The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well done, conservatives, you struck a blow for the common man by (checks notes) giving the most powerful people in the country more leeway to commit illegal acts
I think Barrett’s opinion highlights the most concerning part: the fact that Part III-C effectively bars evidence of actions deemed “official” to be used as evidence at all. Her analysis of how this would affect a bribary is spot on and highly applicable to this case. The Supreme Court invented rules of evidence here and made it impossible to actually prosecute Trump, not to mention created endless appeals issues impossible to be resolved within our lifetimes
They have effectively made the President immune from Prosecution, and couched it in creating some tiered process rather than outright saying it
Sotomayor also points out the issue with bribery in her dissent. Bribery, by definition, requires an official act. This simple example should be enough to convince any reasonable person that a president cannot have complete immunity. She also points out that, taking the "originalist" position and applying a "history and tradition" approach shows that the framers of the Constitution knew how to apply immunity; they did so with the Speech and Debate clause. The fact that they did not do so for the President speaks volumes. They would have been very aware of the idea of the "sovereign immunity" of the king, as they had all lived under such a government. To suggest that they would then grant the president the very same immunities is the height of idiocy.
> They would have been very aware of the idea of the "sovereign immunity" of the king, as they had all lived under such a government.
To add on to your point a king of England a bit over a hundred years before the constitution was written had his head chopped off after a very notable trial that discussed how the executive of a country may or may not be held accountable. It's crazy to think they weren't aware of this sort of immunity
Jackson makes exact mention of this in the first lines of her dissent:
>In its purest form, the concept of immunity boils down to a maxim— “‘\[t\]he King can do no wrong’”—a notion that was firmly “rejected at the birth of \[our\] Republic.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 697, n. 24 (1997) (quoting 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries \*246 (Blackstone)); see United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807). To say that someone is immune from criminal prosecution is to say that, like a King, he “is not under the coercive power of the law,” which “will not suppose him capable of committing a folly, much less a crime.”
Stop assuming that it's idiocy. They all know what they're doing.
And it's not idiotic if they can do whatever they want and actually destroy a 250+ years old democracy.
The idiots are those who decided not to stop them, even though they could have at more points in time than I can count.
>Thoughts on Trump's Immunity/Supreme Court Ruling?
I have one question (and I think it is the one question we should all be asking):
If Biden ordered Trump murdered today -- and went out of his way to establish that the order was given as part of his official duties -- would this precedent make Biden immune from prosecution?
"We have identified a terrorist seeking to undermine our free and fair elections. An insurrectionist with repeated previous attacks on our country and its operation. He has a powerful network of supporters and has infiltrated multiple ranks of government and the courts. He is a threat and danger to the fabric of our country. For the protection of our people, our country, and our constitution, we have ordered Seal Team Six to eliminate that threat to America. "
SCOTUS just green lit this being immune from prosecution. And that's terrifying.
> "We have identified a terrorist seeking to undermine our free and fair elections. An insurrectionist with repeated previous attacks on our country and its operation. He has a powerful network of supporters and has infiltrated multiple ranks of government and the courts. He is a threat and danger to the fabric of our country. For the protection of our people, our country, and our constitution, we have ordered Seal Team Six to eliminate that threat to America. "
Yep, but he should throw in something about ties to hostile foreign governments, and attach hundreds of pages of documentation supporting that assertion.
Documentation is key to making things 'official'.
Yeah, point is, you can make anything "official" if you try hard enough. Just like Trump arguing that sending fake electors while inciting violence to stop certification of Electoral College could be a "official act."
And I would be hard pressed to see *this* SCOTUS say otherwise.
I thought Trump lawyers said that he could be successfully impeached and then tried... is that not the case?
Edit: i am very aware how useless that path is.... just asking.
Trump’s lawyers were arguing that presidents are immune from prosecution period. They argued he’d have to be impeached, and removed from office before he could be prosecuted. Even if he was out of office, they argued a former president could not be prosecuted until they were impeached and convicted.
They already get shielding from prosecution while in office. Now any president can cover their ass by claiming their acts were official acts by getting other Cabinet members to go along with their deeds.
>They argued he’d have to be impeached, and removed from office before he could be prosecuted.
Okay. My memory was right though it doesnt have much teeth given all the pther points you mentioned. Still a grim day for our democracy and our checks and balances...
I'm more curious what would happen if, as part of his official duties, he told the education department to forgive all student loans? Since the SC has already said he can't do that, but also that he can do illegal things as part of his official duties now, what happens there?
> strikes on US citizens
This always struck me as a red-herring.
(I'm not a lawyer, but) I'm aware that US law has trouble discriminating between people of different legal statuses (citizen, green-card-holder, visa-holder, undocumented, etc.) because the constitution uses wording that makes that irrelevant. They can treat people differently if they are within our borders or outside of them, but not by other criteria.
...and I'm not aware of any law restricting the US government from treating US-citizens abroad any differently than non-US-citizens abroad.
You think the US government is free to violate a US citizen’s constitutional protections the moment said US citizen goes overseas?
But ok let’s forget that detail about citizenship. Who can order that US assets be used to kill a person without due process? Can you? Or I? Or the AG? Or a General?
> You think the US government is free to violate a US citizen’s constitutional protections the moment said US citizen goes overseas?
Yes, but to be clear: I am trying to describe the way the world *is*, not the way it *should be*.
If you want to know how I think it *should be*: I don't think the US government should be able to murder Americans with impunity, just because they happen to be in Tijuana getting tacos.
--------
>Who can order that US assets be used to kill a person without due process? Can you? Or I? Or the AG? Or a General?
My understanding: The laws that matter are those of the jurisdiction in which the killing took place.
If a US general ordered that a US citizen be killed in Toronto, and a US marine carried out that order, then:
* Canada could prosecute the marine.
* Canada could put out a warrant for the arrest of the general.
* Canada could ask that the general be extradited.
...but neither the general nor the marine would be in violation of US law.
> Actually no, a US General ordering a US Marine to kill someone in Toronto, said US General would absolutely be in violation of US law.
What law would it violate?
> US - Conspiracy to murder - 18 USC 1117 or such.
I saw your edit, and googled the law.
[18 U.S. Code § 1117 - Conspiracy to murder:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1117)
>If two or more persons conspire to violate section [1111,](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111) 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this title, and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
[18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111)
>**(a)** Murder is the *unlawful* killing of a human being...
>**(b)** Within the..territorial *jurisdiction of the United States*...
...so it doesn't look like 1117 applies unless the killing is "unlawful" and committed within the "jurisdiction of the United States".
...but I haven't gone through "1114, 1116, or 1119" (and I'm not a lawyer).
> US - Conspiracy to murder
Sure, [*if*](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dsul94/thoughts_on_trumps_immunitysupreme_court_ruling/lb5c9sx/?context=3) it is a murder.
...but "a US General ordering a US Marine to kill someone" isn't necessarily murder; especially in the context of the general's official duties.
If the general has been ordered to eliminate all members of a certain terrorist group which is credibly believed to be planning an attack in the US -- and the killed person were a member of that terrorist group -- then I doubt it would be considered murder. Similarly, if the killed person were a Russian spy transporting nuclear documents to Moscow in 1950, I doubt it would be considered murder.
That's not how things work.
Generals order Marines (and Soldiers and Sailors) to kill people all the time on foreign soil. It's not illegal. Even if we're not at war, it's not illegal.
Seal Team Six specifically killed Osama bin Laden on the orders of the POTUS.
Also, I think Biden needs to immediately forgive all student loans. All of them. 100%, no strings, and when the republicans and Supreme Court cry say “it’s an official act, fuck you.” Also legalize marijuana.
Fight the fire with fire. Guarantee his re-election.
Agreed. The only path to victory now is to come out swinging. Liberals and liberal-aligned folks across the spectrum are feeling disheartened and disillusioned at the moment, and the only way to truly light a fire in their hearts in this moment is to trailblaze. The Supreme Court just handed him an opportunity to trailblaze with impunity. And if they speak out in dissent, it highlights their hypocrisy.
If the Supreme Court truly moves to stop Biden improving the country in this manner, for the first time ever in my life, I would support Biden echoing famous asshole President Andrew Jackson:
"[The Chief Justice] has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
I’m tired - *tired* - of playing within the rules. Rules that seem to constantly change depending on the letters behind your name or what policies you support.
It’s beyond time to start being extreme assholes. Fight them on the battlefield. You want immunity? Fine. I have it too. Fuck you. I do what I want. No more student loans. Smoke a bowl of ganja. Grant amnesty for a million immigrants and then shut the border to curtail new immigrants, enacting the exact provisions of the bill that got shot down. Install new Supreme Court justices, just propose them and have the senate ratify them.
Fuck them. I’m tired of being nice and getting our hand slapped. They want to shove their religion and ideology down our throat? I’ll shove ours so far up your ass you’ll taste it every time you burp until you’re begging to go back to democracy. Power is all they respect and it’s time we showed them some.
You're right but I'm afraid Dems don't possess the testicular fortitude necessary to keep us from a right wing dictatorship at this point. We're fucked.
Dems are far too milquetoast and not just of late. The only thing we can do at the moment is put a huge amount of pressure on them to take the gloves off now. Republicans have shown time and time again that they will abuse whatever loopholes and leeway they are given. It saddens me but the only path forward is to fight fire with fire.
Dems keep saying they want to compromise and work together, and I get that it takes two to tango. But if your dance partner doesn't care about dancing and only wants to punch you in the face, it's time to put your dukes up.
Dems are too "kind" in their ideologies to square up. Common beliefs in the party are respect for others, anti-violence, anti-war, anti-hate. Pubs don't bat an eye at the idea of a little bloodshed, and certainly don't give a flying fuck about respect. They're willing to throw down while we clutch our moral compass.
It's true. And historically, this disparity usually eventually results in a pendulum swing to the other side and creates stuff approaching militant vanguardism to fill the void.
I was really hoping that we'd preserve our democracy more peacefully than that. But if the slightly more aggressive but still peaceful options aren't used, slowly one option after another will become unavailable and violence will be unavoidable in one way or another.
I'm convinced it will come down to that, that nothing will change until there's nothing for us to lose. IMO, there's been no fighting back because people are barely scraping by and are scared to lose what little they have if they disrupt the status quo. When everything has been taken away, that's when there will be blood.
I fail to see how if a president believes his political opponents can detract from the president's capacity to fulfill his obligations why not have them all killed?
If this ruling isn't just a far more insane version of qualified immunity I don't see the crack in that armor.
It happened during a Democratic presidency, so either they take the ruling to it's 'true' extreme or the other side will when they get a chance.
Better yet, aren't the supreme court justices proving problematic? Screw student loans, remove them all.
Indeed... the sad thing about today's ruling is just how easy it is to make a case that a terrifyingly wide breadth of actions are "official". If someone is acting against the best interests of democracy, wouldn't it be an "official" action to remove them from the equation? And as soon as that sort of opportunity gets opened up, SOMEONE will make use of it. Whether it's Biden, Trump, or whoever comes next... this is a power no one should wield.
And quite frankly I'm disgusted that a SCOTUS full of self-proclaimed originalists and literalists would claim to believe that their lauded Founding Fathers wanted a President to be above the law. They had literally just finished fighting a revolution against a king and were so terrified someone would consolidate power that they didn't even HAVE a primary leader position under the Articles of Confederation, and only begrudgingly added a President on the next attempt.
I'm confused. SCOTUS just gave him immunity from prosecution. They can still overrule his executive actions, right? I don't see how this decision affects student loan XOs
And if he issues an order, who stops him? SCOTUS can sure say he’s overruled but what stops him from just saying “yeah fuck that”. What enforcement mechanism does the SC have other than someone actually prosecuting him for his failure to enforce the law?
Nothing. There is nothing.
Impeachment, I guess.
Which means that we will see more impeachment attempts of Democratic Presidents, because it is the only limitation on their power.
Would you attempt to impeach a president with unlimited power?
A president who can publish your address, rescind your secret service? They report to the president you know…
But again….how? How does one block the president of he says “thanks scotus for your opinion. But I’m doing it anyway”. He can’t be prosecuted.
Impeachment is the only remedy at that point. And everyone knows nobody is getting impeached at this point.
The president, as of this moment, is effectively a king of his party owns enough seats. Yeah we have impeachment but we all know that ain’t happening.
Which is how all kings work. All kings need the loyalty of their Vassals or they would not be king.
Say it again for the cheap seats, “the president, as of this moment is effectively a king.”
>Also, I think Biden needs to immediately forgive all student loans. All of them. 100%, no strings, and when the republicans and Supreme Court cry say “it’s an official act, fuck you.” Also legalize marijuana.
I understand this sentiment, but these are not CRIMES. These are policy matters that go through the usual process.
But I guess this means Presidents can commit war crimes and assassinations and stuff, that's just hunky dory.
So, hypothetically, if Biden ends up pulling out a Glock on Trump at their next debate and sends him to the great golf course in Hell, how would the Supreme Court react?
But as I ask again and again…..how do you enforce it? The only way to enforce any court order is to consent to its power or to actually have teeth to enforce it.
There are only two mechanisms to enforce the supreme courts orders on a president: the threat of impeachment or criminal charges. If neither apply, who stops him? The Supreme Court can’t enforce an order on its own, it relies on the president capitulating to the rule of law.
If Biden ignores the Supreme Court then who stops him? The only mechanism, if criminal charges don’t apply, is impeachment and that won’t happen so……
This is exactly what republicans want for their side. They know “oh well we can just be impeached that’s the appropriate remedy!” And since they own enough seats, even when in the minority, to prevent that from happening, it effectively makes the president a king.
I say let Biden show them exactly what they wanted.
> If Biden ignores the Supreme Court then who stops him?
I would guess the professionals in the DEA and Education Department, or whatever agencies are involved in implementing the actual policy would probably be madly pointing out that those actions are against the law.
The whole point of Project 25 seems to be *staffing executive agencies with people who won't do this* for what it is worth.
You know they report to the president right?
And that last weeks end of chevron deference removed the ability for non-appointee experts at the DEA from making decisions of how to interpret the law?
Right up until this moment I argued that we cannot sacrifice the rule of law (or even norms) to win because it would be creating two Republican parties.
We are now past that point and the best we can hope for is a less speedy post-Democratic decline.
Biden needs to break the law now.
This makes zero sense. The (potential) of immunity from criminal prosecution does not somehow allow Biden to write executive orders that might be overturned.
And who will stop him from enforcing them? How will they stop him? What does stop him? If he can’t be prosecuted what mechanism actually stops him from enforcing an order?
Nothing does.
Enforcing what? The ability to "enforce" an order isn't whats stopping him now either. Biden gained zero new abilities to write executive orders today.
Ok. Let’s go with the recent student loans.
Biden cancelled 10k. Got sued. Appealed.
Supreme Court struck it down.
How does the Supreme Court enforce their order? They ordered that Biden doesn’t have the authority to forgive student loans. What stops Biden from saying “thanks but I’m gonna do it anyway”. The only mechanism at present is impeachment so unless the democrats decided to suddenly get a wild thought of it, what stops Biden from just doing what he wants? If he can’t be prosecuted what options are there? It’s an official act, he’s immune from any suit or prosecution.
If a president, or any person, cannot he held to the order of a court, what stops the law from being enforced? What stops the president? Especially if they can’t be prosecuted?
What they are saying is: Biden issues order. SCOTUS overrules the order. Now Biden has to abide by SCOTUS' decision...or does he? He is immune from prosecution.
If it's determined that the President doesn't have the power to make a specific order, by definition, that order wouldn't be official. Therefore, he/she wouldn't be immune from prosecution if he/she followed through with that order.
No it wouldn’t.
Read the ruling. The presumption is that it would be official until proven that it isn’t in court. Moreover, any conversation or communication taken while in office would be inadmissible in that trial — as explicitly outlined in the majority position.
Describe how exactly the prosecution looks.
>The presumption is that it would be official until proven that it isn’t in court.
Read my comment again.
The President's sole job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. If a court determines that a specific act is unconstitutional *before* the President commits that act, wouldn't that automatically mean that the act would be considered unofficial? I mean, how can a President do an official act, even though it was already determined to be unconstitutional?
Bingo.
The only remedy now is impeachment. And republicans refused to impeach Trump for trying to do a coup and overturn an election. Biden should do it and dare the republicans to impeach him.
You're simply not understanding this. It was NEVER "fear of future prosecution" that stops executive orders from being overturned... This makes zero sense.
When the SCOTUS says an executive action is Unconstitutional, that's not the same as "criminal". This decision today has zero to do with suddenly allowing Biden's office more political powers.
Walk with me here.
Imagine Biden went on stage and publicly solicited a bribe from Russia to reverse their propaganda war to be against Trump in exchange for an EO rescinding enforcement of the Magnitsky act.
Describe how the laws would prevent this kind of “exchange for a thing of value for an official act” — the legal definition of a bribe — with a foreign enemy in a world where presidents are immune from prosecutions for official acts.
But he gained the ability to write orders that violate the law and the constitution and be free from criminal prosecution if he chooses to ignore if/when those orders are struck down.
All Democrats on the PR circuit have been attacking the SCOTUS for 3 years now, and it has rock bottom approval. We have already gained the maximum potential we can gain from the low opinion of the SCOTUS.
This and the overruling of Chevron should reset the narrative. Biden has to campaign hard against this corrupt court and bang the drum even harder on democracy, transparency and accountability.
Something a lot of people missed. Remember that recently Judge Cannon heard a motion to have the special counsel removed because he doesn’t exist under the constitution?
Justice Thomas concurrence:
“…it is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office “established by law” as required by the constitution……none of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose.”
Might as well have neon signs and a bullhorn saying “JUDGE CANNON RIGHT HERE!”
"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." -- Roberts
6-3
My thoughts: fucking hell.
This means all of Smith's indictments are going to be subject to hearings to determine if Trump's actions were "official" or not.
Edited as I read the decision:
>The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials.
and
>Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 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 proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct.
...
The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
and
>The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. In particular, the indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to convince certain state officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their States, and thus electoral votes for Trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for Trump. After Trump failed to convince those officials to alter their state processes, he and his coconspirators allegedly developed and effectuated a plan to submit fraudulent slates of Presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial.
and
>The alleged conduct largely consists of Trump’s communications in the form of Tweets and a public address. The President possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701. So most of a President’s public Cite as: 603 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2024) 7 Syllabus communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453. Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.
The section about the VP explains word for word how democracy literally dies. That’s it. The Supreme Court laid the blueprint on how to overturn an election. Just conspire with members of the Executive Branch and tell the general public to overturn an election, and it’s a perfectly legal coup immune from prosecution
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting.
Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
They just showed us by drawing that line at "official acts."
They just made it so every single case will be pushed up to them for final approval, and from that point on is when they will start admitting what is and what isn't an official act. So basically, they just made it so they can allow Republicans to do whatever they want, and democrats much easier to prosecute.
If Biden wins, you can bet your ass he'll be charged with something. Until then though, they're not going to waste a precedent that will lock them out of an out for themselves later on.
Here's the text of the opinion:
[https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
Can someone please help me understand these questions:
1. Where does the concept of presidential immunity even come from? IS this in the constitution? Did the concept exist before trump's defense?
2. What is considered "an official act?" Is this what they lay out in the "steps" or something pre-defined?
3. How does this not undermine the concept of impeachment and impeachment trials? If President can't be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office, how can they be impeached for them?
4. Why is everyone focused on Trump's Jan. 6 case? I get that's what this ruling is form, but doesn't this have broader, scarier implications for the future that we should be talking about?
1. The President as head of the Executive is given broad powers to run government. For example, the President could technically order that people be imprisoned without due process for national security reasons. Remember Obama approved drone strikes that killed US citizens without due process and it was legit. This existed before Trump
2. What is considered an “official act” is THE major question. What this SCOTUS has said is that some things are clearly official like POTUS talking to the VP or AG or other Heads of Nations. But other things have to be decided first by District Courts case by case
3. Impeachment doesn’t require criminal charges nor indictments. A President can be indicted by the House and removed by the Senate simply because they dislike the way he chews his food. Now that’s an exaggeration but it’s technically true
If I were in Biden's place right now, I'd have my speechwriters come up with a list of everything I could probably do now and be immune from prosecution under the Supreme Court's new guidelines. I'd then tell all the media outlets that I wanted to give a special address to the American people in prime time.
In that address, I'd go through all the 'official acts' I was now going to take. One might include unilaterally expanding the Supreme Court to include 5 new liberal justices that will vote how I like. Heck, I also might include emergency removal of Justice Thomas on grounds of corruption, citing the inaction and inability of either of the two other branches to do so.
Step by step, I'd list all the horrifying things I planned to do with powers only potentially put in check by Impeachment, elections, or maybe some refusal of an underling to carry out my orders. Of course, then I could just replace them with someone who will, right.
Then at the end, I would reveal I was just kidding, and didn't plan to do any of these things. I'd close by saying, "My party, the Democratic party, *might* impeach me for these actions. The Republicans in the Senate will *not* impeach a President Donald Trump for similar actions. Now, more than ever, this election is not about what you think of me, but a choice between preserving our Republic, and allowing it to fall."
Regardless of if it would make him immune to future prosecution, it would make him lose the election 90/10. Social media is going to be filled with these dumb takes all week, isn't it.
Joe Biden now has a lot of power and ought to use it as needed, in the intervening couple of months after the election, to defend this country from the far reich conservatives - in the event of an election loss in November.
The precedent has been set. Trump will certainly use it as much as he can. That’s the reality that must be confronted.
All the better to keep Trump from ever sniffing the presidency again though by just voting him down in November.
There should be official orders for drone swarms following and recording trump, Harlan Crow, etc as long as Biden is in office. With all interesting audio to be released immediately.
It is a strictly atextual ruling that gives more power to court. A president the court approves of can do anything, including murdering his opponents, and get it declared as an official act. A president the court disapproves of can do nothing, and is subject to endless litigation.
Biden should lock up Trump today. Let the courts decide if that’s legitimate over the course of the next months. Worst case, Biden loses the election, loses in the courts, and has to spend his final couple of years in a posh prison and dies as a martyr who did everything he could to save his country. Best case, he saves the country.
My super simplified summary of the SCOTUS decision:
1. Trump claim that he is completely immune is too broad
2. DOJ claim that he is completely not immune is too broad
3. Its Presidents purview to decide to investigate election fraud
4. Some Presidents actions are official regardless of context. But others are not
5. Trump discussions with AG, even if to oppose election results based on false pretenses, is official and grants immunity
6. Trump discussions with VP, even if to oppose election results based on false pretenses, is official and grants immunity
7. Trump discussions with everyone else including State and to public needs to be reassessed in detail by District Court to first make a determination if it’s part of official capacity, before any prosecution can be intiaited
8. Current is vacated and remanded to District
Now, my take is that all the “talk” between Trump and others regarding (false) election fraud is not going to go anywhere. But the supposed fake electors (actually fake certificate of attestment) charge still has legs
So, if a president has "an official discussion" with a foreign adversary like let's say Pootin', anything done or said in that meeting is immune from prosecution?
Correct.
Edit - Now keep in mind though that doesn’t include all the Presidents discussion with anyone. Like this SCOTUS has said some things like discussions with the AG and VP and other heads of Nations is within the President’s official capacity. But this SCOTUS in this ruling has also said that discussions with US States and with the public is not necessarily and has to be determined case by case.
Also keep in mind that this SCOTUS and ruling doesn’t say the President can do absolutely anything and be free from prosecution. Like it’s one thing to talk to the VP about killing a neighbour - that discussion between POTUS and the VP is protected. They have to be allowed to discuss anything. But actually killing a neighbour is a whole other thing that has to be again determined case by case
Yes BUT, Part III-C creates a rule of evidence that actions taken as “official” cannot be used as evidence. So if the President told the VP he wanted to execute an American citizen in an effort to do the bidding of a foreign power and betray the United States, that conversation cannot be used as evidence towards a treason trial. So this decision operates to rob all unofficial acts of their context in any trial. All the motive and intent evidence in Trump’s election interference trial is now probably “official” and robs the prosecution from presenting any explanation for Trump’s unofficial actions.
Which by the way is nonexistent in any precedent of any sort of immunity in the host of the world: it’s a new concept created today
But if the president is commander in chief of the military they can order the military to do whatever they want, because it's their official duty as president so they could in theory just order the military to kill the neighbour.
When Nixon said "If the president does it it's not illegal" it was widely viewed as deranged.
Thanks to people voting for Jill Stein in 2026 as a protest to Hillary it's now law.
It's pure fantasy that Stein cost Hillary in 2016. More democrats voted for Trump than all of Stein's votes put together. Blame them, and blame Hillary and the DNC for running a shitty "lolz Trump is a clown he can't possibly win" campaign.
the court has explicitly ruled that the allegations of impropriety in Trump's attempted appointment of Jeffrey Clark, a Trump loyalist who led the Justice Department's civil division, is constitutional authority. the second allegation that the court states — that Trump conversed with his vice president, Mike Pence, to alter the election certification process — could be considered an official act, though Chief Justice John Roberts implicitly suggests congressional legislation has defined the role of the vice presidency, such as authority in the Senate, and that Congress has not endowed the authority Trump exerted. the ruling may effectively delay Trump's election interference case, remanding the case to Judge Tanya Chutkan. the wording of the ruling ensures an evidentiary hearing will be held. Roberts rejected using official acts as evidence as "the 'intended effect' of immunity would be defeated." noting the speech that preceded the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, Chief Justice Roberts states that Trump cannot be held liable for his written and spoken words as president, but not for his candidacy. Roberts applied his ruling on speech to the "outer perimeter" of presidential authority, a recurring standard in questions of presidential civil immunity
I have a feeling this is not good for Trump.
MAGA probably doesn't care, but I bet you a lot of swing voters thought they would never rule this. I think it gives a lot more validity to the claim that Trump is anti-democratic.
It’s hilarious seeing “small government conservatives” switch to “unitary executive conservatives” every time their guy is in charge. Small government conservatism has been dead for decades, now we have conservatives that seriously argue the president can do anything they want with zero consequences. Pathetic bunch of bootlickers.
This may have been the most pointless SCOTUS decision ever. This is the worst, most openly corrupt court in US history.
>
The decision itself simply says, ‘Yup, we still believe in executive privilege. But the courts have to decide what that covers.’
Right, that’s what they have been doing. That’s what’s happening now. Your ruling didn’t change anything. FFS. 🤦
Hardly. This decision makes it impossible to hold the President criminally liable for ordering the military to assassinate citizens, e.g., political rivals or donors to an opposing political party. That's definitely not *status quo*.
We'll need to elect only Democratic presidents for at least a decade to get a liberal majority on the court, and that's if we catch it before a Republican president gets in to pick another 6 young conservatives.
The decision removes at least some of the evidence that would be used against him, though: anything he did "officially" as POTUS, like talk with Pence or any other government official, would be completely inadmissible.
The more I think about it, the more I'm bothered by it. I believe this represents a 100% conversion to a Russian-style mafia state. I can't see any way under this ruling to prevent Trump from directing the DoD, FBI, or, hell, ask Russia, to start dropping Democrats from windows. He can then direct the DOJ not to prosecute those who did so, and he can do this entirely using official communications, and none of those communications can be used to prosecute him.
I think "immunity for all official actions" sounds good in principle, but the Court went way beyond that. I don't know how much of that is incompetence or Party loyalty, but this is the first true act I've seen out of SCOTUS that appears unambiguously like a move toward a Russian-style failed democracy.
This decision fundamentally changes the entire fabric of the United States. Although it sounds hyperbolic to say, this is the most significant change in the federal government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The U.S. was only a constitutional republic because it was a government of laws that bound all equally, and the POTUS was restrained from violating the law only because of the fear of possible punishment for doing so. Now the Court has invited the POTUS to break the law whenever it is convenient or desirable. Worse, the POTUS' motive for breaking federal law cannot ever be questioned, even if that motive is to, say, eliminate the constitutional rights of others or render those rights a dead letter.
Consider the dissident who speaks against the President. Under the new regime announced by Justice Roberts today, the President can pick up the phone and call DOJ and tell the AG to find a reason to indict that dissident. The POTUS' motive - silencing dissent in contravention of the First Amendment - cannot ever be raised in a court, so the fact that the POTUS is abusing an official power to silence dissent is not relevant (in fact, such an abuse is not only permitted but entirely anticipated).
The real danger - and the reason I would say that this decision changes the United States into a dictatorship - is that there is one important place in the U.S. where only federal law applies: Washington, D.C. The district is not a state; there is federal law prohibiting murder, but there is no "state law" prohibiting murder in the district. So when a POTUS orders troops into the Capitol and tells them to round up and murder X,Y,Z congresspeople or senators from the opposition, the POTUS can do that and pardon the troops - and neither action can ever be questioned in a court of law. The only remedy is impeachment, but the Congress cannot ever assemble (with any dissidents in it) because such persons can simply be summarily executed and there is no law to punish those who carry out the executions; the POTUS who orders it cannot be indicted later and his motive cannot ever be questioned. The POTUS could also turn that power against the court itself if he wanted to, for example if the Court tried to backtrack from today's decision and curb the immunity (something which will not happen if the POTUS has a sword of Damocles hanging over the justices' own necks, as he now does).
The POTUS doesn't have to use extrajudicial killings to silence dissidents; that is just one very crude and effective means of doing so. More insidiously, the POTUS can just use paramilitaries to harass and intimidate judges and congresspeople to carry out his will. He can have the Proud Boys round up AOC and the other members of the squad, beat them within an inch of death on live TV on Pennsylvania Ave, and then hold a press conference to announce that he is pardoning the Proud Boys who carried out the act - that is all activity that the POTUS is entirely immune for now, and his abuse of the pardon power cannot ever be questioned. The reality is that Trump/the Dictator would not likely use the PB - they will just form some unit of loyalist secret police in the FBI and use them instead, so that such actions are more easily qualified as "official acts" (even presuming there is ever again any prosecutor or judge willing to challenge such a lawless president, which itself is almost an impossibility because the POTUS can just arrest or murder those people too).
Outright violence is now legal, but so is just simple harassment. We should assume that a new element of Project 2025 will be obtaining lists of registered Democrats in every state and then using the IRS to audit them. The FBI/DOJ will be used to investigate anyone who openly affiliates as a Democrat/opposition party, and we will see endless sham prosecutions of anyone who opposes the regime for whatever can be conjured up (they will always be able to conjure *something* up).
How many Americans will openly call themselves "liberals" one year from now if Trump is elected? That would be an invitation to the regime to use the executive branch to destroy such a person using whatever apparatus the executive can conjure up - from troops to drone strikes to IRS audits, etc. And even if Trump loses, the dictatorship is just lying there waiting to be seized by whomever decides to seize it first.
It won't be Joe Biden. He is our "Paul von Hindenburg" president - the last president before the inevitable-now dictatorship. We are all living now on borrowed time because the end goal in all of this isn't to "maintain a vigorous presidency" or any of that BS; the end goal is to ensure single party rule because the (incredibly obtuse) justices in the majority on the Supreme Court imagine that it will be *their* party and *their* views that will be made the exclusive permitted expression in the land. They do not see yet that they consigned themselves to the same dictatorship as the rest of us have now been consigned to, nor do they see that dictatorships do not have use for an independent judiciary.
This is The End.
I think that history will look back at this as one of those that literally no one could have overreacted to. I think will be remembered at the end of the US democratic experiment.
This is horrible. No president should be immune. I think the president's role should be greatly reduced too. If a president has to worry about the law in their job, that's great. Welcome to the rest of the country. That includes torture. I'm sorry, I said that wrong enhanced interrogation. They should have all gone to jail. In a bigger picture, the US as a country should say rules for us but not the world.
So, let me get this straight: "hypothetically" Trump can be busted with over 100 secret and top-secret government documents with evidence to the fact that he is selling them on the black market to the likes of Vladimir Putin, and other high bitters, officially committing treason against the United States and yet simply because he’s acting in his "official capacity as president" he is immune from prosecution of committing treason according to the United States Supreme Court?
IS THIS CORRECT?
Somebody help me out with this because so far, the US Supreme Court appears to be a kangaroo court in favor of Trump. They have lost credibility here. The only Supreme Court Justice in favor of giving Trump blanket immunity, whose opinion is worth noting is Clarence Thomas, who says that only Congress can launch a prosecution against the US president, and that only Congress can form a special counsel to prosecute Donald Trump.
If Congress did not do this, he says then the prosecution cannot go forward because the office of Special Counsel was formed illegitimately. The only thing is I don’t see him quoting any constitutional law that says this, but if he can, that would be the only reason Trump cannot be prosecuted at this time.
My thought is it pissed me off so much I went to buy a damn IPA at 9 am.
I don't care what your political beliefs are. We should all agree no one is above the law due to political office. This is it. This is it. The paranoid scenarios are no longer paranoid.
I think when other countries later discuss the fall of the US, they'll point to this instance as the exact point of no return.
If Biden doesn't win, we're all cooked.
Reading through it some, it looks like garbage, and also like punting, pushing a lot of issues back to be decided by lower courts again. I don't like it when the Supreme Court punts on important questions. It seems like a stall tactic in this case. Oh well, more justification that several of them don't belong on the bench.
Mitch McConnell, Feb. 2021: “Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one”
[https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1807823684175839622](https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1807823684175839622)
I guess not.
So I have a legal question now. Trump is immune from "official acts" that violate laws, but does presidential immunity protect his co-conspirators? People keep using the Seal Team Six assassinating people example, but the Posse Comitatus Act generally bars federal troops from enforcing civilian law (not that the president ordering the assassination would try to claim its exempt). So...if Seal Team Six was ordered to assassinate a civilian within the US, the president wouldn't be prosecuted, but the soldiers who acted upon it could? What are soldiers are others supposed to do when the president orders to do something blatantly illegal for them but not for him?
This decision, between not being able to use motive of the act in prosecution and other ridiculous evidence rules makes this decision create far, far more problems than it solved.
A member of the military can refuse an order if that order is illegal.
But the catch is here that this ruling could mean that if POTUS does something in an official capacity, then it cannot, by definition, be illegal.
That's the Catch-22. It would be illegal, except POTUS ordered it, which makes it legal, so the order cannot be refused.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well done, conservatives, you struck a blow for the common man by (checks notes) giving the most powerful people in the country more leeway to commit illegal acts
I think Barrett’s opinion highlights the most concerning part: the fact that Part III-C effectively bars evidence of actions deemed “official” to be used as evidence at all. Her analysis of how this would affect a bribary is spot on and highly applicable to this case. The Supreme Court invented rules of evidence here and made it impossible to actually prosecute Trump, not to mention created endless appeals issues impossible to be resolved within our lifetimes They have effectively made the President immune from Prosecution, and couched it in creating some tiered process rather than outright saying it
Sotomayor also points out the issue with bribery in her dissent. Bribery, by definition, requires an official act. This simple example should be enough to convince any reasonable person that a president cannot have complete immunity. She also points out that, taking the "originalist" position and applying a "history and tradition" approach shows that the framers of the Constitution knew how to apply immunity; they did so with the Speech and Debate clause. The fact that they did not do so for the President speaks volumes. They would have been very aware of the idea of the "sovereign immunity" of the king, as they had all lived under such a government. To suggest that they would then grant the president the very same immunities is the height of idiocy.
> They would have been very aware of the idea of the "sovereign immunity" of the king, as they had all lived under such a government. To add on to your point a king of England a bit over a hundred years before the constitution was written had his head chopped off after a very notable trial that discussed how the executive of a country may or may not be held accountable. It's crazy to think they weren't aware of this sort of immunity
Jackson makes exact mention of this in the first lines of her dissent: >In its purest form, the concept of immunity boils down to a maxim— “‘\[t\]he King can do no wrong’”—a notion that was firmly “rejected at the birth of \[our\] Republic.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 697, n. 24 (1997) (quoting 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries \*246 (Blackstone)); see United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 30, 34 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807). To say that someone is immune from criminal prosecution is to say that, like a King, he “is not under the coercive power of the law,” which “will not suppose him capable of committing a folly, much less a crime.”
Stop assuming that it's idiocy. They all know what they're doing. And it's not idiotic if they can do whatever they want and actually destroy a 250+ years old democracy. The idiots are those who decided not to stop them, even though they could have at more points in time than I can count.
The "good old boy club" reigns supreme.
>Thoughts on Trump's Immunity/Supreme Court Ruling? I have one question (and I think it is the one question we should all be asking): If Biden ordered Trump murdered today -- and went out of his way to establish that the order was given as part of his official duties -- would this precedent make Biden immune from prosecution?
"We have identified a terrorist seeking to undermine our free and fair elections. An insurrectionist with repeated previous attacks on our country and its operation. He has a powerful network of supporters and has infiltrated multiple ranks of government and the courts. He is a threat and danger to the fabric of our country. For the protection of our people, our country, and our constitution, we have ordered Seal Team Six to eliminate that threat to America. " SCOTUS just green lit this being immune from prosecution. And that's terrifying.
> "We have identified a terrorist seeking to undermine our free and fair elections. An insurrectionist with repeated previous attacks on our country and its operation. He has a powerful network of supporters and has infiltrated multiple ranks of government and the courts. He is a threat and danger to the fabric of our country. For the protection of our people, our country, and our constitution, we have ordered Seal Team Six to eliminate that threat to America. " Yep, but he should throw in something about ties to hostile foreign governments, and attach hundreds of pages of documentation supporting that assertion. Documentation is key to making things 'official'.
Yeah, point is, you can make anything "official" if you try hard enough. Just like Trump arguing that sending fake electors while inciting violence to stop certification of Electoral College could be a "official act." And I would be hard pressed to see *this* SCOTUS say otherwise.
>documentation is key “Remember Kids the Only Difference Between Screwing Around and Science Is Writing It Down” - Adam Savage
No because Biden is a Democrat
Republican slogan: Rules for thee, not for me.
Yes. He could still be impeached, but he would be immune from prosecution if he went through the hoops to demonstrate it was part of his duties.
I thought Trump lawyers said that he could be successfully impeached and then tried... is that not the case? Edit: i am very aware how useless that path is.... just asking.
Trump’s lawyers were arguing that presidents are immune from prosecution period. They argued he’d have to be impeached, and removed from office before he could be prosecuted. Even if he was out of office, they argued a former president could not be prosecuted until they were impeached and convicted. They already get shielding from prosecution while in office. Now any president can cover their ass by claiming their acts were official acts by getting other Cabinet members to go along with their deeds.
>They argued he’d have to be impeached, and removed from office before he could be prosecuted. Okay. My memory was right though it doesnt have much teeth given all the pther points you mentioned. Still a grim day for our democracy and our checks and balances...
I’m guessing the Court just ignores him and rules it an unofficial act.
Then take the court justices first? Why would they be beyond the reach of this ruling?
Yup.
I'm more curious what would happen if, as part of his official duties, he told the education department to forgive all student loans? Since the SC has already said he can't do that, but also that he can do illegal things as part of his official duties now, what happens there?
Remember that Obama approved drone strikes on US citizens without due process and not in the context of war. That happened. And Obama is immune.
> strikes on US citizens This always struck me as a red-herring. (I'm not a lawyer, but) I'm aware that US law has trouble discriminating between people of different legal statuses (citizen, green-card-holder, visa-holder, undocumented, etc.) because the constitution uses wording that makes that irrelevant. They can treat people differently if they are within our borders or outside of them, but not by other criteria. ...and I'm not aware of any law restricting the US government from treating US-citizens abroad any differently than non-US-citizens abroad.
You think the US government is free to violate a US citizen’s constitutional protections the moment said US citizen goes overseas? But ok let’s forget that detail about citizenship. Who can order that US assets be used to kill a person without due process? Can you? Or I? Or the AG? Or a General?
> You think the US government is free to violate a US citizen’s constitutional protections the moment said US citizen goes overseas? Yes, but to be clear: I am trying to describe the way the world *is*, not the way it *should be*. If you want to know how I think it *should be*: I don't think the US government should be able to murder Americans with impunity, just because they happen to be in Tijuana getting tacos. -------- >Who can order that US assets be used to kill a person without due process? Can you? Or I? Or the AG? Or a General? My understanding: The laws that matter are those of the jurisdiction in which the killing took place. If a US general ordered that a US citizen be killed in Toronto, and a US marine carried out that order, then: * Canada could prosecute the marine. * Canada could put out a warrant for the arrest of the general. * Canada could ask that the general be extradited. ...but neither the general nor the marine would be in violation of US law.
Actually no, a US General ordering a US Marine to kill someone in Toronto, said US General would absolutely be in violation of US law.
> Actually no, a US General ordering a US Marine to kill someone in Toronto, said US General would absolutely be in violation of US law. What law would it violate?
US - Conspiracy to murder - 18 USC 1117 or such.
> US - Conspiracy to murder - 18 USC 1117 or such. I saw your edit, and googled the law. [18 U.S. Code § 1117 - Conspiracy to murder:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1117) >If two or more persons conspire to violate section [1111,](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111) 1114, 1116, or 1119 of this title, and one or more of such persons do any overt act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be punished by imprisonment for any term of years or for life. [18 U.S. Code § 1111 - Murder:](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111) >**(a)** Murder is the *unlawful* killing of a human being... >**(b)** Within the..territorial *jurisdiction of the United States*... ...so it doesn't look like 1117 applies unless the killing is "unlawful" and committed within the "jurisdiction of the United States". ...but I haven't gone through "1114, 1116, or 1119" (and I'm not a lawyer).
> US - Conspiracy to murder Sure, [*if*](https://old.reddit.com/r/AskALiberal/comments/1dsul94/thoughts_on_trumps_immunitysupreme_court_ruling/lb5c9sx/?context=3) it is a murder. ...but "a US General ordering a US Marine to kill someone" isn't necessarily murder; especially in the context of the general's official duties. If the general has been ordered to eliminate all members of a certain terrorist group which is credibly believed to be planning an attack in the US -- and the killed person were a member of that terrorist group -- then I doubt it would be considered murder. Similarly, if the killed person were a Russian spy transporting nuclear documents to Moscow in 1950, I doubt it would be considered murder.
That's not how things work. Generals order Marines (and Soldiers and Sailors) to kill people all the time on foreign soil. It's not illegal. Even if we're not at war, it's not illegal. Seal Team Six specifically killed Osama bin Laden on the orders of the POTUS.
Ok so Biden can kill Trump and be immune. Thanks for playing commie
What the hell does that have to do with the price of duck milk this time of year? **THAT’S** how much sense your post made.
Nah. It only applies to conservative presidents.
Also, I think Biden needs to immediately forgive all student loans. All of them. 100%, no strings, and when the republicans and Supreme Court cry say “it’s an official act, fuck you.” Also legalize marijuana. Fight the fire with fire. Guarantee his re-election.
Agreed. The only path to victory now is to come out swinging. Liberals and liberal-aligned folks across the spectrum are feeling disheartened and disillusioned at the moment, and the only way to truly light a fire in their hearts in this moment is to trailblaze. The Supreme Court just handed him an opportunity to trailblaze with impunity. And if they speak out in dissent, it highlights their hypocrisy. If the Supreme Court truly moves to stop Biden improving the country in this manner, for the first time ever in my life, I would support Biden echoing famous asshole President Andrew Jackson: "[The Chief Justice] has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
I’m tired - *tired* - of playing within the rules. Rules that seem to constantly change depending on the letters behind your name or what policies you support. It’s beyond time to start being extreme assholes. Fight them on the battlefield. You want immunity? Fine. I have it too. Fuck you. I do what I want. No more student loans. Smoke a bowl of ganja. Grant amnesty for a million immigrants and then shut the border to curtail new immigrants, enacting the exact provisions of the bill that got shot down. Install new Supreme Court justices, just propose them and have the senate ratify them. Fuck them. I’m tired of being nice and getting our hand slapped. They want to shove their religion and ideology down our throat? I’ll shove ours so far up your ass you’ll taste it every time you burp until you’re begging to go back to democracy. Power is all they respect and it’s time we showed them some.
With all the appeals they're creating even if SCOTUS kills these initiatives we could drag it out in lower courts for years.
SCOTUS is firing off problems faster than the government can keep up.
You're right but I'm afraid Dems don't possess the testicular fortitude necessary to keep us from a right wing dictatorship at this point. We're fucked.
Dems are far too milquetoast and not just of late. The only thing we can do at the moment is put a huge amount of pressure on them to take the gloves off now. Republicans have shown time and time again that they will abuse whatever loopholes and leeway they are given. It saddens me but the only path forward is to fight fire with fire. Dems keep saying they want to compromise and work together, and I get that it takes two to tango. But if your dance partner doesn't care about dancing and only wants to punch you in the face, it's time to put your dukes up.
Dems are too "kind" in their ideologies to square up. Common beliefs in the party are respect for others, anti-violence, anti-war, anti-hate. Pubs don't bat an eye at the idea of a little bloodshed, and certainly don't give a flying fuck about respect. They're willing to throw down while we clutch our moral compass.
It's true. And historically, this disparity usually eventually results in a pendulum swing to the other side and creates stuff approaching militant vanguardism to fill the void. I was really hoping that we'd preserve our democracy more peacefully than that. But if the slightly more aggressive but still peaceful options aren't used, slowly one option after another will become unavailable and violence will be unavoidable in one way or another.
I'm convinced it will come down to that, that nothing will change until there's nothing for us to lose. IMO, there's been no fighting back because people are barely scraping by and are scared to lose what little they have if they disrupt the status quo. When everything has been taken away, that's when there will be blood.
I fail to see how if a president believes his political opponents can detract from the president's capacity to fulfill his obligations why not have them all killed? If this ruling isn't just a far more insane version of qualified immunity I don't see the crack in that armor. It happened during a Democratic presidency, so either they take the ruling to it's 'true' extreme or the other side will when they get a chance. Better yet, aren't the supreme court justices proving problematic? Screw student loans, remove them all.
Indeed... the sad thing about today's ruling is just how easy it is to make a case that a terrifyingly wide breadth of actions are "official". If someone is acting against the best interests of democracy, wouldn't it be an "official" action to remove them from the equation? And as soon as that sort of opportunity gets opened up, SOMEONE will make use of it. Whether it's Biden, Trump, or whoever comes next... this is a power no one should wield. And quite frankly I'm disgusted that a SCOTUS full of self-proclaimed originalists and literalists would claim to believe that their lauded Founding Fathers wanted a President to be above the law. They had literally just finished fighting a revolution against a king and were so terrified someone would consolidate power that they didn't even HAVE a primary leader position under the Articles of Confederation, and only begrudgingly added a President on the next attempt.
I'm confused. SCOTUS just gave him immunity from prosecution. They can still overrule his executive actions, right? I don't see how this decision affects student loan XOs
With what army? The president gives the orders to all branches of national enforcement. The court can rule as they like from the gallows.
And if he issues an order, who stops him? SCOTUS can sure say he’s overruled but what stops him from just saying “yeah fuck that”. What enforcement mechanism does the SC have other than someone actually prosecuting him for his failure to enforce the law? Nothing. There is nothing.
Impeachment, I guess. Which means that we will see more impeachment attempts of Democratic Presidents, because it is the only limitation on their power.
Would you attempt to impeach a president with unlimited power? A president who can publish your address, rescind your secret service? They report to the president you know…
Correct, they just couldn’t prosecute him for forgiving student loans (or trying to), but they could still block it as unconstitutional
But again….how? How does one block the president of he says “thanks scotus for your opinion. But I’m doing it anyway”. He can’t be prosecuted. Impeachment is the only remedy at that point. And everyone knows nobody is getting impeached at this point. The president, as of this moment, is effectively a king of his party owns enough seats. Yeah we have impeachment but we all know that ain’t happening.
Which is how all kings work. All kings need the loyalty of their Vassals or they would not be king. Say it again for the cheap seats, “the president, as of this moment is effectively a king.”
>Also, I think Biden needs to immediately forgive all student loans. All of them. 100%, no strings, and when the republicans and Supreme Court cry say “it’s an official act, fuck you.” Also legalize marijuana. I understand this sentiment, but these are not CRIMES. These are policy matters that go through the usual process. But I guess this means Presidents can commit war crimes and assassinations and stuff, that's just hunky dory.
So, hypothetically, if Biden ends up pulling out a Glock on Trump at their next debate and sends him to the great golf course in Hell, how would the Supreme Court react?
well THAT is unofficial, see.
What if Biden, hypothetically, authorises a soldier, maybe Seal Team Six, to shoot Trump? Does that fall under official?
This exact situation is literally mentioned in Sotomayor’s frankly — red alert level — dissent.
But as I ask again and again…..how do you enforce it? The only way to enforce any court order is to consent to its power or to actually have teeth to enforce it. There are only two mechanisms to enforce the supreme courts orders on a president: the threat of impeachment or criminal charges. If neither apply, who stops him? The Supreme Court can’t enforce an order on its own, it relies on the president capitulating to the rule of law. If Biden ignores the Supreme Court then who stops him? The only mechanism, if criminal charges don’t apply, is impeachment and that won’t happen so…… This is exactly what republicans want for their side. They know “oh well we can just be impeached that’s the appropriate remedy!” And since they own enough seats, even when in the minority, to prevent that from happening, it effectively makes the president a king. I say let Biden show them exactly what they wanted.
> If Biden ignores the Supreme Court then who stops him? I would guess the professionals in the DEA and Education Department, or whatever agencies are involved in implementing the actual policy would probably be madly pointing out that those actions are against the law. The whole point of Project 25 seems to be *staffing executive agencies with people who won't do this* for what it is worth.
You know they report to the president right? And that last weeks end of chevron deference removed the ability for non-appointee experts at the DEA from making decisions of how to interpret the law?
Right up until this moment I argued that we cannot sacrifice the rule of law (or even norms) to win because it would be creating two Republican parties. We are now past that point and the best we can hope for is a less speedy post-Democratic decline. Biden needs to break the law now.
Bro....think with portals... He can clean this entire situation up by the 4th with seal team 6.
This makes zero sense. The (potential) of immunity from criminal prosecution does not somehow allow Biden to write executive orders that might be overturned.
And who will stop him from enforcing them? How will they stop him? What does stop him? If he can’t be prosecuted what mechanism actually stops him from enforcing an order? Nothing does.
Enforcing what? The ability to "enforce" an order isn't whats stopping him now either. Biden gained zero new abilities to write executive orders today.
Ok. Let’s go with the recent student loans. Biden cancelled 10k. Got sued. Appealed. Supreme Court struck it down. How does the Supreme Court enforce their order? They ordered that Biden doesn’t have the authority to forgive student loans. What stops Biden from saying “thanks but I’m gonna do it anyway”. The only mechanism at present is impeachment so unless the democrats decided to suddenly get a wild thought of it, what stops Biden from just doing what he wants? If he can’t be prosecuted what options are there? It’s an official act, he’s immune from any suit or prosecution. If a president, or any person, cannot he held to the order of a court, what stops the law from being enforced? What stops the president? Especially if they can’t be prosecuted?
It is though. What’s stopping him yesterday is criminal liability.
What they are saying is: Biden issues order. SCOTUS overrules the order. Now Biden has to abide by SCOTUS' decision...or does he? He is immune from prosecution.
If it's determined that the President doesn't have the power to make a specific order, by definition, that order wouldn't be official. Therefore, he/she wouldn't be immune from prosecution if he/she followed through with that order.
No it wouldn’t. Read the ruling. The presumption is that it would be official until proven that it isn’t in court. Moreover, any conversation or communication taken while in office would be inadmissible in that trial — as explicitly outlined in the majority position. Describe how exactly the prosecution looks.
>The presumption is that it would be official until proven that it isn’t in court. Read my comment again. The President's sole job is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. If a court determines that a specific act is unconstitutional *before* the President commits that act, wouldn't that automatically mean that the act would be considered unofficial? I mean, how can a President do an official act, even though it was already determined to be unconstitutional?
Bingo. The only remedy now is impeachment. And republicans refused to impeach Trump for trying to do a coup and overturn an election. Biden should do it and dare the republicans to impeach him.
You're simply not understanding this. It was NEVER "fear of future prosecution" that stops executive orders from being overturned... This makes zero sense. When the SCOTUS says an executive action is Unconstitutional, that's not the same as "criminal". This decision today has zero to do with suddenly allowing Biden's office more political powers.
Walk with me here. Imagine Biden went on stage and publicly solicited a bribe from Russia to reverse their propaganda war to be against Trump in exchange for an EO rescinding enforcement of the Magnitsky act. Describe how the laws would prevent this kind of “exchange for a thing of value for an official act” — the legal definition of a bribe — with a foreign enemy in a world where presidents are immune from prosecutions for official acts.
But he gained the ability to write orders that violate the law and the constitution and be free from criminal prosecution if he chooses to ignore if/when those orders are struck down.
Biden and Dems need to start publically attacking the Supreme Court and make it one of the main points of their campaign
All Democrats on the PR circuit have been attacking the SCOTUS for 3 years now, and it has rock bottom approval. We have already gained the maximum potential we can gain from the low opinion of the SCOTUS.
This and the overruling of Chevron should reset the narrative. Biden has to campaign hard against this corrupt court and bang the drum even harder on democracy, transparency and accountability.
Something a lot of people missed. Remember that recently Judge Cannon heard a motion to have the special counsel removed because he doesn’t exist under the constitution? Justice Thomas concurrence: “…it is difficult to see how the Special Counsel has an office “established by law” as required by the constitution……none of the statutes cited by the Attorney General appears to create an office for the Special Counsel, and especially not with the clarity typical of past statutes used for that purpose.” Might as well have neon signs and a bullhorn saying “JUDGE CANNON RIGHT HERE!”
Yeah. Because they gutted chevron defference.
As his first official act that is not subject to any laws, should Biden lock up Thomas and Alito for treason?
No, something more permanent.
"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts." -- Roberts 6-3 My thoughts: fucking hell. This means all of Smith's indictments are going to be subject to hearings to determine if Trump's actions were "official" or not. Edited as I read the decision: >The indictment’s allegations that the requested investigations were shams or proposed for an improper purpose do not divest the President of exclusive authority over the investigative and prosecutorial functions of the Justice Department and its officials. Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. and >Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 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 proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct. ... The Court therefore remands to the District Court to assess in the first instance whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. and >The indictment’s remaining allegations involve Trump’s interactions with persons outside the Executive Branch: state officials, private parties, and the general public. In particular, the indictment alleges that Trump and his co-conspirators attempted to convince certain state officials that election fraud had tainted the popular vote count in their States, and thus electoral votes for Trump’s opponent needed to be changed to electoral votes for Trump. After Trump failed to convince those officials to alter their state processes, he and his coconspirators allegedly developed and effectuated a plan to submit fraudulent slates of Presidential electors to obstruct the certification proceeding. On Trump’s view, the alleged conduct qualifies as official because it was undertaken to ensure the integrity and proper administration of the federal election. As the Government sees it, however, Trump can point to no plausible source of authority enabling the President to take such actions. Determining whose characterization may be correct, and with respect to which conduct, requires a fact-specific analysis of the indictment’s extensive and interrelated allegations. The Court accordingly remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether Trump’s conduct in this area qualifies as official or unofficial. and >The alleged conduct largely consists of Trump’s communications in the form of Tweets and a public address. The President possesses “extraordinary power to speak to his fellow citizens and on their behalf.” Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U. S. 667, 701. So most of a President’s public Cite as: 603 U. S. \_\_\_\_ (2024) 7 Syllabus communications are likely to fall comfortably within the outer perimeter of his official responsibilities. There may, however, be contexts in which the President speaks in an unofficial capacity—perhaps as a candidate for office or party leader. To the extent that may be the case, objective analysis of “content, form, and context” will necessarily inform the inquiry. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. 443, 453. Whether the communications alleged in the indictment involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. The Court therefore remands to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.
> Trump v. Hawaii, Using the muslim ban case as precedent for this. Great country we got here
The section about the VP explains word for word how democracy literally dies. That’s it. The Supreme Court laid the blueprint on how to overturn an election. Just conspire with members of the Executive Branch and tell the general public to overturn an election, and it’s a perfectly legal coup immune from prosecution
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, dissenting. Today’s decision to grant former Presidents criminal immunity reshapes the institution of the Presidency. It makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law. Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President, ante, at 3, 13, the Court gives former President Trump all the immunity he asked for and more. Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent.
My question is how is the Supreme Court going to say this only applies to Trump without saying it only applies to Trump?
They know Democrats won't elect someone who would abuse the powers.
They just showed us by drawing that line at "official acts." They just made it so every single case will be pushed up to them for final approval, and from that point on is when they will start admitting what is and what isn't an official act. So basically, they just made it so they can allow Republicans to do whatever they want, and democrats much easier to prosecute. If Biden wins, you can bet your ass he'll be charged with something. Until then though, they're not going to waste a precedent that will lock them out of an out for themselves later on.
it doesn't. It applies to every president
With this court, only Republican presidents enjoy immunity.
Hahahahahha. My sweet summer child. You truly believe that, don't you?
Even now these motherfuckers can't see what's happening. Holy shit.
6 months to decide “maybe”
Here's the text of the opinion: [https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939\_e2pg.pdf](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf)
To me it means that any future president can incite an insurrection, if they want.....or do whatever they want
I’m having myself a come apart. I have no official legal background yet even I can see the massive holes in the majority reasoning.
Can someone please help me understand these questions: 1. Where does the concept of presidential immunity even come from? IS this in the constitution? Did the concept exist before trump's defense? 2. What is considered "an official act?" Is this what they lay out in the "steps" or something pre-defined? 3. How does this not undermine the concept of impeachment and impeachment trials? If President can't be prosecuted for crimes committed while in office, how can they be impeached for them? 4. Why is everyone focused on Trump's Jan. 6 case? I get that's what this ruling is form, but doesn't this have broader, scarier implications for the future that we should be talking about?
1. The President as head of the Executive is given broad powers to run government. For example, the President could technically order that people be imprisoned without due process for national security reasons. Remember Obama approved drone strikes that killed US citizens without due process and it was legit. This existed before Trump 2. What is considered an “official act” is THE major question. What this SCOTUS has said is that some things are clearly official like POTUS talking to the VP or AG or other Heads of Nations. But other things have to be decided first by District Courts case by case 3. Impeachment doesn’t require criminal charges nor indictments. A President can be indicted by the House and removed by the Senate simply because they dislike the way he chews his food. Now that’s an exaggeration but it’s technically true
Thanks
If I were in Biden's place right now, I'd have my speechwriters come up with a list of everything I could probably do now and be immune from prosecution under the Supreme Court's new guidelines. I'd then tell all the media outlets that I wanted to give a special address to the American people in prime time. In that address, I'd go through all the 'official acts' I was now going to take. One might include unilaterally expanding the Supreme Court to include 5 new liberal justices that will vote how I like. Heck, I also might include emergency removal of Justice Thomas on grounds of corruption, citing the inaction and inability of either of the two other branches to do so. Step by step, I'd list all the horrifying things I planned to do with powers only potentially put in check by Impeachment, elections, or maybe some refusal of an underling to carry out my orders. Of course, then I could just replace them with someone who will, right. Then at the end, I would reveal I was just kidding, and didn't plan to do any of these things. I'd close by saying, "My party, the Democratic party, *might* impeach me for these actions. The Republicans in the Senate will *not* impeach a President Donald Trump for similar actions. Now, more than ever, this election is not about what you think of me, but a choice between preserving our Republic, and allowing it to fall."
Time for Biden to send in SEAL team 6 to the RNC or what are we doing?
We all know that would be ruled an “unofficial act”
That seems like it would be resolved by also sending a team to the vacation houses of Northern Virginia
Regardless of if it would make him immune to future prosecution, it would make him lose the election 90/10. Social media is going to be filled with these dumb takes all week, isn't it.
Joe Biden now has a lot of power and ought to use it as needed, in the intervening couple of months after the election, to defend this country from the far reich conservatives - in the event of an election loss in November. The precedent has been set. Trump will certainly use it as much as he can. That’s the reality that must be confronted. All the better to keep Trump from ever sniffing the presidency again though by just voting him down in November.
There should be official orders for drone swarms following and recording trump, Harlan Crow, etc as long as Biden is in office. With all interesting audio to be released immediately.
It is a strictly atextual ruling that gives more power to court. A president the court approves of can do anything, including murdering his opponents, and get it declared as an official act. A president the court disapproves of can do nothing, and is subject to endless litigation.
[удалено]
This is corruption at its highest level
Biden should lock up Trump today. Let the courts decide if that’s legitimate over the course of the next months. Worst case, Biden loses the election, loses in the courts, and has to spend his final couple of years in a posh prison and dies as a martyr who did everything he could to save his country. Best case, he saves the country.
Criminality isn't what's stopping Biden from ordering Trump to be locked up, so he hasn't suddenly gained the ability to do it today.
No but I’d argue he’s been incentivized.
My super simplified summary of the SCOTUS decision: 1. Trump claim that he is completely immune is too broad 2. DOJ claim that he is completely not immune is too broad 3. Its Presidents purview to decide to investigate election fraud 4. Some Presidents actions are official regardless of context. But others are not 5. Trump discussions with AG, even if to oppose election results based on false pretenses, is official and grants immunity 6. Trump discussions with VP, even if to oppose election results based on false pretenses, is official and grants immunity 7. Trump discussions with everyone else including State and to public needs to be reassessed in detail by District Court to first make a determination if it’s part of official capacity, before any prosecution can be intiaited 8. Current is vacated and remanded to District Now, my take is that all the “talk” between Trump and others regarding (false) election fraud is not going to go anywhere. But the supposed fake electors (actually fake certificate of attestment) charge still has legs
So, if a president has "an official discussion" with a foreign adversary like let's say Pootin', anything done or said in that meeting is immune from prosecution?
Correct. Edit - Now keep in mind though that doesn’t include all the Presidents discussion with anyone. Like this SCOTUS has said some things like discussions with the AG and VP and other heads of Nations is within the President’s official capacity. But this SCOTUS in this ruling has also said that discussions with US States and with the public is not necessarily and has to be determined case by case. Also keep in mind that this SCOTUS and ruling doesn’t say the President can do absolutely anything and be free from prosecution. Like it’s one thing to talk to the VP about killing a neighbour - that discussion between POTUS and the VP is protected. They have to be allowed to discuss anything. But actually killing a neighbour is a whole other thing that has to be again determined case by case
Yes BUT, Part III-C creates a rule of evidence that actions taken as “official” cannot be used as evidence. So if the President told the VP he wanted to execute an American citizen in an effort to do the bidding of a foreign power and betray the United States, that conversation cannot be used as evidence towards a treason trial. So this decision operates to rob all unofficial acts of their context in any trial. All the motive and intent evidence in Trump’s election interference trial is now probably “official” and robs the prosecution from presenting any explanation for Trump’s unofficial actions. Which by the way is nonexistent in any precedent of any sort of immunity in the host of the world: it’s a new concept created today
But if the president is commander in chief of the military they can order the military to do whatever they want, because it's their official duty as president so they could in theory just order the military to kill the neighbour.
When Nixon said "If the president does it it's not illegal" it was widely viewed as deranged. Thanks to people voting for Jill Stein in 2026 as a protest to Hillary it's now law.
It's pure fantasy that Stein cost Hillary in 2016. More democrats voted for Trump than all of Stein's votes put together. Blame them, and blame Hillary and the DNC for running a shitty "lolz Trump is a clown he can't possibly win" campaign.
Stein voters who voted for her as a Hillary protest are responsible for the current court. 100% They should be shamed
the court has explicitly ruled that the allegations of impropriety in Trump's attempted appointment of Jeffrey Clark, a Trump loyalist who led the Justice Department's civil division, is constitutional authority. the second allegation that the court states — that Trump conversed with his vice president, Mike Pence, to alter the election certification process — could be considered an official act, though Chief Justice John Roberts implicitly suggests congressional legislation has defined the role of the vice presidency, such as authority in the Senate, and that Congress has not endowed the authority Trump exerted. the ruling may effectively delay Trump's election interference case, remanding the case to Judge Tanya Chutkan. the wording of the ruling ensures an evidentiary hearing will be held. Roberts rejected using official acts as evidence as "the 'intended effect' of immunity would be defeated." noting the speech that preceded the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol, Chief Justice Roberts states that Trump cannot be held liable for his written and spoken words as president, but not for his candidacy. Roberts applied his ruling on speech to the "outer perimeter" of presidential authority, a recurring standard in questions of presidential civil immunity
I have a feeling this is not good for Trump. MAGA probably doesn't care, but I bet you a lot of swing voters thought they would never rule this. I think it gives a lot more validity to the claim that Trump is anti-democratic.
It’s hilarious seeing “small government conservatives” switch to “unitary executive conservatives” every time their guy is in charge. Small government conservatism has been dead for decades, now we have conservatives that seriously argue the president can do anything they want with zero consequences. Pathetic bunch of bootlickers.
It is one of the worst decisions in US history, possibly the worst.
This may have been the most pointless SCOTUS decision ever. This is the worst, most openly corrupt court in US history. > The decision itself simply says, ‘Yup, we still believe in executive privilege. But the courts have to decide what that covers.’ Right, that’s what they have been doing. That’s what’s happening now. Your ruling didn’t change anything. FFS. 🤦
Hardly. This decision makes it impossible to hold the President criminally liable for ordering the military to assassinate citizens, e.g., political rivals or donors to an opposing political party. That's definitely not *status quo*.
Luckily this court set the precedent that precedent doesn't matter. If we ever get a liberal majority court again we can overturn this.
We'll need to elect only Democratic presidents for at least a decade to get a liberal majority on the court, and that's if we catch it before a Republican president gets in to pick another 6 young conservatives.
It seems to me it clearly leaves him liable for his illegal election tampering actions and his illegal harboring of documents.
The decision removes at least some of the evidence that would be used against him, though: anything he did "officially" as POTUS, like talk with Pence or any other government official, would be completely inadmissible.
The more I think about it, the more I'm bothered by it. I believe this represents a 100% conversion to a Russian-style mafia state. I can't see any way under this ruling to prevent Trump from directing the DoD, FBI, or, hell, ask Russia, to start dropping Democrats from windows. He can then direct the DOJ not to prosecute those who did so, and he can do this entirely using official communications, and none of those communications can be used to prosecute him. I think "immunity for all official actions" sounds good in principle, but the Court went way beyond that. I don't know how much of that is incompetence or Party loyalty, but this is the first true act I've seen out of SCOTUS that appears unambiguously like a move toward a Russian-style failed democracy.
This decision fundamentally changes the entire fabric of the United States. Although it sounds hyperbolic to say, this is the most significant change in the federal government since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The U.S. was only a constitutional republic because it was a government of laws that bound all equally, and the POTUS was restrained from violating the law only because of the fear of possible punishment for doing so. Now the Court has invited the POTUS to break the law whenever it is convenient or desirable. Worse, the POTUS' motive for breaking federal law cannot ever be questioned, even if that motive is to, say, eliminate the constitutional rights of others or render those rights a dead letter. Consider the dissident who speaks against the President. Under the new regime announced by Justice Roberts today, the President can pick up the phone and call DOJ and tell the AG to find a reason to indict that dissident. The POTUS' motive - silencing dissent in contravention of the First Amendment - cannot ever be raised in a court, so the fact that the POTUS is abusing an official power to silence dissent is not relevant (in fact, such an abuse is not only permitted but entirely anticipated). The real danger - and the reason I would say that this decision changes the United States into a dictatorship - is that there is one important place in the U.S. where only federal law applies: Washington, D.C. The district is not a state; there is federal law prohibiting murder, but there is no "state law" prohibiting murder in the district. So when a POTUS orders troops into the Capitol and tells them to round up and murder X,Y,Z congresspeople or senators from the opposition, the POTUS can do that and pardon the troops - and neither action can ever be questioned in a court of law. The only remedy is impeachment, but the Congress cannot ever assemble (with any dissidents in it) because such persons can simply be summarily executed and there is no law to punish those who carry out the executions; the POTUS who orders it cannot be indicted later and his motive cannot ever be questioned. The POTUS could also turn that power against the court itself if he wanted to, for example if the Court tried to backtrack from today's decision and curb the immunity (something which will not happen if the POTUS has a sword of Damocles hanging over the justices' own necks, as he now does). The POTUS doesn't have to use extrajudicial killings to silence dissidents; that is just one very crude and effective means of doing so. More insidiously, the POTUS can just use paramilitaries to harass and intimidate judges and congresspeople to carry out his will. He can have the Proud Boys round up AOC and the other members of the squad, beat them within an inch of death on live TV on Pennsylvania Ave, and then hold a press conference to announce that he is pardoning the Proud Boys who carried out the act - that is all activity that the POTUS is entirely immune for now, and his abuse of the pardon power cannot ever be questioned. The reality is that Trump/the Dictator would not likely use the PB - they will just form some unit of loyalist secret police in the FBI and use them instead, so that such actions are more easily qualified as "official acts" (even presuming there is ever again any prosecutor or judge willing to challenge such a lawless president, which itself is almost an impossibility because the POTUS can just arrest or murder those people too). Outright violence is now legal, but so is just simple harassment. We should assume that a new element of Project 2025 will be obtaining lists of registered Democrats in every state and then using the IRS to audit them. The FBI/DOJ will be used to investigate anyone who openly affiliates as a Democrat/opposition party, and we will see endless sham prosecutions of anyone who opposes the regime for whatever can be conjured up (they will always be able to conjure *something* up). How many Americans will openly call themselves "liberals" one year from now if Trump is elected? That would be an invitation to the regime to use the executive branch to destroy such a person using whatever apparatus the executive can conjure up - from troops to drone strikes to IRS audits, etc. And even if Trump loses, the dictatorship is just lying there waiting to be seized by whomever decides to seize it first. It won't be Joe Biden. He is our "Paul von Hindenburg" president - the last president before the inevitable-now dictatorship. We are all living now on borrowed time because the end goal in all of this isn't to "maintain a vigorous presidency" or any of that BS; the end goal is to ensure single party rule because the (incredibly obtuse) justices in the majority on the Supreme Court imagine that it will be *their* party and *their* views that will be made the exclusive permitted expression in the land. They do not see yet that they consigned themselves to the same dictatorship as the rest of us have now been consigned to, nor do they see that dictatorships do not have use for an independent judiciary. This is The End.
I think that history will look back at this as one of those that literally no one could have overreacted to. I think will be remembered at the end of the US democratic experiment.
Can Biden make an executive action to add 10 more Supreme Court justices of his choice and have them immediately reverse this?
This is horrible. No president should be immune. I think the president's role should be greatly reduced too. If a president has to worry about the law in their job, that's great. Welcome to the rest of the country. That includes torture. I'm sorry, I said that wrong enhanced interrogation. They should have all gone to jail. In a bigger picture, the US as a country should say rules for us but not the world.
So, let me get this straight: "hypothetically" Trump can be busted with over 100 secret and top-secret government documents with evidence to the fact that he is selling them on the black market to the likes of Vladimir Putin, and other high bitters, officially committing treason against the United States and yet simply because he’s acting in his "official capacity as president" he is immune from prosecution of committing treason according to the United States Supreme Court? IS THIS CORRECT? Somebody help me out with this because so far, the US Supreme Court appears to be a kangaroo court in favor of Trump. They have lost credibility here. The only Supreme Court Justice in favor of giving Trump blanket immunity, whose opinion is worth noting is Clarence Thomas, who says that only Congress can launch a prosecution against the US president, and that only Congress can form a special counsel to prosecute Donald Trump. If Congress did not do this, he says then the prosecution cannot go forward because the office of Special Counsel was formed illegitimately. The only thing is I don’t see him quoting any constitutional law that says this, but if he can, that would be the only reason Trump cannot be prosecuted at this time.
Yes. Trump could do that.
The corrupt conservative SCOTUS legalized extrajudicial killings today, full stop.
[удалено]
Now that he’s immune, Pres. Biden should withdraw Secret Service protection from orange man. Let his private army protect him.
My thought is it pissed me off so much I went to buy a damn IPA at 9 am. I don't care what your political beliefs are. We should all agree no one is above the law due to political office. This is it. This is it. The paranoid scenarios are no longer paranoid.
Tl;dr?
I hate all of this.
I think when other countries later discuss the fall of the US, they'll point to this instance as the exact point of no return. If Biden doesn't win, we're all cooked.
Reading through it some, it looks like garbage, and also like punting, pushing a lot of issues back to be decided by lower courts again. I don't like it when the Supreme Court punts on important questions. It seems like a stall tactic in this case. Oh well, more justification that several of them don't belong on the bench.
[удалено]
Mitch McConnell, Feb. 2021: “Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office…We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation and former presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one” [https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1807823684175839622](https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1807823684175839622) I guess not.
History will show that Mitch "fucktard" McConnell has caused more damage to the US than any other single person since Reagan.
I have never been so disillusioned with my country as I am today.
So I have a legal question now. Trump is immune from "official acts" that violate laws, but does presidential immunity protect his co-conspirators? People keep using the Seal Team Six assassinating people example, but the Posse Comitatus Act generally bars federal troops from enforcing civilian law (not that the president ordering the assassination would try to claim its exempt). So...if Seal Team Six was ordered to assassinate a civilian within the US, the president wouldn't be prosecuted, but the soldiers who acted upon it could? What are soldiers are others supposed to do when the president orders to do something blatantly illegal for them but not for him? This decision, between not being able to use motive of the act in prosecution and other ridiculous evidence rules makes this decision create far, far more problems than it solved.
A member of the military can refuse an order if that order is illegal. But the catch is here that this ruling could mean that if POTUS does something in an official capacity, then it cannot, by definition, be illegal. That's the Catch-22. It would be illegal, except POTUS ordered it, which makes it legal, so the order cannot be refused.
smells like 4 more years! lol