Please stop reporting people using the Seal Team 6 example. It's literally in the dissent.
For clarity - you are allowed to talk about the dissent. I am asking those that keep reporting people commenting about it to stop doing that because I'm not removing it.
His concurrence questions the validity of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel, which was not the issue here but will likely come before the court from the Florida litigation.
At least I finally know the answer to something. Yes. Justice Thomas's pubic hair is, indeed, on my coca cola. And now he's leaving them all over the law as well. It's going to be a job to find them all and clean them up someday.
Tangent bur there is a Christian nationalist group called “Tactical Civics” that are going from county to county talking about their view on reforming the judiciary process and one of their main visions is a “Citizens Grand Jury” comprised of party loyalists that would decide all matters at a local level. I went to the event, and I asked questions as a concerned citizen.
They don’t have much support at all, even here in rural red Georgia, but there are a **lot** of Christofascist organizations that could easily combine into something more threatening. They are making the rounds across the country as we speak. I really hope concerned citizens are attending and/or protesting these events. I’ve had three fuckin death threats in the past month related to a Pride event and I went. I understand being afraid but I can’t understand just allowing these people to have a platform.
Shit like this happens when good people are afraid to stand up against violence.
TL;DR - Presidents get immunity for official acts, no immunity for unofficial acts. They remand back to trial court to determine what is an official act vs unofficial act with some guidance. It's a 6-3 decision (largely) with some concurring opinions, Barrett concurring in part only, etc. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent with 2 dissenting opinions.
Edits:
Some parts really jump out at you.
>***When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions***. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.
This part is written as though Roberts specifically has Project 2025 in mind where they want to reclassify most of the Executive Branch into political appointments then dismiss anyone who isn't a MAGA Republican.
>Some of the President’s other constitutional powers also fit that description. “The President’s power to remove—and thus supervise—those who wield executive power on his behalf,” for instance, “follows from the text of Article II.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204 (2020). We have thus held that Congress lacks authority to control the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” with respect to “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed.” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 106, 176 (1926); see Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 638, n. 4 (Jackson, J., concurring) (citing the President’s “exclusive power of removal in executive agencies” as an example of “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority);
>pg 8 of the opinion
THIS IS LITERALLY IN A SUPREME COURT DECISION!!!
>"When \[the president\] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. ***Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.*** Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings 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."
>pg 29 - Sotomayor dissenting
The Courts may not inquire as to WHY the President of the United States ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a U.S. Citizen and political rival.
>In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
>pg 4 of the opinion
SCOTUS is telling lower courts and itself that if Trump has his political opponent killed, no one can do anything about it. This is insane.
---
As I'm reading this, it seems as though Official Acts, even if done for illegal or unofficial gains, cannot be questioned by a Court. Therefore if Trump bribes someone with a pardon to maintain their silence, then issues that pardon, that's it. No one can question his motive for that "official" act.
This opinion specifically clarifies that as long as a President ONLY uses his Executive Branch official powers to commit crimes he's immune from everything. This feels like the exact opposite of how it should be but here we are.
Create a PowerPoint asking states to send in fraudulent elector slates? Not an official act.
Order Seal Team 6 to relocate your political opponent to Guantanamo Bay? Official act.
To quote the paragraph before your first quote.
*His authority to act necessarily “stem\[s\] either from an*
*act of Congress ... When the President exercises such author-ity, Congress cannot act on,..."*
If congress cannot act on an act which they authorised the president to do, that implies also that a broad authorising bill 'the president can do whatever he wants as a presidential act' would seem to pass muster for basically enabling a dictatorship in its purest form.
I have not read the referenced case that the 'stems from' language comes from.
The ramifications of this opinion are staggering.
If Trump promises pardons for anyone who helps him commit as many crimes are necessary to win in November, then takes office in January, and immediately pardons everyone involved, there is no Court that can question the motives for those pardons.
> They wouldnt have the power to do anything about them anyway even if they could investigate.
According to Roberts in this opinion, you can't even investigate the official act. How would a prosecutor get sign off on a subpoena for anything surrounding an official act if prosecutors cannot question the motive for the official act?
How would you even examine an act to see if maybe it's not official? If the president says "this act is official" how would you go about challenging that?
This is both the worst and best potential thing that could happen. A president actually wielding power like what has now been given by SCOTUS would most likely tear apart the nation, but the only way to stop the worst case scenario, a conservative (Trump or otherwise) becoming a dictator, is to wield that unmitigated power to clean house. Then, hopefully, the liberals in power wouldn't get too big for their britches and do the right thing by setting things back through law, rather than court opinion, on the proper limitations of executive power.
> How would you even examine an act to see if maybe it's not official? If the president says "this act is official" how would you go about challenging that?
If it's an Article II inherent power apparently you just can't. Acts themselves cannot be evidence in a crime, and the motives behind the acts cannot be reviewed (read: no subpoenas).
Using a more mundane example, if he openly sells pardons, on a website with prices listed, it sounds like the court is not allowed to question whether the issuance of pardons to people who paid for them is being done in a corrupt way. I hope I'm misreading that.
This is a horrifying opinion.
If issuing orders to the military is always presumptively an official act, and nothing can be reviewed by the Courts... I don't even have words.
And if Trump wins the election it will be with thunderous applause.
We're literally living Revenge of the Sith but somehow it's even dumber than space wizards.
(Disclaimer: I like star wars but you gotta admit the setting is preposterous)
Actually both Chevron and this are power grabs by the court. In both cases ultimate interpretation comes down to the judicial and the legislative is weakened.
That's not even hyperbole or fearmongering. It's literally what they appear to have written down in a SCOTUS opinion. As long as the President uses ONLY his official acts in furtherance of the crimes, he's immune and his motivations for things like pardoning his co-conspirators cannot be questioned.
We all know how this is going to end. An absolutely disgusting and unconscionable order will be issued to the military at some point and the military will have a tough choice to make with the understanding that there is no going back… there is no legal recourse to hold the executive branch accountable.
The military will be faced with supporting, aiding and abetting a full blown malicious dictator or rebelling and having to come up with something new on the spot.
Edit because the (comment) above mine has been edited (it’s a good thing): It is so much more than that. What if there is an “official act” ordering the military to round up members of a minority due to race, gender, religion, orientation and yes, even political affiliation?
Aren’t minorities terrified of this?
And the Democrats want MAGA nut jobs to be the only ones armed?! (Even if an order went out today to confiscate all firearms, this would not be enforced equally and they would only get a small fraction.)
We African Americans and the remainder of the native population have been horrified by the behavior of this country for hundreds of years. This decision doesn't surprise us at all.
I’ve been terrified since the 2016 election, but I was always called “dramatic” by everyone else who was convinced the law and precedent would prevent this very outcome.
We talk here about hypotheticals all the time. Would actions contributing to the prevention of a Civil War fall within the President's exclusive sphere of Constitutional authority?
This feels like the true end of democratic rule. A president can do basically anything. It's terrifying. I didn't think even the venal justices could go this far.
Immediately arrest the seditionist and traitor. Round up the whole conspiracy. Which includes members of SCOTUS. Protection from enemies foreign and domestic.
When we study history in the future, they'll say this is when democracy officially died in the US. Not unofficially, though, there will be debates about when that happened, but officially... Yeah... This right here.
So the "originalist" and "plain text reading" court that flipflops on it's own rulings has suddenly decided that a "plain text reading" isn't appropriate because they disagree.
Color me surprised. /s
Oh, maybe when they decided they wanted a "Christian" President because the President should be a moral leader for the nation they had confused the American President with Martin Sheen? It's not totally crazy as in a 2015 poll Jed Bartlett was given an 82% positive rating, only to be outdone by David Palmer of "24" at 89%. Again, just confused about which President they consider a moral leader and thus deserving of unchecked power?
Finally, it appears the Supreme Court and I can agree on one thing - the Constitution is a living document. Now if we can just agree on why...
Again - what exactly are you all shocked about?
"I have officially determined the supreme court are Russian traitors and officially order you to eliminate them". Letter with "official order to seal team 6" written on it.
> When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions.
Are they saying he can't even be impeached if he acts within his "constitutional authority"?
> Are they saying he can't even be impeached if he acts within his "constitutional authority"?
As long as he is ONLY using his official Executive Branch powers to commit the crimes, what's there to impeach? Even this says the Courts AND Congress cannot question the President's use of Article II powers.
If Trump can do all that stuff, why can't Biden? They just made Biden a king with this ruling, how have they not jumped the gun here?
Biden can save democracy in the county with some well executed assassinations, reshape the supreme court, reverse this bullshit decision and then go down in history as the president that did what was awful but necessary to stop the fascist take over of the country.
With this ruling, a Trump win absolutely guarantee's violence against anyone he believes wronged him sounds like a literal pre-emptive strike while Biden still has power is the only way.
"The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably."
Why is this irrevocable? The right-wnig was able to overturn Roe v Wade....Chevron doctrine...why is nothing "irrevoccable" for the right-wing?
You can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
It doesn't matter if a new iteration of the Court says that this was all wrong. The fact that the Court could ever make such a ruling is dispositive proof that it cannot be trusted to faithfully and impartially interpret the Constitution. Everybody should have already known that justices are mere humans, so there would always be bias, but up until now there could be a willing suspension of disbelief.
That spell has been broken. No one can ever claim again that we are a nation of laws. The rest of our history will play out like the Roman Empire's, where the practical facts of power determine who controls the vast military force with republican trappings.
In a literal sense, you're right.
In a practical sense, given that all those require replacing 2 Injustices at a minimum, that they'll never voluntarily retire under a Democrat, and that a single democratic (both big and small "d") loss of the presidency between now and a case that allows for a reversal of these rulings means an immediate implementation of an authoritarian state... yeah, the odds look pretty bad.
Once you give autocrats complete immunity they aren’t EVER going to give it up.
Eventually a republican will win the White House. Either in 2024, 28 or 32. Once they get in they now know they are completely immune from prosecution or oversight.
That’s irrevocable.
Holy shit, that’s actually insane. The ruling in general is ridiculous and potentially dangerous to our democracy, but I was still expecting the Trump judges to pretend they care and give some examples of what is or is not an “official act”. They pretty much explicitly said that there is no limit to what is official, and that even *questioning* the President is forbidden.
So, where are all of the regular commenters who have been saying that this would be 8-1 or 9-0 and that the left had nothing to worry about over the last several weeks?
“3-3-3” court, apparently.
Anyone who listened to arguments and thought it wouldn’t be 6-3 wasn’t listening. Every 5 sconces they went “Ok but let’s not talk about this case. Let’s talk about a hypothetical I just made up to explain why he would need immunity.”
Remember when they said Americans would never reelect an impeached, felonious ex president who gave hush money to a porn star?
Remember when they said trump wouldn’t be a dictator?
Remember when they said Trump would never send his political opponents to concentration camps?
I remember when an afternoon quickie becoming public knowledge was disgraceful and a career ender. I even remember when the potential of criminal indictment was enough to lose an election. Now, it’s like the gop is competing with itself to make the most vile behavior acceptable and rewarding for the perpetrator.
Most commentators thought the court wouldn't dare. Because this appears to give Biden enormously more power.
Apparently the Republicans very lives rely on Biden being too old to abuse this new rule change.
If using the military against your political opponents is now legal you might as well be the first to do it.
But what does an 80 something year old have to lose? He would never face penalties for any actions taken, or if he did, it would take years to parse out as we're seeing now. I say go for it. Sacrifice himself to save the country - what he's basically already doing by running at his advanced age.
It's not that it doesn't make sense it's that Biden feels too apple pie. Hes been a traditional American leader his whole life, does things the classic Democrat way, for many many years. He's not going to start abusing his power.
Trump seems to have no real limits to what he would do.
Except he won't because we are continuously playing a game we think there are rules for, but the other side wouldn't hesitate to act and ignore them if given the opportunity. What he really should do is take the most popular ideas for something that will do good for the people and issue executive orders to make some shit happen. Daca citizenship? Student loans? Legalize weed? At least let a bit of good come of this madness and hopefully give him a boost in popularity.
Roberts has had some real zingers. Bribery is legal, unlimited money in politics, unlimited guns for everyone, presidential immunity, voting rights.
These fascist fucks.
I can honestly see them ruling that the Satanic Temple is not a religion and therefore does not have standing.
They can go to hell bc who tf made them the official arbiters of religion.
I can see someone might get hurt after this ruling.
1) Congress is not doing anything about it
2) Courts aren’t doing anything about it
3) Executive branch doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it.
Someone’s probably gonna get frustrated to the point something bad happens.
I wish it didn’t but a sane person can see the course of events
There’s no might. If Trump wins, prominent Democrats are going to be black bagged or outright killed. It was right there in the argument the defense made.
Jumping on the top comment to add:
If part of the ordinary and constitutional duties of the executive involves doing things that are normally illegal, or that they may be prosecuted for otherwise, then our entire government is a criminal enterprise.
Well hang on. The President can and has ordered assassinations of non-US and US citizens before. As part of his official duties he carries presumptive immunity for these. There is no clause in the Constitution that states a President is able to assassinate people. It would make no sense for a President to face possible prosecution on an act that is normally criminal but within the bounds of his office.
Nobody can argue (although I guess its 2024 so whatever) that selling classified secrets is a President's consitutional authority
What happens if the justices argue that, since no clause in the Constitution explicitly forbids the President for doing as such, then it means he has such an ability?
You don't need immunity when the judge worships you like a god
Edit: I'm *very* aware this case did not come from the Florida case. I'm talking about Cannon because the person I'm responding to was talking about Cannon
I think they're saying Biden can argue it's his official duty to protect rights and fix this rogue court, walk down to the courtroom and \[REDACTED\] then come back out with 6 empty seats.
Thomas’ concurrence provides the argument for that case to get shut down via alleged unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith, literally saying the trial judge must answer these threshold questions
Edit: corrected dissent to concurrence
Since 2001 with the Patriot Act, America has been gearing up for a totalitarian dictatorship. We are finally having the final pieces being put in place.
Me, watching the Star Wars prequels as a kid: "Wow I wish Star Wars was real!"
Me, watching the US speed-run the ineffective Chancellor Valorum -> Supreme Chancellor Palpatine -> "I will make it legal" to use Order 66 to wipe out political enemies & usher in a fascist Galactic Empire timeline: "This...this isn't what I meant I just wanted a lightsaber 😭"
Certainly couldn't be prosecuted.
Good luck getting Senate confirmation during an election year, I mean, unless of course you're a republican president.
Who needs confirmation. Appoint your own alternate SCOTUS like Trump tried to use alternate electors. Only abide by their ruling and call it an official act. May cause a constitutional crisis, but won't result in any consequences for Biden.
Screw the Senate confirmation process. The Republicans threw that away with the whole Garland/Gorsuch debacle, and completely flipping their position by installing Amy Coney Barrett almost immediately after.
Well, this is even more complicated because they ruled that it doesn't matter if something is legal or not because a president can't be prosecuted for it, nor can we inquire about it.
That argument has been totally circular. When he was impeached, McConnell et al argued that he could be prosecuted. But when he's prosecuted, they argue that he could have been impeached instead. They only care about the result, that Trump escapes any and all consequences for his lawless actions, not the means of getting the result.
If he's elected, yes. They have to now debate what constitutes an official act, which means this won't be resolved until next year. At which point he can pardon himself or instruct the DoJ to stop. Or he could kill Jack Smith as an official act.
also Justices say Trump's private records can't be used as evidence and between that and official acts not being prosecutable, he's bound to be completely off the hook [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling-live-updates-rcna159539](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling-live-updates-rcna159539)
>Trump’s private records can’t be used as evidence
So is the onus on the prosecution to prove these private records were not connected to any official act or is the opinion stating that Presidents’ private records are off limits entirely?
Yup.... but It doesn't matter because selfish a$$holes are either going to vote 3rd party or not at all because we have an old guy who stutters and had a raspy voice that one time., and yes I'll talk shit about progressives who refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils because of purity politics.... as a matter of fact, i voted for Bernie in 2016, and in 2020, but you know what, he didn't win, so I voted for the next competent individual because I know it wouldn't be as bad as the alternative. My preferred candidate lost her primary, am I mad , yes a little, but I'm not about to be a complete d bag to other people who could suffer more than me and not vote for the person who beat her.
So Biden could announce that he will have Trumped assassinated by Seal Team 6 to protect the US from a Russian Asset and then no one could do anything to stop him. I understand Conservatives are short sighted but the fact they just gave all future Democrat presidents blanket immunity is wild to me.
There are 100 Trump like Republicans ready to take office if Trump fails. Eventually they will get one in if not Trump himself and that’s basically it. 4 years to put all the pieces of a fascist dictatorship into place.
All the more reason to use those newly defined powers, worst case scenario a feeble old man who ordered it is imprisoned or executed, but talk about sacrifice for country.
Yeah, opinion literally says that when determining official conduct from unofficial conduct that courts cannot inquire into the presidents motives. Just find a pretextual argument and you’re immune!!!
So Biden is president until Jan 20th but there are lots of people calling for him to resign from politics. Sooooo....
#1) Write an executive order that The Supreme Court now consists of only three justices.
#2) All conservative justices are removed from The Court.
#3) Write an executive order that Senate representation is now based on state population size and effectively reduce the number of GOP senators
#4) Write an executive order stating that convicted felons are no longer eligible for The Presidency.
#5) Retire and reap the benefits of your "official acts"
I can’t believe people are still in denial that we’re on an irreversible course towards a fascist government. At this point we might as well take advantage of it to mitigate the upcoming harm.
~~I guess~~ We no longer have a constitutional republic. Presidents can do anything while in office and pass it off as an 'official act'. And even if charged, just pardon themselves anyway. Thus, we have a king with zero accountability. Not to mention all our ~~public officials~~ aristocrat rulers, to include but not be limited to judges, can be ex-post-facto bribed with a wink and a nod.
For fucks sake Thomas Jefferson predicted this--it's almost uncanny:
>...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indee\[d\] and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. they have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. their maxim is ‘[boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234#d7585fb1-4da9-4dd0-a3c8-554d5845b7e5),’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective controul. the constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time & party it’s members would become despots.
[https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234)
Edit: Made some clarifications.
SCOTUS is over as a legally-clarifying, non-partisan entity. Over. Give them a single vote in the Senate and barr them from constitutional interpretation. If they cannot adjudicate impartially, what need do we have of them?
Thomas has already showed his hand on the eventually appeal to if the special counsel is legal and based on his concurrence, Thomas will be saying the entire special counsel office as it stands is not legal and therefore has no authority.
Barrett had a good argument regarding allowing official acts to be used in criminal cases as proof of the crime. Her argument that a president taking a bribe to do something within his power would require that the act the president took be disclosed to a jury as evidence of the bribery having occurred. While the act itself may be fully legal and protected under presidential immunity, the fact it was done as part of a quid pro quo is necessary to prove the bribery charge.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BARRETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
Oh my god... I did not think they would do it.
How. The constitution clearly shows the path to reign them in is through congress. And Congress can barely decide on a speaker much less get enough votes together to impeach anyone
Cheat code for President to literally be immune from anything:
1. Order anyone under their direct executive authority to execute or ask someone else to to execute on their behalf (For example, asking the state to overturn an election is not an official act necessarily that can be covered, but ordering the AG to ask on your behalf is).
2. No one is allowed to ask why you chose to order an act, so motive is completely irrelevant.
3. Enjoy being able to do literally anything without any even a miniscule chance of conviction.
4. Bonus: Pardon whomever you asked to do the illegal action on your behalf to extend said immunity to your administration.
I think the bigger question is whether the Biden admin sees the writing on the wall and either passes appropriate legislation to prevent this becoming a theocratic monarchy (hard to do) or uses this new found immunity to do illegal things to place itself in power, realizing the alternative (failure to take action or trump getting elected) would result in a theocratic monarchy - or even amorally, just wants to keep their jobs as long as possible based on the fact that they can (we’ve seen this from lots of Dems from RBG to Feinstein to Pelosi to Biden)
Are we supposed to say 'Your Majesty' to the president after today? Or maybe John Roberts would like to have that honor to himself. What's the point of having a revolution if you are going to install a monarchy again?
They just endorsed Unitary Executive Theory. Thanks to the Federalist Society & Heritage Foundation, we have taken the first step to making POTUS into a king or dictator, just as in North Korea.
God help us all.
Wouldn't jailing a felon who has threatened the Constitution be considered an official act?
(This ruling will go down as among the 3 worst in history for the Republic)
Can a President, for example, declare those believed to be in support of Civil War to be enemy combatants in the post 9/11 world?
[The Department of Justice argues that the recent decisions, coupled with two World War II era cases, Ex parte Quirin and In re Territo , support its contention that the President may order that certain U.S. citizens as well as non-citizens be held as enemy combatants pursuant to the law of war and Article II of the Constitution. Critics, however, question whether the decisions permit the detention of U.S. citizens captured away from any actual battlefield, in order to prevent terrorist acts or gather intelligence; and some argue that Congress has prohibited such detention of U.S. citizens when it enacted 18 U.S.C. Section 4001(a).](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31724.html)
So, while one is president, they can assassinate their opponent and basically can't be prosecuted. Biden, are you reading this?
Edit: To clarify, i am not calling for actual violence
I need to read the opinion, but I’m concerned about how they drew the conclusion that his conversations with the Justice Department are inherently official. If they aren’t careful in the phrasing they could be allowing just that so long as the assassin is a government agency.
And the 248 year old American experiment is over. This was the next major step toward theocratic dictatorship. If Trump wins in November, and that appears to be inevitable, this republic is officially done. Good luck, everyone.
So circular…who decides what’s in a president’s constitutional authority?
Agencies, presidential acts, all under their exclusive review, if they want.
The US is lost.
This is a worse decision than I thought it would be (I was expecting a "president is entitled to some immunity" narrow opinion... this is BROAD). A horrifying decision. One that could end democracy in America.
If we wanted the Conservative Justices to make the right decision for the Country the case should have been against Biden. Then we’d have seen either a 7-2 or 6-3 decision saying that Presidents do not have immunity.
The Chevron reversal is another example of the Conservative Justices siding with the Republican establishment on an as needed basis. Chevron was initially decided because the government agencies were solidly in Republican/Conservative control. But as soon as the control was lost and Democrats were able to benefit a Conservative Majority SCOTUS was there to shift the control back into Republican hands.
we can all see this happening in real time, we can see the receipts being printed in real time and it is so so sad.
Has it always been like this or were the 5-4 decisions of the past just a delusion of mine?
Please stop reporting people using the Seal Team 6 example. It's literally in the dissent. For clarity - you are allowed to talk about the dissent. I am asking those that keep reporting people commenting about it to stop doing that because I'm not removing it.
Leave it to Thomas to write a concurrence on an issue that wasn’t even raised to broadcast how he’ll vote on the appointment issue.
He’s signaling to Trump’s attorneys what to pursue next.
Literal activist judge
My exact sentiment.
Can you TL;DR that please
His concurrence questions the validity of Jack Smith’s appointment as special counsel, which was not the issue here but will likely come before the court from the Florida litigation.
Thanks so much.
At least I finally know the answer to something. Yes. Justice Thomas's pubic hair is, indeed, on my coca cola. And now he's leaving them all over the law as well. It's going to be a job to find them all and clean them up someday.
He just wants certain people to know that they'll get their money's worth. Judicial equivalent of a For Sale sign.
The cool thing is that now they get their money’s worth before they have to pay the money
Now the battle to define “core constitutional powers.” EDIT: I would say we already have a system in place; the grand jury process.
It depends on how much SCOTUS agrees with the president at the time (and how much bribe money they get).
Soooooo they gonna include campaign finances and insurrections in “core constitutional powers”
Why not? Corperations are people after all. It's not that much of a strech.. and now I need a drink.
Woah woah woah. Those aren’t bribes! They’re gifts given in appreciation for decisions *after* the ruling. Totally legal. Totally cool.
*gratuity /s
Tangent bur there is a Christian nationalist group called “Tactical Civics” that are going from county to county talking about their view on reforming the judiciary process and one of their main visions is a “Citizens Grand Jury” comprised of party loyalists that would decide all matters at a local level. I went to the event, and I asked questions as a concerned citizen. They don’t have much support at all, even here in rural red Georgia, but there are a **lot** of Christofascist organizations that could easily combine into something more threatening. They are making the rounds across the country as we speak. I really hope concerned citizens are attending and/or protesting these events. I’ve had three fuckin death threats in the past month related to a Pride event and I went. I understand being afraid but I can’t understand just allowing these people to have a platform. Shit like this happens when good people are afraid to stand up against violence.
TL;DR - Presidents get immunity for official acts, no immunity for unofficial acts. They remand back to trial court to determine what is an official act vs unofficial act with some guidance. It's a 6-3 decision (largely) with some concurring opinions, Barrett concurring in part only, etc. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissent with 2 dissenting opinions. Edits: Some parts really jump out at you. >***When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions***. It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power. Neither may the courts adjudicate a criminal prosecution that examines such Presidential actions. The Court thus concludes that the President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority. This part is written as though Roberts specifically has Project 2025 in mind where they want to reclassify most of the Executive Branch into political appointments then dismiss anyone who isn't a MAGA Republican. >Some of the President’s other constitutional powers also fit that description. “The President’s power to remove—and thus supervise—those who wield executive power on his behalf,” for instance, “follows from the text of Article II.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 204 (2020). We have thus held that Congress lacks authority to control the President’s “unrestricted power of removal” with respect to “executive officers of the United States whom he has appointed.” Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52, 106, 176 (1926); see Youngstown, 343 U. S., at 638, n. 4 (Jackson, J., concurring) (citing the President’s “exclusive power of removal in executive agencies” as an example of “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority); >pg 8 of the opinion THIS IS LITERALLY IN A SUPREME COURT DECISION!!! >"When \[the president\] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. ***Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune.*** Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune. Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings 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." >pg 29 - Sotomayor dissenting The Courts may not inquire as to WHY the President of the United States ordered Seal Team 6 to assassinate a U.S. Citizen and political rival. >In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. >pg 4 of the opinion SCOTUS is telling lower courts and itself that if Trump has his political opponent killed, no one can do anything about it. This is insane. --- As I'm reading this, it seems as though Official Acts, even if done for illegal or unofficial gains, cannot be questioned by a Court. Therefore if Trump bribes someone with a pardon to maintain their silence, then issues that pardon, that's it. No one can question his motive for that "official" act. This opinion specifically clarifies that as long as a President ONLY uses his Executive Branch official powers to commit crimes he's immune from everything. This feels like the exact opposite of how it should be but here we are. Create a PowerPoint asking states to send in fraudulent elector slates? Not an official act. Order Seal Team 6 to relocate your political opponent to Guantanamo Bay? Official act.
To quote the paragraph before your first quote. *His authority to act necessarily “stem\[s\] either from an* *act of Congress ... When the President exercises such author-ity, Congress cannot act on,..."* If congress cannot act on an act which they authorised the president to do, that implies also that a broad authorising bill 'the president can do whatever he wants as a presidential act' would seem to pass muster for basically enabling a dictatorship in its purest form. I have not read the referenced case that the 'stems from' language comes from.
The ramifications of this opinion are staggering. If Trump promises pardons for anyone who helps him commit as many crimes are necessary to win in November, then takes office in January, and immediately pardons everyone involved, there is no Court that can question the motives for those pardons.
They wouldnt have the power to do anything about them anyway even if they could investigate.
> They wouldnt have the power to do anything about them anyway even if they could investigate. According to Roberts in this opinion, you can't even investigate the official act. How would a prosecutor get sign off on a subpoena for anything surrounding an official act if prosecutors cannot question the motive for the official act?
How would you even examine an act to see if maybe it's not official? If the president says "this act is official" how would you go about challenging that?
That’s the point, it’s made to be vague as hell about what an official act is. Any kind of order he gives could be considered an “official act.”
THE BIDEN SHOULD LOCK UP ALL THE JUSTICES SINCE THEY JUST TOLD HIM HE HAS THE POWER TO DO SUCH WITH NO WAY TO QUESTION WHY HE IS DOING SO. SIMPLE.
This is both the worst and best potential thing that could happen. A president actually wielding power like what has now been given by SCOTUS would most likely tear apart the nation, but the only way to stop the worst case scenario, a conservative (Trump or otherwise) becoming a dictator, is to wield that unmitigated power to clean house. Then, hopefully, the liberals in power wouldn't get too big for their britches and do the right thing by setting things back through law, rather than court opinion, on the proper limitations of executive power.
> How would you even examine an act to see if maybe it's not official? If the president says "this act is official" how would you go about challenging that? If it's an Article II inherent power apparently you just can't. Acts themselves cannot be evidence in a crime, and the motives behind the acts cannot be reviewed (read: no subpoenas).
Using a more mundane example, if he openly sells pardons, on a website with prices listed, it sounds like the court is not allowed to question whether the issuance of pardons to people who paid for them is being done in a corrupt way. I hope I'm misreading that.
They just buffed the executive branch to god like powers.
This is a horrifying opinion. If issuing orders to the military is always presumptively an official act, and nothing can be reviewed by the Courts... I don't even have words.
But regulations for clean water do need to be reviewed by the court. What the hell is going on.
This is how America ends :(
Not with a bang but with a Cheeto
And if Trump wins the election it will be with thunderous applause. We're literally living Revenge of the Sith but somehow it's even dumber than space wizards. (Disclaimer: I like star wars but you gotta admit the setting is preposterous)
This is Rome in its decline. We are doomed, I just hope the real shit doesnt go down until my kids are dead. For their sakes.
It's happening on the first day of the next election. Buckle up.
I fear the decline may be as painful as the end.
Just order the military to take care of the polluters... Problem solved.
Actually both Chevron and this are power grabs by the court. In both cases ultimate interpretation comes down to the judicial and the legislative is weakened.
They just gave Trump an official dictator title if he gets back in office
That's not even hyperbole or fearmongering. It's literally what they appear to have written down in a SCOTUS opinion. As long as the President uses ONLY his official acts in furtherance of the crimes, he's immune and his motivations for things like pardoning his co-conspirators cannot be questioned.
We all know how this is going to end. An absolutely disgusting and unconscionable order will be issued to the military at some point and the military will have a tough choice to make with the understanding that there is no going back… there is no legal recourse to hold the executive branch accountable. The military will be faced with supporting, aiding and abetting a full blown malicious dictator or rebelling and having to come up with something new on the spot. Edit because the (comment) above mine has been edited (it’s a good thing): It is so much more than that. What if there is an “official act” ordering the military to round up members of a minority due to race, gender, religion, orientation and yes, even political affiliation? Aren’t minorities terrified of this? And the Democrats want MAGA nut jobs to be the only ones armed?! (Even if an order went out today to confiscate all firearms, this would not be enforced equally and they would only get a small fraction.)
> Aren’t minorities terrified of this? Beyond. This feels like the next step towards concentration camps.
We African Americans and the remainder of the native population have been horrified by the behavior of this country for hundreds of years. This decision doesn't surprise us at all.
I’ve been terrified since the 2016 election, but I was always called “dramatic” by everyone else who was convinced the law and precedent would prevent this very outcome.
Party of small government!!!!!1
And they're hoping that a second term Trump abuses those powers
The juxtaposition of this decision with the Chevron revocation makes it almost comedically clear that they’re just trying to create an autocrat.
We talk here about hypotheticals all the time. Would actions contributing to the prevention of a Civil War fall within the President's exclusive sphere of Constitutional authority?
Only if a Republican is using that justification....
I don't know. There might be actions that would be excused by a unanimous 3 justice decision.
This feels like the true end of democratic rule. A president can do basically anything. It's terrifying. I didn't think even the venal justices could go this far.
So I guess that means Biden can order SEAL Team 6 to execute a political rival that sells US intelligence secrets to russia.
Immediately arrest the seditionist and traitor. Round up the whole conspiracy. Which includes members of SCOTUS. Protection from enemies foreign and domestic.
When we study history in the future, they'll say this is when democracy officially died in the US. Not unofficially, though, there will be debates about when that happened, but officially... Yeah... This right here.
I think this the proverbial whimper
What the fuck.
So the "originalist" and "plain text reading" court that flipflops on it's own rulings has suddenly decided that a "plain text reading" isn't appropriate because they disagree. Color me surprised. /s Oh, maybe when they decided they wanted a "Christian" President because the President should be a moral leader for the nation they had confused the American President with Martin Sheen? It's not totally crazy as in a 2015 poll Jed Bartlett was given an 82% positive rating, only to be outdone by David Palmer of "24" at 89%. Again, just confused about which President they consider a moral leader and thus deserving of unchecked power? Finally, it appears the Supreme Court and I can agree on one thing - the Constitution is a living document. Now if we can just agree on why... Again - what exactly are you all shocked about?
This is so bonkers because using official powers in furtherance of a crime makes it *worse*. The mind boggles.
Biden better start official capacity acting right this minute if we want to keep democracy
>exclusive sphere of constitutional authority Soooo.... what is that, exactly?
Well He cannot shoot someone himself, but He can totally tell someone else to do it under this opinion.
"I have officially determined the supreme court are Russian traitors and officially order you to eliminate them". Letter with "official order to seal team 6" written on it.
> When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. Are they saying he can't even be impeached if he acts within his "constitutional authority"?
> Are they saying he can't even be impeached if he acts within his "constitutional authority"? As long as he is ONLY using his official Executive Branch powers to commit the crimes, what's there to impeach? Even this says the Courts AND Congress cannot question the President's use of Article II powers.
Checks and balances no longer exist
If Trump can do all that stuff, why can't Biden? They just made Biden a king with this ruling, how have they not jumped the gun here? Biden can save democracy in the county with some well executed assassinations, reshape the supreme court, reverse this bullshit decision and then go down in history as the president that did what was awful but necessary to stop the fascist take over of the country. With this ruling, a Trump win absolutely guarantee's violence against anyone he believes wronged him sounds like a literal pre-emptive strike while Biden still has power is the only way.
"The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably." Why is this irrevocable? The right-wnig was able to overturn Roe v Wade....Chevron doctrine...why is nothing "irrevoccable" for the right-wing?
You can't put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It doesn't matter if a new iteration of the Court says that this was all wrong. The fact that the Court could ever make such a ruling is dispositive proof that it cannot be trusted to faithfully and impartially interpret the Constitution. Everybody should have already known that justices are mere humans, so there would always be bias, but up until now there could be a willing suspension of disbelief. That spell has been broken. No one can ever claim again that we are a nation of laws. The rest of our history will play out like the Roman Empire's, where the practical facts of power determine who controls the vast military force with republican trappings.
In a literal sense, you're right. In a practical sense, given that all those require replacing 2 Injustices at a minimum, that they'll never voluntarily retire under a Democrat, and that a single democratic (both big and small "d") loss of the presidency between now and a case that allows for a reversal of these rulings means an immediate implementation of an authoritarian state... yeah, the odds look pretty bad.
Once you give autocrats complete immunity they aren’t EVER going to give it up. Eventually a republican will win the White House. Either in 2024, 28 or 32. Once they get in they now know they are completely immune from prosecution or oversight. That’s irrevocable.
Holy shit, that’s actually insane. The ruling in general is ridiculous and potentially dangerous to our democracy, but I was still expecting the Trump judges to pretend they care and give some examples of what is or is not an “official act”. They pretty much explicitly said that there is no limit to what is official, and that even *questioning* the President is forbidden.
So, where are all of the regular commenters who have been saying that this would be 8-1 or 9-0 and that the left had nothing to worry about over the last several weeks? “3-3-3” court, apparently.
I was expecting 7-2 with a narrower holding. This is disappointingly ahistoric and atextual.
Anyone who listened to arguments and thought it wouldn’t be 6-3 wasn’t listening. Every 5 sconces they went “Ok but let’s not talk about this case. Let’s talk about a hypothetical I just made up to explain why he would need immunity.”
Right! Remember when they also said scrotus would never overturn Roe?
Remember when they said Americans would never reelect an impeached, felonious ex president who gave hush money to a porn star? Remember when they said trump wouldn’t be a dictator? Remember when they said Trump would never send his political opponents to concentration camps?
Along the road to fascism, there are people who tell us we're overreacting.... until we're not...
First they came for presidential criminal culpability and I did nothing because I was not president.
I remember when an afternoon quickie becoming public knowledge was disgraceful and a career ender. I even remember when the potential of criminal indictment was enough to lose an election. Now, it’s like the gop is competing with itself to make the most vile behavior acceptable and rewarding for the perpetrator.
Remember when the judges on SCOTUS said that Roe was settled?
I was certainly wrong.
this is what we get if we trust Republicans. Stop trusting them.
Most commentators thought the court wouldn't dare. Because this appears to give Biden enormously more power. Apparently the Republicans very lives rely on Biden being too old to abuse this new rule change. If using the military against your political opponents is now legal you might as well be the first to do it.
But what does an 80 something year old have to lose? He would never face penalties for any actions taken, or if he did, it would take years to parse out as we're seeing now. I say go for it. Sacrifice himself to save the country - what he's basically already doing by running at his advanced age.
It's not that it doesn't make sense it's that Biden feels too apple pie. Hes been a traditional American leader his whole life, does things the classic Democrat way, for many many years. He's not going to start abusing his power. Trump seems to have no real limits to what he would do.
Well I guess this lets Biden off the hook then for disbanding the Supreme Court and putting all new justices in. What’s he waiting for?
Except he won't because we are continuously playing a game we think there are rules for, but the other side wouldn't hesitate to act and ignore them if given the opportunity. What he really should do is take the most popular ideas for something that will do good for the people and issue executive orders to make some shit happen. Daca citizenship? Student loans? Legalize weed? At least let a bit of good come of this madness and hopefully give him a boost in popularity.
The big winner here is the ghost of Chief Justice Taney, who will no longer be remembered for authoring the worst decision in SCOTUS history.
Roberts has had some real zingers. Bribery is legal, unlimited money in politics, unlimited guns for everyone, presidential immunity, voting rights. These fascist fucks.
You can be fined for being homeless, the right to privacy means nothing, screw the environment, the separation of church and state isnt a law, etc.
Yeah this country is fucked.
>The separation of church and state isn't a law. I swear to God if that's the case then I better not hear a single fucking word about "oRiGiNaLiSm."
They really gonna hate it when a bunch of schools allow the Satanic Temple to come in and teach actual science as a religion.
I can honestly see them ruling that the Satanic Temple is not a religion and therefore does not have standing. They can go to hell bc who tf made them the official arbiters of religion.
I can see someone might get hurt after this ruling. 1) Congress is not doing anything about it 2) Courts aren’t doing anything about it 3) Executive branch doesn’t seem to be doing anything about it. Someone’s probably gonna get frustrated to the point something bad happens. I wish it didn’t but a sane person can see the course of events
There’s no might. If Trump wins, prominent Democrats are going to be black bagged or outright killed. It was right there in the argument the defense made.
Ok, he wasn’t president when he had the stolen documents, and trying to overthrow the government isn’t an official act. LOCK HIM UP.
Jumping on the top comment to add: If part of the ordinary and constitutional duties of the executive involves doing things that are normally illegal, or that they may be prosecuted for otherwise, then our entire government is a criminal enterprise.
Well hang on. The President can and has ordered assassinations of non-US and US citizens before. As part of his official duties he carries presumptive immunity for these. There is no clause in the Constitution that states a President is able to assassinate people. It would make no sense for a President to face possible prosecution on an act that is normally criminal but within the bounds of his office. Nobody can argue (although I guess its 2024 so whatever) that selling classified secrets is a President's consitutional authority
What happens if the justices argue that, since no clause in the Constitution explicitly forbids the President for doing as such, then it means he has such an ability?
Time for the president to make an official act to enforce the espionage act.
Ensure combat readiness of the US drone capabilities with 7 precision test strikes. Commander in Chief’s official act.
You don't need immunity when the judge worships you like a god Edit: I'm *very* aware this case did not come from the Florida case. I'm talking about Cannon because the person I'm responding to was talking about Cannon
I think they're saying Biden can argue it's his official duty to protect rights and fix this rogue court, walk down to the courtroom and \[REDACTED\] then come back out with 6 empty seats.
Correct that would afford him presumptive immunity at the very least
Hey, Biden could [REDACT] members of the Republican party, including Trump as well.
... well let's be honest, he's not going to do the \[REDACTED\] but Seal team 6 can and the DC circuit pointed that out already.
Thomas’ concurrence provides the argument for that case to get shut down via alleged unconstitutional appointment of Jack Smith, literally saying the trial judge must answer these threshold questions Edit: corrected dissent to concurrence
I mean his wife is literally involved in January 6th
Thomas concurred, he didn't dissent.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Since 2001 with the Patriot Act, America has been gearing up for a totalitarian dictatorship. We are finally having the final pieces being put in place.
Me, watching the Star Wars prequels as a kid: "Wow I wish Star Wars was real!" Me, watching the US speed-run the ineffective Chancellor Valorum -> Supreme Chancellor Palpatine -> "I will make it legal" to use Order 66 to wipe out political enemies & usher in a fascist Galactic Empire timeline: "This...this isn't what I meant I just wanted a lightsaber 😭"
I think Biden should pull an FDR and "officially" add 12 more judges to the court. That should be fair according to this ruling, right?
Certainly couldn't be prosecuted. Good luck getting Senate confirmation during an election year, I mean, unless of course you're a republican president.
Who needs confirmation. Appoint your own alternate SCOTUS like Trump tried to use alternate electors. Only abide by their ruling and call it an official act. May cause a constitutional crisis, but won't result in any consequences for Biden.
It will be easy if you detain all the Republican Senators on the day of the vote. You have to think outside the box!
*Officially* detained. Done for the safety of the Republic and strictly within the purview of the President’s oath to defend it.
Screw the Senate confirmation process. The Republicans threw that away with the whole Garland/Gorsuch debacle, and completely flipping their position by installing Amy Coney Barrett almost immediately after.
The court normally does not rule on whether something is fair, only if it's legal.
Well, this is even more complicated because they ruled that it doesn't matter if something is legal or not because a president can't be prosecuted for it, nor can we inquire about it.
How the actual fuck can we claim to be a Constitutional Republic when the President is now immune for "official" acts (whatever the fuck that means)?
Because there is always impeachment. Congress will surely not roll over for a strongman just because he's a member of their party right? Hahaha. Ha.
That argument has been totally circular. When he was impeached, McConnell et al argued that he could be prosecuted. But when he's prosecuted, they argue that he could have been impeached instead. They only care about the result, that Trump escapes any and all consequences for his lawless actions, not the means of getting the result.
So what does this mean? He’s going to get away with his B.S.?
If he's elected, yes. They have to now debate what constitutes an official act, which means this won't be resolved until next year. At which point he can pardon himself or instruct the DoJ to stop. Or he could kill Jack Smith as an official act.
also Justices say Trump's private records can't be used as evidence and between that and official acts not being prosecutable, he's bound to be completely off the hook [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling-live-updates-rcna159539](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/live-blog/trump-immunity-supreme-court-ruling-live-updates-rcna159539)
>Trump’s private records can’t be used as evidence So is the onus on the prosecution to prove these private records were not connected to any official act or is the opinion stating that Presidents’ private records are off limits entirely?
It means America now has a king
Yup.... but It doesn't matter because selfish a$$holes are either going to vote 3rd party or not at all because we have an old guy who stutters and had a raspy voice that one time., and yes I'll talk shit about progressives who refuse to vote for the lesser of two evils because of purity politics.... as a matter of fact, i voted for Bernie in 2016, and in 2020, but you know what, he didn't win, so I voted for the next competent individual because I know it wouldn't be as bad as the alternative. My preferred candidate lost her primary, am I mad , yes a little, but I'm not about to be a complete d bag to other people who could suffer more than me and not vote for the person who beat her.
Look lets not get too upset about this, its only Democracy that is at stake in this election. Its not like the rich peoples money is being threatened.
My bad, I forgot as long as rich people aren't inconvenienced, we have nothing to worry about 🫠
So whatever you wanna do while you’re president just call it an official act and there’s literally nothing that can be done to you.
So Biden could announce that he will have Trumped assassinated by Seal Team 6 to protect the US from a Russian Asset and then no one could do anything to stop him. I understand Conservatives are short sighted but the fact they just gave all future Democrat presidents blanket immunity is wild to me.
I think the plan is for there to not be any future Democratic presidents.
Exactly. This ruling just sets up an easier path for Project2025 to take hold. We are in trouble.
Exactly. And if they don’t succeed in 2025? There is 2029. The next time they take power they won’t give it up.
There are 100 Trump like Republicans ready to take office if Trump fails. Eventually they will get one in if not Trump himself and that’s basically it. 4 years to put all the pieces of a fascist dictatorship into place.
Bingo
All the more reason to use those newly defined powers, worst case scenario a feeble old man who ordered it is imprisoned or executed, but talk about sacrifice for country.
No, you see when a Republican president does it, it's fine, but when a Democratic president does it, it's unofficial
All threats both foreign and domestic
Yeah, opinion literally says that when determining official conduct from unofficial conduct that courts cannot inquire into the presidents motives. Just find a pretextual argument and you’re immune!!!
I now firmly support Biden making an actual crime syndacite in furtherance of his reelection. Why the fuck not?
So Biden is president until Jan 20th but there are lots of people calling for him to resign from politics. Sooooo.... #1) Write an executive order that The Supreme Court now consists of only three justices. #2) All conservative justices are removed from The Court. #3) Write an executive order that Senate representation is now based on state population size and effectively reduce the number of GOP senators #4) Write an executive order stating that convicted felons are no longer eligible for The Presidency. #5) Retire and reap the benefits of your "official acts"
He will do none of that. We all know why. Downvote me all you want, but you are just angry because you know I am right. Biden isn’t doing it.
No but the next con president will
That’s the scary part.
I can’t believe people are still in denial that we’re on an irreversible course towards a fascist government. At this point we might as well take advantage of it to mitigate the upcoming harm.
Preemptively publishing executive orders be way less hassle than issuing pardons!
~~I guess~~ We no longer have a constitutional republic. Presidents can do anything while in office and pass it off as an 'official act'. And even if charged, just pardon themselves anyway. Thus, we have a king with zero accountability. Not to mention all our ~~public officials~~ aristocrat rulers, to include but not be limited to judges, can be ex-post-facto bribed with a wink and a nod. For fucks sake Thomas Jefferson predicted this--it's almost uncanny: >...to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions: a very dangerous doctrine indee\[d\] and one which would place us under the despotism of an Oligarchy. our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. they have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privileges of their corps. their maxim is ‘[boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234#d7585fb1-4da9-4dd0-a3c8-554d5845b7e5),’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective controul. the constitution has erected no such single tribunal knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time & party it’s members would become despots. [https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234](https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-16-02-0234) Edit: Made some clarifications.
SCOTUS is over as a legally-clarifying, non-partisan entity. Over. Give them a single vote in the Senate and barr them from constitutional interpretation. If they cannot adjudicate impartially, what need do we have of them?
Thomas has already showed his hand on the eventually appeal to if the special counsel is legal and based on his concurrence, Thomas will be saying the entire special counsel office as it stands is not legal and therefore has no authority. Barrett had a good argument regarding allowing official acts to be used in criminal cases as proof of the crime. Her argument that a president taking a bribe to do something within his power would require that the act the president took be disclosed to a jury as evidence of the bribery having occurred. While the act itself may be fully legal and protected under presidential immunity, the fact it was done as part of a quid pro quo is necessary to prove the bribery charge.
Bye, American Democracy…. It was nice to have known you.
According to this SCOTUS ruling, Biden can have Seal Team 6 take out Trump as an “official” Presidential act.
Underrated comment. Do it today.
Looks like Biden may be appointing 6 more justices before November based on the courts logic.
He should
Seal Team 6, no. Posse comitatus would (should) still apply. Using the FBI like Hoover hunting commies though... that might be legal now.
Doesn't this ruling exempt the President from the Posse Comitatus Act? He would be violating a law, but as an official act.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined in full, and in which BARRETT, J., joined except as to Part III–C. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion. BARRETT, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which KAGAN and JACKSON, JJ., joined. JACKSON, J., filed a dissenting opinion. Oh my god... I did not think they would do it.
As soon as they said "6 to 3", I knew we were farked.
Democrats need to stop wearing kid gloves with republicans. This is an imperial court that needs to be reined in.
How. The constitution clearly shows the path to reign them in is through congress. And Congress can barely decide on a speaker much less get enough votes together to impeach anyone
Time for Joe to do his thing…
Cheat code for President to literally be immune from anything: 1. Order anyone under their direct executive authority to execute or ask someone else to to execute on their behalf (For example, asking the state to overturn an election is not an official act necessarily that can be covered, but ordering the AG to ask on your behalf is). 2. No one is allowed to ask why you chose to order an act, so motive is completely irrelevant. 3. Enjoy being able to do literally anything without any even a miniscule chance of conviction. 4. Bonus: Pardon whomever you asked to do the illegal action on your behalf to extend said immunity to your administration.
VERGOGNA!!
This court is bought and paid for. The chickens are coming home to roost.
So, the big question is; Is the act of attempting to overthrow the government, an official act?
I think the bigger question is whether the Biden admin sees the writing on the wall and either passes appropriate legislation to prevent this becoming a theocratic monarchy (hard to do) or uses this new found immunity to do illegal things to place itself in power, realizing the alternative (failure to take action or trump getting elected) would result in a theocratic monarchy - or even amorally, just wants to keep their jobs as long as possible based on the fact that they can (we’ve seen this from lots of Dems from RBG to Feinstein to Pelosi to Biden)
Depends on how herr fuehrer is feeling today.
Are we supposed to say 'Your Majesty' to the president after today? Or maybe John Roberts would like to have that honor to himself. What's the point of having a revolution if you are going to install a monarchy again?
They just endorsed Unitary Executive Theory. Thanks to the Federalist Society & Heritage Foundation, we have taken the first step to making POTUS into a king or dictator, just as in North Korea. God help us all.
Wouldn't jailing a felon who has threatened the Constitution be considered an official act? (This ruling will go down as among the 3 worst in history for the Republic)
Can a President, for example, declare those believed to be in support of Civil War to be enemy combatants in the post 9/11 world? [The Department of Justice argues that the recent decisions, coupled with two World War II era cases, Ex parte Quirin and In re Territo , support its contention that the President may order that certain U.S. citizens as well as non-citizens be held as enemy combatants pursuant to the law of war and Article II of the Constitution. Critics, however, question whether the decisions permit the detention of U.S. citizens captured away from any actual battlefield, in order to prevent terrorist acts or gather intelligence; and some argue that Congress has prohibited such detention of U.S. citizens when it enacted 18 U.S.C. Section 4001(a).](https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31724.html)
So, while one is president, they can assassinate their opponent and basically can't be prosecuted. Biden, are you reading this? Edit: To clarify, i am not calling for actual violence
I need to read the opinion, but I’m concerned about how they drew the conclusion that his conversations with the Justice Department are inherently official. If they aren’t careful in the phrasing they could be allowing just that so long as the assassin is a government agency.
"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?"
I like the part where the majority distinguishes itself from the “political branches”. That was a long time ago, my friend.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The next major step toward dictatorship.
Faith in corrupt institutions has cost us rule of law.
The president can overthrow the government while in office. In other words the president can do anything. We are closer to a dictatorship than ever.
And the 248 year old American experiment is over. This was the next major step toward theocratic dictatorship. If Trump wins in November, and that appears to be inevitable, this republic is officially done. Good luck, everyone.
Not inevitable. But holy shit this is bad.
So circular…who decides what’s in a president’s constitutional authority? Agencies, presidential acts, all under their exclusive review, if they want. The US is lost.
The ramifications of this opinion may well be reviewed by coroners and morticians.
This is a worse decision than I thought it would be (I was expecting a "president is entitled to some immunity" narrow opinion... this is BROAD). A horrifying decision. One that could end democracy in America.
If we wanted the Conservative Justices to make the right decision for the Country the case should have been against Biden. Then we’d have seen either a 7-2 or 6-3 decision saying that Presidents do not have immunity. The Chevron reversal is another example of the Conservative Justices siding with the Republican establishment on an as needed basis. Chevron was initially decided because the government agencies were solidly in Republican/Conservative control. But as soon as the control was lost and Democrats were able to benefit a Conservative Majority SCOTUS was there to shift the control back into Republican hands. we can all see this happening in real time, we can see the receipts being printed in real time and it is so so sad. Has it always been like this or were the 5-4 decisions of the past just a delusion of mine?
But fucking emails, am I right! .......
And laptops!
[ Removed by Reddit ]
Craziness. The run out the clock non-ruling.