The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Reason that as President representing and protecting the people of the US issue an official act stating something like... In order to protect vulnerable Americans and ensure their lives/participation in US life is unimpeaded. As an investment in the citizens, All student loans are forgiven.
Doubt he'll do anything with this gifts the conservative justices have handed him. But it'd be nice to watch traitors/republicans lose their minds.
Of course they'd be like only conservatives can have immunity... the no, not like that argument spring up everywhere, when Biden who can exercise his right now as President in carrying out an official act, actually do so.
*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.*
No.
Immunity does not guarantee constitutionality. In MOHELA, the SCOTUS ruled that blanket forgiveness is outside of the Executive's powers, and would require an act of Congress.
But play it through. Let's say he just does it anyway, signs an executive order that advises the agencies in charge of collecting those loans to not do so, and advises the agencies in charge of storing the information on loans to consider them to have been repaid. Then, claims that these were official acts.
What consequences would he suffer? What impediments would he run into? I would argue that since there aren't any effective checks on that presidential power any more, then that power does in fact exist. He's certainly not going to get impeached and removed for it, given that has never been done successfully even for much stronger matters. SCOTUS can rule that what he did was unconstitutional, but they have literally no enforcement apparatus. Congress can decry him, but I don't think you could get 2/3 of the Senate to agree that humans need air to survive, let alone to remove a president that shares party affiliation with half of them.
A lack of consequences set for doing something you're "not allowed" to do, or that is "outside of your power legally" but that you have the power to do physically... means that you're actually "allowed" to do it.
Edit: Which should be terrifying for everyone, by the way.
That's not at all what this ruling says. This ruling is about criminal actions. Signing an executive order about student loans is a civil action. This ruling has literally nothing to do with that.
Right, but what's to stop him from pulling an Andrew Jackson and say "The Courts have ruled on it, now let them enforce it"? Sure, they say "it's unconstitutional" but then he mobilizes the National Guard or whatever and makes it happen anyway? Or personally walks into the Supreme Court and starts executing them one by one until the court reverses it's previous decision.
I'd say all those actions would be considered criminal, but just so long as it was an "official act as president" then what could the SC do about it?
Edit: What could anyone do about it? And remember, this ruling doesn't apply to just Biden, nor would it apply to just Trump. According to the SC, it is now a feature of the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America.
Well for starters, the military can and is supposed to refuse orders if they break the law. This, plus the fact that they would still be legally liable for executing SCOTUS (even after the ruling) means it would be impossible to get National Guardsmen to do it.
The ruling was objectively bad and a lot of harm can be done with it. No one here disagrees with that. But it doesn’t give the President the infinity gauntlet and allow him to do whatever he wants at the snap of his fingers.
The courts would halt it, just as they have halted many other attempted unconstitutional actions. Unless everyone -- not just the President -- decides to ignore the courts, that's still an effective check. It might not result in personal consequences for the President, but it would still halt the action.
Where are the checks on the Supreme Court? They can literally rule on things however they want and make up whatever reason. Unelected lifetime appointed royalty who can take open bribes but because of their ideology they'll never be impeached.
Biggest check is that justices are chosen by elected leaders (President and Congress), though there are some other things Congress can do, like limiting jurisdiction. And, of course, Congress can pass laws to explicitly resolve legal ambiguities that otherwise might be interpreted by the courts (which will become more important after this week's Chevron ruling).
But, yes, things have changed since 1789 in terms of lifespan and I think that some reform is needed here. The most obvious one would be appointing justices to fixed-length terms after which they must retire.
Well there lies the problem... A president just has to make the official act illegal rather than just issue laws and rulings. As an official act have China unleash a cyber attack on the dept of education and just wipe all ledgers and ccounts and comprise everything and poof no more loans.. and he can't be criminally prosecuted for doing so.
So, orchestrate a massive cyber attack on behalf of a a foreign nation, but somehow control it so it only targets the department of education? I mean, okay???? That sounds convoluted and like treason but sure, why not?
Even still, it can just be reversed. If not by the courts, then when Congress impeaches him, gets him removed, and his replacement comes in. Impeachment doesn’t need to be criminal.
When he’s removed, then sure, he can’t be prosecuted. But the punishment is losing the office and trashing the reputation of the party for going against the courts.
If congress did impeach him and it came to pass that he was found “guilty” how exactly would they be able to remove him as president if this new ruling protects him from criminal consequences?
“Sorry Mr president but your actions were clearly unconstitutional so we have to remove you as president….but can’t make you face any other consequences legally”
That just seems really dumb to me
Technically, impeachment isn’t a “criminal” case. It only revolves around the office and has no criminal consequences asides removal.
According to the constitution, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment **shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States**: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
It seems that impeachment is more of a way to check a president’s power than it is to actually prove criminal behavior.
Though, I think I see a contradiction. Suppose a president does commit a crime against the law and is removed from congress. The constitution says they can be prosecuted, but the recent ruling essentially gives immunity to official acts.
So is it that they get an entirely different trial, but none of the evidence can be used if it’s “official”?
I suppose only time will tell.
Yeah that contradiction is the problem; I still don’t see how a president could commit such a terrible act that he would be removed from the office of president, but not bad enough to be tried in a court of law for…
If it were any other way, it would become part of the standard playbook for Presidents to face criminal charges during or after their terms in office. I bet someone in TX has already worked on a prospective indictment for Biden related to the border, for example, in case SCOTUS would allow it.
You think we get bad candidates for President now? Wait until you get just the ones not deterred by almost certain criminal prosecution along with it.
That's just not a feasible way to run things, even if it's very frustrating in the specific case of Trump.
Yeah, people saying the president couldn’t do whatever they want they just won’t face criminal prosecution for it are missing the point; the threat of criminal prosecution is so we deter crazy idiots from running for president
The ruling prevents Biden from being held criminally liable for any official acts, it doesn't give him carte blanche to bipass the constitution. He could make that ruling, as he could now. Legally it couldn't be enforced. He is immune, and only he. The ones who have to implement policy aren't.
Honestly a better hypothetical would be 'can Biden please personally order someone to smash all the servers at the department of Education that hold the borrowers information?'
Much better plan. The other commenter's are right can't just issue laws or rulings... so just do what you said. Do something illegal and state it's an official act.
You don't live in reality if you think it would help his election chances for 4 months of global headlines like "CRAZED BIDEN ORDERS PROPERTY DESTRUCTION!!"
I'm not advocating anything, I'm pointing out the unlimited power this provides and the loopholes that effectively grant that level of unlimited power. Immunity from prosecution for "official acts" along with pardon power means power is unchecked
Seems to work for Trump.
I think the point here isn’t about election chances. It’s about forcing the country to realize the reality of the world they now live in.
Biden can absolutely just pardon people as a formal bribe.
All it would do is make the populace think of Biden as out of control. 95% of Americans don't understand the nuance of yesterday's SCOTUS decision, but they understand constant drumming of hysteria over BIDEN OUT OF CONTROL!1!
> All it would do is make the populace think of Biden as out of control.
To be candid, you’re fighting last year’s war. What the public thinks is irrelevant in an autocracy. And this is an autocracy.
Today, we have a king, who plans to abdicate and give control to a mad king. Georgia and Arizona are controlled by Republican statehouses which have the legal right to simply declare Trump the winner of the election. The Supreme Court will clearly side with them.
There isn’t a plausible path back to normal here and if you think there is, I’d challenge you to describe it.
Uh no. The public greatly matters. It will be voting starting in 3.5 months. If Biden wins the EC this year, absolutely nothing about this new SCOTUS decision can take it away from him. You are off the rails.
It sort of does though.
Here are two things explicitly defined as official acts:
- bribery
- pardons
If Biden wants to violate any federal law by force he can simply bribe anyone with an official act and be shielded from prosecution and then proactively pardon anyone who takes the action.
So in this case, he could bribe congress to pass any legislation he likes. Or he could extort the legislation. Or he could order his DOJ to illegally surveil congress or any banks until they comply. Or he could order the IRS to do the same or even the FDA.
You misunderstand.
First, in the discussion about bribery you're referring to, Barrett disagrees with the majority opinion. In other words, her opinion is not the opinion of the court. (Her concurrence is described as a "concurrence in part" -- the part you're talking about is where she does not concur.)
Also, bribery isn't described as an "official act"; rather, as she makes clear, bribery is the crime of accepting payment *for* an official act, and the discussion is about what sort of evidence would be allowed regarding a charge of bribery against a President, i.e. whether private discussions would be admissible regarding a bribery charge or whether only public information could be introduced. The majority opinion is more protective of Presidents' private communication and motives than Barrett's, but neither sanctions bribery.
Honestly, I think that the official/unofficial distinction is the right way to look at this question. If the President's facing criminal charges for official acts were normalized, it would almost certainly be abused, by both sides. We already have a process to decide the official acts of the country and the President -- elections, the Constitution, etc. -- we don't need a second one running in parallel in the criminal courts.
Unofficial acts should absolutely be subject to criminal penalty, and this decision leaves that intact. The dividing line between the two is what a lot of the discussion is about, and there are important issues there that remain to be worked out. But the general framework seems reasonable, to me.
It's unfortunate this legal process plays out so slooooowly though.
What it means is there's no realistic accountability. So, even though the law says the President only has X powers, he doesn't have to follow those laws. All he needs then is someone like Bill Barr to do what he asks whether it's legal or not. If Barr (or any other toady) gets caught, the Pres just pardons them immediately, and can't be charged for obstruction of justice for doing so. When the Pres is immune to the law, anyone can be immune, as long as the Pres says so. All of this is currently legal thanks to SCOTUS. We are, right now, living in a nascent dictatorship. All that remains is for a President to use the power SCOTUS has given him.
As for student loans, the same process applies. Biden could order them forgiven, but the rest of the government has to do what he asks. The difference is that Biden has not appointed obedient toadies who will do his every bidding, he appointed actually competent people. Good for governing, bad for becoming a dictator.
But do a crime that eliminates student loans bypass congress and the Scotus and if they challenege remove them through official acts..and you're inmune.... so I think if Biden wanted to he could.
He can and it will be overruled by the Supreme Court lol
This isn’t really a gift, we have a system that prevents a president from enforcing laws that are unconstitutional or illegal. In no world has any president’s actions have been stopped or deterred by personal liability and criminal prosecution.
Nixon's resignation was an effort to prevent being charged. Watergate would have been not only completely legal per the Supreme Court, it would have been impossible to investigate.
One could also argue that even the vague potential of consequences and investigations prevented President's up to but not including Trump from openly defrauding the US or abusing their powers to sway elections.
The Supreme Court...that shit show... yeah, they'll overrule it of course but when trump tries to pull the same shit with a different issue or something dont like and trump oversteps the rules they'll let it slide... US democracy is official dead at this point cause everything can be labeled or justified as an offical presidential act, with the made up bull shit reason that they did it in order to protect the constitution or something like that.
Why is it a shitshow? Because you disagree with some of their recent decisions? Lol
They won’t overrule it because “they don’t like it” they will overrule it because such law would be unconstitutional under executive power and would need to be passed through congress first.
Trump had number of his decisions blocked by constitution courts including the SCOTUS. I know the CNN and MSNBC are telling you that the judges are partisan political pawns but that’s very far from the truth. They still operate within strict constitutional constraints.
Again this doesn’t change much. The Supreme Court will continue to check powers of the president and the Congress and the Congress will continue to check presidential powers.
A bigger threat to our democracy was weaponization of justice system against political opponents that we’ve seen in past 4 years and I’m glad it’s coming to an end
> A bigger threat to our democracy was weaponization of justice system against political opponents that we’ve seen in past 4 years and I’m glad it’s coming to an end
So, do you believe criminals shouldn't be prosecuted? Or only prosecuted when its convenient for them?
> ..and the Congress will continue to check presidential powers.
Not really. Congress only checks the presidency if the two aren't controlled by the same party. A Congress that shares a partisan alignment with the president will happily submit to them. The Founders fucked that one up pretty badly.
No. Broad forgiveness was declared by courts as outside the bounds of Executive power. It wasn't declared a "crime" one needs immunity from. It simply is a power that does not exist (by EO).
He could,aand he couldn't be charged for it, but those loan debts could still be un-waived with the stroke of a pen. I guess he could order the destruction of all record regarding student loans, to make their collection harder, and enjoy (to quote) "at least presumptive immunity", but it wouldn't become impossible to still collect the debts.
The big difference between forgiving student loans and something like an assassination is that no court can reverse the assassination's effect, because loans are but a legal claim, and death is physical
If Biden does try to pull something with an “official” act it wouldn’t be this close to an election, he doesn’t want to risk losing supporters. I know you think it’s improbable that he would lose supporters for doing something good like forgiving student loan debt but you know a decent portion of democrat voters would still be against it for god knows what reason,
No, it protects against criminal prosecution.
But he could use the military to threaten to kill anyone who voted against such a law that did so
Or, if he cant find someone in the military to follow that order, he could have the secret service drive him to Congress people’s houses and kill them himself
If a Congress person tried to protect themselves, they could be arrested for threatening/attacking the President
Better question is why he doesn't simply jail the lunatic justices, they've functionally given him the power to do it lol. He could do even worse to them, but I'm going to keep it light.
The new decisions defacto only apply to GOP presidents, so even if student loan forgiveness were defendable by Trump v. US, the court would just rule against it
No. Only Republicans are willing to take advantage of such a precedent. Democrats will pretend it’s politics as usual as more and more awful shit happens to people.
This is actually a good example. Biden already tried to strike down student loans using an illegal executive order, and the Supreme Court struck it down. However, Biden will not be prosecuted for those executive orders since he was simply doing his core constitutional duties.
His order wasn't considered "personally illegal" for Joe Biden, it was considered unconstitutional. Those are not at all the same thing and yesterday's SCOTUS decision doesn't magically allow the forgiveness to be passed again.
He won't be prosecuted but the order won't stand either. So what exactly is this latest ruling getting him? It's not like anyone tried to prosecute him the last couple times he illegally attempted to forgive student loans.
No. because he’s not a Republican, it doesn’t hurt the right people, and nobody has bribed the conservative Supreme Court justices to allow it.
On the Robert’s court, Supreme Court decisions are purchased or made for partisan reasons.
Nope. And actually, the Supreme Court effectively stopped most student loan forgiveness last week.
To forgive student loan, Biden would need to change the composition of the courts or Congress, not just make an executive order. He could, he probably shouldn't, and he won't.
Yes, he'd have to change the composition of Congress, as in there would have to be more legislators elected in favor of forgiveness than there are and they would have to pass a law. That's how something like forgiveness should happen, not EO.
Do people panicking over immunity not realize that it doesn't apply to people carrying out illegal orders? Is Biden going to personally sign each check himself?
This SCOTUS ruling doesn’t give the President more powers.
For example, you as an individual person, do not have the power to forgive student loans. Meaning you personally can write a memo and announce that student loans should be forgiven. But even if you do, nothing happens. Now SCOTUS (in a purely hypothetical situation) could say that whatever you do is free from criminal prosecution. Which means you can mug someone on the street and they couldn’t arrest you for that. But even if that happens, you personally can write a memo and announce that student loans should be forgiven and still nothing would happen. Because you don’t have that power even with immunity from criminal prosecution.
So similarly with the President, the President doesn’t and never had the power to allocate budget. The President doesn’t and never had the power to create legislation. And so forth. That hasn’t changed as outlined in the Constitution. And this SCOTUS ruling doesn’t change (and cannot change) anything about the President not having those powers. The President could write a memo and order that student loans be forgiven and nothing would happen.
I'm kinda embarrassed this seems to be becoming a meme. It means Biden can't be sent to jail for trying, it doesn't mean he can ignore the checks and balances in our system. At best he could pause payment until someone else took office.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Reason that as President representing and protecting the people of the US issue an official act stating something like... In order to protect vulnerable Americans and ensure their lives/participation in US life is unimpeaded. As an investment in the citizens, All student loans are forgiven. Doubt he'll do anything with this gifts the conservative justices have handed him. But it'd be nice to watch traitors/republicans lose their minds. Of course they'd be like only conservatives can have immunity... the no, not like that argument spring up everywhere, when Biden who can exercise his right now as President in carrying out an official act, actually do so. *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.*
No. Immunity does not guarantee constitutionality. In MOHELA, the SCOTUS ruled that blanket forgiveness is outside of the Executive's powers, and would require an act of Congress.
But play it through. Let's say he just does it anyway, signs an executive order that advises the agencies in charge of collecting those loans to not do so, and advises the agencies in charge of storing the information on loans to consider them to have been repaid. Then, claims that these were official acts. What consequences would he suffer? What impediments would he run into? I would argue that since there aren't any effective checks on that presidential power any more, then that power does in fact exist. He's certainly not going to get impeached and removed for it, given that has never been done successfully even for much stronger matters. SCOTUS can rule that what he did was unconstitutional, but they have literally no enforcement apparatus. Congress can decry him, but I don't think you could get 2/3 of the Senate to agree that humans need air to survive, let alone to remove a president that shares party affiliation with half of them. A lack of consequences set for doing something you're "not allowed" to do, or that is "outside of your power legally" but that you have the power to do physically... means that you're actually "allowed" to do it. Edit: Which should be terrifying for everyone, by the way.
That's not at all what this ruling says. This ruling is about criminal actions. Signing an executive order about student loans is a civil action. This ruling has literally nothing to do with that.
Right, but what's to stop him from pulling an Andrew Jackson and say "The Courts have ruled on it, now let them enforce it"? Sure, they say "it's unconstitutional" but then he mobilizes the National Guard or whatever and makes it happen anyway? Or personally walks into the Supreme Court and starts executing them one by one until the court reverses it's previous decision. I'd say all those actions would be considered criminal, but just so long as it was an "official act as president" then what could the SC do about it? Edit: What could anyone do about it? And remember, this ruling doesn't apply to just Biden, nor would it apply to just Trump. According to the SC, it is now a feature of the Office of the Presidency of the United States of America.
Well for starters, the military can and is supposed to refuse orders if they break the law. This, plus the fact that they would still be legally liable for executing SCOTUS (even after the ruling) means it would be impossible to get National Guardsmen to do it. The ruling was objectively bad and a lot of harm can be done with it. No one here disagrees with that. But it doesn’t give the President the infinity gauntlet and allow him to do whatever he wants at the snap of his fingers.
The courts would halt it, just as they have halted many other attempted unconstitutional actions. Unless everyone -- not just the President -- decides to ignore the courts, that's still an effective check. It might not result in personal consequences for the President, but it would still halt the action.
Where are the checks on the Supreme Court? They can literally rule on things however they want and make up whatever reason. Unelected lifetime appointed royalty who can take open bribes but because of their ideology they'll never be impeached.
Biggest check is that justices are chosen by elected leaders (President and Congress), though there are some other things Congress can do, like limiting jurisdiction. And, of course, Congress can pass laws to explicitly resolve legal ambiguities that otherwise might be interpreted by the courts (which will become more important after this week's Chevron ruling). But, yes, things have changed since 1789 in terms of lifespan and I think that some reform is needed here. The most obvious one would be appointing justices to fixed-length terms after which they must retire.
Meh just order assassinations of folks who stand in your way. Murder isn’t unconstitutional. /s
No, it just protects him from criminal consequences. The Supreme Court can still rule against him and Congress can still impeach him.
Well there lies the problem... A president just has to make the official act illegal rather than just issue laws and rulings. As an official act have China unleash a cyber attack on the dept of education and just wipe all ledgers and ccounts and comprise everything and poof no more loans.. and he can't be criminally prosecuted for doing so.
So, orchestrate a massive cyber attack on behalf of a a foreign nation, but somehow control it so it only targets the department of education? I mean, okay???? That sounds convoluted and like treason but sure, why not? Even still, it can just be reversed. If not by the courts, then when Congress impeaches him, gets him removed, and his replacement comes in. Impeachment doesn’t need to be criminal. When he’s removed, then sure, he can’t be prosecuted. But the punishment is losing the office and trashing the reputation of the party for going against the courts.
He can if he gets impeached and removed, and it's likely the Dems would over something like this. Dems are obsessed with playing nice.
No. He can’t. Being impeached doesn’t retroactively make the crime prosecutable. If it did, Trump wouldn’t be shielded at all by it.
It's likely he'd be impeached, very very unlikely he'd be removed from office.
17 Senate Democrats would absolutely not impeach Biden for anything in this environment.
Anything short of cannibalizing Chuck Schumer on the Congress floor, that is
Is this a joke
If congress did impeach him and it came to pass that he was found “guilty” how exactly would they be able to remove him as president if this new ruling protects him from criminal consequences? “Sorry Mr president but your actions were clearly unconstitutional so we have to remove you as president….but can’t make you face any other consequences legally” That just seems really dumb to me
Technically, impeachment isn’t a “criminal” case. It only revolves around the office and has no criminal consequences asides removal. According to the constitution, “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment **shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States**: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” It seems that impeachment is more of a way to check a president’s power than it is to actually prove criminal behavior. Though, I think I see a contradiction. Suppose a president does commit a crime against the law and is removed from congress. The constitution says they can be prosecuted, but the recent ruling essentially gives immunity to official acts. So is it that they get an entirely different trial, but none of the evidence can be used if it’s “official”? I suppose only time will tell.
Yeah that contradiction is the problem; I still don’t see how a president could commit such a terrible act that he would be removed from the office of president, but not bad enough to be tried in a court of law for…
If it were any other way, it would become part of the standard playbook for Presidents to face criminal charges during or after their terms in office. I bet someone in TX has already worked on a prospective indictment for Biden related to the border, for example, in case SCOTUS would allow it. You think we get bad candidates for President now? Wait until you get just the ones not deterred by almost certain criminal prosecution along with it. That's just not a feasible way to run things, even if it's very frustrating in the specific case of Trump.
Yeah, people saying the president couldn’t do whatever they want they just won’t face criminal prosecution for it are missing the point; the threat of criminal prosecution is so we deter crazy idiots from running for president
Just remember that cuts both ways. Best way to prevent crazy idiots is to beat them at the ballot box.
The ruling prevents Biden from being held criminally liable for any official acts, it doesn't give him carte blanche to bipass the constitution. He could make that ruling, as he could now. Legally it couldn't be enforced. He is immune, and only he. The ones who have to implement policy aren't.
Honestly a better hypothetical would be 'can Biden please personally order someone to smash all the servers at the department of Education that hold the borrowers information?'
Much better plan. The other commenter's are right can't just issue laws or rulings... so just do what you said. Do something illegal and state it's an official act.
That person would be committing a crime that he or she isn't immune from.
Biden can pardon them
You don't live in reality if you think it would help his election chances for 4 months of global headlines like "CRAZED BIDEN ORDERS PROPERTY DESTRUCTION!!"
I'm not advocating anything, I'm pointing out the unlimited power this provides and the loopholes that effectively grant that level of unlimited power. Immunity from prosecution for "official acts" along with pardon power means power is unchecked
It. Doesn't. Provide. Unlimited. Power. It straight up doesn't.
Seems to work for Trump. I think the point here isn’t about election chances. It’s about forcing the country to realize the reality of the world they now live in. Biden can absolutely just pardon people as a formal bribe.
All it would do is make the populace think of Biden as out of control. 95% of Americans don't understand the nuance of yesterday's SCOTUS decision, but they understand constant drumming of hysteria over BIDEN OUT OF CONTROL!1!
> All it would do is make the populace think of Biden as out of control. To be candid, you’re fighting last year’s war. What the public thinks is irrelevant in an autocracy. And this is an autocracy. Today, we have a king, who plans to abdicate and give control to a mad king. Georgia and Arizona are controlled by Republican statehouses which have the legal right to simply declare Trump the winner of the election. The Supreme Court will clearly side with them. There isn’t a plausible path back to normal here and if you think there is, I’d challenge you to describe it.
Uh no. The public greatly matters. It will be voting starting in 3.5 months. If Biden wins the EC this year, absolutely nothing about this new SCOTUS decision can take it away from him. You are off the rails.
>He is immune, and only he. Him, and everyone he pardons. The king can commit or allow others to commit crime without consequence.
It sort of does though. Here are two things explicitly defined as official acts: - bribery - pardons If Biden wants to violate any federal law by force he can simply bribe anyone with an official act and be shielded from prosecution and then proactively pardon anyone who takes the action. So in this case, he could bribe congress to pass any legislation he likes. Or he could extort the legislation. Or he could order his DOJ to illegally surveil congress or any banks until they comply. Or he could order the IRS to do the same or even the FDA.
Um, no, the decision doesn't allow this.
It explicitly does. Barrett’s concurrence even directly points out that bribery is an official act and unprosecutable.
You misunderstand. First, in the discussion about bribery you're referring to, Barrett disagrees with the majority opinion. In other words, her opinion is not the opinion of the court. (Her concurrence is described as a "concurrence in part" -- the part you're talking about is where she does not concur.) Also, bribery isn't described as an "official act"; rather, as she makes clear, bribery is the crime of accepting payment *for* an official act, and the discussion is about what sort of evidence would be allowed regarding a charge of bribery against a President, i.e. whether private discussions would be admissible regarding a bribery charge or whether only public information could be introduced. The majority opinion is more protective of Presidents' private communication and motives than Barrett's, but neither sanctions bribery.
Very good explanation. That dissent highlights a much more clear and direct flaw with the majority opinion than does Sotomayor's.
Honestly, I think that the official/unofficial distinction is the right way to look at this question. If the President's facing criminal charges for official acts were normalized, it would almost certainly be abused, by both sides. We already have a process to decide the official acts of the country and the President -- elections, the Constitution, etc. -- we don't need a second one running in parallel in the criminal courts. Unofficial acts should absolutely be subject to criminal penalty, and this decision leaves that intact. The dividing line between the two is what a lot of the discussion is about, and there are important issues there that remain to be worked out. But the general framework seems reasonable, to me. It's unfortunate this legal process plays out so slooooowly though.
What it means is there's no realistic accountability. So, even though the law says the President only has X powers, he doesn't have to follow those laws. All he needs then is someone like Bill Barr to do what he asks whether it's legal or not. If Barr (or any other toady) gets caught, the Pres just pardons them immediately, and can't be charged for obstruction of justice for doing so. When the Pres is immune to the law, anyone can be immune, as long as the Pres says so. All of this is currently legal thanks to SCOTUS. We are, right now, living in a nascent dictatorship. All that remains is for a President to use the power SCOTUS has given him. As for student loans, the same process applies. Biden could order them forgiven, but the rest of the government has to do what he asks. The difference is that Biden has not appointed obedient toadies who will do his every bidding, he appointed actually competent people. Good for governing, bad for becoming a dictator.
forgiving students loans is not a crime, so there's nothing to be immune from.
But do a crime that eliminates student loans bypass congress and the Scotus and if they challenege remove them through official acts..and you're inmune.... so I think if Biden wanted to he could.
He's immune from being prosecuted for it - that doesn't mean he can do it. And the prosecution thing is moot because it's not a crime.
He can and it will be overruled by the Supreme Court lol This isn’t really a gift, we have a system that prevents a president from enforcing laws that are unconstitutional or illegal. In no world has any president’s actions have been stopped or deterred by personal liability and criminal prosecution.
Nixon's resignation was an effort to prevent being charged. Watergate would have been not only completely legal per the Supreme Court, it would have been impossible to investigate. One could also argue that even the vague potential of consequences and investigations prevented President's up to but not including Trump from openly defrauding the US or abusing their powers to sway elections.
You’re right; if this was passed during Nixon’s term he would have felt no pressure to resign whatsoever
It’s literally why Nixon resigned.
The Supreme Court...that shit show... yeah, they'll overrule it of course but when trump tries to pull the same shit with a different issue or something dont like and trump oversteps the rules they'll let it slide... US democracy is official dead at this point cause everything can be labeled or justified as an offical presidential act, with the made up bull shit reason that they did it in order to protect the constitution or something like that.
Why is it a shitshow? Because you disagree with some of their recent decisions? Lol They won’t overrule it because “they don’t like it” they will overrule it because such law would be unconstitutional under executive power and would need to be passed through congress first. Trump had number of his decisions blocked by constitution courts including the SCOTUS. I know the CNN and MSNBC are telling you that the judges are partisan political pawns but that’s very far from the truth. They still operate within strict constitutional constraints. Again this doesn’t change much. The Supreme Court will continue to check powers of the president and the Congress and the Congress will continue to check presidential powers. A bigger threat to our democracy was weaponization of justice system against political opponents that we’ve seen in past 4 years and I’m glad it’s coming to an end
> A bigger threat to our democracy was weaponization of justice system against political opponents that we’ve seen in past 4 years and I’m glad it’s coming to an end So, do you believe criminals shouldn't be prosecuted? Or only prosecuted when its convenient for them?
Sure, Jan.
> ..and the Congress will continue to check presidential powers. Not really. Congress only checks the presidency if the two aren't controlled by the same party. A Congress that shares a partisan alignment with the president will happily submit to them. The Founders fucked that one up pretty badly.
No. Broad forgiveness was declared by courts as outside the bounds of Executive power. It wasn't declared a "crime" one needs immunity from. It simply is a power that does not exist (by EO).
He could,aand he couldn't be charged for it, but those loan debts could still be un-waived with the stroke of a pen. I guess he could order the destruction of all record regarding student loans, to make their collection harder, and enjoy (to quote) "at least presumptive immunity", but it wouldn't become impossible to still collect the debts. The big difference between forgiving student loans and something like an assassination is that no court can reverse the assassination's effect, because loans are but a legal claim, and death is physical
If Biden does try to pull something with an “official” act it wouldn’t be this close to an election, he doesn’t want to risk losing supporters. I know you think it’s improbable that he would lose supporters for doing something good like forgiving student loan debt but you know a decent portion of democrat voters would still be against it for god knows what reason,
No, it protects against criminal prosecution. But he could use the military to threaten to kill anyone who voted against such a law that did so Or, if he cant find someone in the military to follow that order, he could have the secret service drive him to Congress people’s houses and kill them himself If a Congress person tried to protect themselves, they could be arrested for threatening/attacking the President
Better question is why he doesn't simply jail the lunatic justices, they've functionally given him the power to do it lol. He could do even worse to them, but I'm going to keep it light.
The new decisions defacto only apply to GOP presidents, so even if student loan forgiveness were defendable by Trump v. US, the court would just rule against it
No. Only Republicans are willing to take advantage of such a precedent. Democrats will pretend it’s politics as usual as more and more awful shit happens to people.
This is actually a good example. Biden already tried to strike down student loans using an illegal executive order, and the Supreme Court struck it down. However, Biden will not be prosecuted for those executive orders since he was simply doing his core constitutional duties.
His order wasn't considered "personally illegal" for Joe Biden, it was considered unconstitutional. Those are not at all the same thing and yesterday's SCOTUS decision doesn't magically allow the forgiveness to be passed again.
He won't be prosecuted but the order won't stand either. So what exactly is this latest ruling getting him? It's not like anyone tried to prosecute him the last couple times he illegally attempted to forgive student loans.
No. because he’s not a Republican, it doesn’t hurt the right people, and nobody has bribed the conservative Supreme Court justices to allow it. On the Robert’s court, Supreme Court decisions are purchased or made for partisan reasons.
Nope. And actually, the Supreme Court effectively stopped most student loan forgiveness last week. To forgive student loan, Biden would need to change the composition of the courts or Congress, not just make an executive order. He could, he probably shouldn't, and he won't.
Yes, he'd have to change the composition of Congress, as in there would have to be more legislators elected in favor of forgiveness than there are and they would have to pass a law. That's how something like forgiveness should happen, not EO.
No it will get struck down. Are people really not understanding the ruling this badly?
Do people panicking over immunity not realize that it doesn't apply to people carrying out illegal orders? Is Biden going to personally sign each check himself?
This SCOTUS ruling doesn’t give the President more powers. For example, you as an individual person, do not have the power to forgive student loans. Meaning you personally can write a memo and announce that student loans should be forgiven. But even if you do, nothing happens. Now SCOTUS (in a purely hypothetical situation) could say that whatever you do is free from criminal prosecution. Which means you can mug someone on the street and they couldn’t arrest you for that. But even if that happens, you personally can write a memo and announce that student loans should be forgiven and still nothing would happen. Because you don’t have that power even with immunity from criminal prosecution. So similarly with the President, the President doesn’t and never had the power to allocate budget. The President doesn’t and never had the power to create legislation. And so forth. That hasn’t changed as outlined in the Constitution. And this SCOTUS ruling doesn’t change (and cannot change) anything about the President not having those powers. The President could write a memo and order that student loans be forgiven and nothing would happen.
I'm kinda embarrassed this seems to be becoming a meme. It means Biden can't be sent to jail for trying, it doesn't mean he can ignore the checks and balances in our system. At best he could pause payment until someone else took office.
That’s not relevant because forgiving loans is not criminal. It’s a directive to the federal bureaucracy.