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.
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 granted because he was a president and has money. Then it will be delayed past the election and not matter anyway because this system is not made to resist willful destruction by those entrusted to protect it.
Edit: Turns out they can. The NY prosecution has agreed to postpone charges less than a day after the ruling. Trump's team asserts that the criminal activities occurred before he was president, but since the evidence was gathered during, he can not be prosecuted. Apparently concealing evidence unrelated to the presidency is an official act...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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?
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".
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 say 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.
The mere act of talking to the VP about it is contemplated and by default (according to this ruling) protected. You can't tell the VP to change the electors without talking to him!
Edit:
Obviously the fact that the pres. committed a crime can't be considered as a reason to deny immunity, otherwise it wouldn't be immunity.
The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act. The fact that they remanded the decision to the trial court instead of reversing the trial and appellate court is the "exception" you are looking for.
They denied his appeal. Ok? He claimed absolute immunity, they said "No, you only have immunity for your official acts. We aren't going to save you here. The trial court is going to burn your ass."
"The trial court is free to determine that lying to the VP for purposes of committing election fraud does not constitute an official act."
Based on what standard? How could a trial court reach such a decision in a way that won't be overturned?
The Supremos have sent this back to the courts with the message that there's only one way to decide and no plausible way to reach another conclusion that will hold up.
BTW, my Lemmy instance isn't showing replies to your comment, including my own reply, so if it didn't come across, I'm sorry but I don't know what else to try.
The only sane thing to do, full on assassinate, or kidnap in secret and report youve assassinated, all the justices that ruled in favor of presidential immunity. Nominate a new set of justices, with confirmation under threat of further assassinations, bring the case back before the new supreme court to rule against presidential immunity
Yes. Remove the conservative justices, institute new ones, undo all the bad SCOTUS decisions of the last 4 years, implement standards/ethics/accountability laws for the justices, put greater limits on their powers, and then remove the president's "king" status. Also put Trump in jail for life. It is the only way to save this country. Today, democracy in the US is completely gone. It's over.
Personally, I don't care if Trump and conservatives go to jail. It's not like any of their politics is anything more than imaginary white grievance and 4th Reich. They aren't a legitimate political party. They're like one of the few illegitimate political party I can count on my hand and feet.
I think democrats, today, do try to govern. Their attempts often feel like they are just going through the motions. It must be hard trying to do your job when you see everything crumbling around you and you have a reality TV show host threatening to tear down everything you're working on.
If Biden, today, decided he wanted to extra judiciously "save democracy" the democrats would terminate any moral high ground they ever claimed to have. They would see revolt from outside and from within. Their only choice would to be bring everyone to their heel.
We know there is no such thing as a benevolent king. If I had to choose between DNC or GOP dictatorship I'd prob go DNC. Except I've watched the DNC pretend their morals are superior. I watch it as they crush us all for the sake of decorum. To the DNC we are just a wall dressing while they enjoy all the privilege power affords them. Given absolute power, they abandon trying to do the right thing and dictate to us how capitalism is the only way.
Then you're not paying attention. The bills getting passed, the executive orders, and the deals being made are all for your benefit. We can argue about how impactful they are but it's policy that benefits you that isn't a slight to others.
I think they’re doing the bare minimum to say they tried
This is my exact meaning. We have no conflict.
Edit: Please, preach about the genocide in Gaza. Go right ahead, do it here and now. Everyone knows the stakes by this point. Let Gaza be the straw that nosedives america into fascism dejure. The supreme court just enshrined it. The plans are laid. If you can't stomach Gaza you are definitely not prepared for what comes next.
The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.
Based on the incredible hyperbole written in the dissent. Legal expert turned partisan hack quite quickly when they start talking about assassinations.
Are you still at this shit? Im still waiting on you to provide where in the ruling it specifically addresses not allowing assassinations like you claimed
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...
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.
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.
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.
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, ...
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"
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Biden can now legally shoot Trump on stage during the next debate. Gotcha.
I don't think having a raspy voice will be the biggest talking point in the aftermath this time.
And if anyone raises a stink and somehow manages to prove that this was illegal anyway, I'm sure it's the same people who have claimed that he's senile, ergo not fit to stand trial.
"The only way to solve this is by voting harder." They leave out the "for the next 30 years, continuously, until the court is rebalanced through natural causes and decides to undo what is now 'precedent'".
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.
