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

  • Baphomet_The_Blasphemer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Are these people really this fucking stupid? If the sitting president has total immunity and having political rivals killed is an “offical” act, then what’s stopping Biden from having Trump executed?

  • acargitz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    The right question to ask is whether the president can decide to assassinate a supreme court justice. Then it becomes plenty clear to the supreme court fucks how obviously insane the rationale is.

    • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thing is, they are asking the questions and I rather suspect that they don’t want to put that out there.

  • Red_October@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    A bold move for the council of the current president’s political rival, but alright bet. Pretty sure the lawyer just wants a way to escape the current client while saving face.

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

    Right now, it’s looking like the Supreme Court is going to say “that’s not allowed” but do it in a way that prevents Trump from being tried before the election. This lets them say “we’re good and ethical” while protecting Trump from the consequences of his criminality:

    The Supreme Court appeared poised to reject Donald Trump’s sweeping claim that he is immune from prosecution on charges of trying to subvert the 2020 election, but in a way that is likely to significantly delay his stalled election-interference trial in D.C.

    • Dragomus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Well before this hearing I had the impression this SC is looking for ways to stack delay on delay without taking too much flak themselves. It showed in the weird narrow beam wording of their restrictions when they took on this case. It showed in the extra weeks they took to plan this hearing. And it is now showing in the questions they ask …

      I will not be surprised if they proclaim “a president has no total immunity, and only immunity in presidential matters, but the lower courts need to figure out if Trump’s actions were (for) personal (gain) or presidential.”

      And with that the ball is dropped and it rolled in a sewage drain where it’s hard to reach before the elections are in the rear view mirror.

      It even includes another time loop for when it eventually does resurface back on the SC’s lap for them to decide if his actions were presidential.

      But by that time there will be a “Year one Dictator”, proclaiming himself to be America’s first great dictator, while ordering his rivals to be imprisoned, indicted and or shot.

      And the people will loudly wonder, “Who is there to stop him? Where are the checks and balances?” But loudly will turn into a whimper then a whisper until it is a small voice in an empty room.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, if he announces he is a dictator I’m going to start firebombing republican owned properties. There will be no point in upholding day-to-day life. This isn’t something we can stand by and let happen. All women will become a slave caste and democracy will end as well. Trump cannot be allowed to take office again by any means necessary. Its that dire.

  • blazera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 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”

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    You know. If I was an asshole puppeteer who held trump’s strings….

    I’d get myself a new puppet, then make this argument, maybe then do a false flag and have the trump-puppet executed in a manner that looks like Biden had it done….

    Something to think about.

    • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      No…that still ruins the country

      The best thing to do would be an amendment that removes immunity

      • AutistoMephisto@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        If Trump wins the election, he’s going to do what he wants regardless of the Court’s ruling. Let’s stop pretending that “Even when it accomplishes nothing, following the rules to the bitter end is the noble thing to do.” Why the fuck does the Captain need to go down with his ship?

        • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          And then the next Republican President does the same thing

          If your goal is no Republican President ever again then you don’t need to worry about the ruling anyway

      • matlag@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        So first kill Trump, then kill some of the SC judges, so that they won’t oppose you when you move to make the president bound to uphold the law.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    My gut tells me Trump’s lawyers don’t actually want the president to be immune. They already won by having the Supreme Court take up this absurd case allowing his other trial to be delayed until this issue is resolved. Likely after he’s president.

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Lol, that’s exactly what the article says. Literally the last three lines summing it all up:

      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. Rolling Stone reported on Wednesday that many of the former president’s lawyers and political advisers are bearish on their odds of success — but it’s not all doom and gloom.

      “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.

      • jballs@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Exactly. No one thinks presidents should be able to commit crimes with impunity. This is a delay tactic and we feel for it hook, line, and sinker. When you have money to pay for lawyers, you can delay justice indefinitely. Sure Trump is on trial for the Stormy Daniels coverup payments right now, but if he serves a single day in prison for it, I will gladly eat my hat.

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

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

    Murica!

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

      You know as well as I do that we’ll sit on that high horse of morality, sniffing our own farts, while we get sniped right the fuck off that horse by a Republican who has no issues whatsoever with abusing that power.

      • Bipta@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        If the Supreme Court were to greenlight this, it becomes the only logical choice in terms of preservation of the self and the state…

        My opponent will use this power for great evil, so I must use it first to circumvent that.

    • CaptDust@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Obviously, why wouldn’t he? This is potentially the dumbest argument ever heard in a court room and we’re all supposed to sit here and entertain its plausibility. What a joke.

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

        we’re all supposed to sit here and entertain its plausibility.

        We’re all here because more than one of these judges is entertaining its plausibility. Listening to some of the questions coming from a couple of these judges, there is a very real possibility that they actually declare Trump at least partially immune, leading to the lower courts having to re-litigate the issues again (which would delay Trump’s trials by years), or outright giving him enough immunity to make his current cases go away.

        Honestly, I think the judges are just trying to figure out how they can rule narrowly enough to make sure Trump walks away scot-free while also ensuring that Biden and other future presidents don’t get the same treatment.

        • bean@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Why not have Biden just assassinate Trump then? He likely wouldn’t have to deal with a long drawn out court decision. He can be done with it and move on. It’s horrible to consider, but I’m so so so so so so so so so sick of Trump. Everyday I’m boarded with orange pulp. 😆

          • Goku@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            The kicker for the immunity is that he can be impeached and convicted by congress…

            So you’re only immune if you’re a republican and you have enough votes in the senate… Lord knows Democrats would convict each other but republicans will toe the line.

          • Serinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            Just put them in a jail. And put enough Republican congresspeople in jail to have the majority. And then declare they can leave as soon as a bill is passed making the stupid “immunity” shit illegal.

            You can demonstrate the issues without killing anyone.

        • eric5949@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          Trump was not president for the crimes in NY or the retention of documents AFTER he was president. Of course it’ll be delayed and litigated, but “president is immune” does not make trumps problems go away unless they go “president is immune for the rest of their lives” which is even more insane.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            unless they go “president is immune for the rest of their lives” which is even more insane.

            Alito pretty much did argue that.

            He said presidents won’t leave office peacefully if they aren’t able to retire to security without threats of prosecution.

        • Bipta@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          4 justices have to vote to hear a case at the Supreme Court. I don’t understand why they’d ever choose to.

    • theprogressivist @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m sure they’ll frame it in a way where this only applies to Trump, and no former or future presidents will have that ability.

      • teft@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Same as Bush v Gore

        Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances

        They’ll stick that in their opinion and say that this case isn’t binding on future cases therefore it doesn’t set precedent.

        • MrVilliam@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          That’s a paradox. The only precedent it set was that a decision could withhold setting a precedent.

    • thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      If this is okayed then the next government will presumably be the last. So if that’s not Biden then he is comfortable handing over the torch to whomever wins. That doesn’t seem like a particularly nice choice to have to make.

    • chakan2@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Biden doesn’t have the balls for that…Trump, unfortunetely does (or he’s just too fucking stupid to realize the ramifications of it).