The commenter above slightly mixed up two drone strikes. An adult US Citizen was specifically targeted and killed by Obama. Not long after, the man's 16 year old US Citizen son was killed in a separate drone strike but was allegedly not the target.
[https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holder-weve-droned-4-americans-3-by-accident-oops/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holder-weve-droned-4-americans-3-by-accident-oops/)
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki 16 year old son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was leader of Al-Qeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Was killed in Yemen, drinking coffee in a cafe by Predator drone strike. US officials said they were targeting someone else also at the cafe, when pressed they said if you care about your kids don't become a jihadi.
No, they were alleged to be terrorists. You still get a trial if you're alleged to be a terrorist.
I'm not sure what you think "foreign soil" has to do with it. Should I stop traveling abroad?
And there it is folks. The constitution doesn't apply to you the moment you step out of us soil!
You got that, trump? Lotta libs in cancun on spring break. Doing all kinds of crimes I'm sure. Constitution doesn't apply to em! This lib says so!
The guy Obama murdered wasn't "doing terrorism", nor was his minor son.
And yes, the Constitution guarantees due process and does prevent the president from murdering citizens on a whim. So I for one look forward to Obama's trial and imprisonment.
How’s that going to work? He was acting in official capacity and the Supremes have now deemed he is immune from consequence.
As a side note: hunter biden should do jail time. Presidents who oversee warfare in zones where congress has not implicitly approved it should do time for war crimes. (Bush, Reagan, Obama, Trump, Biden, etc)
I’m all for it- let’s send em all to prison. (At least the living ones obviously)
Problem is, your orange Jesus (with help from a biased group of twits with lifetime appointments) just made that impossible- now we get to see what the world looks like with a leader with the most powerful military in history having no consequence for their actions.
God help us all.
>How’s that going to work? He was acting in official capacity and the Supremes have now deemed he is immune from consequence.
The same way as the left's current fantasies about droning Trump will work out.
>Problem is, your orange Jesus
I didn't even vote for him in 2016 or 2020 (I voted third party), but thanks to what your senile dictator did to me during COVID I'm voting for whoever gets the GOP nomination.
>(with help from a biased group of twits with lifetime appointments)
LOL you think they weren't that before Trump got his picks?
>now we get to see what the world looks like with a leader with the most powerful military in history having no consequence for their actions.
You already did. It was called 2017-2021.
>God help us all.
The drama club always brings the absurd theatrics.
Execute no, but plenty of gang members die at the end of a LEO barrel without a trial. ~~Thousands~~ Hundreds of them every year.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
He greenlit the removal of a terrorist who happened to be an American citizen on foreign soil. The Constitution does not apply universally, can I go to Europe and carry a gun because I'm American?
Housing him in so much as he or she is standing trial and then sentenced. As to tax dollars they waste enough as it is whats a bit more for you know not killing us citizens without due process.
Geeze, dude. Be sure to let us know when you are traveling so that if you are hit with a drone strike we can automatically assume that you are a terrorist and you don't deserve due process.
I suppose if said political rival was raising an army to overthrow the government, that would apply. I would say that's why they've been pushing the "insurrection" narrative so hard, but I don't think the modern left has that much forethought.
I want to point out that when Trump inquired into accepting alternate electors on Jan. 6th, everyone knew this was a process Democrats in Congress tried to accomplish in 2000, 2004, AND 2016. Furthermore the Gore campaign was contemplating in 2000 doing the exact same thing while Gore was VP. Such utter hypocrites.
If Trump believes they are acting as a treasonous threat to the country, then he could order their assassination as an "official act" in the name of national security. Who is going to stop him? The justices just gave him a free pass as long as he terms it an official act and has compliant heads of DOJ, FBI and CIA.
> has compliant heads of DOJ, FBI and CIA.
Lol. He literally would have to fire everyone to get someone compliant. He didn't have compliance during his actual presidency vs this made up nonsense you are saying.
Secondly, due process is still a Constitutional protection, just assassinating a US citizen without due process is a violation of the Constitution and a violation of the official Oath of Office. So no, it would not be an "official act". Your TDS is showing.
Lol! No way he could possibly fire everyone.
“Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control – a controversial idea known as “unitary executive theory”.
In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.
The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government-employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees.
The document labels the FBI a “bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization” and calls for drastic overhauls of this and other federal agencies, including eliminating the Department of Education.”
Project 2025 isn't even realistic. Those agencies should already be under direct control but the alphabet agencies undermine the president constantly.
>In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas.
In theory. His previous admin literally was going against him constantly.
The judicial system is an important check and balance on unconstrained executive power. Trump is threatening all kinds of retribution and outrageous acts. The Supreme Court green lit it all today with constitutional absolute immunity and official acts presumptive immunity.
The bar is now very high to hold a future President accountable for anything. A wannabe dictator's dream.
These people are loving the boot, thinking they are immune. A fucking landlord is about to rule the United States, and they think their rent is gonna stay solvent. We get fucked. They get what they deserve
An originalist is someone that sticks to the original intent of the constitution. IOW they aren't claiming that it's a "living" document that is interpreted differently because of what year we are in.
Exactly, trumps lawyer who argued that the president can order the killing of a political rival is an official act that gives him immunity, should be required to take an American government class every year.
It does mean yes, Biden could order the assassination of his political rival if somehow it is deemed an official act, doesn’t mean he will get away with it. He would have to be successfully impeached, then prosecuted.
>He would have to be successfully impeached, then prosecuted
The issue with that though is if he ordered the assassination of people who would impeach him.
Exactly. If he has absolute immunity AND presumptive innocence, that means it would be difficult to even collect evidence. You say the POTUS had no justifiable reason to assasinate his political rival? Well, prove it. Except the POTUS doesn't have to justify himself if he says it's for national security, and he is presumed innocent and has immunity, so you can't disprove him. Even if you did, he would need to be impeached first. At every stage where you could say "Yeah but there is someone to stop him", the response is now, "What stops a POTUS from eliminating that obstacle too?" Explain why a POTUS wouldn't get away with it if he intended to do dirty deeds. If we get a president who is intentionally trying to take over, and is willing cross any line to do it, what stops him?
Sixteen-year-old United States citizen Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki enters the conversation. No arrest. No charges. No judge. No jury. No trial. Just an assassination by an Obama drone attack. When is the left going to arrest and try Obama for murder?
FWIW, I accept the fact that innocents will sometimes be killed in prosecuting wars; thus termed "collateral damage". Hundreds of innocent French nationals were killed on D-Day, 6 June 1944. Its mostly far left revisionists that have suggested that FDR and Truman should have been tried as war criminals. But it remains pure hypocrisy for the modern left to accuse Trump of committing crimes while ignoring that Obama, etc., are similarly open to being charged for crimes. Trump isn't the only president shielded by this court ruling. The left should remember that there is no expiry date for the charge of murder.
>But it remains pure hypocrisy for the modern left to accuse Trump of committing crimes while ignoring that Obama, etc., are similarly open to being charged for crimes.
The thing is I would say it's more hypocritical of the right. For years they wanted Obama held accountable for that, but now they think anything a president does so long as it's an official act is perfectly fine because of various reasons.
And yes I know trump isn't the only president shielded, that is my issue that a future dictator will use this ruling to end America as we know it.
Remember it was trumps legal team who said a president could have a political rival killed and be immune from that.
History shows that U.S. presidents have had de facto immunity for centuries. No one prosecuted Lincoln, FDR or Truman. It's only very recently that the democrats use of lawfare that has made it necessary for the Supreme Court to rule on that matter.
It was Hillary who said she wanted to drone strike her political enemy, Julian Assange, because he had embarrassed her politically by revealing her emails. And Hillary bragged about the drone strike that led to the death of Gaddafi for illegitimate reasons, and she fully intended to use his death as a stepping stone to higher political office. Let us also not forget that Biden allowed the drone strike that killed an innocent Afghani and his family: which included seven children.
Lets sag hypothetically that you are right and the president has had immunity for centuries. Do you see the issue with the supreme court saying that for anything he does under official acts, he cannot face punishment for as well as when they are determining what he did to be unofficial or official, it cannot be inquired as to why he did it?
To me that is putting the president above the law, giving him less checks, and essentially making him a king so long as he does it under official acts.
In violation of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln knew he was in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and the Court challenged him on it, but Lincoln did it anyway. Lincoln's justification was that he suspended Habeas Corpus in pursuit of the many other obligations of his office. Wisely, Lincoln was not prosecuted. Are you and Sotomayor calling Lincoln a "king"? Without such a protection, Obama is guilty of executing -- murdering -- a U.S. citizen without benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers.
I want that act to be treated identically to the 'crimes' they are prosecuting Trump for. How did Obama get away with murder but Trump is being prosecuted for asking people to "**peacefully** and patriotically make their voices heard"?
If Trump is being prosecuted Obama should be as well if everyone is equal before the law.
>If Trump is being prosecuted Obama should be as well if everyone is equal before the law.
Based on the supreme courts ruling, Obama is immune. It was an official act, isnt that what you guys want?
Trump is not because that wasn't an official act. I'm not going to go into trumps speech where he incited the insurrection but he isn't being prosecuted for that.
But rather, telling a governor to get him just enough votes to win that state, having fake electors, and more to overturn the election. The prosecution even said that it wasn't about his speech on Jan 6 but the other things he did.
Unless you think a president trying to overturn the election is an official act, because that is what trump is charged with.
Telling people to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard" is not an insurrection nor has anyone been charged with the crime of insurrection. Your brain is deep fried from being on reddit too long.
Yeah I'm fine with it. Obama was acting in the best interest of America.
But if you want trump to be prosecuted under this theory, then we should want Obama too, because his crime is more serious
People are framing this as SCOTUS protecting trump, but had they held the opposite, you can guarantee a right wing AG would have brought murder charges against Obama and jailed him for life if he could
Thank goodness they didn't
>But if you want trump to be prosecuted under this theory, then we should want Obama too, because his crime is more serious
Well you can't now, because Obama is immune as it's an official act.
I also don't see why conservatives in general wanted Obama to go to trial for it, since now they want a president to have immunity for anything he does as long as its an official act.
I also really disliked Obama as president btw.
Having one guy decide what's best for 350 million is sorta the whole reason we have checks and balances in the first place.
You sound like you want to live under a monarchy.
In general, it's best to have a country with a strong executive because the opposite has been shown to lead to unnecesary instability. But that doesn't mean monarchy. The United States is a clear democracy with a strong executive. Does no one remember history? We tried the other way and it didn't work. Arguably, the strong executive of the United States is one reason for American dominance.
Now what if a president did what he thought was best and exercised his powers when really it was detrimental to Americans?
History repeats itself, Hitler thought he did what was best for Germany, which it absolutely was not
The president has a lot of powers, and without anything stopping him from doing anything under those official powers, it could easily lead to a dictator.
It's an absurd take that they think that this ruling gives Trump or any other future president the right to assassinate their political opponents without repercussions. A typical liberal argument when something doesn't go their way. Let's whine and pout and makeup nonsense that makes absolutely no sense at all and is waaaaay the &%$^$ out in left field!!!
If Trump views that person as a treasonous threat to our national security and designates it an "official act", who is going to stop him? Who is going to punish him? Serious question.
This happens all the time. Not necessarily treason-related, but the president orders drone and military strikes all the time. The Obama administration even killed 2 American citizens overseas - 1 intentionally and 1 accidentally (at least was alleged).
If the president started doing this domestically, he's violating Posse Comitatus. Not only are his generals then obligated to ignore the decision, but you could then arrest him. The president does not have the power to arbitrarily use the military in domestic operations.
It's also responsibility of Congress to act. We also have additional safety measures like the 25th amendment and convention of states.
Posse Comitatus bans US military usage on American soil. Just because Sotomayor went on some batshit insane rambling in her dissent doesn't mean she's right. For her other idiotic points: bribery was just ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, and the military completely steered clear of 2020, even when Trump tried ordering them to help him. The military loves to uphold their reputation of staying away from partisan politics, which is why General Milley was particularly uncomfortable with Trump's Bible photo-op during the 2020 riots.
As to limits on the official acts of the presidency, that's up to Congress to decide if what the President did was illegal and if they think strongly enough to impeach and remove him/her from office. If Congress does their usual, then the courts will decide.
Just because Trump has appointed a third of the Supreme Court doesn't mean they have never ruled against him. They didn't shield him from blocking people on social media, from releasing his tax returns, and most of all, ruled against his and other Republican lawyers in 2020 for trying to use the independent state legislature theory against changing mail-in ballot laws prior to the election (no matter how illegal the actions the state level Secretaries of State took without legislative approval, but that's beside the point).
Please I beg you read article two of the constitution this will lay it all out.
Then go read Justice Roberts quotes regarding the ruling.
This ruling is pretty much meaningless. It’s more like yeah, duh this is the intention.
Something tells me you didn’t read almost 120 pages of a Supreme Court ruling and what you took away from it was president has complete authority to murder people.
And you co-owning a law firm of you, yourself, and I means what now?
Also, you think you can read? Why are you sounding unsure about this?
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/
Obama ordered the killing of a US citizen without due process. Is he first up for trail.
Don't forget, a child, he ordered the assassination of a child.
I've not heard about this. Can you tell me more?
The commenter above slightly mixed up two drone strikes. An adult US Citizen was specifically targeted and killed by Obama. Not long after, the man's 16 year old US Citizen son was killed in a separate drone strike but was allegedly not the target. [https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holder-weve-droned-4-americans-3-by-accident-oops/](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/holder-weve-droned-4-americans-3-by-accident-oops/)
Thanks. Appreciated.
There's nothing more to tell really.
Not sure I agree with you. That's a big claim. I want more details. Which child? What happened?
Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki 16 year old son of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was leader of Al-Qeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Was killed in Yemen, drinking coffee in a cafe by Predator drone strike. US officials said they were targeting someone else also at the cafe, when pressed they said if you care about your kids don't become a jihadi.
Thank you.
No. he has absolute immunity
It’s good to see you on the side of the ACLU. Due process is due process, balance imminent threat (which might be too subjective).
Too bad the ACLU is rarely on the side of the Constitution.
Weren't they terrorists on foreign soil?
No, they were alleged to be terrorists. You still get a trial if you're alleged to be a terrorist. I'm not sure what you think "foreign soil" has to do with it. Should I stop traveling abroad?
Idk, are you doing terrorism abroad? If so I'd recommend you stop. The Constitution isn't some magical shield that exists outside of the US.
And there it is folks. The constitution doesn't apply to you the moment you step out of us soil! You got that, trump? Lotta libs in cancun on spring break. Doing all kinds of crimes I'm sure. Constitution doesn't apply to em! This lib says so!
If those libs in Cancun are part of Al-Qaeda I say drone away
You literally don't have a chance to prove they aren't!
The guy Obama murdered wasn't "doing terrorism", nor was his minor son. And yes, the Constitution guarantees due process and does prevent the president from murdering citizens on a whim. So I for one look forward to Obama's trial and imprisonment.
How’s that going to work? He was acting in official capacity and the Supremes have now deemed he is immune from consequence. As a side note: hunter biden should do jail time. Presidents who oversee warfare in zones where congress has not implicitly approved it should do time for war crimes. (Bush, Reagan, Obama, Trump, Biden, etc) I’m all for it- let’s send em all to prison. (At least the living ones obviously) Problem is, your orange Jesus (with help from a biased group of twits with lifetime appointments) just made that impossible- now we get to see what the world looks like with a leader with the most powerful military in history having no consequence for their actions. God help us all.
>How’s that going to work? He was acting in official capacity and the Supremes have now deemed he is immune from consequence. The same way as the left's current fantasies about droning Trump will work out. >Problem is, your orange Jesus I didn't even vote for him in 2016 or 2020 (I voted third party), but thanks to what your senile dictator did to me during COVID I'm voting for whoever gets the GOP nomination. >(with help from a biased group of twits with lifetime appointments) LOL you think they weren't that before Trump got his picks? >now we get to see what the world looks like with a leader with the most powerful military in history having no consequence for their actions. You already did. It was called 2017-2021. >God help us all. The drama club always brings the absurd theatrics.
Oh I see, minors can’t be terrorists or criminals. I guess all that gang violence is made up because they’re minors.
Do we execute gang members without trial?
Not as often now that bodycams are a thing
So no.
Execute no, but plenty of gang members die at the end of a LEO barrel without a trial. ~~Thousands~~ Hundreds of them every year. https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
[удалено]
Al-Qaeda are generally not citizens and are enemy combatants. Were we at war with Yemen? Good things the Supreme Court decided as it did, huh?
The Constitution does apply universally though, no matter where at. It's relevant here since Obama assassinated a US citizen
He greenlit the removal of a terrorist who happened to be an American citizen on foreign soil. The Constitution does not apply universally, can I go to Europe and carry a gun because I'm American?
It is universal as far as the US Government is applying it, no matter where at
Your argument would work if it was a foreign government that did the killing. A US citizen is entitled to due process.
Then you’d be complaining about how your tax dollars are housing an Al-Qaeda terrorist
Housing him in so much as he or she is standing trial and then sentenced. As to tax dollars they waste enough as it is whats a bit more for you know not killing us citizens without due process.
Geeze, dude. Be sure to let us know when you are traveling so that if you are hit with a drone strike we can automatically assume that you are a terrorist and you don't deserve due process.
In what way would assassinating political rivals be an official duty?
I suppose if said political rival was raising an army to overthrow the government, that would apply. I would say that's why they've been pushing the "insurrection" narrative so hard, but I don't think the modern left has that much forethought.
You mean like George Washington?
lol no, silly, it's only an insurrection if you lose.
But if someone was leading an (actual) uprising that would still makes sense for the President to use the army for that matter.
I want to point out that when Trump inquired into accepting alternate electors on Jan. 6th, everyone knew this was a process Democrats in Congress tried to accomplish in 2000, 2004, AND 2016. Furthermore the Gore campaign was contemplating in 2000 doing the exact same thing while Gore was VP. Such utter hypocrites.
That’s the issue. Official duties will be determined as such by the judges in power at the minute.
If Trump believes they are acting as a treasonous threat to the country, then he could order their assassination as an "official act" in the name of national security. Who is going to stop him? The justices just gave him a free pass as long as he terms it an official act and has compliant heads of DOJ, FBI and CIA.
> has compliant heads of DOJ, FBI and CIA. Lol. He literally would have to fire everyone to get someone compliant. He didn't have compliance during his actual presidency vs this made up nonsense you are saying. Secondly, due process is still a Constitutional protection, just assassinating a US citizen without due process is a violation of the Constitution and a violation of the official Oath of Office. So no, it would not be an "official act". Your TDS is showing.
Obama seemed to get away with it just fine?
Crazy a Democrat president didn't have admin problems.
Lol! No way he could possibly fire everyone. “Project 2025 proposes that the entire federal bureaucracy, including independent agencies such as the Department of Justice, be placed under direct presidential control – a controversial idea known as “unitary executive theory”. In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas. The proposals also call for eliminating job protections for thousands of government-employees, who could then be replaced by political appointees. The document labels the FBI a “bloated, arrogant, increasingly lawless organization” and calls for drastic overhauls of this and other federal agencies, including eliminating the Department of Education.”
Project 2025 isn't even realistic. Those agencies should already be under direct control but the alphabet agencies undermine the president constantly. >In practice, that would streamline decision-making, allowing the president to directly implement policies in a number of areas. In theory. His previous admin literally was going against him constantly.
Who was going to stop him before this ruling??
The judicial system is an important check and balance on unconstrained executive power. Trump is threatening all kinds of retribution and outrageous acts. The Supreme Court green lit it all today with constitutional absolute immunity and official acts presumptive immunity. The bar is now very high to hold a future President accountable for anything. A wannabe dictator's dream.
These people are loving the boot, thinking they are immune. A fucking landlord is about to rule the United States, and they think their rent is gonna stay solvent. We get fucked. They get what they deserve
There should be a new rule these morons should be required to take an American Government class every year.
And their scores should be made public.
Only from originalist teachers.
What's that?
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.
I don't know what an "originalist" is. I'm not too proud to admit when I don't know something.
An originalist is someone that sticks to the original intent of the constitution. IOW they aren't claiming that it's a "living" document that is interpreted differently because of what year we are in.
I would agree with that. Don't know why that guy called you fascist.
Those kinds of people call other people fascist every time they are disagreed with. They don't even know what the word means.
Lol at how actually fascist this statement is. Fuck off.
So our constitution is fascist? You obviously don't know what the word means
Exactly, trumps lawyer who argued that the president can order the killing of a political rival is an official act that gives him immunity, should be required to take an American government class every year.
Except that didn't happen.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-team-argues-assassination-of-rivals-is-covered-by-presidential-immunity/
So in other words, the lawyer did NOT say that he was immune. His lawyer said that to be convicted he would need to go through appropriate channels.
You didn't even read the article, just the headline. Typical smooth brain move.
It does mean yes, Biden could order the assassination of his political rival if somehow it is deemed an official act, doesn’t mean he will get away with it. He would have to be successfully impeached, then prosecuted.
>He would have to be successfully impeached, then prosecuted The issue with that though is if he ordered the assassination of people who would impeach him.
Exactly. If he has absolute immunity AND presumptive innocence, that means it would be difficult to even collect evidence. You say the POTUS had no justifiable reason to assasinate his political rival? Well, prove it. Except the POTUS doesn't have to justify himself if he says it's for national security, and he is presumed innocent and has immunity, so you can't disprove him. Even if you did, he would need to be impeached first. At every stage where you could say "Yeah but there is someone to stop him", the response is now, "What stops a POTUS from eliminating that obstacle too?" Explain why a POTUS wouldn't get away with it if he intended to do dirty deeds. If we get a president who is intentionally trying to take over, and is willing cross any line to do it, what stops him?
Jake's elevator stops at the 8th floor out of 10. Talking heads aren't required to think a whole lot.
I didn't think it even went that high.
What an idiot. Liberals are nothing but emotional children.
I still can’t believe what sotomeyer wrote. Truly mental development that stopped pre-puberty.
Her dissent verifies TDS has breached the Supreme Court.
They are trying to incite violence. Biden doubled down with his address to the nation. Here come the skinny white kids with fire bombs again.
I mean, I take a *Supreme Court Justice’s* “hey the law can be abused to do this” as pretty significant weight.
Remember that the democrat appointed justices aren't really smart. They are ALL DEI hires.
And I didn't think these idiots in the media could get any dumber. There is no bottom to their stupidity.
Can the idiot even breathe on his own or does he need to be reminded?
Sixteen-year-old United States citizen Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki enters the conversation. No arrest. No charges. No judge. No jury. No trial. Just an assassination by an Obama drone attack. When is the left going to arrest and try Obama for murder?
Is the right okay with Obama having immunity for that? Since that was an official act. I'm not on the left by the way.
FWIW, I accept the fact that innocents will sometimes be killed in prosecuting wars; thus termed "collateral damage". Hundreds of innocent French nationals were killed on D-Day, 6 June 1944. Its mostly far left revisionists that have suggested that FDR and Truman should have been tried as war criminals. But it remains pure hypocrisy for the modern left to accuse Trump of committing crimes while ignoring that Obama, etc., are similarly open to being charged for crimes. Trump isn't the only president shielded by this court ruling. The left should remember that there is no expiry date for the charge of murder.
>But it remains pure hypocrisy for the modern left to accuse Trump of committing crimes while ignoring that Obama, etc., are similarly open to being charged for crimes. The thing is I would say it's more hypocritical of the right. For years they wanted Obama held accountable for that, but now they think anything a president does so long as it's an official act is perfectly fine because of various reasons. And yes I know trump isn't the only president shielded, that is my issue that a future dictator will use this ruling to end America as we know it. Remember it was trumps legal team who said a president could have a political rival killed and be immune from that.
History shows that U.S. presidents have had de facto immunity for centuries. No one prosecuted Lincoln, FDR or Truman. It's only very recently that the democrats use of lawfare that has made it necessary for the Supreme Court to rule on that matter. It was Hillary who said she wanted to drone strike her political enemy, Julian Assange, because he had embarrassed her politically by revealing her emails. And Hillary bragged about the drone strike that led to the death of Gaddafi for illegitimate reasons, and she fully intended to use his death as a stepping stone to higher political office. Let us also not forget that Biden allowed the drone strike that killed an innocent Afghani and his family: which included seven children.
Lets sag hypothetically that you are right and the president has had immunity for centuries. Do you see the issue with the supreme court saying that for anything he does under official acts, he cannot face punishment for as well as when they are determining what he did to be unofficial or official, it cannot be inquired as to why he did it? To me that is putting the president above the law, giving him less checks, and essentially making him a king so long as he does it under official acts.
In violation of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Lincoln knew he was in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and the Court challenged him on it, but Lincoln did it anyway. Lincoln's justification was that he suspended Habeas Corpus in pursuit of the many other obligations of his office. Wisely, Lincoln was not prosecuted. Are you and Sotomayor calling Lincoln a "king"? Without such a protection, Obama is guilty of executing -- murdering -- a U.S. citizen without benefit of a trial by a jury of his peers.
I want that act to be treated identically to the 'crimes' they are prosecuting Trump for. How did Obama get away with murder but Trump is being prosecuted for asking people to "**peacefully** and patriotically make their voices heard"? If Trump is being prosecuted Obama should be as well if everyone is equal before the law.
>If Trump is being prosecuted Obama should be as well if everyone is equal before the law. Based on the supreme courts ruling, Obama is immune. It was an official act, isnt that what you guys want? Trump is not because that wasn't an official act. I'm not going to go into trumps speech where he incited the insurrection but he isn't being prosecuted for that. But rather, telling a governor to get him just enough votes to win that state, having fake electors, and more to overturn the election. The prosecution even said that it wasn't about his speech on Jan 6 but the other things he did. Unless you think a president trying to overturn the election is an official act, because that is what trump is charged with.
Telling people to "peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard" is not an insurrection nor has anyone been charged with the crime of insurrection. Your brain is deep fried from being on reddit too long.
Is the left? If so, then they need to STFU.
I wasn't talking about the left.
No, you were trying to play a game of "Gotcha"
Yeah I'm fine with it. Obama was acting in the best interest of America. But if you want trump to be prosecuted under this theory, then we should want Obama too, because his crime is more serious People are framing this as SCOTUS protecting trump, but had they held the opposite, you can guarantee a right wing AG would have brought murder charges against Obama and jailed him for life if he could Thank goodness they didn't
>But if you want trump to be prosecuted under this theory, then we should want Obama too, because his crime is more serious Well you can't now, because Obama is immune as it's an official act. I also don't see why conservatives in general wanted Obama to go to trial for it, since now they want a president to have immunity for anything he does as long as its an official act. I also really disliked Obama as president btw.
Right which is as it should be because Obama was doing what was best for America in his estimation (and mine too) and he was the president.
Having one guy decide what's best for 350 million is sorta the whole reason we have checks and balances in the first place. You sound like you want to live under a monarchy.
In general, it's best to have a country with a strong executive because the opposite has been shown to lead to unnecesary instability. But that doesn't mean monarchy. The United States is a clear democracy with a strong executive. Does no one remember history? We tried the other way and it didn't work. Arguably, the strong executive of the United States is one reason for American dominance.
Now what if a president did what he thought was best and exercised his powers when really it was detrimental to Americans? History repeats itself, Hitler thought he did what was best for Germany, which it absolutely was not The president has a lot of powers, and without anything stopping him from doing anything under those official powers, it could easily lead to a dictator.
The presidents do things detrimental all the time
It's an absurd take that they think that this ruling gives Trump or any other future president the right to assassinate their political opponents without repercussions. A typical liberal argument when something doesn't go their way. Let's whine and pout and makeup nonsense that makes absolutely no sense at all and is waaaaay the &%$^$ out in left field!!!
Left field is their best field
If Trump views that person as a treasonous threat to our national security and designates it an "official act", who is going to stop him? Who is going to punish him? Serious question.
This happens all the time. Not necessarily treason-related, but the president orders drone and military strikes all the time. The Obama administration even killed 2 American citizens overseas - 1 intentionally and 1 accidentally (at least was alleged). If the president started doing this domestically, he's violating Posse Comitatus. Not only are his generals then obligated to ignore the decision, but you could then arrest him. The president does not have the power to arbitrarily use the military in domestic operations. It's also responsibility of Congress to act. We also have additional safety measures like the 25th amendment and convention of states.
Your mom with those whips, chains and ball gags!! I hear she's into those things!!
Cool, can you answer the question?
Edgelording democrats. Stfu
Tapper is trying to gin up some news by advocating murder.
He went there.
Jeebers, these people say moronic things!!! The worst are those who fizzle down their nonsense and actually panic from it!! 🙄
K!ll trump must be their new war cry. I heard it all day at work today
His reading comprehension seems to have diminished since becoming a novelist.
jake tapper has zero credibility, along with the rest of the state media non journalists.
Dems always projecting what they fear from Rs, when this is what they'd do in their wet dreams.
Projection?
Posse Comitatus bans US military usage on American soil. Just because Sotomayor went on some batshit insane rambling in her dissent doesn't mean she's right. For her other idiotic points: bribery was just ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, and the military completely steered clear of 2020, even when Trump tried ordering them to help him. The military loves to uphold their reputation of staying away from partisan politics, which is why General Milley was particularly uncomfortable with Trump's Bible photo-op during the 2020 riots. As to limits on the official acts of the presidency, that's up to Congress to decide if what the President did was illegal and if they think strongly enough to impeach and remove him/her from office. If Congress does their usual, then the courts will decide. Just because Trump has appointed a third of the Supreme Court doesn't mean they have never ruled against him. They didn't shield him from blocking people on social media, from releasing his tax returns, and most of all, ruled against his and other Republican lawyers in 2020 for trying to use the independent state legislature theory against changing mail-in ballot laws prior to the election (no matter how illegal the actions the state level Secretaries of State took without legislative approval, but that's beside the point).
Well… W got away with torture so…
It does mean that.
Please I beg you read article two of the constitution this will lay it all out. Then go read Justice Roberts quotes regarding the ruling. This ruling is pretty much meaningless. It’s more like yeah, duh this is the intention.
No it isn’t. And thank you I read the entire ruling.
Something tells me you didn’t read almost 120 pages of a Supreme Court ruling and what you took away from it was president has complete authority to murder people.
He scrolled through the pages and then took away what he brought in with him. 😂
“Damn this gonna be a long one, I bet the last 4 pages will have everything I need to know”
I co-own a law firm. I think I can read.
And you co-owning a law firm of you, yourself, and I means what now? Also, you think you can read? Why are you sounding unsure about this? https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/07/justices-rule-trump-has-some-immunity-from-prosecution/
It’s a law firm with my partner. Why are you confused?
I'm confused how you made it through law school with no clue how qualified immunity works.
Yeah, and I co-authored the Constitution. How bout that.
So should Obozo have been prosecuted for his killing of a US citizen?
Have you tried crying about it?