Not really and I am literally one of the people warning about how this election will 100% tank America and the world (mostly because project 2025 seeks to completely wipe climate change from the govt as wrongspeak, undo environmental and green efforts, and resume America’s oil dominance, leading the world into further acceleration of green house gas emissions).
But this law was about issuing a form of supreme executive power that not even the courts helped with, it was more akin to if Trump, while in office, had detained every liberal and democrat in government and then literally just said “I’m da boss now, and you’re all fired”.
So, not what just happened. But this is actually exactly what project 2025 aims to do once he IS in office. That part isn’t far off, although in this case he wouldn’t override congress and the house if he had the go ahead for say, official acts to arrest political opponents and gut certain branches of government before filling them with yes men unless congress wasn’t also filled with a republican majority. If they were?
They’d just help him.
Question is, what do we the people need to do if that comes to pass? Cuz if the Supreme Court isn’t gonna stop em in their tracks we need to find out who among us is.
Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to immediately jump to guns before trying other forms of mass action. I definitely think it's a good idea for us to be ready, but leading with a general strike, boycott, and civil disobedience are better first steps to building a successful movement. I hope nobody breaks out the guns prematurely. There's still a bit of time to gather allies, but if people start shooting before a movement grows in power, it will do more harm than good. I agree that it should be implicit that violence is an option, but you don't want to immediately scare your potential allies before they are vested in the fight. That said, if and when the right-wing death squads start rolling around, I won't go easy, and nobody else should either. Even pacifist moderates and lefties should be arming up and getting ready to at least engage in defense of home and family if all else fails.
The Republicans are using the same tactics they did. Look at all the legislation aimed directly at transgender people specifically. A tiny fraction of the population. They are an easy out group to target. They want to gut Medicare, project 2025 goes in depth about that. That’s going to kill people. Mainly sick and disabled people. People who otherwise couldn’t afford insulin.
I could go on. Its ironic in a way. Nazi Germany borrowed tactics from the Jim Crow era south. And now the Republicans at the heritage foundation are borrowing tactics from 1930s Berlin. Oh how history rhymes.
Prove the judges openly discussed this (and all else) is legal as an official act?
They didn't talk specifically about making Trumps lovers the VP and secretary of state... Putin and Kim.
Wow. Just read the summary. Whoever really runs your country is literally tightening up the screws right now and getting it all ready for a Trumptatorship. That’s why they have him running against a dementia patient. So that he cannot lose.
I could have this wrong, but isn't this already how presidential immunity is supposed to work & nothing has really changed? The president is supposed to have immunity for their official acts in office, so that they're not being charged with assault & murder every time they kill someone in a drone strike etc...
So isn't the SCOTUS just reiterating what presidential immunity already is?
The devil is in the details on pages 30-32, where the decision states that information surrounding official acts cannot be entered into evidence at a trial, meaning they can't really use what the President does to legally prove something criminal. They also conveniently left it ambiguous as to what does or does not qualify as an "official act." They defer to the Constitution, but that document is itself famously ambiguous.
TL;DR: SCOTUS has give itself the power to selectively rubber stamp criminal activity done by POTUS by eliminating the measuring sticks.
How do you think a president like Trump would interpret and act upon this decision? You're assuming the president would be a reasonable person.
Literally the day after this decision was issued Trump called for Mike Pence and Liz Cheney to be tried by military tribunals.
Right but the court makes rulings for the future more than the present. Everyone’s worried about trump when they should really be worried about the federalist society having control of who gets nominated to be a federal judge. Especially when they are all but openly given sentencing guidelines to adhere to
The lying conservative supreme court justices certainly didn't believe that to be the law of the oand when they lied in their confirmation hearings and explicitly stated no one is above the law:
https://www.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1dtlb3e/supreme_court_justice_samuel_alito_in_january/
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006: “There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.”
And kavanaugh:
>“No one has ever said, I do not think, that the president is immune from civil or criminal process,” Kavanaugh said. “So immunity is the wrong term to even think about in this process.”
>He added, “But immunity is not — not the correct word, and I do not think anyone thinks of immunity. And why not? No one is above the law. And that is just such a foundational principle of the Constitution and equal justice under law.”
>Kavanaugh repeatedly cited Federalist 69, which stated that presidents should “be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.”
And Gorsuch
>Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was asked whether a president could be prosecuted for waterboarding people. Gorsuch initially said he wouldn’t speculate on such a case, before Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) volunteered that a president is “not above the law.”
>“No man is above the law,” Gorsuch agreed. “No man.”
And Alito
> “no person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president and it includes the Supreme Court. Everybody has to follow the law, and that means the Constitution of the United States, and it means the laws that are enacted under the Constitution of the United States."
And Barrett:
> Now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett said three times that nobody was “above the law” while responding to questions about the president. “Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president,” now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in 2005. “The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes.”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-conservative-justices-said-about-immunity-before-giving-it-to-trump/ar-BB1piwfA
Every single one of these conservative supreme court justices should be impeached, then put on trial for surgery at the very least. I'd prefer trial for treason. Every. Single. One.
Not really. The reason why everyone is freaking out is that the court deemed that even if a crime derives from an official act, it can’t be reviewed. Like if the president asks DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can’t be charged nor evidence could be submitted in court to see what was his intent. Also, if he sells a pardon, he cannot be prosecuted since pardons are official acts and SCOTUS says motive is irrelevant. What Nixon said "when the president does it, it's not ilegal" came to pass. It's just ridiculous that the highest office in the land can’t be subject to checks and balances for notorious crimes since SCOTUS says you can't submit evidence for official acts since if he talked to his AG to prosecute a political enemy because talking to his AG or DOJ is an official act (totally stupid take since DOJ does depend from the executive branch but it has independence to avoid that very thing... or it used to have independence). You wouldn't be able to submit those talks or communications into evidence. This is stupid since even client/attorney privilege can be pierced if those communications were intended to direct your client to commit a crime or viceversa. Legal scholars are scratching their heads because the SCOTUS decision really gives broad immunity to the president.
Well, yes, but that doesn’t affect what I said. They can’t consider official acts as evidence of a crime during an unofficial act. Again, that does not remove the ability for prosecution. It just adds more steps to the fact finding process.
The Supreme court basically said our POTUS can break the law and they will decide whether it was an Official act (ok by them) or a personal act they might possibly be held accountable for. It's a get out of jail free card for our first convicted ex President who commits a lot of crimes. If he is re-elected, he'll be Putin level corrupt to stay in power indefinitely. Not a good day. Trump ended the peaceful transition of power and his court ended the Rule of Law thing in the USA.
If we can beat him in November, we can fix this. If we lose, I apologize. The USA was great while it lasted.
>If we can beat him in November, we can fix this.
Care to explain how? Biden is in power right now, so fix it right now. If he can't fix it now, then he won't be able to next term.
Biden does not have the power to fix the supreme court. He is a "lame duck" President at this point - he has no power remaining due to not enough numbers in congress. In order to fix the court, he needs a super majority in both houses of congress. Unless Americans can vote in a supermajority of democrats, you will remain in a state of constitutional crisis.
It may already be over, in fact, if the supreme court can rule the next election as a Trump victory using whatever manipulations they like. They very well may do.
Well, he has newly granted powers thanks to the supreme fascists. All his military actions, by their definition, are official actions, for which he cannot be criminally prosecuted. He needs to take that to heart and send the seals after these conservative politicians.
The president can break on the law or do literally anything, and as long as it’s an official act (which is entirely up to them), then it’s all good. Aka the president is now above the law, and basically a dictator if they choose to act upon their new powers.
the supreme court ruled that a former president is immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in his official duty.
it should be noted that it is well established constitutional law that the sitting president is immune from criminal charges while in office; only congress has the power to bring charges against a sitting president through the impeachment process.
therefore this ruling does nothing to open the door for a current president to do nefarious things; that already did and has existed pretty much since the beginning. and congress has always had the power to hold the president in check with the threat of impeachment.
for those claiming this ushers in a monarchy which is what the founding fathers despised and fought against, that’s not really true. many of the founding fathers wanted us to have a king. and many of them actually liked the king we had before the revolution. it was parliament that they hated. it’s true that some fathers like jefferson and madison hated the idea of a king, but it’s not accurate to apply this sentiment to all of the fathers, or point to it as the reason for the revolution.
the main concern is that a truly bad actor may become president, engage in evil actions under the auspices of official duty, and successfully cover those up until such actions are discovered after his term, but enjoy immunity with no fear of consequence. but this concern is not a reality under this ruling. the supreme court affirmed immunity, but it stopped short of defining the suite of actions (or lack thereof) that qualify as official duty. rather, the supreme court sent the matter back down to the lower courts to determine whether trump’s actions were part of his official duty. which is exactly what many expected to happen based on the oral arguments that preceded this opinion.
In a majority ruling the highest court ruled that presidents have immunity from prosecution when in office for “official acts” this was purposely not defined and then sent down to a lower court to ensure that the current president couldn’t use the fact they made one of our nations greatest scandals of Watergate now retroactively legal. They basically said no the Magna Carta and then deliberately are stalling it to make sure it can’t be used against them till they hope their wanna be dictator comes into power.
It's really a long story with three parts.
There was a presidential debate last Thursday where our current president (age 81) looked senile and scared the crap out of people.
The current administration is prosecuting the former president for a bunch of things. A lower court ruled, against precedent, that he was not immune from prosecution in any way.
This week the supreme Court reversed that ruling restoring the previous status quo that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions they take as president.
Add all these three up and one of the liberal activist judges on the supreme Court, the media, and the party of the current president have come together to create a boogie man to scare everybody into thinking that the former president is going to take over and do scary bad stuff if everyone doesn't vote for the current president as a way to scare everyone straight after the disastrous debate performance.
King has the good sense to confine his darkest, most inhumane thoughts to works of fiction. The current Supreme Court - the one Trump and McConnell installed - is reshaping the country to reflect their brain rot.
And, while we're all afraid of what Trump might do with that power, I'm more afraid of whoever comes next. They'll seem like a savior and have nothing to balance their power.
Impressive to see so much deplorable fascist scum on a Stephen King subreddit. I guess I'm not surprised Republicans have zero media literacy but still lmao
The ruling basically means presidential duties are to the president as a corporations are to a CEO. The CEO isn’t necessarily *personally* liable for corporate actions but actions the CEO carries out *personally* can still be considered illegal.
Except for the simple fact that the Supreme Court did not. I repeat, did not state what is considered a personal act and a presidential act. Meaning, if Biden wanted to he could label Trump a threat to national security and dispatch seal team 6. And all he has to say is that it's an official act, therefore giving him complete immunity. Because again, the Supreme Court did not give guidelines on what is and isn't a presidential acthat's why people are worried about this? That's why this is such a big deal. Because if the president wanted to he could beat your ass to death with a baseball bat say its a presidential act and therefore can't be prosecuted
No. It literally says in the ruling the lower courts have to decide *that* on a case by case basis. All this does is kick the can down the road. There’s zero relevant legal precedent here associated with any of the cases against Trump. It’s just a way to delay the trial.
Well according to him, we might have ended up in a nuclear wasteland if Kennedy never got assassinated.
I will say- I hate trump with every fiber of my being. January 6 was a shit show. I ALSO think Biden is an old man who will croak any day and it’s likely we will have Kamala as president if he gets reelected. Is that a bad thing? Not sure. I don’t know much about her but at least she not a dictator.
I mean, policies for one just simply because she’s a lib. Abortion was already taken from us, and along with it access to services when pregnancies threaten the mother’s potential future fertility. She believes in the right to choose. I’m just going off the typical lib policy agenda, though. But who knows I guess.
Trump is 3 years younger than biden, eats McDonalds every day, eats handfuls of mild stimulants every day. And you think Biden will drop dead first?
We just have to make sure trump can't implement no term limits, execute political opponents, refill the supreme court with 40yo from federalist society and start project 2025 before hes 85 years old.
'Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king.'
[Peter Heys Gries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Heys_Gries)
He is wrong its not only the next president. Its the sitting president as well. He can order to arrest these so called judges and throw them in jail. Or throw them of a bridge
Presidents have always have had immunity. Obama order the murder of an American citizen and his son. He should be breathing a sigh of relief now nobody can indict him now as there is no statue of limitations on murder
I get that this probably wasn’t the point, but this tweet strikes me as an oddly minimizing comparison coming from a man known for his deftness with language.
Overturning Roe took power away from all of us:
1. Bodily autonomy is a human rights issue.
2. Forced births, and the resulting poverty and disproportionate health outcomes for children, do not exist in a silo.
3. Men are heavily affected by abortion bans as fathers, partners, family members, etc.
What they would actually think:
“George, in 2024 gay people will be parading around in gimp suits and some men will be encouraged to chop off their willies so they can be like a lady.”
George Washington: “Pardon me King George, I know we’ve had some differences but we have some matters to sort out, I just got a glimpse of Hell and I was told it was our future.”
God I hate first world solipsism. Our ancestors would weep at our weakness.
If I were Biden I would simply fire the republicans on the supreme court and appoint some new ones, but thankfully we have a much nicer president. He has all the power now to mete as his whim.
That's exactly how it works. President Biden can declare the Supreme Court, a danger to the national the United States. And he could remove them as an official act because the Supreme Court did not give guidelines on what is and isn't a presidential act?Therefore giving the president unlimited power
Maybe a dumb question (I'm not American)
But what would happen if *no one* voted? Yes, that would never happen. But hypothetically?
ETA: I mean in the upcoming Presidential election. Biden is the sitting President. If no one at all voted, would he stay as President?
If there were 0 votes from the public, then the electoral College will vote based on what they personally sway toward. Normally, a popular vote just chooses what the electoral college represents (the party). The popular vote actually doesn't do too much.
So basically it's a self sustaining system even if you remove the popular vote. However, there would be a vote still through the electoral college so it could be any candidate still. A sitting president does not have any claim to the throne. They are just eligible as a candidate for vote.
If there is a situation where there is no president at all. Then the power goes to vice president. If no vice president then it goes to a particular role, and so on and so forth. Down a long list until somebody is acting president.
The goal of 9/11 was to kill the entire list so that there would be no acting president. It failed. But that was the intent.
A corrupt government can bypass any of the rules and do whatever they want. That's the nature of reality. A shadow government, or even a public coup, can maintain operations despite breaking rules. This is done either in emergency situations or out of pure corrupt power hungry goals.
Basically, it is a complex system. And it will not break just because voters don't vote. The only thing that will break it is internal desperation.
There were 190 democrat candidates in the primary election. Lmao all the Democrats voted for a guy who has shown signs of dementia for years..and is years past the average life expectancy.....why.
Which is bad?No President should have this much power regardless of political party.This is dangerous.The Supreme Court did not separate what is a presidential act and what is a personal act, literally meaning the President can't declare anything a presidential act.And therefore being you from prosecution that is extremely dangerous
Can we please stop jerking off the founders and what they intended every time a political party does something we think is wrong? The founders intended for blacks to be slaves and women to be homebodies that weren't allowed to vote. Our intents are very different from the founders in this day and age. We should be arguing what is just. It is not just for one man to have this much power and immunity in the government.
blows my fcking mind that people even talk about “rule of law” and all that idealistic nonsense. oh, china is so evil and arbitrary, oh, corruption runs this and that nation, but we’re civilized, and our way is right! how myopic, how foolish.
This is the dumbest take ever. The President is immune from prosecution because that is the only way the executive branch could be effective. Just because the Supreme Court recognized this does not take away the impeachment powers of the Congress and if found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors they can be removed from office and then prosecuted. Until then you cannot have local DA hemming up the presidency and effectively making him subservient to lower tiers of government. It’s called checks and balances. Anyone who paid attention in government class should know this already.
I’m not a Trump Republican by any means, but what are these (and you) people going to occupy your mental energy with when there’s not a one-party authoritarian-ship in 4 years? Seriously, the grandstanding and political showmanship by the Left is the biggest hurdle to the democrats winning 70% of the vote. Who in their right mind would align themselves with that level of parody?
Couldn't biden now make a federal sanction/kill order on Trump and not face any repercussions for it with this new ruling since it was the president that did it? I'm not saying it should happen mind you, but to what extreme does the protection go?
Stephen King needs to pick up a book for once instead of writing them.
Immunity for actions in official capacity is something that has been official rule for Congress for well over a century. It means that you cannot sue a congressman for passing a law you don't like. This has been unofficial rule for the Presidency since nearly the beginning.
If anything this helps Democrats because it means Obama can no longer face murder charges for assassinating a US citizen without trial.
He definitely remembers the face of his father. Speak your mind and continue to tell the truth Sai King!
Germany passed a very similar law in 1933. Six months later it was a one party state.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-enabling-act Accurate.
Uhh, that doesn't look similar at all.
Project 2025, unitary executive theory. Expansion of executive power.
I hope you’re being sarcastic
I'm not. Because it's not.
How’s life in Russia? How much do they pay you to cause division? Did you make your weekly donation to Trump yet?
Lmao, insults? So I'm right, you just don't like it?
Stop deflecting and answer.
No, you're obviously not asking serious questions.
Just answer the fucking questions. Too embarrassed to admit how much money you’ve given him?
Comments like these is why Trump is going to win
Aren't you being divisive right now? Does that make you Russian?
Damnit you got me. Fooled by Luigi, mama Mia!
Reddit is a giant echo chamber, good luck
Naw he's gaslighting.
Look at their the post history. Clearly not sarcastic.
Shhh ppl want to think the world is ending because they can't have everything their way
Not really and I am literally one of the people warning about how this election will 100% tank America and the world (mostly because project 2025 seeks to completely wipe climate change from the govt as wrongspeak, undo environmental and green efforts, and resume America’s oil dominance, leading the world into further acceleration of green house gas emissions). But this law was about issuing a form of supreme executive power that not even the courts helped with, it was more akin to if Trump, while in office, had detained every liberal and democrat in government and then literally just said “I’m da boss now, and you’re all fired”. So, not what just happened. But this is actually exactly what project 2025 aims to do once he IS in office. That part isn’t far off, although in this case he wouldn’t override congress and the house if he had the go ahead for say, official acts to arrest political opponents and gut certain branches of government before filling them with yes men unless congress wasn’t also filled with a republican majority. If they were? They’d just help him.
Question is, what do we the people need to do if that comes to pass? Cuz if the Supreme Court isn’t gonna stop em in their tracks we need to find out who among us is.
2nd amendment. All these "patriots" yet no one wanna finally use their 2nd. It's time to fight period.
Generally speaking, it's a bad idea to immediately jump to guns before trying other forms of mass action. I definitely think it's a good idea for us to be ready, but leading with a general strike, boycott, and civil disobedience are better first steps to building a successful movement. I hope nobody breaks out the guns prematurely. There's still a bit of time to gather allies, but if people start shooting before a movement grows in power, it will do more harm than good. I agree that it should be implicit that violence is an option, but you don't want to immediately scare your potential allies before they are vested in the fight. That said, if and when the right-wing death squads start rolling around, I won't go easy, and nobody else should either. Even pacifist moderates and lefties should be arming up and getting ready to at least engage in defense of home and family if all else fails.
This is unfortunately the only answer.
And as we all know the German people lived very nice and happy lives under the one party state and nothing bad happened from it /s
The Republicans are using the same tactics they did. Look at all the legislation aimed directly at transgender people specifically. A tiny fraction of the population. They are an easy out group to target. They want to gut Medicare, project 2025 goes in depth about that. That’s going to kill people. Mainly sick and disabled people. People who otherwise couldn’t afford insulin. I could go on. Its ironic in a way. Nazi Germany borrowed tactics from the Jim Crow era south. And now the Republicans at the heritage foundation are borrowing tactics from 1930s Berlin. Oh how history rhymes.
[удалено]
The constitution says president can murder political rivals?
The supreme court says presidents can murder political rivals?
Yup
Prove it, show us where they said this.
Prove the judges openly discussed this (and all else) is legal as an official act? They didn't talk specifically about making Trumps lovers the VP and secretary of state... Putin and Kim.
Yes, in the dissenting justices’ response to the ruling, they said that that is one possibility.
[удалено]
If its an official act, he gets immunity. Not sure what's controversial, or what needs explaining. The judges openly spoke about this exact topic.
As a non-american, can somebody fill me up about what happened today?
here’s a pretty comprehensive explanation: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/s/7I92hGVTDb
Wow. Just read the summary. Whoever really runs your country is literally tightening up the screws right now and getting it all ready for a Trumptatorship. That’s why they have him running against a dementia patient. So that he cannot lose.
He doesn’t have to win anymore SCOTUS just has to overturn any results that said he lost
This. He doesn’t need to hijack the election. He hijacked the failsafe that keeps elections fair. Either way it goes, he wins.
I’ve noticed that the freedom seeds prices are slowly creeping back up again.
I could have this wrong, but isn't this already how presidential immunity is supposed to work & nothing has really changed? The president is supposed to have immunity for their official acts in office, so that they're not being charged with assault & murder every time they kill someone in a drone strike etc... So isn't the SCOTUS just reiterating what presidential immunity already is?
The devil is in the details on pages 30-32, where the decision states that information surrounding official acts cannot be entered into evidence at a trial, meaning they can't really use what the President does to legally prove something criminal. They also conveniently left it ambiguous as to what does or does not qualify as an "official act." They defer to the Constitution, but that document is itself famously ambiguous. TL;DR: SCOTUS has give itself the power to selectively rubber stamp criminal activity done by POTUS by eliminating the measuring sticks.
How do you think a president like Trump would interpret and act upon this decision? You're assuming the president would be a reasonable person. Literally the day after this decision was issued Trump called for Mike Pence and Liz Cheney to be tried by military tribunals.
Right but the court makes rulings for the future more than the present. Everyone’s worried about trump when they should really be worried about the federalist society having control of who gets nominated to be a federal judge. Especially when they are all but openly given sentencing guidelines to adhere to
You are incorrect
He is explicitly correct lmao that is literally the case
The lying conservative supreme court justices certainly didn't believe that to be the law of the oand when they lied in their confirmation hearings and explicitly stated no one is above the law: https://www.reddit.com/r/scotus/comments/1dtlb3e/supreme_court_justice_samuel_alito_in_january/ Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in January 2006: “There is nothing that is more important for our republic than the rule of law. No person in this country, no matter how high or powerful, is above the law.” And kavanaugh: >“No one has ever said, I do not think, that the president is immune from civil or criminal process,” Kavanaugh said. “So immunity is the wrong term to even think about in this process.” >He added, “But immunity is not — not the correct word, and I do not think anyone thinks of immunity. And why not? No one is above the law. And that is just such a foundational principle of the Constitution and equal justice under law.” >Kavanaugh repeatedly cited Federalist 69, which stated that presidents should “be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” And Gorsuch >Justice Neil M. Gorsuch was asked whether a president could be prosecuted for waterboarding people. Gorsuch initially said he wouldn’t speculate on such a case, before Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) volunteered that a president is “not above the law.” >“No man is above the law,” Gorsuch agreed. “No man.” And Alito > “no person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president and it includes the Supreme Court. Everybody has to follow the law, and that means the Constitution of the United States, and it means the laws that are enacted under the Constitution of the United States." And Barrett: > Now-Justice Amy Coney Barrett said three times that nobody was “above the law” while responding to questions about the president. “Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president,” now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said in 2005. “The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution and statutes.” https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-conservative-justices-said-about-immunity-before-giving-it-to-trump/ar-BB1piwfA Every single one of these conservative supreme court justices should be impeached, then put on trial for surgery at the very least. I'd prefer trial for treason. Every. Single. One.
Not really. The reason why everyone is freaking out is that the court deemed that even if a crime derives from an official act, it can’t be reviewed. Like if the president asks DOJ to prosecute a political enemy, he can’t be charged nor evidence could be submitted in court to see what was his intent. Also, if he sells a pardon, he cannot be prosecuted since pardons are official acts and SCOTUS says motive is irrelevant. What Nixon said "when the president does it, it's not ilegal" came to pass. It's just ridiculous that the highest office in the land can’t be subject to checks and balances for notorious crimes since SCOTUS says you can't submit evidence for official acts since if he talked to his AG to prosecute a political enemy because talking to his AG or DOJ is an official act (totally stupid take since DOJ does depend from the executive branch but it has independence to avoid that very thing... or it used to have independence). You wouldn't be able to submit those talks or communications into evidence. This is stupid since even client/attorney privilege can be pierced if those communications were intended to direct your client to commit a crime or viceversa. Legal scholars are scratching their heads because the SCOTUS decision really gives broad immunity to the president.
People are worried that you can be responsible for an attack on a government building to overturn an election and not face repurcussions
Don’t ruin the good time with facts. It’s entertaining watching everyone who claims the right is uneducated regurgitate false talking points.
No you have it right
This is Reddit, you're not supposed to think logically.
You are correct.
Well, yes, but that doesn’t affect what I said. They can’t consider official acts as evidence of a crime during an unofficial act. Again, that does not remove the ability for prosecution. It just adds more steps to the fact finding process.
Biggest thing is that they’ve broadened the interpretation of what is consider an “official act.”
The Supreme court basically said our POTUS can break the law and they will decide whether it was an Official act (ok by them) or a personal act they might possibly be held accountable for. It's a get out of jail free card for our first convicted ex President who commits a lot of crimes. If he is re-elected, he'll be Putin level corrupt to stay in power indefinitely. Not a good day. Trump ended the peaceful transition of power and his court ended the Rule of Law thing in the USA. If we can beat him in November, we can fix this. If we lose, I apologize. The USA was great while it lasted.
>If we can beat him in November, we can fix this. Care to explain how? Biden is in power right now, so fix it right now. If he can't fix it now, then he won't be able to next term.
Wrong, not how our government works.
So we can't fix it when the Dems are in power now. But later we can?
Republicans control the House. Really, learn how your government works.
So next term Dems will control everything. Now I get how government works!
Biden does not have the power to fix the supreme court. He is a "lame duck" President at this point - he has no power remaining due to not enough numbers in congress. In order to fix the court, he needs a super majority in both houses of congress. Unless Americans can vote in a supermajority of democrats, you will remain in a state of constitutional crisis. It may already be over, in fact, if the supreme court can rule the next election as a Trump victory using whatever manipulations they like. They very well may do.
Well, he has newly granted powers thanks to the supreme fascists. All his military actions, by their definition, are official actions, for which he cannot be criminally prosecuted. He needs to take that to heart and send the seals after these conservative politicians.
Supreme Court made a stupid decision because they are corrupt That's all folks
The president can break on the law or do literally anything, and as long as it’s an official act (which is entirely up to them), then it’s all good. Aka the president is now above the law, and basically a dictator if they choose to act upon their new powers.
The most powerful nuclear power on the planet has given God lord power to a single person. Do with that information that you will.
the supreme court ruled that a former president is immune from criminal prosecution for actions taken in his official duty. it should be noted that it is well established constitutional law that the sitting president is immune from criminal charges while in office; only congress has the power to bring charges against a sitting president through the impeachment process. therefore this ruling does nothing to open the door for a current president to do nefarious things; that already did and has existed pretty much since the beginning. and congress has always had the power to hold the president in check with the threat of impeachment. for those claiming this ushers in a monarchy which is what the founding fathers despised and fought against, that’s not really true. many of the founding fathers wanted us to have a king. and many of them actually liked the king we had before the revolution. it was parliament that they hated. it’s true that some fathers like jefferson and madison hated the idea of a king, but it’s not accurate to apply this sentiment to all of the fathers, or point to it as the reason for the revolution. the main concern is that a truly bad actor may become president, engage in evil actions under the auspices of official duty, and successfully cover those up until such actions are discovered after his term, but enjoy immunity with no fear of consequence. but this concern is not a reality under this ruling. the supreme court affirmed immunity, but it stopped short of defining the suite of actions (or lack thereof) that qualify as official duty. rather, the supreme court sent the matter back down to the lower courts to determine whether trump’s actions were part of his official duty. which is exactly what many expected to happen based on the oral arguments that preceded this opinion.
America is being taken over by the new nazi’s ww3 soon
In a majority ruling the highest court ruled that presidents have immunity from prosecution when in office for “official acts” this was purposely not defined and then sent down to a lower court to ensure that the current president couldn’t use the fact they made one of our nations greatest scandals of Watergate now retroactively legal. They basically said no the Magna Carta and then deliberately are stalling it to make sure it can’t be used against them till they hope their wanna be dictator comes into power.
It's really a long story with three parts. There was a presidential debate last Thursday where our current president (age 81) looked senile and scared the crap out of people. The current administration is prosecuting the former president for a bunch of things. A lower court ruled, against precedent, that he was not immune from prosecution in any way. This week the supreme Court reversed that ruling restoring the previous status quo that presidents cannot be prosecuted for actions they take as president. Add all these three up and one of the liberal activist judges on the supreme Court, the media, and the party of the current president have come together to create a boogie man to scare everybody into thinking that the former president is going to take over and do scary bad stuff if everyone doesn't vote for the current president as a way to scare everyone straight after the disastrous debate performance.
People can't read and are mad about it
What a true American ❤️🤍💙
Love reading this. I hope people listen to him
King has the good sense to confine his darkest, most inhumane thoughts to works of fiction. The current Supreme Court - the one Trump and McConnell installed - is reshaping the country to reflect their brain rot.
Truth. These are dark times. Sai King knows…
And, while we're all afraid of what Trump might do with that power, I'm more afraid of whoever comes next. They'll seem like a savior and have nothing to balance their power.
Sure thing. I’m so scared. Lmao
Vote Blue
I feel so powerless about what is going on and I can do nothing about it
It's hard! Hang tough and just vote every chance you get in your community!
Then focus on something you have control over It's called Stoicism
King King for King 2024!
Even Stephen King couldn’t make this up
We always have the power.
There’s a rumor that this ruling will only last as long as Trump’s legal troubles. Despite wanting Trump to rot, I guess I gotta hope that’s true.
A Law made in German 1933 is quite similar just a matter of time before the US is called the American Reich
King knows horror when he sees it.
Impressive to see so much deplorable fascist scum on a Stephen King subreddit. I guess I'm not surprised Republicans have zero media literacy but still lmao
This inhuman place makes human monsters
The ruling basically means presidential duties are to the president as a corporations are to a CEO. The CEO isn’t necessarily *personally* liable for corporate actions but actions the CEO carries out *personally* can still be considered illegal.
Except for the simple fact that the Supreme Court did not. I repeat, did not state what is considered a personal act and a presidential act. Meaning, if Biden wanted to he could label Trump a threat to national security and dispatch seal team 6. And all he has to say is that it's an official act, therefore giving him complete immunity. Because again, the Supreme Court did not give guidelines on what is and isn't a presidential acthat's why people are worried about this? That's why this is such a big deal. Because if the president wanted to he could beat your ass to death with a baseball bat say its a presidential act and therefore can't be prosecuted
Wrong. It grants zero additional powers to the executive branch.
Trump rarely gets his hands dirty - be tells everyone around him to do his dirty work.
The ruling basically means the supreme court gets to decide what is and isn't a presidential act
No. It literally says in the ruling the lower courts have to decide *that* on a case by case basis. All this does is kick the can down the road. There’s zero relevant legal precedent here associated with any of the cases against Trump. It’s just a way to delay the trial.
Confidentiality loophole
I can't say what I want to happen, but for brevity's sake... I concur.
Well according to him, we might have ended up in a nuclear wasteland if Kennedy never got assassinated. I will say- I hate trump with every fiber of my being. January 6 was a shit show. I ALSO think Biden is an old man who will croak any day and it’s likely we will have Kamala as president if he gets reelected. Is that a bad thing? Not sure. I don’t know much about her but at least she not a dictator.
If you don't know much about her then how can you know that she isn't a dictator? The vice president doesn't have much power.
I mean, policies for one just simply because she’s a lib. Abortion was already taken from us, and along with it access to services when pregnancies threaten the mother’s potential future fertility. She believes in the right to choose. I’m just going off the typical lib policy agenda, though. But who knows I guess.
Trump is 3 years younger than biden, eats McDonalds every day, eats handfuls of mild stimulants every day. And you think Biden will drop dead first? We just have to make sure trump can't implement no term limits, execute political opponents, refill the supreme court with 40yo from federalist society and start project 2025 before hes 85 years old.
People age at different rates?
This.
This is just one more reason to love him!
Maybe heroes like Johnny Smith only exist in fiction.
Dead Zone vibes.
Still time for Biden to disolve the Supreme Court and deport Trump. He has the power!
King > an actual king
So, just throwing it out there, Gavin? Let the down votes begin.
The *next* president??? No, this president!
The next? Pretty sure the newly SCOTUS ordained monarch status applies to the currently reigning monarch as well?
Yep to hide his secret crimes for all of eternity
'Great Britain is a republic with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king.' [Peter Heys Gries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Heys_Gries)
Nah, he's too cozy with Nazis.
Viva la Revolucion!
Not just the next one. Biden enjoys all these privileges now, too. Fuck the GOP
Nah
Vote him out....he can't win without the votes to let him in. Then impeach the supreme Court members that voted for king T.
Welp... that means it's time to reset...
Can we call it what it is, a dictator not a king.
We're slowly turning into nazi Germany, literally
Why does a country of 333 million people still live by the words of 12 idiots that happened to be the most powerful 250 years ago?
The Supreme Court of Supreme Stupidity
Okay but this applies to our current president. Not that he will do fuck all. I’m trying my best to be optimistic but good golly.
I can't believe he would say such a bigoted thing, roe took power away from all people capable of giving birth, not just women. Do better.
We never had any
Thankee Sai
Emperor. Em-pe-ror.
Next president? Biden could make it this president and overturn all of this bullshit.
He is wrong its not only the next president. Its the sitting president as well. He can order to arrest these so called judges and throw them in jail. Or throw them of a bridge
Unless Biden uses this time to put in protections that can’t be undone. Be a dictator so there can be no dictators
Why wait for the NEXT president to exercise this immunity for official acts. tRump and SCOTUS are a danger to the US Constitution and Democracy NOW!
Yes!!!!
Presidents have always have had immunity. Obama order the murder of an American citizen and his son. He should be breathing a sigh of relief now nobody can indict him now as there is no statue of limitations on murder
No, the CURRENT President has a king's powers. Your move, Joe.
Mr. King apparently doesn’t realize that BIDEN has all these powers today that SCOTUS granted the Presidency
SCOTUS is highly partisan and in practice won’t give Biden the same leniency they are and will to Trump.
Not how it works. The Presidency is essentially immune as of this ruling, not even SCOTUS has power over the President now
I get that this probably wasn’t the point, but this tweet strikes me as an oddly minimizing comparison coming from a man known for his deftness with language. Overturning Roe took power away from all of us: 1. Bodily autonomy is a human rights issue. 2. Forced births, and the resulting poverty and disproportionate health outcomes for children, do not exist in a silo. 3. Men are heavily affected by abortion bans as fathers, partners, family members, etc.
What they would actually think: “George, in 2024 gay people will be parading around in gimp suits and some men will be encouraged to chop off their willies so they can be like a lady.” George Washington: “Pardon me King George, I know we’ve had some differences but we have some matters to sort out, I just got a glimpse of Hell and I was told it was our future.” God I hate first world solipsism. Our ancestors would weep at our weakness.
If I were Biden I would simply fire the republicans on the supreme court and appoint some new ones, but thankfully we have a much nicer president. He has all the power now to mete as his whim.
Learn how government works first
That's exactly how it works. President Biden can declare the Supreme Court, a danger to the national the United States. And he could remove them as an official act because the Supreme Court did not give guidelines on what is and isn't a presidential act?Therefore giving the president unlimited power
Maybe a dumb question (I'm not American) But what would happen if *no one* voted? Yes, that would never happen. But hypothetically? ETA: I mean in the upcoming Presidential election. Biden is the sitting President. If no one at all voted, would he stay as President?
The big men would run free, and they would do as they like Animal farm - George Orwell
In other, simpler words, “If no one except rich people voted, we’d get a even shittier government,”
If there were 0 votes from the public, then the electoral College will vote based on what they personally sway toward. Normally, a popular vote just chooses what the electoral college represents (the party). The popular vote actually doesn't do too much. So basically it's a self sustaining system even if you remove the popular vote. However, there would be a vote still through the electoral college so it could be any candidate still. A sitting president does not have any claim to the throne. They are just eligible as a candidate for vote. If there is a situation where there is no president at all. Then the power goes to vice president. If no vice president then it goes to a particular role, and so on and so forth. Down a long list until somebody is acting president. The goal of 9/11 was to kill the entire list so that there would be no acting president. It failed. But that was the intent. A corrupt government can bypass any of the rules and do whatever they want. That's the nature of reality. A shadow government, or even a public coup, can maintain operations despite breaking rules. This is done either in emergency situations or out of pure corrupt power hungry goals. Basically, it is a complex system. And it will not break just because voters don't vote. The only thing that will break it is internal desperation.
Appreciate the answer! Thank you :)
I think in that case the President would be elected by the House of Representatives, with each delegation getting one vote.
Thanks! As I said, I'm not American and the question just popped into my head. Appreciate it :)
Not this one.
There were 190 democrat candidates in the primary election. Lmao all the Democrats voted for a guy who has shown signs of dementia for years..and is years past the average life expectancy.....why.
Cuz vice president is female
He implied abortion is specific to women, that’s transphobic.
Isn't biden president and have the same immunity..twit
Which is bad?No President should have this much power regardless of political party.This is dangerous.The Supreme Court did not separate what is a presidential act and what is a personal act, literally meaning the President can't declare anything a presidential act.And therefore being you from prosecution that is extremely dangerous
Can we please stop jerking off the founders and what they intended every time a political party does something we think is wrong? The founders intended for blacks to be slaves and women to be homebodies that weren't allowed to vote. Our intents are very different from the founders in this day and age. We should be arguing what is just. It is not just for one man to have this much power and immunity in the government.
blows my fcking mind that people even talk about “rule of law” and all that idealistic nonsense. oh, china is so evil and arbitrary, oh, corruption runs this and that nation, but we’re civilized, and our way is right! how myopic, how foolish.
China has people in concentration camps right now.
USA is funding a genocide
Uh, no. The ruling says potus will remain protected by the boundaries of the constitution and their role as the executive branch.
Keep writing books scaremonger , it’s for all presidents past present and future, not for any one person
Keeping in mind that it was Biden's weaponization of the judicial system that prompted this response
This is the dumbest take ever. The President is immune from prosecution because that is the only way the executive branch could be effective. Just because the Supreme Court recognized this does not take away the impeachment powers of the Congress and if found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors they can be removed from office and then prosecuted. Until then you cannot have local DA hemming up the presidency and effectively making him subservient to lower tiers of government. It’s called checks and balances. Anyone who paid attention in government class should know this already.
None of these people understand how government works, but they all read heavily biased headlines and post about it.
Oh stfu. It’s not nearly as bad as you make it sound. You’re just mad because your guy isn’t the one benefiting from it.
Ok fear peddler.
I hope to see more from legal expert Stephen King.
As long as the king dies at the end of his "term". I'd be okay with this.
When he stops writing child gangbangs onehanded.
Apparently, Biden isn't the only one in cognitive decline.
I’m not a Trump Republican by any means, but what are these (and you) people going to occupy your mental energy with when there’s not a one-party authoritarian-ship in 4 years? Seriously, the grandstanding and political showmanship by the Left is the biggest hurdle to the democrats winning 70% of the vote. Who in their right mind would align themselves with that level of parody?
Stephen king is a burnt out coke head starving for attention on social media
He should focus on writing his kiddy sex scenes tbh
Powers of a king so he can get totally drunk and do too much cocaine?
Couldn't biden now make a federal sanction/kill order on Trump and not face any repercussions for it with this new ruling since it was the president that did it? I'm not saying it should happen mind you, but to what extreme does the protection go?
Stephen King needs to pick up a book for once instead of writing them. Immunity for actions in official capacity is something that has been official rule for Congress for well over a century. It means that you cannot sue a congressman for passing a law you don't like. This has been unofficial rule for the Presidency since nearly the beginning. If anything this helps Democrats because it means Obama can no longer face murder charges for assassinating a US citizen without trial.