Sotomayor: If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assasinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?

“That could well be an official act,” Trump lawyer John Sauer says

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Feel like theyre trying to setup as a given that “official presidential acts” are immune from prosecution.

    Like “alright assassinating a political rival is a step too far but now we’re discussing a much more tame action as president.”

    No go back a step, there is no law granting the president immunity from the law. It doesnt matter what is or isnt an “official act”

  • elrik@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t understand how these absurd arguments aren’t laughed out of court.

    Who is John Sauer and why does anyone take this unfounded nonsense he’s saying seriously?

    • skeezix@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Thats what is most concerning here: not so much the crazy reality that trump’s team is proposing, but the 5 conservative justices that are hand waving it off and are set to send it all back to the lower courts, giving trump the delay he needs.

    • rsuri@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because it’s an opportunity to slow down prosecutions of Trump that the court’s 6-3 Republican majority wants to halt. That and (rampant speculation) I think John Roberts in particular wants to write one of those historical opinions they talk about in law schools, and this is an opportunity to do that given the lack of clarity on presidential powers and immunities.

    • silence7@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      They’re being treated seriously because they’re made by Republicans, who are part of the same patronage machine as the judges.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I don’t get it, are they really arguing that Biden can just have Trump killed? And it would be perfectly legal!

    • Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      No, rules only apply to the out-group.

      If Trump wins the election, the SCOTUS will agree and let Trump do whatever the fuck he wants. If he loses, then SCOTUS will not let the ruling go through. The SCOTUS will conveniently wait until after the election to make a ruling on this.

      • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I’m not sure they can realistically run out that clock. But they can absolutely just ignore a past ruling, if they want. Also, Biden just wouldn’t do that. He’s a shit, in a lot of ways, but not that kind of shit. Buuut the important point is that this argument is effective, accurate or not. Scare the MAGAts about what Biden, or, say, a future President Alexandria Ocasio Cortez might do. It doesn’t have to be a realistic threat, just play into their existing narrative.

      • WindyRebel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        This.

        Plus they are arguing this knowing Biden won’t do that and so if it passed then Trump will have free rein if he wins and he will likely try to exercise that option is my guess.

        • Madison420@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Well no it’s dumber than that. If a president can have sometime killed he could then have someone banished or imprisoned. They’re literally arguing that the argument they’re making is pointless because a president can do whatever they want.

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    So this means someone could come in, kill the sitting President, and claim the presidency by right of conquest?

    Murica!

  • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Biden should just send Seal Team 6 to whatever courthouse Trump’s hush money trial is at and tell them to sit on the steps. If anyone asks why they’re there, just saying “Waiting for the Supreme Court ruling”. Maybe park another team on the Supreme Court steps with a sign that says “Waiting for Clarence Thomas.”

    Biden would not be committing an illegal act. He’d be ordering the teams to sit on the steps and wait. Further orders would only come after the Supreme Court ruling, so Biden would be covered by the very same Presidential immunity that Trump just fought for.

    • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      He pretty much has to, or else Trump will imprison him an execute him in the next 12 months.

      I mean shit, if I knew there was a fifty percent chance my neighbor would kidnap and murder me in the next year… I’d be making contingency plans.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Unfortunately that’s not how Democrats work. For good or for bad they stick to morality (except when it comes to Israel for God knows what reason) and they’ll take the “high road” that just so happens to lead off a cliff, but it’s the high road so they need to take it even if it means their certain death.

        We’re a joke, doomed to die for the sake of the moral high ground that we have no right to even assume we have (see previous Isreal comment.)

        • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I sort of agree, but at some point, Biden has to understand his own self, and his family, and all the colleagues he has worked with in his career are at risk. Trump is seriously escalating a dangerous game that only SCOTUS or Biden can put an end to. Politics is eventually violence, and Biden must know that.

          Trump is hiring expensive, smart people, to argue at the last peaceful authority in the country, that he will regain the power of judge jury and executioner. This is fucking chilling.

          • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            This should help left leaning voters reconsider gun restriction laws since most of them are enforced in blue areas, while red areas are all allowed to have essentially entire armories.

            If you live in New York or California, you can’t find a gun store within 100 miles that can only sell extremely restrictive features, but in Idaho and Texas there’s a gun store on every fucking corner selling easy to shoot highly ergonomic firearms that allow morbidly obese boomers to effortlessly hit the dick off a fly at 1000 meters.

            • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Biden actually has control of the arsenal.

              Unless you are a leftist, committed to dying in a revolution, there’s no comparison to Biden’s position. Clinton and Obama? Maybe

            • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Begging to differ, I’m sitting on my toilet in California and a quick Google shows there’s 3 gun stores within 5 miles of me. I’d have to pass the legitimate restrictions (which I easily could) and one of them looks very upscale and expensive, but physical access is not a problem at all.

              • BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                Fair point, but I’m sure you are only able to be sold a very specific set of authorized firearms, that when compared to what similar stores in other states happen to also sell; will reveal the differences are orders of magnitude.

                Case in point: a Cali compliant AR-15 is a horrible thing to shoot (I own this one).

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago
      1. Conservative justices rule that the president is immune from prosecution

      2. President has conservative justices assassinated

      3. President appoints more progressive justices

      4. Progressive judges reverse ruling

      Would the president be liable for the prior assassinations at that point?

    • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      While funny to imagine…please let’s not. I got a kid to raise, I don’t want to raise one in a civil war. I know for sure some of the “SEAL team 6” members wouldn’t very much like being turned on government officials, especially if their politics align.

  • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    “The most powerful person in the world could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes,” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said. “I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

    Hard to make any disincentive when the ones running for office are in the twilight of their lives. If only there were any choice to the matter.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    In another hypothetical, Justice Elena Kagan asked if the president would be immune from prosecution if he sold nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.

    In February, D.C.’s Federal Court of Appeals summarily rejected the arguments made by Trump’s attorneys — including that the president would be protected from prosecution even if he had his political opponents assassinated.

    The three-judge panel unanimously determined that Trump is not shielded from prosecution for potential crimes committed in office related to the subversion of the 2020 election.

    Trump has long been ranting about the matter in his public statements and on social media, effectively making the immunity issue a plank of his presidential campaign.

    Despite Trump’s public insistence that he deserves widespread immunity, his own legal team seems prepared to have their claims rejected by the highest court in the land.

    “We already pulled off the heist,” one source close to Trump said, adding that regardless of what the court decides, they’ve already managed to severely stall the DOJ’s election interference case.


    The original article contains 806 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • unreasonabro@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    You know, I’m honestly not sure why everyone’s thinking this is part of some plan for the future they have. Fuckhead was already president. Given this guy’s track record, it’s far more likely that he didn’t get to finish covering his ass for something the first time around.

    Any likely candidates that disappeared 2016-2020?

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    It’s just bizarre to listen to…

    Kagan: If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?

    Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The very next question should have been “And if he has 1/2 of the House of Representatives killed at the same time?”

    • Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s the only argument he can make. If he makes any other argument, his position on complete and total immunity is dead on the spot, as he would be conceding that the President isn’t completely and totally immune after all.

      Any concession, no matter how ridiculous the example, would invalidate his entire case immediately and he knows it. And if you ever hear him say “He would have to be impeached and convicted first”, you’ll know that he damn well knows how ridiculous his own arguments sound.

      Judge: If President Trump were to run around the White House naked with a rubber glove on his head yelling ‘Hi, I’m a squid! Nuke Montana so I can take out my rival octopus and his herd of glitter cows!’, would that be an official act he would have immunity under?

      Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.

      Doesn’t matter what scenario you put there. Sauer’s options are to repeat that line or essentially lose the case.

    • Billiam@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Sauer: If it’s structured as an official act, he would have to be impeached and convicted first.

      Alright you goddamn fascist enabler, explain how the fuck breaking the law either by stealing nuclear secrets or assassinating political opponents could be “structured as an official act.” Explain the exact case law and legal mechanisms that explicitly give the office of the President this authority. And then, while you’re exhaling the CO2 that some poor plant is gonna have to clean up, explain how private citizen Donald Trump shouldn’t be prosecuted for committing these acts while he wasn’t in office.

      You fucking jackass.

        • Billiam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          There is a law that describes the process. And it exists for exactly this reason: there is no evidence the files Trump stole had been declassified, and by the time it was discovered he had them he was no longer occupying the office.

  • rsuri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The main Trump lawyer defense has been to say that the military has it’s own rules against executing such an order. But if Trump promises them pardons, those rules wouldn’t be enforced, and the whole thing would be “legal”.

    The pardon power is kinda the root of all evil here, because even if the court finds that Trump isn’t immune (which they almost certainly will), that just brings up the next question which is can the president pardon himself? I’m amazed that after the Trump years and his corrupt pardons there’s been no effort to limit the pardon power.

    • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The pardon power should be eliminated, and that’s been clear since Nixon was pardoned. Sure, just about every president has a feel-good set of pardons, people who were railroaded by bad laws and bad court practices, but those corrections are only a tiny fraction of the outrageous injustices committed by our system, and their existence is used to justify the injustice in the first place - “oh but surely there will be a pardon for people who really need it” - as if depending on a single King-figure at the top to make good decisions, instead of improving systems, was ever a good idea. But in the meantime, just about every president also has a list of political pardons they trade for favors, or use for people who committed crimes on behalf of the president, or the party. Why the fuck does it make any sense at all to say “hey, this person was elected head of the executive branch, they should be able to just shield people from the rule of law”, if the rule of law is an important basis of a free democracy? It’s weird, when you think about it. End the pardon.

  • Vaquedoso@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Watching from an outside of the U.S. perspective, it leaves me speechless seeing how staggering the transition was from ‘bastion of democracy and the free world’ to ‘increasingly malfunctioning society with russian-like values’

      • Ashe@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The propaganda works though. People outside of the US struggle to see, and believe that the US has its own damning problems. 2 years ago I got close to a Romanian bartender while traveling. She told me about how she held scorn for her sister, who moved to the US despite having been warned against it.

        What happened to her sister is what so many of us are victims of. Debt trapping, stalled wages, poor access to medical care and financial incentive to not seek care. Not to mention the poor quality food that wears you down.

        As a result, she has had to send money to both her sister and Mom, and had to call several contract terms and vacation seasons off to care for her Mother. Her sister couldn’t help due to being in debt, and at risk of losing her job if she were to travel, regardless of the emergency.

        It’s a cruel system that bundles up as an image of living free. The marginally higher standard of living has a lot of cracks, but they’re hard to see until you’re living with them.

    • Melllvar@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It’s almost as if hostile nation states are manipulating public opinion to destabilize western democracies and alliances.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Hey! They are against universal education. And universal healthcare. These are most anti-russian values I ever seen. I know what I am talking about.

    • Etterra@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Oh this place hasn’t ever been a bastion of democracy. There’s so much inequity, vote surprising, gerrymandering, racial oppression, and straight up lying going on that even we have a hard time figuring out how much of our own history is a thick-ass layer of sugar.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      America has historically been more hype than substance. The more you learn about our history, the thinner that “Bastion of Democracy and Free World” veneer gets.

      We have residents who still remember when it was illegal for black and white people to date. We have “sheriff’s gangs” in major cities, who are indistinguishable from the cartels they’re supposed to police. We literally still have a torture prison on an island we’re functionally at war with, who we can’t put on trial because we broke their brains but we can’t let go because we’re still scared of them.

      Dig into the history and you find out about Nixon’s CIA sending arms to the Khmer Rouge. You learn about House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s sex trafficking island. You learn about our century of atrocities in Haiti and Guatemala and Panama. You learn about the Tuskegee Experiments. You learn about that time George Bush Sr set up an teenager to sell a DEA agent crack directly outside the White House for the purpose of inflating fears of a drug epidemic.

      Just really ugly despicable stuff. And its been happening for a long while.

      • Heavybell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Don’t forget, a lot of the early free trade, free press rhetoric was because the US stood to benefit the most from it. Of course the country with mass printing technology wants everyone to be able to buy their printed propaganda. Do they want to share the technology? Not so much.