The thing that bugs me is how any order given to subordinates is a use of executive power, right? So that’s immune. But say the subordinate considered refusing an unlawful order. Why, then would they decide to refuse the order when the president could also choose to pardon them for any crimes they committed during the execution of the unlawful order?
Surely if something he does is unconstitutional, it is not within his official capacity or power!?
But somehow I have a feeling I’m being extremely naive just thinking that.The SCOTUS majority just decided that nothing the president does is illegal, at least in a way that can ever be prosecuted.
Four years ago, I voted for President Harris as the lesser of two evils.
This year, I vote for Queen Kamala I, as the lesser of two evils.
The big thing everyone is missing here is the ruling says the president cannot be prosecuted for actions that are constitutional. So this does not mean the end of democracy or whatever people are saying. The president can’t stay in office after his term expires. The president cannot order his political opponents killed- in fact, the Supreme Court issued a statement on that just this year.
You say that like it’s a defined thing that will keep a president in check. SCOTUS rules on constitutionality. Are you really that confident that they’ll keep Trump in line if he gets another term and starts really getting to work? The road to fascism isn’t paved with goods intentions, it’s paved with mealy mouthed, two faced decisions like this that give more and more leeway until it’s too late to take back.
Yeah well I guess we’ll see what happens if the orange jackass gets reelected. I’m not holding my breath.
Everyone needs to vote against the draft dodging felon rapist that is Trump.
Amici curae aren’t Supreme Court decisions. “Amici curae” means “friend of the court”. It’s an argument from third parties submitted for a pending case. The dissents by the actual Supreme Court justices explicitly reference the assassination potential.
That is true, thank you for explaining that to me. Although I read the dissent and what Sotomayor said was that the president would get their day in court to determine if those actions were constitutional, not that this ruling pre-approves them to do so. Meanwhile Roberts said these concerns are overblown… idk really, I don’t like the ruling, it basically feels like an expansion of qualified immunity to the president, which makes things more difficult for prosecuters but not impossible.
They’re only pre-approved for explicit constitutional duties, but they’re presumed immune for all others and their reasoning can’t be questioned. “I believed they were an imminent national security threat and took the hard choice.” It’s like “I feared for my life” for gun nuts, but you can apply it to nearly anything because the president has expansive emergency responsibilities and the only way to prove he wasn’t actually taking an action “officially” would be using his private communications, but any communications with “advisors” are precluded from being used.
And anything that makes it through that gauntlet to the Supreme Court rather than being dismissed earlier will be decided on ideological grounds.
Qualified immunity for someone who single handedly controls the most powerful military in the world. Fabulous idea.
Can’t wait for the gunning down of protestors. Gilead, here we come!
Yes, and that is very important and I did not know that, so thank you for clarifying.
That said, this supreme court interprets the constitution however they want. The court in its current form (as a whole) is not ethical, lawful, or legitimate. As soon as a republican takes the presidency, there is no stopping them.
They didn’t rule this, that was a “friend of the court” briefing by outside interests.
Well, fellow Americans. This experiment with democracy was fun while it lasted. Every significant goal of the founding fathers has been systematically thwarted by these Christofascists. We once again have a de-facto monarch.
The consequences of this decision will be dire, and unpredictable. Every law, every right, every freedom can now be undone by an official wave of the president’s hand. Rights to privacy? Gone. Due process? Gone. Bill of Rights? Gone.
No one—democrat or republican—should be happy about this. The right to bear arms is now on the chopping block right along with LGBTQ+ and abortion rights.
Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully I’m misreading the situation. But it sure sounds like every right that previously defined us as American people now hinges on the benevolence of our president. Americans can no longer brag about “American freedom.”
The sad thing is that you’re completely correct.
It’s over. This is the beginning of the true end. The end has been in sight for a while now, but it was always over the horizon.
Now we can actually see it.
There is not a way for us to legally come back from this.
In retrospect, I guess that we should have seen it coming that the Supreme Court of lifelong, unelected officials would be our undoing.
It’s pretty sad that we’re all taking this lying down with all of our Second Amendment talk.
And Europe’s next. Another far right puppet of Putin will be elected to run a European country in the next few weeks. Just shows that Europe follows the US in lockstep with a 5 year delay.
Sotomayor’s written dissent explicitly says that this decision makes the US President a king that and can now act with impunity. This is effectively the end of the republic as described by the constitution.
Ok, so biden can officially order the assassination of the right wing supreme court justices and Trump, then appoint replacement judges and lobby congress for a constitutional amendment permanently stripping presidents of their absolute immunity. Since his orders would have occurred while he had immunity, he’d be in the clear, he’d have illustrated the flaw in the ruling, removed a dangerous individual, and prevented future abuses. Win.
Yep, it’s an “official act”.
He could just dissolve the supreme court, it would be a little easier. I doubt the (current) military would actually carry out any sort of assassination. The military leadership are selected and it is instilled in them to pledge loyalty to the nation, not the president.
He won’t. Too honourable.
He won’t, but honor has nothing to do with it. He’s a democrat and therefore unwilling to wield power he’s been given.
Summon Genocide Joe where he’s actually needed.
The Democrats’ achilles heel.
There are some democratic politicians that might be interested into taking the offer up, but it isn’t public, nor they won’t reveal it. Can’t name any, but I can imagine at least 1 is out there. On the other side of aisle, we already know Republicans wants to enact the fourth reich and just about all of them wants to execute their political opponents.
That’s a bingo!
Biden can be the first President since Washington to give back the power to We the People. He needs some official acts that return the power back to We the People. If they’re considered crimes by the right wing fascists, don’t worry. It would take too long to investigate, prosecute, and hold him accountable. His old age is also a super power!
Biden definitely needs to make a move here, but I don’t see that working. There’s a difference between “the POTUS is immune from criminal liability”, and “the POTUS has the power to alter the government as they choose”, at least, there is for a President that isn’t going to enforce their changes with violence, which Biden hasn’t shown any sign of being.
Perhaps there’s a way to swing this new legal freedom in a way that does something like that, I’m not smart enough to figure that out. I do at least know that, if this isn’t addressed A fucking SAP, then the US is in some serious trouble.
Everything’s possible through the magic of drone strikes. “Oh, I can’t do that, can I? Well, I’ll just call up the ol’ reaper team and see what they think. You’re going to miss the impeachment hearing, btw, and so will everyone else if they know what’s good for them”
Again, I already addressed the violence approach. Does nobody read the full comment?
That all sounds very complicated, there is a much simpler way, in an official act of course, to deal with traitors:
Title 18 §2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, …
I already commented on Biden’s willingness to enact violence on his political rivals.
What a power move that could be.
“Currently, any act, no matter how illegal, is available to me without repercussions due to this Supreme Court decision. So I am going to fix that. I would like an amendment to be put forth explicitly stating as much, and also would like to have an amendment put in place to establish ethical rules for the Supreme Court and an enforcement method for it. Keep in mind, currently any action I consider part of my duties, including… removing… legislators who vote against Democracy itself, until I have enough of a majority of whoever is left t9 accomplish the same goal. Before that, though, I would like a voting reform to establish rules across the nation to maximize voter participation and remove gerrymandering and other systems to diminish the voting power of any group.”
This is how the power could be used for good and to restore our democracy. King Joe needs to do this and then give up the power that Chief Justice Roberts and his corrupt cohorts gave him. He needs to move swiftly or even HYPER EXPEDITIOUSLY.
Accountability for these biased, compromised, and corrupt Justices needs to happen now. Special Ops need to deploy and execute ASAP.
The SCOTUS can lick my fucking SCROTUS.
So, is insurrection an official act?
Only if you win.
Then its called a revolution instead.
Also if you lose apparently
Only if done by a republican.
IOKIYAR
They don’t even need project 2025 now.
God, we’re so fucked. SCOTUS is turning the Presidency into an autocracy, Biden refusing to get out of the way for a capable candidate…that judge sentencing Trump to jail time in the Stormy Daniels case is basically the only thing that can save us from a right-wing theocracy at this point.
Did you read the article? The scope of this ruling is pretty narrow.
Not that narrow. They are saying fomenting an attack on Congress and conspiring to subvert the electoral college are official acts.
Where are you getting that? That question wasn’t put to SCOTUS.
Trump was charged. Trump claimed he had “absolute immunity”, and didn’t have to face charges. Court rules against him in this issue; he appealed. Appellate court ruled against him, sending the case back to the trial court. He appealed to SCOTUS. SCOTUS said he doesn’t have absolute immunity, and that the limit of his immunity is on his “official acts”. SCOTUS then sent the case back to the trial court. The trial court will have to determine whether his actions were “official” or “unofficial”.
From the decision:
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official re- sponsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the Jan- uary 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 3; Amdt. 12; 3 U. S. C. §15. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification pro- ceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presump- tively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
What part of that statement is about attacking Congress or subverting the electoral college?
It is certainly within the president’s and vice president’s responsibilities to determine whether to certify the count. They have to be able to say “no, this should not be certified”.
Saying “no” can still be used as evidence of another crime, it’s just not a crime in and of itself.
Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime. The president and the vice president don’t get to pick the next president. The electoral college does. The only legitimate reason the VP could so no to the EC count is if for some reason the count itself were wrong, in which case the VP and Senate should correct it and move on.
That, of course, wasn’t the basis for the discussion. Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted, or to at least have Pence declare that he couldn’t tell which electors were real.
Trying to convince the VP to fraudulently say no to the EC count is the crime
Knowingly making a false statement to the VP would, indeed, be a criminal fraud, but the passage you cited does not contemplate such an act.
Trump was trying to get his fake electors counted
That, too, is not contemplated in the passage you cited.
Surely Trump just appeals to the SCOTUS and they free him in line with today’s ruling?
Wouldn’t be that simple. The Stormy Daniels case was about things that happened before he became president. Sure reimbursing Cohen might have occurred at least in part while Trump was president, but Cohen was never part of the administration. They were disguising the reimbursement as paying Cohen in his capacity as Trump’s personal lawyer. So there’s pretty much nothing that this ruling does to hamper this case.
That said, I have no doubts that they’d find some way to rule in his favor if an appeal managed to land in front of them. But I think he’d have to go through normal appeals first, he can’t just go straight to SCOTUS.
You’re right, but I’m confident he’ll get there in the end.
Yeah. The Roberts Court has been nothing if not the Court of Post-Hoc Justification. They’re great at concocting the most batshit crazy of legal theories to reach the outcome they want after shopping for the perfect cases to do so. I’m absolutely positive that if/when he gets an appeal to reach SCOTUS they’ll give him exactly what he wants even if they have to tie themselves in logical pretzels or even directly contradict themselves to do it.
They ruled on a goddamn hypothetical. 6-3.
None of the conservative judges are qualified to do anything except take leaves.
They’ve pulled that one a lot recently, haven’t they? I seem to recall one of the other recent rulings, I think it was against the EPA basically being a hypothetical about a proposed rule they hadn’t even actually passed yet?
It’ll be interesting to see how stiffing your lawyer is an official act
SCOTUS can’t do shit for state charges. Doesn’t mean they won’t try.
However, His legal team will argue literally any punishment is too harsh and appeal the NY state charges, which will be ganted because he was a president and has money. Then it will be delayed past the election and not natter anyway because this system is not made to resist willful destruction by those entrusted to protect it.
They cannot currently cancel state charges, but the GOP is trying to change that. It is one of a raft of measures underway. Some are truely frightening, such as using Red State National Guard troops against non-compliant Blue States. Check out Project 2025 - the Republicans are even trying to hide their planned dictatorship.
There’s move afoot by the GOP to get any state charges against the president to be elevated to the Federal court.
Guess who can pardon himself or have federal charges dropped?
That’s not how Federalism works. The President is not a member of any state government, and has no immunity from state crimes. There’s no way to move this case from state court to federal.
Unless you change the laws to say you can! Which was the point of the above comment.
The Constitution can’t be changed that easily. There’s no reason for the State of New York to give up the case, even if it were possible to do. And there’s no way to compel it, considering the issue is NY State law.
He was not President at the time of these acts, but I doubt that would stop them.
Biden, I urge you to, once your cold has passed, begin officially eating treasonous Supreme Court justices. Who’s going to say it’s unconstitutional? Not the Supreme food Court.
Damn, if that’s not what they call the cafeteria in the Supreme Court Building, I’m going to be thoroughly disappointed.
This is just depressing.
Democracy in the USA ended today. It will be in the history books about the end of democracy.
But by then, that history book will be banned, and only the bible will be left in schools (that will all be private)
The rule of law ended today. Democracy will end if the christo-fascists win the election.
for reference this same move of getting immunity from a fixed court was also huge for cementing the Chavez and Putin regimes in Venezuela and Russia.
This is a very important point, yes.
The fix was in a long time ago. I’ve said it before… America is a shithole.
Happy cakeday.
Thanks!
Fucking insanity.
Civil immunity makes sense because anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime, and allowing people to sue the president for official acts would leave him vulnerable to a nonstop barrage of lawsuits. Crime doesn’t work that way. The only way the president should be facing criminal prosecution is if he’s breaking the fucking law. That’s kind of the opposite of what the president is supposed to be doing. You know, faithfully executing the laws and all that. If a presidential action violates the law, it can’t really have the legitimacy that’s being presumed for all official acts here, because by definition it violates his official duties under the constitution.
Now, I would never suggest that a sitting president order the unlawful detention or summary execution of political opponents and/or corrupt justices. But I might suggest that, in the interest of national security, that he order intelligence agencies to troll through communications records, financial records, etc. to search for signs of treason and corruption at the hands of foreign powers. And if that search should happen to find evidence of any kind of illegal activity among his political opponents or on the Court, well…
…Then justice for those criminals should be swift and harsh. There I finished your thought for you :-)
As an official act, dissolve the current supreme court and reverse every terrible decision they made.
