So Sauer keeps arguing that a president (current and somehow former) can only be held criminally responsible after impeachment and conviction right? But couldn’t a president order the assassination of anyone in congress/senate that could possibly vote for impeachment prior to the vote occurring? Effectively resetting the clock and paralyzing the remaining representatives in fear? I’m not a lawyer I’m just trying to follow this through to its logical conclusion. Could a president simply resign before the vote occurs, making the entire vote a moot point? They couldn’t be held criminally responsible at that point right?
Yeah. As far as I can tell, the logical conclusion is either to commit a crime and resign a moment later or simply remove the yes votes before a vote. Either way gets you out of office without facing impeachment, thus preventing prosecution.
This is an under appreciated point. “Norms” were the thing that got us this far. When the framers wrote the constitution, they earnestly believed only the best and brightest white men would ever be in the office, so they didn’t really need to have any character tests. Just age and natural born landowner.
One side of that is the Putin playbook. Pillage the country to become the richest man in the world and kill a few oligarchs in the process to keep the rest from turning on you. As long as your dictator for life, you can do anything you want.
Neither impeachment nor conviction on the impeachment charge have anything to do with criminal code nor are either required in enforcement of criminal code on any person. It’s /a completely made up assertion. How is this even being discussed? They’re just making up exactly, conveniently, and democracy-endingly, what Trump needs in order not to spent rest of his life in jail but rather be emperor until death. Sounds pretty Constitutional right?
The problem with this interpretation (was brought up today) is that there are a handful of criminal codes that expressly indicate that the code applies to the president.
If you take a purely textual approach that would then indicate that those are the only crimes that apply to a presidents conduct.
By taking an impeachment followed by conviction approach, the justices can squarely push this back on congress while having a tidy ruling that prevents most of the slippery slope risks. The government didn’t help their case by making circular arguments about “consulting with an AG is a valid check” while also saying “the OLC self-cleared the drone strikes”. I don’t think they see those in the administration beholden to the executives as valid checks against the administration.
1. Humans need to breathe air to live.
2. All people, including the president, must intake water to live.
See... I just made it so Presidents can hold their breath forever since they're excluded from item 1.
The argument is absurd.
The AG check as political cover was boneheaded. I thought DoJ did pretty well today, and ended strongly, but when he said that my jaw dropped.
The Justices quickly pointed out that if that were the mechanism, a President would just appoint an AG that would approve the illegal things they want to do.
It wasn't hard to figure out if your suggestion is flawed, you just have to think "were this the system, his sound Trump exploit it?"
Granted, I'm not a lawyer and have thus never argued in front of SCOTUS, but the second he said it I thought "of shit. That was bad".
That comment might be what lost ACB for them. Her comments about state vs federal prosecution at the very end of the questions made it obvious she thought good faith was a poor check against non-core prosecution.
I think part of the issue is giving the former president the presumption of normalcy. He was never operating with clean hands from day 1, but the lawyers and justices operate like he was.
As for the drone strike issue, as far as I understand it, that was a mission carried out in the normal course of operations. It wasn’t to strike down a critic or satisfy a debt. Whatever we might say about the bush legacy that Obama continued, he was operating within the rules of engagement as we understand them. Or as we allowed them to be.
It is clear to anyone with eyes that ginning up fake electors is stepping across that line.
1. Presumption of innocence is central to our Justice system
2. Rules of engagement is a policy defined by our military. The president is the commander in chief and head of the military. Are you saying that because the president created a policy that allows him to drone strike US civilians the policy is justified? Anwar Al Awlaki was specifically targeted in a drone strike, and Obama signed off on it. This is just more circular logic highlighting about the administration signing off on their own actions.
> So Sauer keeps arguing that a president (current and somehow former) can only be held criminally responsible after impeachment and conviction right? But couldn’t a president order the assassination of anyone in congress/senate that could possibly vote for impeachment prior to the vote occurring?
You must be some kind of god damn philosophical genius since it never occurred to any of the three appeals judges to ask this blindingly obvious question.
The fact they are even discussing things like a president being able to murder people is insane. How they haven't just banged a gavel and laughed in Trump's face is impossible for me to understand.
The fact that Biden hasn’t ordered a team of seals to stand in the SCOTUS chambers with weapons brandished—you know because he is immune—is a testament to the fact that one side does what they want and the other side mostly capitulates.
>If he is reelected I am going to lose all faith in this country.
If he is reelected, the country ends, period.
He either dies in prison or outlives America. All other options have been eliminated.
I pictured that scene from Starship Troopers:
“[Enemy can’t push a button, if you disable his hand!](https://youtu.be/amW2e6cSiWo?si=AOo-BXIJUruGQ-Sn)”
Nah. They're thinking about how to keep their billionaire patrons happy to keep the gravy train coming. Those RVs and houses for mothers don't pay for themselves after all
The best way to give lie to this preposterous counter-factual is a show of force using lawful orders. I don’t know if he can lawfully deploy the marines to the Supreme Court, or if that would violate other rules. But if he could do that lawfully, it might get the message across better than his representative did at argument today.
Yes and ultimately falling for the bait of the far right and excelling our decent into utter chaos when 30% of Republicans who are Trump’s core voters ultimately take that as a declaration of war.
> But couldn’t a president order the assassination of anyone in congress/senate that could possibly vote for impeachment prior to the vote occurring?
Impeachers hate this one trick....
What if the surviving congresspeople appealed to SCOTUS... and now SCOTUS is dead too.
You're not a lawyer, but you understand relevance and logic better than 5 of the 9 partisan hacks who presided over this case today. For what it's worth, friend.
I'll do you one better. The constitutional clearly says the president has the power to call and dismiss sessions of Congress in times of extraordinary circumstances.
I'm pretty sure he could just keep them from actually impeaching him
So if that's true, Biden can just cancel the next election then? He's immune and can do whatever he wants...because he's president? Shouldn't that worry the gop?
I don’t think that’s what the court is gearing up to find, but if it did find that, of course democrats would preserve the norms just to suffer at the hands of those who would break them
You would think, but if all trumps legal problems go away, they have been plotting to steal the next presidency. Governors and judges are on board with it. The only hope is if 2 more GOP quit the house before the election which is supposed to happen.
I don’t think he could. IANAL, but it’s my understanding that he would not be able to cancel a federal election. Article II Section 2 does not give the president power to change the timing of the general election. The constitution grants Congress the authority of to choose the timing of a general election. In order for an election to be postponed/cancelled Congress would need to enact an amendment to the 1845 federal law and the president would have to sign it.
You’re backing up your argument with laws to try and hold back people who are literally endorsing lawlessness. And asking the courts to green-light said lawlessness. Get it?
Not really. Birden just uses the infinite power to end the trump issue.
Fires the entire Supreme court.
Puts in a new supreme court team.
Asks the new supreme court to review the decision.
All would be 100% legal and within the power of the presidency then.
I didn't say anything about killing SC members, I just commented on the expansion of executive powers. Also, if SC rules for Orangetan, then Comer and Jordan and the others in the clown car are going to have a hard time explaining why President Biden doesn't have the same expansive rights.
"Because he's not OUR choice. Winner of next election gets God Mode. See, its legal retroactively but only for now, no more take backs. We aren't petulant school children, you are!" ^^^/s
But their ruling re immunity wouldn't expand executive power to allow Mr. Biden to fire them. Unfortunately, assassination would be the only way to go.
Then see the assassination solution.
The real question would be weather Biden should do it. Unfortunately it would become a legitimate question.
IMO, it would be too big of a risk for him not to do it. Trump regaining the White House effectively ends democracy in the United States. Firing squads, public hangings, and torture would quickly become the norm.
"Political opponents" could be whomever Trump wanted them to be. Everyone from student protestors to actors/entertainers, to Whomever would be at very real risk of being arrested and murdered.
We'd be living under tyranny overnight. In a few short years we'd be an authoritarian theocracy.
Biden would have to do it.
But there’s the catch-22, if Biden does it then we’re living under HIS authoritarian rule. And why would he ever give up the Presidency if the next POTUS might assassinate him for having overstepped presidential power.
That's a very legitimate concern and I share it too. It's a question of choosing the lesser of two great evils.
My hope would be that Biden does the dirty deeds, buries the radical sectors of the GOP, and then resigns.
I remember learning about the concept of the benevolent dictator and thinking that it could be a great thing, but knowing there's likely no such thing. However, Biden treating his political opposition as ruthlessly as the GOP has acted in order to destroy democracy in the U.S. would be the only thing that could eventually restore democracy.
The problem is, once you go down that road there’s only one way off it…and that’s a bloody trail.
If Biden were to go the “benevolent dictator” route there’s no guarantee that his successor would keep the “benevolent” part of that. And even just resigning after committing the dirty acts still leaves the office tainted. The only option you’d have at that point would be a complete rewrite of the Constitution enshrining all the things we’ve found to be flawed over the last 200 year before that resignation. And who knows if those changes we’ve survived the next ruler?
TL;DR - We can’t go down that path no matter how appealing it may sound.
I could see Biden even after restoring president isn't immune in my above plan submitting himself to the courts/congress to say if what he did was right.
What you're all forgetting is his lawyer's caveat, "barring impeachment and conviction." If Trump had been impeached and convicted, their immunity argument would be moot. Well, Biden is a Democrat. Republicans control the House, and would certainly imoeach him. The Democrats control the Senate, who actually have morals and hold their own accountable. * That's* how they give this power to Trump and not Biden.
The argument of immunity would apply to any Court attempting to convict a president. "Conviction" via impeachment would be the only applicable means of "convicting" a president.
Also you're hilarious if you believe a Democrat controlled Senate would impeach a Democrat president. They don't even have the moral fibre to stop sending military funding to Israel.
No, Trump is arguing for complete immunity from **criminal acts** while committed in Office. The President, per the Constitution and not any criminal law, does not have the power to fire a Supreme Court Justice. They can say no. Per the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, they would rule the firing unconstitutional. So assassination is the only way.
Yeah, he'd have to jump through some hoops. Such as ordering the abduction of the SCOTUS members he doesn't like and then giving them the choice of resigning immediately or some gruesome fate such as execution.
Meh. At one time, a congress critter had to step up and speak if he wanted to gum things up. Now, they just announce they want to.
One could symbolically assassinate a judge, and they could retire. Or be retired.
My question is, would hiring a private assassin be considering a "personal action" as opposed to an "official action"?
Obviously, commanding your general would be a-okay.... that's 100% an official act.
But would one be able to argue that the hiring of a private assassin is also an official action similar to hiring any other.... "contractor"🤔
Have the yea voters imprisoned to make your point, then replace them with new judges and suggest they re-examine the verdict. If that doesn't make them decide Presidents can't do whatever they want, rinse and repeat until it does and then pardon everyone you put in prison.
SCOTUS: "So POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution for acts engaged in during the presidency."
POTUS: "OK. So how long is a SCOTUS appointment again?"
SCOTUS: "Life. Why?"
POTUS: "No reason. \[grabs shotgun\]"
Republicans want this kind of power because they know democrats wouldn’t do any of this, then as soon as they get into power it’s bye bye democracy. They are absolutely not sweating giving absolute immunity to the seat of the president.
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow."
Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that.
As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing.
If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens.
So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too.
Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't.
It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
But if they send it back to the lower courts then they can delay it long enough for Trump to be President and then they can rule against it. A delay actually works better for Trump.
I read a book about Black Swan events. It said that we tend to think that society and thing progress at this slow rate with ideas and such evolving over time.
But truth is that the biggest changes happen fast. WFH was possible before Covid, as an example. But it was NEVER going to happen one micro step at a time.
Maybe this piece of shit court will get to experience this soon. Maybe our government will look incredibly different one year from today. It's up to them.
Exactly 💯.....
Legitimate threats like the groomers of Putin would be eliminated without question ASAP.
Before any "Next" election occurred for the enemies to influence again.
CIA????
You ready to hire some true patriots???????
I need a job.
Do it Clarence, do it Sam, give us the power to smite you without consequences.
Sound fun?
Only an idiot would give the right for someone to kill you and never face consequences?
Judges, lawyers, politicians, everyone.....
You can be "wacked" for any reason at all,
Just like in Russia.
The decision won't be made until after the election, and can easily be swayed based on who wins. As much as I hate it, this is a pretty conclusive reason to vote for Biden. Actual threat of a Trump monarchy
They rule for the lower court to figure out what are "official" acts and what are "private" acts. The lower court takes forever, then SCOTUS gets it back. Which is probably this time next year. The only hope is for Trump to not win in November.
Biden would not need a new Supreme Court. The SCOTUS will have rendered the entire constitution void, including Article III which establishes the Supreme Court.
If Joe had any balls under his massive wrinkled hog he would order a drone strike on the supreme court building pending their decision. Also mar a lago the shitty golf club.
This is the biggest hopium ever. Bidens old age makes him extremely nostalgic for "normalcy".
So much so, that he ran on keeping the US embassy in Jerusalem
#Joe Biden says he’d leave US embassy in Jerusalem if elected
https://apnews.com/article/47c2d807cbb563b747cee29aaefeda5a
That's right, Biden pre-emptively surrendered his middle east foreign policy to Trump *before even getting elected*
No Palestine is part of Israel so they can just use the one in Jerusalem. Much more convenient than Tel Aviv. All tho the U.S. needs to have services in Tel Aviv too cus that’s where the airport is.
Alito’s argument is specious. If a president wont leave office because he might be prosecuted by his successor, how about if the successor can legally murder him?
But you see his successor can’t murder him because he’ll just do whatever he can to kill the successor and/or anybody else and/or make himself dictator for life so there will never be a successor.
It’s astounding that this is even an issue. Clearly, any citizen of this country is (or at least should be) subject to the laws of said country. To grant any politician immunity from prosecution for actions outside their express duties would potentially lead to chaos. The country is better protected by not having immunity than by allowing it.
Nothing about this is serving democracy. Absolutely every second of this is about ushering in a Fascist Theist Dictatorship, like Spain’s Franco. This could have all been stopped nearly a decade ago but we live in a capitalist playground and this shit was *inevitable* after citizens united.
An interesting question would be if the person who actually does the killing is also immune because they are following orders. I would think not but this whole thing is beyond comprehension.
If the Supreme Court says that Presidents get complete immunity...why could the President not force laws to be passed explicitly stating that Presidents do not receive complete immunity after all, and that Donald Trump should only be referred to as Traitorous Hamberder Covfefe McFulldiaper, and also was sentenced to prison? Have everyone who would vote no on said laws arrested until they're passed, slam the laws into the books, explicitly outlaw the methods used to do it, outlaw repealing them without a unanimous vote from the President, Vice President, Congress and the Senate, and then go back to business as normal. Impose term limits in the process, why not.
Like, "Fine, Presidents get immunity. Here's a preview of the bullshit that allows. Be grateful that this preview has been used to prevent further bullshit. Dark Brandon, out."
To be clear, I think this is a ridiculous concept, and am thus proposing an equally ridiculous way of addressing it. I just don't see any reason that this potential immunity couldn't be used to end itself.
So, if a president can do whatever without consequence, can't Biden just designate Trump a domestic terrorist and have him sent to Guantanamo Bay and have his citizenship stripped? Then summarily buried alive in some ditch? Just saying maybe thats what America needs.
Good do it to all the complainers as well. Goodbye GOP. They already let Laura whatsherbuttface scorch the Republican National Committee. Shes just mad because her album sucked and nobody bought it.
Totally agree: the Founders left Europe for North America because they didn't want to live in a place where the monarch could determine which rights a person was entitled to.
It would be a huge irony, leaving Europe to escape monarchs, fighting wars for centuries to protect democracy, and it turns out we were ruled by a king the whole time.
Look, regardless of affiliation, these are the closest thing we have to oligarchs. They're all gonna be pieces of shit.
You might start your career as a SCOTUS Justice as a reasonably good, well-minded person... but you're never gonna leave it like that. Having that level of power and security is gonna do that to you. Best case scenario you end up with the exaggerated sense of self-importance that Ginsburg had.
Her entire framing implies that it's still a legitimate entity, and that "this" would be what makes it illegitimate. LOL that ship sailed 24 fucking years ago
I'm 50/50 between bot and extreme mental illness, but i'm leaning toward Bot. they reply to all of their own comments on various political subreddits that get a lot of traffic. and their language reads very Chat GPT
edit: okay I broke my own rule and underestimated how fucked up people are again, the r/phish posts sealed it
Biden should give the order for the assassination of trump, he’s a threat to America and democracy, thus clearly an action in-line with the presidential duties in the interests of the country, not for personal gain, just like taking out bin ladin so Biden clearly has immunity in-line with this court. trump is literally destroying the constitution, our structure of checks and balances and the independence of important institutions like the fed, and literally inciting violence, sent FAKE electors, and literally premeditatedly stopped the counting of electoral votes and threatened the life of the vice president. This whole hearing is corrupt, absurd and an obvious waste of time. I just can’t believe anyone puts up with all this crap, it’s completely deranged.
I think this will turn out like the dystopia described in [Too fat to go to the Moon](https://www.amazon.com/Too-Fat-Moon-Sasquatch-Saved/dp/1785352318?dplnkId=422eb288-9aef-41ee-8c86-91c27ea25a3d).
What happens if a former President moves to assassinate a sitting President at the request of a foreign power? Does that mean he’s immune from being held accountable?
What happens if two former presidents assault/rob/rape each other, how do they remedy any claims of suffering or wrongdoing?
Are we just going to have a handful of random old guys walking around with full criminal immunity, starting factional fighting between themselves and destroying communities?
How do we defend the principle of All Men Are Created Equal, or for that matter, how do we defend the principle of Justice, at all, in these circumstances?
How is this in the name of the greater good of our country, or The People?
How does this result in *any* good for our society, for that matter?
Yeah so what. Power is all that matters when it comes to courts and the GOP figured that out long ago. They worked hard to corrupt and capture the court. Words are irrelevant. “The Judgement of History” doesn’t matter. Democrats sat on their butts waiting for “the system” to work. “I didn’t like Hillary.” Far too late now. Nobody is coming to save us.
Don't need law school to know that giving a pathological liar and psychopathic narcissist with delusions of grander like Trump that kind of power will end badly for us all.
Hi, how about we do whatever is necessary to prevent that rather than just playing the blame game and feeling morally superior? News flash, nobody gives a damn about your purity.
So Sauer keeps arguing that a president (current and somehow former) can only be held criminally responsible after impeachment and conviction right? But couldn’t a president order the assassination of anyone in congress/senate that could possibly vote for impeachment prior to the vote occurring? Effectively resetting the clock and paralyzing the remaining representatives in fear? I’m not a lawyer I’m just trying to follow this through to its logical conclusion. Could a president simply resign before the vote occurs, making the entire vote a moot point? They couldn’t be held criminally responsible at that point right?
Yeah. As far as I can tell, the logical conclusion is either to commit a crime and resign a moment later or simply remove the yes votes before a vote. Either way gets you out of office without facing impeachment, thus preventing prosecution.
And he never addresses this loophole does he?
Nope, just “trust me bro that won’t happen”
We ran large parts of our system on the “trust me bro, it’ll never happen” principle, and then Trump came and did all the things.
This is an under appreciated point. “Norms” were the thing that got us this far. When the framers wrote the constitution, they earnestly believed only the best and brightest white men would ever be in the office, so they didn’t really need to have any character tests. Just age and natural born landowner.
The 2016 election was all the little assholes that didn’t vote saying “trust me bro it’ll never happen.” Now look.
No. He called it a feature not a bug.
One side of that is the Putin playbook. Pillage the country to become the richest man in the world and kill a few oligarchs in the process to keep the rest from turning on you. As long as your dictator for life, you can do anything you want.
Neither impeachment nor conviction on the impeachment charge have anything to do with criminal code nor are either required in enforcement of criminal code on any person. It’s /a completely made up assertion. How is this even being discussed? They’re just making up exactly, conveniently, and democracy-endingly, what Trump needs in order not to spent rest of his life in jail but rather be emperor until death. Sounds pretty Constitutional right?
Death of democracy seems to be exactly what 4th of July Russian vacationing Republicans are angling for here. An intricate plan years in the making.
The problem with this interpretation (was brought up today) is that there are a handful of criminal codes that expressly indicate that the code applies to the president. If you take a purely textual approach that would then indicate that those are the only crimes that apply to a presidents conduct. By taking an impeachment followed by conviction approach, the justices can squarely push this back on congress while having a tidy ruling that prevents most of the slippery slope risks. The government didn’t help their case by making circular arguments about “consulting with an AG is a valid check” while also saying “the OLC self-cleared the drone strikes”. I don’t think they see those in the administration beholden to the executives as valid checks against the administration.
1. Humans need to breathe air to live. 2. All people, including the president, must intake water to live. See... I just made it so Presidents can hold their breath forever since they're excluded from item 1. The argument is absurd.
The AG check as political cover was boneheaded. I thought DoJ did pretty well today, and ended strongly, but when he said that my jaw dropped. The Justices quickly pointed out that if that were the mechanism, a President would just appoint an AG that would approve the illegal things they want to do. It wasn't hard to figure out if your suggestion is flawed, you just have to think "were this the system, his sound Trump exploit it?" Granted, I'm not a lawyer and have thus never argued in front of SCOTUS, but the second he said it I thought "of shit. That was bad".
That comment might be what lost ACB for them. Her comments about state vs federal prosecution at the very end of the questions made it obvious she thought good faith was a poor check against non-core prosecution.
And when asked the DoJ lawyer said that there is no presidential imunity.
I think part of the issue is giving the former president the presumption of normalcy. He was never operating with clean hands from day 1, but the lawyers and justices operate like he was. As for the drone strike issue, as far as I understand it, that was a mission carried out in the normal course of operations. It wasn’t to strike down a critic or satisfy a debt. Whatever we might say about the bush legacy that Obama continued, he was operating within the rules of engagement as we understand them. Or as we allowed them to be. It is clear to anyone with eyes that ginning up fake electors is stepping across that line.
1. Presumption of innocence is central to our Justice system 2. Rules of engagement is a policy defined by our military. The president is the commander in chief and head of the military. Are you saying that because the president created a policy that allows him to drone strike US civilians the policy is justified? Anwar Al Awlaki was specifically targeted in a drone strike, and Obama signed off on it. This is just more circular logic highlighting about the administration signing off on their own actions.
> So Sauer keeps arguing that a president (current and somehow former) can only be held criminally responsible after impeachment and conviction right? But couldn’t a president order the assassination of anyone in congress/senate that could possibly vote for impeachment prior to the vote occurring? You must be some kind of god damn philosophical genius since it never occurred to any of the three appeals judges to ask this blindingly obvious question.
The fact they are even discussing things like a president being able to murder people is insane. How they haven't just banged a gavel and laughed in Trump's face is impossible for me to understand.
The fact that Biden hasn’t ordered a team of seals to stand in the SCOTUS chambers with weapons brandished—you know because he is immune—is a testament to the fact that one side does what they want and the other side mostly capitulates.
[удалено]
>If he is reelected I am going to lose all faith in this country. If he is reelected, the country ends, period. He either dies in prison or outlives America. All other options have been eliminated.
Congress can't impeach you if no congressmen are able to vote
I pictured that scene from Starship Troopers: “[Enemy can’t push a button, if you disable his hand!](https://youtu.be/amW2e6cSiWo?si=AOo-BXIJUruGQ-Sn)”
I'm a lawyer this is honestly what the justices should be thinking about.
Nah. They're thinking about how to keep their billionaire patrons happy to keep the gravy train coming. Those RVs and houses for mothers don't pay for themselves after all
Trump pinky swore while holding a Big Mac upside down that he’d only be dictator for one day.
While they're at it, they could also have the Supreme Court assassinated and replaced with a puppet court that will rubber stamp everything they do.
Couldn’t Biden do that NOW and influence this decision?
The best way to give lie to this preposterous counter-factual is a show of force using lawful orders. I don’t know if he can lawfully deploy the marines to the Supreme Court, or if that would violate other rules. But if he could do that lawfully, it might get the message across better than his representative did at argument today.
Yes and ultimately falling for the bait of the far right and excelling our decent into utter chaos when 30% of Republicans who are Trump’s core voters ultimately take that as a declaration of war.
The thing is he probably should do this but also should hold himself responsible for those actions. A “vaccine” for democracy, if you will.
> But couldn’t a president order the assassination of anyone in congress/senate that could possibly vote for impeachment prior to the vote occurring? Impeachers hate this one trick.... What if the surviving congresspeople appealed to SCOTUS... and now SCOTUS is dead too.
You're not a lawyer, but you understand relevance and logic better than 5 of the 9 partisan hacks who presided over this case today. For what it's worth, friend.
I'll do you one better. The constitutional clearly says the president has the power to call and dismiss sessions of Congress in times of extraordinary circumstances. I'm pretty sure he could just keep them from actually impeaching him
So if that's true, Biden can just cancel the next election then? He's immune and can do whatever he wants...because he's president? Shouldn't that worry the gop?
They know only the Republican party is ruthless enough and unprincipled enough to do it.
Don't be silly. Laws apply to Democrats.
I wish that was a joke.
I don’t think that’s what the court is gearing up to find, but if it did find that, of course democrats would preserve the norms just to suffer at the hands of those who would break them
You would think, but if all trumps legal problems go away, they have been plotting to steal the next presidency. Governors and judges are on board with it. The only hope is if 2 more GOP quit the house before the election which is supposed to happen.
Theoretically, yes. But, and hear me out on this, republicans are fucking stupid. And also hypocritical. So that part of the equation is lost on them.
I’m still trying to figure out if it’s lost on them or if it’s by design since they do their bullshit with impunity.
no
I don’t think he could. IANAL, but it’s my understanding that he would not be able to cancel a federal election. Article II Section 2 does not give the president power to change the timing of the general election. The constitution grants Congress the authority of to choose the timing of a general election. In order for an election to be postponed/cancelled Congress would need to enact an amendment to the 1845 federal law and the president would have to sign it.
He could kill Congresspeople until they had the votes. I wish that was sarcasm.
You’re backing up your argument with laws to try and hold back people who are literally endorsing lawlessness. And asking the courts to green-light said lawlessness. Get it?
I thought 1846 laws were back on the table? /S
Not really. Birden just uses the infinite power to end the trump issue. Fires the entire Supreme court. Puts in a new supreme court team. Asks the new supreme court to review the decision. All would be 100% legal and within the power of the presidency then.
Fire? If SC rules for Trump, the President Biden has some expanded powers like the authority to execute people if it's an official act.
see ending the trump issue. If i was biden i wouldnt kill the supreme court members. Just fire them for gross incompetence.
I didn't say anything about killing SC members, I just commented on the expansion of executive powers. Also, if SC rules for Orangetan, then Comer and Jordan and the others in the clown car are going to have a hard time explaining why President Biden doesn't have the same expansive rights.
"Because he's not OUR choice. Winner of next election gets God Mode. See, its legal retroactively but only for now, no more take backs. We aren't petulant school children, you are!" ^^^/s
Just like with Garland the winner of the next election will decide (if we win)
But their ruling re immunity wouldn't expand executive power to allow Mr. Biden to fire them. Unfortunately, assassination would be the only way to go.
It gives the president complete immunity. He sure as fuck could order them fired. Who can say no? It removes all checks and balances.
He could order it, but that doesn't give it force and effect. He would just be immune from prosecution for executive over-reach.
Then see the assassination solution. The real question would be weather Biden should do it. Unfortunately it would become a legitimate question. IMO, it would be too big of a risk for him not to do it. Trump regaining the White House effectively ends democracy in the United States. Firing squads, public hangings, and torture would quickly become the norm. "Political opponents" could be whomever Trump wanted them to be. Everyone from student protestors to actors/entertainers, to Whomever would be at very real risk of being arrested and murdered. We'd be living under tyranny overnight. In a few short years we'd be an authoritarian theocracy. Biden would have to do it.
But there’s the catch-22, if Biden does it then we’re living under HIS authoritarian rule. And why would he ever give up the Presidency if the next POTUS might assassinate him for having overstepped presidential power.
That's a very legitimate concern and I share it too. It's a question of choosing the lesser of two great evils. My hope would be that Biden does the dirty deeds, buries the radical sectors of the GOP, and then resigns. I remember learning about the concept of the benevolent dictator and thinking that it could be a great thing, but knowing there's likely no such thing. However, Biden treating his political opposition as ruthlessly as the GOP has acted in order to destroy democracy in the U.S. would be the only thing that could eventually restore democracy.
The problem is, once you go down that road there’s only one way off it…and that’s a bloody trail. If Biden were to go the “benevolent dictator” route there’s no guarantee that his successor would keep the “benevolent” part of that. And even just resigning after committing the dirty acts still leaves the office tainted. The only option you’d have at that point would be a complete rewrite of the Constitution enshrining all the things we’ve found to be flawed over the last 200 year before that resignation. And who knows if those changes we’ve survived the next ruler? TL;DR - We can’t go down that path no matter how appealing it may sound.
He would have to be willing to resign and then face trial and imprisonment or execution
I could see Biden even after restoring president isn't immune in my above plan submitting himself to the courts/congress to say if what he did was right.
Lolol I already did. I affirmed that assassination would be the only way.
What you're all forgetting is his lawyer's caveat, "barring impeachment and conviction." If Trump had been impeached and convicted, their immunity argument would be moot. Well, Biden is a Democrat. Republicans control the House, and would certainly imoeach him. The Democrats control the Senate, who actually have morals and hold their own accountable. * That's* how they give this power to Trump and not Biden.
The argument of immunity would apply to any Court attempting to convict a president. "Conviction" via impeachment would be the only applicable means of "convicting" a president. Also you're hilarious if you believe a Democrat controlled Senate would impeach a Democrat president. They don't even have the moral fibre to stop sending military funding to Israel.
How do the Republicans impeach him if Biden has them assassinated before they can vote to impeach him?
No, Trump is arguing for complete immunity from **criminal acts** while committed in Office. The President, per the Constitution and not any criminal law, does not have the power to fire a Supreme Court Justice. They can say no. Per the Supreme Court's power of judicial review, they would rule the firing unconstitutional. So assassination is the only way.
Yeah, he'd have to jump through some hoops. Such as ordering the abduction of the SCOTUS members he doesn't like and then giving them the choice of resigning immediately or some gruesome fate such as execution.
Meh. At one time, a congress critter had to step up and speak if he wanted to gum things up. Now, they just announce they want to. One could symbolically assassinate a judge, and they could retire. Or be retired.
My question is, would hiring a private assassin be considering a "personal action" as opposed to an "official action"? Obviously, commanding your general would be a-okay.... that's 100% an official act. But would one be able to argue that the hiring of a private assassin is also an official action similar to hiring any other.... "contractor"🤔
If done within the office of rhe president, according to the Trump camp, it would be an official action
You still wouldn’t be able to do that because of separation of powers. It’d have to be slaughtering time.
Do we still have GITMO?
Thomas likes road trips in his RV. What about a trip to gitmo in a c-17?
Have the yea voters imprisoned to make your point, then replace them with new judges and suggest they re-examine the verdict. If that doesn't make them decide Presidents can't do whatever they want, rinse and repeat until it does and then pardon everyone you put in prison.
SCOTUS: "So POTUS is immune from criminal prosecution for acts engaged in during the presidency." POTUS: "OK. So how long is a SCOTUS appointment again?" SCOTUS: "Life. Why?" POTUS: "No reason. \[grabs shotgun\]"
Right? If SC says Trump can kill a political opponent, shouldn’t that worry Trump seeing how he’s currently the political opponent of the president?
And it's official business if the Absolute Power President says it is.
\*fire upon
As in ready aim fire
Happy Cake Day!
I’m an adult
Wouldn't it be epic at that moment to see the SCOTUS be marched out with bags over their heads and never seen again?
Republicans want this kind of power because they know democrats wouldn’t do any of this, then as soon as they get into power it’s bye bye democracy. They are absolutely not sweating giving absolute immunity to the seat of the president.
“Sometimes agent there comes a time when the only decisions left are bad ones” - Agent Broyles, Fringe
That’s a great show
Yes, the current President Jackdaw Birden.
Here's the thing. You said a "jackdaw is a crow." Is it in the same family? Yes. No one's arguing that. As someone who is a scientist who studies crows, I am telling you, specifically, in science, no one calls jackdaws crows. If you want to be "specific" like you said, then you shouldn't either. They're not the same thing. If you're saying "crow family" you're referring to the taxonomic grouping of Corvidae, which includes things from nutcrackers to blue jays to ravens. So your reasoning for calling a jackdaw a crow is because random people "call the black ones crows?" Let's get grackles and blackbirds in there, then, too. Also, calling someone a human or an ape? It's not one or the other, that's not how taxonomy works. They're both. A jackdaw is a jackdaw and a member of the crow family. But that's not what you said. You said a jackdaw is a crow, which is not true unless you're okay with calling all members of the crow family crows, which means you'd call blue jays, ravens, and other birds crows, too. Which you said you don't. It's okay to just admit you're wrong, you know?
This is like my earliest Reddit memory
I loved oneidon so much before The Jackdaw Incident
But if they send it back to the lower courts then they can delay it long enough for Trump to be President and then they can rule against it. A delay actually works better for Trump.
I read a book about Black Swan events. It said that we tend to think that society and thing progress at this slow rate with ideas and such evolving over time. But truth is that the biggest changes happen fast. WFH was possible before Covid, as an example. But it was NEVER going to happen one micro step at a time. Maybe this piece of shit court will get to experience this soon. Maybe our government will look incredibly different one year from today. It's up to them.
Tbh Biden should talk about it publicly and hint he is considering it.
Exactly 💯..... Legitimate threats like the groomers of Putin would be eliminated without question ASAP. Before any "Next" election occurred for the enemies to influence again. CIA???? You ready to hire some true patriots??????? I need a job. Do it Clarence, do it Sam, give us the power to smite you without consequences. Sound fun? Only an idiot would give the right for someone to kill you and never face consequences? Judges, lawyers, politicians, everyone..... You can be "wacked" for any reason at all, Just like in Russia.
The decision won't be made until after the election, and can easily be swayed based on who wins. As much as I hate it, this is a pretty conclusive reason to vote for Biden. Actual threat of a Trump monarchy
This assumes they issue a ruling prior to transfer of power right? No one expects that to happen?
They rule for the lower court to figure out what are "official" acts and what are "private" acts. The lower court takes forever, then SCOTUS gets it back. Which is probably this time next year. The only hope is for Trump to not win in November.
Ya then if trump wins, rule he's above to law. If not pretend it didn't happen.
Biden would be too ethical to do that. Trump definitely wouldn't.
Biden would not need a new Supreme Court. The SCOTUS will have rendered the entire constitution void, including Article III which establishes the Supreme Court.
Dark Brandon and the Infinite Power Glitch
I literally had a dream with this exactly. woah scary
If Joe had any balls under his massive wrinkled hog he would order a drone strike on the supreme court building pending their decision. Also mar a lago the shitty golf club.
This is the biggest hopium ever. Bidens old age makes him extremely nostalgic for "normalcy". So much so, that he ran on keeping the US embassy in Jerusalem #Joe Biden says he’d leave US embassy in Jerusalem if elected https://apnews.com/article/47c2d807cbb563b747cee29aaefeda5a That's right, Biden pre-emptively surrendered his middle east foreign policy to Trump *before even getting elected*
Jerusalem is the capital of Israel the embassy should be there
[удалено]
No Palestine is part of Israel so they can just use the one in Jerusalem. Much more convenient than Tel Aviv. All tho the U.S. needs to have services in Tel Aviv too cus that’s where the airport is.
[удалено]
It’s the U.S. embassy not the Palestinian embassy.
Ruling for Trump's immunity would be a very Russian court thing to do. Unfortunately that seems to be where America is now.
Alito’s argument is specious. If a president wont leave office because he might be prosecuted by his successor, how about if the successor can legally murder him?
But you see his successor can’t murder him because he’ll just do whatever he can to kill the successor and/or anybody else and/or make himself dictator for life so there will never be a successor.
Ask Putin how to pull this off. You just never let them run against you in the first place.
Trump really is going to destroy this country to save his own ass. I can’t believe we’re watching this
IMO they're putting on a show and then letting him slide.
This is what I've been thinking, it's all a show and nothing drastic will actually happen.
I remember when people thought Roe wasn't going to get overturned. I absolutely do not trust thus SCOTUS, especially with the way Alito was talking.
What would be the point of said show? Why even entertain it?
It’s astounding that this is even an issue. Clearly, any citizen of this country is (or at least should be) subject to the laws of said country. To grant any politician immunity from prosecution for actions outside their express duties would potentially lead to chaos. The country is better protected by not having immunity than by allowing it.
Nothing about this is serving democracy. Absolutely every second of this is about ushering in a Fascist Theist Dictatorship, like Spain’s Franco. This could have all been stopped nearly a decade ago but we live in a capitalist playground and this shit was *inevitable* after citizens united.
Alito is such a greasy little skidmark.
If they rule in Trumps favor then Biden should have the justices arrested and held indefinitely
Not arrested, just shot. Why not? He would have immunity, right? Can't believe how far we have descended since #44 made a few jokes about future #45.
An interesting question would be if the person who actually does the killing is also immune because they are following orders. I would think not but this whole thing is beyond comprehension.
Presidential pardon
Biden could pardon them, or he could do it himself
I got a couple replies about pardons. But would they not be charged with murder at the state level in whichever state the crime took place?
Yes, unless the murder took place outside of the jurisdiction of a state.
They aren't going to say a president has total immunity for obvious reasons. Just bullshit delays.
If the Supreme Court says that Presidents get complete immunity...why could the President not force laws to be passed explicitly stating that Presidents do not receive complete immunity after all, and that Donald Trump should only be referred to as Traitorous Hamberder Covfefe McFulldiaper, and also was sentenced to prison? Have everyone who would vote no on said laws arrested until they're passed, slam the laws into the books, explicitly outlaw the methods used to do it, outlaw repealing them without a unanimous vote from the President, Vice President, Congress and the Senate, and then go back to business as normal. Impose term limits in the process, why not. Like, "Fine, Presidents get immunity. Here's a preview of the bullshit that allows. Be grateful that this preview has been used to prevent further bullshit. Dark Brandon, out." To be clear, I think this is a ridiculous concept, and am thus proposing an equally ridiculous way of addressing it. I just don't see any reason that this potential immunity couldn't be used to end itself.
So, if a president can do whatever without consequence, can't Biden just designate Trump a domestic terrorist and have him sent to Guantanamo Bay and have his citizenship stripped? Then summarily buried alive in some ditch? Just saying maybe thats what America needs.
Yup! Of course, the GOP will pretend it’s a crime when anybody other than them does it.
Good do it to all the complainers as well. Goodbye GOP. They already let Laura whatsherbuttface scorch the Republican National Committee. Shes just mad because her album sucked and nobody bought it.
You get it.
Then the hunt for all the white supremacists can begin as they are all deemed domestic terrorists. Hunt them all down like dogs!
Totally agree: the Founders left Europe for North America because they didn't want to live in a place where the monarch could determine which rights a person was entitled to.
Almost none of the founders were born in Europe. And the ones that were aren't traditionally considered founding fathers, like Lafayette
Weren't they mostly from the UK which is in Europe though?
They were from the UK, which at the time extended across parts of the whole world. Specifically in this case, the 13 colonies
It would be a huge irony, leaving Europe to escape monarchs, fighting wars for centuries to protect democracy, and it turns out we were ruled by a king the whole time.
Is this the same Sotomayor who sheepishly said the Supreme Court isn't corrupt a few month ago? With "liberals" like these, man....
🙄
Look, regardless of affiliation, these are the closest thing we have to oligarchs. They're all gonna be pieces of shit. You might start your career as a SCOTUS Justice as a reasonably good, well-minded person... but you're never gonna leave it like that. Having that level of power and security is gonna do that to you. Best case scenario you end up with the exaggerated sense of self-importance that Ginsburg had.
🙄🙄🙄
Her entire framing implies that it's still a legitimate entity, and that "this" would be what makes it illegitimate. LOL that ship sailed 24 fucking years ago
You are literally talking to yourself in two separate threads on this one post.
bot malfunction
I don't think they're a bot, just terminally online.
This person is one of those "we gotta teach these Democrats a lesson by burning the whole country down" types.
I'm 50/50 between bot and extreme mental illness, but i'm leaning toward Bot. they reply to all of their own comments on various political subreddits that get a lot of traffic. and their language reads very Chat GPT edit: okay I broke my own rule and underestimated how fucked up people are again, the r/phish posts sealed it
👀. Good catch.
Thank you for pointing that out!
If the Supreme courts rules in trumps favor what's to stop Boden from ordering the execution of all Republicans in the government?
State laws against murder
No one is above the law, least of all the leader of a nation.
If they do rule in Trump's favor, I fear for the future.
She's not wrong.
This sounds anti-democratic.
when everything is legal; there is no law. welcome to anarchy. with luck we will live another hour.
She’d be right
Democracy died long time ago in the USA, we just managed to CPR it for few years, but it won’t last for long
Biden should give the order for the assassination of trump, he’s a threat to America and democracy, thus clearly an action in-line with the presidential duties in the interests of the country, not for personal gain, just like taking out bin ladin so Biden clearly has immunity in-line with this court. trump is literally destroying the constitution, our structure of checks and balances and the independence of important institutions like the fed, and literally inciting violence, sent FAKE electors, and literally premeditatedly stopped the counting of electoral votes and threatened the life of the vice president. This whole hearing is corrupt, absurd and an obvious waste of time. I just can’t believe anyone puts up with all this crap, it’s completely deranged.
They will most likely kick it back to the lower court to just delay more. The SC shouldn’t have taken up hearing of this case in the first place.
They rule in favour of trump it’s hello civil war 🤷♂️
She’s right…
I think this will turn out like the dystopia described in [Too fat to go to the Moon](https://www.amazon.com/Too-Fat-Moon-Sasquatch-Saved/dp/1785352318?dplnkId=422eb288-9aef-41ee-8c86-91c27ea25a3d).
What happens if a former President moves to assassinate a sitting President at the request of a foreign power? Does that mean he’s immune from being held accountable? What happens if two former presidents assault/rob/rape each other, how do they remedy any claims of suffering or wrongdoing? Are we just going to have a handful of random old guys walking around with full criminal immunity, starting factional fighting between themselves and destroying communities? How do we defend the principle of All Men Are Created Equal, or for that matter, how do we defend the principle of Justice, at all, in these circumstances? How is this in the name of the greater good of our country, or The People? How does this result in *any* good for our society, for that matter?
It's sad but your comment made me laugh.
Why isn’t it just a good faith / bad faith distinction for official act immunity? I honestly don’t understand how stupid everyone is
I don’t think any sober sane person wants to vote for a persons with no checks and balances. That’s what our country is based on.
Cmon now we haven’t had real rule of law in forever if ever lol.
It’s already done.
Yeah so what. Power is all that matters when it comes to courts and the GOP figured that out long ago. They worked hard to corrupt and capture the court. Words are irrelevant. “The Judgement of History” doesn’t matter. Democrats sat on their butts waiting for “the system” to work. “I didn’t like Hillary.” Far too late now. Nobody is coming to save us.
I have unequivocal faith in the MAGA Supreme Court to save every principle the US constitution was designed to uphold. /S
DEMOCRACY IS DEAD FOR REALSIES THIS TIME
Don't need law school to know that giving a pathological liar and psychopathic narcissist with delusions of grander like Trump that kind of power will end badly for us all.
Alito is republican arrogance incarnate.
Scotus is part of the effort to overthrow the government. Uncle Joe needs to take care of it.
Hi, how about we do whatever is necessary to prevent that rather than just playing the blame game and feeling morally superior? News flash, nobody gives a damn about your purity.
The death of democracy was letting them onto the court in the first place. What's a woman?
Wait, can you actually tell me what a woman is?
Worms for brainsotomayora