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?
“I know I will respect the limits of the presidential powers I’ve had for three-and-a-half years, but any president – including Donald Trump – will now be free to ignore the law,” Biden said.
Considering that an ex-president who invaded a country under a proven false pretext and in violation of international law and has a million Iraqi civilians on his conscience is still painting his little pictures in Texas, perhaps the Supreme Court decision is not as big a break as some seem to think?
One could at least argue that the Iraq invasion was within what was generally understood to be the role of the president at the time, specifically leading the military as its commander in chief. No one expected throwing a coup to be within the normal role of the president, but apparently that's also covered according to this decision.
It's not within his powers to do so. But he could have the secret service assassinate them. Pardon the perpetrators and then assign whomever he wants the position with threats against the lives of the senate and congress as a whole for all who would vote against assigning this person. Elimate them and have the vote.
Whilst technically immune now, assassinating them is still extremely polarising and likely to make martyrs, forever. And they won't be able to justify the consequences of their decisions.
Re-arresting them constantly however, from the oval office, interfering with their civil liberties... They themselves would have to describe how it's not an official act, and why the president shouldn't be immune.
The moment they make a ruling... destroy their property, seize their assets, etc... Make their lives a living hell.
It's still polarising, but makes them feel the consequences of their actions. And they'll have to justify it in the public court of opinion for everyone to see to why this is a good thing.
No doubt, but watching Americans get gunned down by police at a protest isn't going to make people less radical, it radicalizes more people. Especially if it's happening under someone as despised as Trump. It's not like he has a bunch of good will with the majority of Americans, at most he's depending on their apathy.
They haven't crowned the POTUS as king. They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered. They've crowned themselves, the ones who get to determine what is and what is not an "official act" the kings.
Strong incentive to not step down if you can just keep being a crook. Watch how quick the republicans start to argue over what is “official” and what isn’t depending on who is president.
And they're going to quickly find out how much that illusion of power is worth when they try to contain or cross whatever right-wing fascist they help empower.
These idiots think their power structure isn't going to be gutted like some kind of Mortal Combat move as soon as it is convenient for the king of the US to do so. They have no enforcement of their own, the other branches barely have to listen to them as it is, and by the time whatever CIA maga thug clubs them to death in their bed it's going to be too late for them to render a judgement on whether it's an official act. They'll be dead and replaced with someone who values their life more.
Did you read the fucking dissent? That's a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
If one of the dissenting justices thinks it likely, we better pay attention. The whole "They were very clear that non-official acts are not covered." is a pillar built on sinking sand - what defines non-official becomes subjective real fast. Biden could assassinate every conservative justice on SCOTUS and get his own in there to make it all legal. Threats of the same to any in congress who won't play ball.
And if someone can't imagine Biden doing it (I can't), I'm thinking that there are quite a few citizens who believe Trump abso-fucking-lutely would pull that shit. With a majority on SCOTUS already he could just start going after political rivals and keep SCOTUS themselves in check with threats of the same. If SCOTUS has done anything they've painted themselves in a corner and only Congress can unfuck us with impeachment (as unlikely as that seems!)
I read their point as being "because official acts are not defined and they're the ultimate deciders, the Court can provide or withhold this immunity at will". Turns out killing Republicans is not an official act and killing Democrats is.
Sure, but the court doesn't actually have any enforcement mechanism - that's all held by the executive. Like, a president who orders the military to assassinate a political rival is not gonna wait for multiple months of trial and go 'oh OK I guess that wasn't an official act off to jail I go'. They can just intimidate the judges. The Republicans are counting on any Democratic president not doing that, and are probably right.
From now on, that'll all be handled by the most rabid capitol rioters. If they demonstrate their loyalty by murdering undesirable political figures, the president will throw around pardons like it's his main competence.
The rioters will be purged after the power grab instead of the SA. They absolutely stand alone after Trump drops them faster than he can say Covfefe. With the judicative and executive under his boot, there is nothing left inside the USA to fight against. So any guesses what the first target will be after the rioters and LGBTQIA+?
This ruling is about after leaving office, when they don't have the power anymore. Biden is still covered under the Justice Department policy that a sitting president can't be prosecuted, but presumably the fear of being prosecuted after leaving would help restrain the worst and most blatant violations.
Question for you: was this ruling incorrect? If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way? Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
All I'm saying is that if I'm POTUS and I'm considering a questionable "official act" i know who I'm going to to clear it first.
It’s horrendously incorrect. Listen to the dissenting justices, or constitutional scholars like Luttig and Tribe. Basically anyone who’s serious and not a craven Trump crony.
So, we're allowed to disagree with scotus judges without being basement dwellers? I agree, both with that and your conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
It's just funny that I was mercilessly downvoted for pointing this out.
BTW, I never called you this. I was making an arbitrary comparison to any number of us having a conversation about the ruling and saying "not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller" compared to "a sitting SCOTUS jurist who dissented" in terms of "we better pay attention"
I think you were downvoted because your post implies you agree with the majority. You have clarified it by saying:
[you agree with] conclusion that it was the wrong ruling.
Probably should have started with that.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
I did. At least pretty clearly when I said they were crowning themselves king rather than the POTUS king. Apparently, tho, I have to say I disagree with the ruling in every post or posters will assume that any disagreement with someone who claims the ruling is wrong must mean I think the ruling is correct. I guess I should have known this already tho.
BTW, I never called you this.
"Did you read the fucking dissent? That’s a sitting SC Justice saying that quote, not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller:"
Funny to read you say my post, which doesn't even remotely imply that I think the ruling was correct, implies that. . .but when you respond to my point, saying it is wrong, and throwing in "not some arm chair IANAL basement dweller," that doesn't imply you think that about me.
I responded more directly since your ire seems to be pointed at me.
You're projecting here, as you were the one cursing at me and insulting people. I said nothing about you and I'm not really irked at all; I understand fully how partisan the average poster is and that any dissent is going to get piled on.
Yes. The decision is fundamentally flawed and if the US survives this, it will be discussed in law reviews for decades to come.
If so, how do you square that with the majority of justices ruling that way
Are you presuming that a reactionary majority in SCOTUS ruling something squares with "correct"? Setting that aside for a second, I'll answer it by saying their decision makes it legal for the president to commit crimes in an official capacity, and that decision is wholesale incorrect by virtually any standard other than "Conservative Party go Brrrrr". Say that out loud a few times: "it's legal for the President to commit crimes in an official capacity". This is defacto opening to kingship / authoritarianism. If you go read the entire constitution (it's pretty short) and you'll recognize that these same 6 jurists cannot back this decision up with anything remotely resembling what the constitution says. It goes against all of the language holding our government officials accountable to the law. So yes... I square it quite easily by saying that all 6 of the majority decision jurists are wrong and just because it's a majority doesn't make them right.
Or do you as a fellow armchair ianal basement dweller get special privileges when it comes to your legal opinions vs that if scotus judges?
This argument doesn't go as hard as you think. My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn't pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself. My opinion here truly doesn't matter (which I suppose negates my first to responses above, but you asked...) but Sotomayor's legal opinion surely matters. That was my point.
All I’m saying is that if I’m POTUS and I’m considering a questionable “official act” i know who I’m going to to clear it first.
The SC put it on the lower courts, which means any challenge to "what's an official act" will just come back to the SC upon appeal. The conservative majority can choose to hear or not and if they do, hear any challenge, they can rule along party lines in favor. Sotomayor is saying, rightly, that other than a mild delay, this is effectively a rubber stamp for the President to commit any crime while in office. Further, my argument is that if Trump gains office again, he won't bother clearing anything - he'll go straight into persecuting anyone he deems disloyal. He's already saying Kinzinger and Biden and Liz Cheney should meet a military tribunal (though there is absolutely zero jurisdiction). In any authoritarian country, this means at least life imprisonment if it doesn't mean a firing squad. And he can do it and THEN see what the SC says. He's not going to clear anything because he knows they are in his pocket, and he can use their own decision to eliminate them if they don't play ball on ruling what is official or not. The SC may think they have power right now, but take this forward a year from "First day dictator Donny" and tell me the Supreme Court can do shit? They've created their own monster.
My whole point centered around the fact that you shouldn’t pay attention to me, but that you should pay attention to the dissent WITHIN THE SUPREME COURT itself.
Yeah, well, it sounded a whole lot more like you were attacking me and my opinion. You could have absolutely made this point without cursing and without the whole "basement dweller" part. I think we all understand that Sotomayor is a SCOTUS justice.
The president thought that people shouldn't eat chocolate ice cream. It's anti-american.
And "for the good of the country" anyone who eats chocolate ice cream has to be isolated from the rest of society.
That's not an official act.
It's not really on the periphery of official acts.
But because definitionally anything that, at the president's sole discretion, is "in the best interest of the United States" is now argued as an official act.
Biden likes vanilla ice cream.
But he isn't going to detain you for unamerican activities if you prefer chocolate ice cream.
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.
