• BoringHusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Trump, if he gets in again, can no longer do anything to Biden since he just gave the President absolute immunity.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Biden’s security after his presidency is probably not in the top #1000000 of the problems if Trump becomes a president.

      What I don’t get is what would stop Biden from ordering the assassinations of Trump and 1000 of his closest supporters if this gives total presidential immunity?

    • hypnoton@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That immunity is for every president including Trump. Hell yes Trump can assassinate Bidens and be immune from prosecution.

      If it was immunity for Biden alone, then and only then would Biden be safe.

  • suction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    So…couldn’t now Biden have Trump killed or maybe just his brain fried and get away with it?

  • AuroraZzz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    What’s the point of impeachment if the president is immune to everything anyways? This ruling makes no sense

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      You can remove court justices via impeachment. They’re not impeaching the president, they’re impeaching the Supreme Court justices. They’re nominated by presidents and confirmed by congress, so it falls on congress to remove them.

    • Thrashy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      The argument, such as it is, is that impeachment is the remedy for a Mad King Trump situation, rather than the courts. In fairness, this is not a completely unreasonable reading of the Constitution, but the framers’ intent is almost completely irrelevant to the reality of our current political system. As originally written, the federal government was basically designed to be a vaguely-representative oligarchy, with states free to appoint senators and presidential electors however their legislatures saw fit – the majority of states did not consistently hold a popular Presidential vote until the 1820s, for example. Impeachment by 2/3rds vote is not an unreasonable bar to set when it’s assumed that everybody in government is going the part of the class and social structure, and the President acting as a class traitor would put all of Congress into uproar. The founders did not anticipate more direct democracy, the two-party system, or the vulnerability to demagoguery that those things would introduce into the system.

      So here we are now, with a nakedly partisan Supreme Court majority holding that the only way to interpret the law is to ignore the world as it is and instead imagine things are still as they were at the end of the 18th century (mostly because that philosophy plays into the hands of the right wing) and pretending that a 2/3rds vote in the Senate is still a reasonable bar, when in fact the present political reality is that you will never peel 12+ sycophantic Senators away from a dangerous demagogue’s camp for long enough for an impeachment process to succeed in removing him from power. Of course that’s by design, but textualism and originalism paved the road to this ruling.

      At this point I’m not even ironically suggesting that Biden should call their bluff and start offing prominent right wingers. The Roberts court is clearly working in the assumption that Democrats won’t play dirty with the tools they’re laying out for their incipient god-king, and it’s looking increasingly like the only way to keep those tools out of their hands is to strike first.

      • dudinax@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The founders did anticipate direct democracy, the two-party system, and demagoguery. These were much discussed. They weren’t able to provide perfectly for these eventualities, which also was well understood at the time.

        The constitution clearly doesn’t allow a president to be removed from office by a prosecution, but it just as clearly doesn’t offer any immunity to a prosecution for presidents and not to mention ex-presidents. There’s never been a presidency, including Donny’s, where a criminal charge was even contemplated that would have impinged on a president’s legitimate duties.

  • btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    The Supreme Court not only made the president a king, they also overturned the Magna Carta.

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    President Trump signed Executive Order 13823 which kept Gitmo open and declared that the USA can detain “persons captured in connection with an armed conflict for the duration of the conflict.” That being stated in Trump’s executive order makes it clear that detaining such a person would be an official act.

    Trump and his MAGA supporters have made unproven claims that the 2020 election was stolen and they intended to overthrow the government and install him as President on Jan-6 despite his election loss. Trump and his supporters have made continuous threats of violence and committed numerous acts of violence since then. It is therefore clear that the violent conflict that started on Jan-6, 2021 has not yet concluded. Trump and members of his MAGA army can legally be detained, without charge, for the duration of this conflict if and when they are captured.

    Now there may be some question about who would capture Trump and his criminal allies and where they would be detained. It’s really quite simple. George W. Bush gave us extraordinary rendition. This program used agreements with about 50 other countries to abduct “terrorists” off the streets of those nations and hold and interrogate them indefinitely in CIA black sites. It is debatable on whether or not the CIA, NSA, or FBI could legally capture Trump or any of his terrorist allies, but that is not a problem. No doubt there are any number of foreign powers that would be happy to do so on our behalf for some diplomatic or financial consideration. Negotiating with other nations and arranging treaties and agreements is unarguably part of the Presidents job and therefore an official act.

    Thanks to this ruling all Biden needs to do to save our democracy is to come to an agreement with one or more nations to capture the terrorist Trump and transport him to some black site in a foreign nation. There he can be held, and interrogated if need be, until such time as the conflict with his MAGA army is ended. If there are any legally questionable actions by Biden here, they in the nature of official acts, and he is therefore immune to prosecution now or in the future. Should anyone else involved be charged with a federal crime during the capture or detention, Biden can simply pardon them.

    Thank you SCOTUS. You’ve given Biden the ability to save our nation with no legal risk to himself or anyone else involved in the process… Except, Biden would never do any of this because he is a decent human being. So what SCOTUS has really done is destroy our nation. This is the dumbest ruling ever made by this or any other SCOTUS in the history of this nation. The next Republican president will almost certainly not be a decent human being and will commit atrocities that he or she will never be prosecuted for and will tear down our democracy and will rebuild our nation as a Christian theocracy.

  • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    I hope Biden will take this opportunity as the new king and show Republicans that this is a two-way street.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m not one of those people who thinks Biden won’t make it through the next presidency, but I think you’re setting yourself up for disappointment hoping that he lives a long time.

  • REdOG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Biden should officially 2/3 of Congress ASAP…or at least someone he will pardon, unlike Hunter.

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

      He can do that by officially assassinating the conservative SC justices, nominating new ones, and then having armed marines inside the senate comittees to ensure they are confirmed immediately.

      There’s probably a few more steps, but this would get us back on track. He would have to be willing to give up his powers at a certain point, which means installing the legal apparatus (in the form of government officials) with the will to strip those powers.

      • Makeitstop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        The next steps would be ordering the justice department to prosecute him, going to court, and appealing all the way to the new Supreme Court so they can overturn the precedent. Which would require either moving very quickly or preventing the other side from taking power, one way or the other.

        Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing. It’s a slippery slope not unlike the one that caused Rome to go from being a republic that viewed regicide as a fundamental virtue to an empire that would persecute groups for denying the divinity of the emperor.

        • btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Of course, by then pandora’s box is open. As long as someone is willing to follow those kinds of orders, nothing would prevent the next president from doing the same thing.

          It would be a genius move for Biden to arrest Trump right now as a terrorist enemy combatant, but give hints that he’s doing this because of the supreme court ruling. And then in order to be prosecuted, the Supreme Court would need to completely reverse this ruling and restore democracy. Even if Biden went to prison after a total reversal of the ruling, he would be regarded by history as a saviour of the country on par with Lincoln.

          • dudinax@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            That’d be fine, but simplest move for Biden is to install Hunter as Veep, then have Hunter declare Joe the winner of the election next January. When Joe kicks the bucket a few months later, the presidency gets handed down from father to son as God intended.

      • Fester@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Justice: “Don’t kill me, it’s illegal!”

        Assassin: “I’m on orders from the president.”

        Justice: “Oh, well, go ahead then.”

      • SkybreakerEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Ah yes, the classic play in which you acquire unchecked power, exercise it to get rid of all your political rivals, then somehow use it to restore democracy. Occurs once in an anime about giant robots and psychic powers, and never in history.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Have you seen the interviews with them? They literally want him to be king. They say yes when asked if he should be dictator.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Great. Let’s put him and Castro in crowns on billboards and stick them in Miami. Let them look at them for awhile.

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            First of all, they aren’t monolithic. Young Cubans vote differently than old Cubans. But, Rick Scott has the formula…no matter the subject call your opponent a socialist. They hate socialism…but always want strongman rule.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well to be fair, it’d be King Biden.

      Just a fat less scary king who might even work to unking himself.

      Or something idk.

      This shits scary.

      • xenomor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Exactly this. It’s critically important that we prevent trump and his fascist goons from getting control of this power. But that in itself doesn’t address the really big problem here. Living at the whim of a benevolent king is still living under a king. I honestly think this is it. The constitutional republic is over in every meaningful way beyond window dressing. Given the authority of the Supreme Court, I don’t see a legal fix for this. This is dark AF.

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

          This ruling basically covered how ex-Presidents might be prosecuted. The President still has some level of accountability to Congress via impeachment , although we’ve already seen how hard that is.

          Of course, when Trump’s second impeachment didn’t stick, one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts. Now that it is in court, the Supreme Court just said “Sike! Congress needed to act all along”.

          • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts.

            The courts that they knew they had stacked in their favor. That was always an intentional copout.

          • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Mueller: “I can’t do it. Congress should handle it.”

            Congress: “We can’t do it. The Court should handle it.”

            Supreme Court: “Nah.”

      • bizarroland@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t know. Something tells me that they don’t have the integrity left to hold their own rulings true for the group of people that they don’t personally support.

        I’m getting more of a “rules for thee but not for me” vibe but from the supreme Court

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s not in human nature to limit your own power. I’m voting for Biden, for his appointments and admin, I have nothing against him, but my experience is that no one relinquishes power. Once the office has the power, no one’s going to let it go.

  • The Snark Urge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    SCOTUS has been trying to hump democracy to death since 2001. The fuckers have just about finally managed it, and we’re all screwed.