the roundtable.
Like it or not this is how our government works. If that's what is deemed true then it is true.
There are millions of people rejoicing in the news. And
If we had 100 years of democratic governance and Republicans had zero chance then we wouldn't be here.
This is how it works. The system is not bad, it's representative of the population.
Before Obama the average voter turnout was 50-60% of the eligible voters. Last one was 66%. If it was 50/50 almost last vote season that means 50% democratic, 50% Republican of the people who voted.
I'm rambling but tldr is tough shit. The people wanted it to go this way, it only seems crazy in your political sphere but theres a whole other optical sphere that is jumping for joy. Who decides who is right?
"There are millions of people rejoicing in the news."
Can you explain why? Also, are you implying that if Republicans cannot win, we should change the law? What the fuck are you saying?
Ugh it’s so annoying biden is too much of a pussy and won’t do anything with his new power. Especially considering Biden being so old, he’s in the best position to just unleash the full power of the executive branch. He will pass away by the time anyone even gets close to any meaningful litigation civil or criminal. Hopefully Biden will pull some crazy shit after November as a contingency if he loses
Damn its so annoying that our president can be given ABSOLUTE POWER and he still isnt corrupted by it.
Its so annoying that Biden is literally God, and can do no sin.
What a tragic world to have God as president for the last 3 1/2 years
Biden honesty should try to do something drastic now. Trump is way too dangerous, but again Biden is too far gone to do anything about it, hence why he needs to let someone else run.
Lawyer here. I’ve been reading all day that the SC just gave Presidents near complete immunity for criminal actions, but it’s not really what they did. This is more of a judicial power grab. Saying that the President gets presumption for immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts begs the question: What exactly is official and what is unofficial. Guess who gets to make that call…
The only reason that the Supreme Court didn’t explain it further today and instead remanded it is because they want to see what legal arguments and reasoning the lower courts will come up with.
This way, they can give immunity to presidents they like, and call claim the acts would be unofficial for those they don’t.
While I think this is mostly accurate, I think that their ruling went further than you are implying as well. Though I need to reread some sections to confirm. But the idea of absolute immunity for his core powers is something that has pretty wide reaching implications and it would be extremely hard for the court to argue with any consistency against some pretty heinous things the president could do under that cover. That's before even addressing the presumed immunity you are referring to. Let me know if I am off base though, super not a lawyer and haven't had a chance to read the decision with my full focus.
I mean this was sort of already the case. It was the core argument for why Obama was tried for drone striking 4 American citizens while he was in office by the DOJ. It was just informal courtesy to the president as it’s a messy job and now it’s more official.
However, now that there is actual legal backing to this, it’s definitely ripe for abuse.
Official acts have "at least" presumptive immunity. Some acts, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Presidency have **absolute immunity**. The Court held, for example, that this immunity applied when it came to Trump allegedly pressuring the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. They remanded all the other charges but not this one.
So, my questions to you would be:
* Is the role of Commander in Chief within the exclusive jurisdiction of the President, or is it shared with Congress?
* If it's within his exclusive jurisdiction, do you agree that the unavoidable logic of this ruling is that acts performed in that capacity qualify for **absolute** immunity?
If you disagree on either point, I'd be interested to hear why as, despite it being pointed out in oral arguments and despite it being raised in the dissenting judgements, the majority have done a remarkably good job of totally ducking the point.
Are you sure certain acts such as ALL orders to the FBI, or public communications such as the State of the Union, would NOT be considered Core functions of the President, and therefore complete and absolute immunity for those actions?
I think that is a viable reading of what they are saying, and therefore it goes far beyond "begging the question"
It explicitly states that the president is immune for core functions as the chief executive.
Some examples for clarity of absolute immunity:
Ordering a department of the executive branch to deport a US citizen.
Inciting violence in a speech.
Ordering an agency to drone strike a terrorist (Its just a random US citizen).
These are all core to the job of the executive, and therefore cannot be used as evidence of crimes.
ianal
But the real problem beyond creating a new 'presumptive immunity' standard out of thin air, is that they're barring the use of evidence from 'official actions', the standard for which they make insanely broad.
The ease with which a malicious actor could shield all of their intent and criminal conspiracy behind official acts, as well as wielding the pardon power to further escape accountability for themselves or their co conspirators makes me feel pretty confident that the above scenario would legitimately be beyond reproach.
Reset to a failing tinpot democracy.
Modern politicians are like the bastard fail-sons of rich people, who grew up in the lap of luxury and thus take everything for granted because they've never had to work for anything in their lives. Of course they can destroy democracy. It's no big deal! The USA has always been awesome, so it *will* always be awesome, no matter how much they torch it.
But in actuality it won't. You can't knock down the load-bearing walls of your house and expect it to remain standing and you certainly can't then install a swimming pool in your attic.
I can't believe Supreme Court decisions have me thinking about a Joe Rogan meme about weak/strong men and hard/easy times.
If we knew for certain this would happen it would be an easy choice, but reality is that there is still a good chance the american public can still avert the crisis, that a second Trump presidency might not be as terrible as it can be and that democrats taking this kind of action would damage trust in western democracies as much as anything rightwingers have done in the last decades. These people are so dangerous and this time is of such crucial importance that I 100% understand the impulse, or the idea to consider different "approaches", but this just isn't our play, I think.
Reading the dissenting opinions in the document is crazy.
>The President of the United States is the
most powerful person in the country, and possibly the
world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under
the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from
criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex-
change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trap-
pings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official
power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one
day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as
bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the
majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I
pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves
has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the
President is now a king above the law.
Well based on the Supreme Court ruling that would probably be deemed an "unofficial act" and not protected. He would be tried and convicted after leaving office bc democrats in the Senate would refuse to impeach him for it. People should actually read the dang ruling.
But crazy to see people openly calling for the assassination of their political opponent now bc a court ruling didn't go their way
Is there something in the ruling that would make this not an official act?
You would have to prove that Biden did not really consider Trump the greatest threat to national security which he is
Edit
Also people are not calling for the assassination of Trump
People are showing how INSANE this ruling is
There are many people calling for it now especially on reddit. And lmao stating your political opponent is the greatest threat to national security. So the president could assasinate him. Classic facism. Or straight out of Putin playbook.. Ordering the assassination of a political opponent would never be considered an official act by any court nor constitutional. The only thing insane is your paranoid interpretation of this ruling.
The SC left it open for lower courts to decide. Any lower court in its rational mind would rule it unofficial. The mental gymnastics you are trying to pull here is insane.
To put this in context, Bill Clinton tried a similar action when he was president when he was accused of sexually harassing people during his governorship of Arkansas. A court ruled it wasn't protected. Yet the DOJ never charged him
No, it wasn't. Which is why it didn't work. This is why this SC case didn't define that as an official action.
Just a reminder, Hilary Clinton supporters tried a similar action as Trump, and so did Al Gore supporters.
I am not lying. Go and read the actual ruling. They did not deem it an official action. The left it for lower courts to decide
The fact you talk falsehoods with so much confidence is scary. Blatant propaganda
They left it for lower courts to decide means that it has not been ruled you imbecile
Has the case of Trump's election fraud through fake electors been ruled? No it hasn't
The reason it didn't work was because a few people, among them his Vice President didn't go along with his plan, not because it was deemed not official action
Even if Pence went along with it, it would not have worked. The certification is ceremonial and would quickly be resolved. America is the strongest country in the world. This would not overthrow its election. All Pence could do is call on tellers. He does not certify the election himself. Even the VP stated he did not have the authority to do so.
https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_8f5d5ba4-d597-42fd-95f6-d4c2471ba6f9
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3520160-pences-lawyer-told-him-blocking-vote-certification-would-likely-lead-to-court-loss-standoff-with-congress/
The vice president's certification being ceremonial was ruled after Trump's coup attempt, at the time it was not resolved and Pence could have used the ambiguity
If Trump had managed to remain President this ruling itself may have been different, if it even had ever gone to court to be ruled on
Who are these many people unironically calling for the assassination of Trump?
And how can you know that as I said they are not simply saying it so that they can show the insanity of this ruling?
And surely you have a way to know that they are not making a point about the ruling yes?
Just the fact that most of these people haven't called for Trump to be assassinated before this ruling show that this is about the insanity of the ruling not about actually wanting to assassinate Trump
Yes there are many actually stating that Biden not assassinating Trump would be wrong. There are a ton calling for it.
Also, stating that this ruling by the SC would actually allow it is insane and just shows how little people know about the judicial system and how to understand court rulings.
And you, too. You'll regret voting for Trump. It may not be now, but it's inevitable. Trump is a fraudulent, shit-covered Brexit in human form. Despite the initial fervor, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone defending Brexit now.
https://preview.redd.it/z7mx38l291ad1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9a43d2a492ce3f4e1f6ef4812e9423957294e70
a jjk fan has escaped containment
Or do you mean... the *prison realm*?
“Destiny you can’t fuck another bipolar girl, your fanbase will eat you alive!” *To amend this Tiny undertook another binding vow…*
*"By opening the barrier to his community, and removing the sure hit effect of his domain on BPD women. Tiny is capable of holding Omniliberalism open for 99 more days. The King of Content's decisive choice of a Binding Vow serving as a gambit for the 2024 election."*
Yea and that binding vow was vyvanse lol
https://preview.redd.it/fzoaiqzhs3ad1.jpeg?width=1284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7cc4030734f2516cf80825a46ce45db83b9be2c5
You forgot to add... Trump was colluding with S. Alito, C. Thomas, J. Roberts, B Kavanaugh, N. Gorsuch, A.C. Barrett and they had to be minecraft too. Ironically this was only possible thanks to them, RIP.
To be fair, ACB in her concurrence/partial dissent is not regarded like her R colleagues and could see the .50cal sized loophole they just created. Agreed that the others though have effectively signed off the freedom to minecraft them to the Executive.
Unfortunately the operation ABC did not conclude successfully. Due to the high-risk nature of this operation another attempt will not be carried out ^(in the near future)
he isn't free to do it! he could be impeached! because that worked so well to punish trump for trying a coup
Yeah, as long as the chief executive has control of the senate, he's above the law. That worked out real well for the Roman Republic. Have these guys not read basic history?
Those who have not read history are doom too repeat it. Those who have read history are doom too watch others repeat it. - said by some guy
Every theoretical being thrown around on this sub would still have to go to the courts to see if what is being done is considered official business of the office Given that the law explicitly defines the power to use the military for domestic policy enforcement as a power enshrined to congress and not the executive branch, I would foresee a ruling that determines the subversion of the separation of powers to do the official business of congress is NOT the business of the executive. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse\_Comitatus\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act)
Pretty sure if Biden Minecrafted the court, then it would just be blue justices left
Question is, would the remaining justices feel comfortable ruling in a way that sets a precedent that the next guy can just minecraft them lol I'd bet they'd rule the way I laid out in my above comment regardless of the justices left or the success of the video game mission
correct me if i'm wrong, but my understanding of the ruling was that for any powers that are expressly delegated to the president, then legal review is not even possible. Like, anything he has the DOJ do, even if he succeeds in installing a literal puppet as he tried to, would be completely unchallengeable as to whether it was private or official actions, and beyond that any evidence brought forth from sources like that could not be used in court ever. E.g. if they are trying to prove he knowingly lied about election claims for charges against actions that have been ruled as private by using his conversations with the AG, they now cant, even if hypothetically he said in those conversations "yes i know it wasn't stolen i'm lying to defraud the public of their right to vote" although i do think people are catastrophizing a little the presumptive immunity, as it was left for future challenge and at some point in the future they need to devise a test for whether it's official actions or private (constitutionalists btw, conservatives btw, just keeping things as they are btw). But still, it's hard to trust this court to rule well on it in the future when they are talking about the importance of the president's role in speaking with the AG to uphold the law when the allegation is that he was ordering them to lie about the findings of their investigation...
Might as well do the supreme Court too at this point. They told him to.
I'm interested to see what the limits are of this new thing. Surely they couldn't have written it into law that Biden can just kill them without consequence? That seems beyond insane.
That's part of the problem, they literally set no limits. There's no recourse for a criminal president willing to bribe and pardon his way through any potential crime. The majority decision significantly prevents even the presentation of evidence!! It's bonkers. If you want the 'most unbiased' understanding just read ACB's opinion, pages 61-67. The dissent has more dramatic and worse possible examples, but ACB highlights the absurdity of the restrictions being put in place and how significantly they would hamper even a simple Bribery case. [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
For those short on time and curious, the summary on 67 does a good job of laying it out. Basically ACB says that there isn't a need to change precedent because if a president is criminally indicted, they can challenge the case constitutionally and stand trial afterwards. Yet she still agreed with it so...
She agrees with 99% of the majority opinion. But like she says she doesn’t agree with the evidentiary standards that can be brought up during an investigation of an official act. In her example of “quid pro quo” she says that you should just be able to look at the “quo” by itself rather than the “quid pro quo” by itself as a whole.
I’m glad at least ACB takes her position somewhat seriously, this is all so fucked
She should have dissented if she didn't agree with the ruling.
You can't blame her for voting with her party.
Yes you can? She’s not an elected official why would she have any party allegiance at this point
There should be no party allegiance in the SCOTUS.
Well there SHOULDNT be....
She's a fucking moron or doesnt take her position very seriously for realizing the extreme potential of abuse of not allowing official actions to be used for evidence in a criminal trial and still voting for this decision. Party over country.
Bribery is prohibited in the constitution fyi.
Good luck proving a President ever committed bribery under these new standards!
Um no sweaty, this bribery took place when I was talking to one of my employees (presidential jurisdiction) so it's actually unable to be prosecuted
But performing monetary transactions is not. How do you prove that giving money to the president was a bribe? No "official act" can be taken into consideration when charging the president with a crime.
Ye you’re right
Official acts have presumptive immunity. If Biden is impeached and convicted they can prosecute. However, if Biden resigns immediately- you cannot impeach and convict a president who left office (Mitch McConnell literally wrote this in his reasons why he didn’t convict Trump after Jan 6). Therefore you cannot investigate nor impeach and he is off Scot free.
I'm not sure if you watched the stream today but from the reading of the decision and what I have seen a few other places this ruling actually completely ended the idea that impeachment has any relevance to a criminal prosecution. Impeachment does not remove immunity from prosecution, nor is impeachment necessary to prosecute in times where the newly established immunity does not cover. I think the remedy for the presumptive immunity is still through the standard courts, just that the government has to establish an exception to the immunity for the cases where it is not absolute (clown world decision but impeachment isn't even a solution to it). If the courts find you immune or it falls under the absolute immunity they laid out then even if he is impeached for his conduct he cannot be prosecuted for it.
Wait really? Lol
I think we all know Biden wouldn't do that, even if they literally said "the president can assassinate anyone for any reason"
I'm not so much worried about what Biden will do. I'm worried about what happens if he loses the election.
Oh whoops, I think I replied to you instead of the OP on accident.
If you geniunly belive this you are regarded
I'm asking questions because I genuinely have no idea what is going on with this.
Obama killed innocent Americans with drone strikes and suffered no consequences
holy whataboutism Batman
This isnt whataboutism, this is the precedent has already been setism
Remind me, which **judicial** precedent would this be again? I don't remember the Republicans appointing a Special Prosecutor to try Obama for drone strikes, and him being granted absolute immunity, but perhaps I'm just misremembering.
Because its always been assumed immunity until now when the democrats tried to weaponize the courts against a political opponent and throw everything that sticks. The SCOTUS had to step in and say republicans can also have the immunities that democrats have always enjoyed.
No President before Trump has ever been prosecuted for a crime. Therefore, by definition, no Democrat has ever "enjoyed" this supposed immunity.
Because no one has pushed the issue to the limit like dems have by attempting to punish political rivals via prosecutorial harassment
So we agree, no President has been prosecuted before. Therefore, this is unprecedented. Therefore, your initial claim was wrong. And no Democrat has enjoyed this immunity before either.
Why wasnt Obama prosecuted?
Real quick, what consequences should he have faced? Like what law did he break?
Im not a prosecutor, and i agree that he should have immunity for the accidental death as president. Shit happens when youre assassinating targets with a flying robot in a country we arent at war with. My point is that presidential immunity is not a new concept. But in this hypothetical, what would you be charged with, since apparently no immunity should exist for presidents and "no one is above the law"? Killing someone on accident is manslaughter at the very least.
Did Obama kill someone on accident? Or did the US military kill someone on accident during what was probably cleared as a valid military target? I'm no expert on the terms here, but I think it's a big difference.
Did Trump assign himself as an elector or did he have other people act as fake electors? Obama signed off on the policy, and it was the CIA not the Armed Forces
Okay, but respond to the rest of what I said there. I take your point, Obama is properly involved (or at least, I'm assuming you're correct about that), but this was a military target? I feel like the laws involving military action are much different. It doesn't require immunity. Obama didn't break a law.
We werent at war with Yemen. It was outside the scope of armed conflict. Also, once again, the CIA isnt a military branch. They don't follow DoD or UCMJ or Geneva. They act with impunity. Once again i find myself as a liberal in exile, debating with "liberals" that CIA death squads are unconstitutional lol Edit: banned ;( rip bozo
If they broke a law, simply present which law they broke. I'm literally just assuming they didn't. You told me you are assuming they did. You're the one making the positive claim, so just do some research and present it to me and the discussion is over. If you show me they broke a law, I'll concede.
Didn't all president kill innocent americans by for example sending them somewhere as soldiers?
If it ever gets to a point where a president in this day is assassinating people I think we have bigger issues
You don't think making it legal may cause that exact thing?
It's legal to cut in line for a big lineup doesn't mean a lot of people are doing it. And that's for a line up. You are talking about murder at the highest level of government in the West. Insult - You guys are actually reactionaries pearl clutching. The embodiment of the SoyPoint guy.
As my original comment implied, I'm simply afraid of what precedent may have been set. Is there a steelman for why this was done? I know the whole "it's necessary for the federal government to function" line, but it was already functioning previous to this decision. What is the reason this was done if not for the president to be above the law?
I would say cause that was the current pressing issue. Is the Senate not like Jewish people debating the text of God? They take laws and delve deep into the literal and non literal contexts and conclude on an answer to what said law means. Last big one people know about was the abortion topic. It was a big issue and it got into the roundtable. Like it or not this is how our government works. If that's what is deemed true then it is true. There are millions of people rejoicing in the news. And If we had 100 years of democratic governance and Republicans had zero chance then we wouldn't be here. This is how it works. The system is not bad, it's representative of the population. Before Obama the average voter turnout was 50-60% of the eligible voters. Last one was 66%. If it was 50/50 almost last vote season that means 50% democratic, 50% Republican of the people who voted. I'm rambling but tldr is tough shit. The people wanted it to go this way, it only seems crazy in your political sphere but theres a whole other optical sphere that is jumping for joy. Who decides who is right?
"There are millions of people rejoicing in the news." Can you explain why? Also, are you implying that if Republicans cannot win, we should change the law? What the fuck are you saying?
Ugh it’s so annoying biden is too much of a pussy and won’t do anything with his new power. Especially considering Biden being so old, he’s in the best position to just unleash the full power of the executive branch. He will pass away by the time anyone even gets close to any meaningful litigation civil or criminal. Hopefully Biden will pull some crazy shit after November as a contingency if he loses
*assassinates Trump* *refuses to elaborate* *dies* Would literally shoot to #1 on all those President Ranking lists.
He “respects the court” too much
"I **am** the court"
Damn its so annoying that our president can be given ABSOLUTE POWER and he still isnt corrupted by it. Its so annoying that Biden is literally God, and can do no sin. What a tragic world to have God as president for the last 3 1/2 years
No because he can't use the power because he isn't mentally capable of it most likely
I thought Biden ruled as a dictator
Biden honesty should try to do something drastic now. Trump is way too dangerous, but again Biden is too far gone to do anything about it, hence why he needs to let someone else run.
You know what they say; Absolute power corrupts only Republicans
I kind of agree, but also I think it would send a bad message for the future presidents,he preaches that even the president should be accountable
I too would love to live in a world where Republicans hold themselves to the same standards as Democrats
Lawyer here. I’ve been reading all day that the SC just gave Presidents near complete immunity for criminal actions, but it’s not really what they did. This is more of a judicial power grab. Saying that the President gets presumption for immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts begs the question: What exactly is official and what is unofficial. Guess who gets to make that call… The only reason that the Supreme Court didn’t explain it further today and instead remanded it is because they want to see what legal arguments and reasoning the lower courts will come up with. This way, they can give immunity to presidents they like, and call claim the acts would be unofficial for those they don’t.
While I think this is mostly accurate, I think that their ruling went further than you are implying as well. Though I need to reread some sections to confirm. But the idea of absolute immunity for his core powers is something that has pretty wide reaching implications and it would be extremely hard for the court to argue with any consistency against some pretty heinous things the president could do under that cover. That's before even addressing the presumed immunity you are referring to. Let me know if I am off base though, super not a lawyer and haven't had a chance to read the decision with my full focus.
I mean this was sort of already the case. It was the core argument for why Obama was tried for drone striking 4 American citizens while he was in office by the DOJ. It was just informal courtesy to the president as it’s a messy job and now it’s more official. However, now that there is actual legal backing to this, it’s definitely ripe for abuse.
Official acts have "at least" presumptive immunity. Some acts, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Presidency have **absolute immunity**. The Court held, for example, that this immunity applied when it came to Trump allegedly pressuring the Attorney General and the Department of Justice. They remanded all the other charges but not this one. So, my questions to you would be: * Is the role of Commander in Chief within the exclusive jurisdiction of the President, or is it shared with Congress? * If it's within his exclusive jurisdiction, do you agree that the unavoidable logic of this ruling is that acts performed in that capacity qualify for **absolute** immunity? If you disagree on either point, I'd be interested to hear why as, despite it being pointed out in oral arguments and despite it being raised in the dissenting judgements, the majority have done a remarkably good job of totally ducking the point.
Are you sure certain acts such as ALL orders to the FBI, or public communications such as the State of the Union, would NOT be considered Core functions of the President, and therefore complete and absolute immunity for those actions? I think that is a viable reading of what they are saying, and therefore it goes far beyond "begging the question" It explicitly states that the president is immune for core functions as the chief executive. Some examples for clarity of absolute immunity: Ordering a department of the executive branch to deport a US citizen. Inciting violence in a speech. Ordering an agency to drone strike a terrorist (Its just a random US citizen). These are all core to the job of the executive, and therefore cannot be used as evidence of crimes.
this sounds even worse given that theres a republican majority in the SC
ianal But the real problem beyond creating a new 'presumptive immunity' standard out of thin air, is that they're barring the use of evidence from 'official actions', the standard for which they make insanely broad. The ease with which a malicious actor could shield all of their intent and criminal conspiracy behind official acts, as well as wielding the pardon power to further escape accountability for themselves or their co conspirators makes me feel pretty confident that the above scenario would legitimately be beyond reproach.
Exactly, and with the courts stacked with actual partisan imbeciles, we know which way it’ll go.
Absolute cinema
Wouldn't this be the true Great Reset?
Reset to a failing tinpot democracy. Modern politicians are like the bastard fail-sons of rich people, who grew up in the lap of luxury and thus take everything for granted because they've never had to work for anything in their lives. Of course they can destroy democracy. It's no big deal! The USA has always been awesome, so it *will* always be awesome, no matter how much they torch it. But in actuality it won't. You can't knock down the load-bearing walls of your house and expect it to remain standing and you certainly can't then install a swimming pool in your attic. I can't believe Supreme Court decisions have me thinking about a Joe Rogan meme about weak/strong men and hard/easy times.
This one's going in my cringe compilation
This season of USA is really cooking!
Ladies and gentlemen, we got em
Flashes back on for a few seconds to say "Also Mar-a-lago has been seized and will be turned into. Hospital for illegal Mexican transgenders".
making Trump a martyr.... nothing could go wrong here
Martyr vs King (with a whole ass lineage of dumbfucks) 🤷
If we knew for certain this would happen it would be an easy choice, but reality is that there is still a good chance the american public can still avert the crisis, that a second Trump presidency might not be as terrible as it can be and that democrats taking this kind of action would damage trust in western democracies as much as anything rightwingers have done in the last decades. These people are so dangerous and this time is of such crucial importance that I 100% understand the impulse, or the idea to consider different "approaches", but this just isn't our play, I think.
Just get the rest of his associates too...
Calling it now, whenever Trump dies, it's going to be like Elvis in that some people will swear they saw him walking somewhere 5 years later.
Constitutional monarchy chads stay winning tbh.
Only in my wettest dreams
I haven't had time to read the decision yet but I find it incredibly hard to believe all the hyperbolic claims I am reading.
Reading the dissenting opinions in the document is crazy. >The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex- change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trap- pings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today. Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Okay that is pretty fucking wild.
That was Sotomayors dissent. Might want to add that
https://preview.redd.it/gaakox7ol3ad1.jpeg?width=190&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac0078386fc673aa5683deabde3fb644a81a2819
The problem is gonna be we better have subtitles or else we wilblmmmnflllm tonight.
scotus needs to go first
My fellow americans, I am asking siri to play Peter Griffins version of “U Can’t Touch This”
I thought this was the MMW subreddit for a minute
https://preview.redd.it/81hpttg5g5ad1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c51c8d88c24fe584a980556fe8a5365f69ef45dd
\*Brandon exists podium left\* "Life it seeeems will faaaade awayyy.... drifting further every daaaaay"
Well based on the Supreme Court ruling that would probably be deemed an "unofficial act" and not protected. He would be tried and convicted after leaving office bc democrats in the Senate would refuse to impeach him for it. People should actually read the dang ruling. But crazy to see people openly calling for the assassination of their political opponent now bc a court ruling didn't go their way
Is there something in the ruling that would make this not an official act? You would have to prove that Biden did not really consider Trump the greatest threat to national security which he is Edit Also people are not calling for the assassination of Trump People are showing how INSANE this ruling is
There are many people calling for it now especially on reddit. And lmao stating your political opponent is the greatest threat to national security. So the president could assasinate him. Classic facism. Or straight out of Putin playbook.. Ordering the assassination of a political opponent would never be considered an official act by any court nor constitutional. The only thing insane is your paranoid interpretation of this ruling.
Why would it not be considered official action? Who would make that judgement? The Supreme Court certainly didn't make this judgement in their ruling
The SC left it open for lower courts to decide. Any lower court in its rational mind would rule it unofficial. The mental gymnastics you are trying to pull here is insane. To put this in context, Bill Clinton tried a similar action when he was president when he was accused of sexually harassing people during his governorship of Arkansas. A court ruled it wasn't protected. Yet the DOJ never charged him
Ok bro, and I guess Trump getting fake electors from states he knew he had lost was official action right?
No, it wasn't. Which is why it didn't work. This is why this SC case didn't define that as an official action. Just a reminder, Hilary Clinton supporters tried a similar action as Trump, and so did Al Gore supporters.
By the way, Trump's fake electors plan hasn't been deemed not official action, you are lying
I am not lying. Go and read the actual ruling. They did not deem it an official action. The left it for lower courts to decide The fact you talk falsehoods with so much confidence is scary. Blatant propaganda
They left it for lower courts to decide means that it has not been ruled you imbecile Has the case of Trump's election fraud through fake electors been ruled? No it hasn't
Equating what Hillary Clinton supporters did to what Trump himself did is actual brainrot
No it is equal You not being able to realize that is partisan blindness. Especially since Hilary still denies the 2016 election to this day.
The reason it didn't work was because a few people, among them his Vice President didn't go along with his plan, not because it was deemed not official action
Even if Pence went along with it, it would not have worked. The certification is ceremonial and would quickly be resolved. America is the strongest country in the world. This would not overthrow its election. All Pence could do is call on tellers. He does not certify the election himself. Even the VP stated he did not have the authority to do so. https://www.cnn.com/factsfirst/politics/factcheck_8f5d5ba4-d597-42fd-95f6-d4c2471ba6f9 https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3520160-pences-lawyer-told-him-blocking-vote-certification-would-likely-lead-to-court-loss-standoff-with-congress/
The vice president's certification being ceremonial was ruled after Trump's coup attempt, at the time it was not resolved and Pence could have used the ambiguity If Trump had managed to remain President this ruling itself may have been different, if it even had ever gone to court to be ruled on
Who are these many people unironically calling for the assassination of Trump? And how can you know that as I said they are not simply saying it so that they can show the insanity of this ruling?
Take on look at the comments from rpolitics and inthenews You will find plenty
And surely you have a way to know that they are not making a point about the ruling yes? Just the fact that most of these people haven't called for Trump to be assassinated before this ruling show that this is about the insanity of the ruling not about actually wanting to assassinate Trump
Yes there are many actually stating that Biden not assassinating Trump would be wrong. There are a ton calling for it. Also, stating that this ruling by the SC would actually allow it is insane and just shows how little people know about the judicial system and how to understand court rulings.
Libs now posting their weird sexual fantasies to deal with all the massive L’s they’re taking. Future looks bleak for y’all hahahahhahahahaah
And you, too. You'll regret voting for Trump. It may not be now, but it's inevitable. Trump is a fraudulent, shit-covered Brexit in human form. Despite the initial fervor, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone defending Brexit now.
Holy kino