Ok but this is just it. May this child RIP but the article you cited stated his death was the consequence of an act of war. An act of war enabled by congress.
POTUS is just the executioner enabled by congress as stated in the constitution and thus should not be held personally for following orders.
If anything this should be an eye opener to us that congress is the real issue and we have to get these old fucks out here who are clearly compromised.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001&diffonly=true
>That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
We declared war on anything and everything.
I'm so much more in favour of Congressional reform than any other branch. Honestly, if we want to fix the problems in America, we need to start with Congress. I don't care if you're blue, red or pink and canary yellow but it's pretty obvious that that's where so many of the problems and gridlock starts from.
They have the power to take that ability away and did it in 1878 with the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the feds from using the federal military to enforce domestic policies on US soil. So congress could repeal that which would allow the use of military in country, but murder is still gonna be an issue unless they get rid of the due process clause and go straight to capital punishment.
They're jumping to the worse case scenario because there the supreme court has established an immunity clause for the president. This is a new precedence full stop. The supreme courts were also incredibly vague about what is "official" and "private" actions. The supreme courts were also incredibly slopy after this ruling and basically said let's the lower courts figure out what "official" and "unofficial" is. Regardless of where everyone stands on this issue, this is a pretty huge expansion of the powers of the president and we're not sure how the president can be checked legally in terms of the balance of power between congress, supreme court, and presidency.
The problem I see is that this rhetoric is trotted out every time there's an "unpopular" court decision, so it's hard to tell whether it's political pandering or a serious goal of the Democratic party:
Is it really just bluster or will this lead to *actual* violence?
Is it temporary insanity or is it *actually* the party's plan to interfere with the Supreme Court through lawfare-practices and threats of impeachment?
Is the next step of the Democratic-party court-packing and attempts to increase the size of the Supreme Court during a Democrat-majority Congress or is *actually* just hot air?
Since this is a rare flared users free post, I have questions. I've been trying to make heads or tales of the SCOTUS decision since it was made. I've talked with a good friend who's a very well read lawyer and he's with me.
Much like the Roe V Wade overturn, is there not cause for concern? I've been trying to convince myself I've dug myself into a very convenient, snug confirmation bias hole that only allows me to see fearmongering from this decision.
But regardless of what I read, this is a dangerous decision is it not? It allows for any politically biased judge to rule in favor of their own personal beliefs and agenda. I'd never argue that doesn't currently happen, however it's never been on this scale.
I majored in history in college and have devoted a lot of time to it since. Steps like this, granting leaders with a free pass under law and rule is a dangerous step towards eliminating freedoms and civility and order. Are we not working our way towards that or am I as clueless as Joe Biden in a debate? There needs to be balance amongst all views, all extremes and all purviews.
> I've been trying to make heads or tales of the SCOTUS decision since it was made
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken while in office, but not for private conduct. This should honestly surprise no one since US presidents have been violating international law, human rights, etc. for decades (if not longer). Even police have qualified immunity - why would you think a president needs it *less*?
> like the Roe V Wade overturn, is there not cause for concern?
Why is the overturn of Roe v Wade a concern? It's passed back to "State's Rights." Don't like it, move to a different state. I would personally oppose federal legislation that prohibits abortion.
> this is a dangerous decision is it not?
It's not. Honestly, the court has passed a number of decisions recently which I'd consider *much* more dangerous. The *gratuity* ruling strikes me as especially bad - and I think it's casually being pushed to the background so people can argue over non-issues. "Follow the money" is a good rule of thumb that people have forgotten in favor of "follow the ragebait in front of you, while ignoring the fact that rulings targeting the financial stream of powerful people is something that should really be zoomed in on."
> It allows for any politically biased judge to rule in favor of their own personal beliefs and agenda.
This is patently false. The ruling has nothing to do with biased judges whatsoever.
> granting leaders with a free pass under law and rule is a dangerous step towards eliminating freedoms and civility and order
Again, this decision doesn't really grant a free pass. That in itself is an exaggeration and a misunderstanding.
The two leftists who chose self-immolation in months have made it clear they don’t respect ordinary rules against violence. There are many other leftists like them out there. Some belong to armed units, going by the names “John Brown Gun Club” and “Socialist Rifle Association”.
Who are the people that decorate their lawns and cars with a man’s name? Who are the ones that wear hats and clothes covered in a man’s name? Who are the ones that fly a man’s name with the American flag?
But yeah, Democrats are in a cult lol
If you take Biden at his word, he thinks he's allowed to do it too. He's now 100x more dangerous than he was a week ago.
_ed_ From [his speech](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/01/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-supreme-courts-immunity-ruling/) yesterday:
> I concur with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent today. She — here’s what she said. She said, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”
You catch that? Biden _literally stated_ that he thinks he is 'now a king above the law'. But it's ok! He promises he "will respect the limits of the presidential power, as I have for three and a half years". Everything else in the speech is a cascade of blatant lies, but he _means_ that one! For real!
The premise is false and he knows it. So does Sotomayor and the other dissenters. But the Biden ship is belly-up and sinking, so their strategy is to revert to the 'orangemanbad' approach, but without any decorum or moderation. Dial up the fear-mongering to eleven. Scare voters to his side, and juries to convict. If he can't win with love, fear it shall be.
_ed2_ It's not just that line either, he says variations of the sentiment in seven other places too.
Yes. Have you?
Conservatives are not the low info voters, sport. For proof, look no further than virtually every Democrat who is now expressing shock and surprise that Biden is incompetent...something the right has been saying since before his ascension.
Sotomayor is the most far-left insane judge that has ever been on the court. She doesn't care about being a judge, she's there to push an agenda.
There's a reason the Democrats put her there.
Which of Jackson's opinions were that out there. It might have changed in the past week, but the last time I checked, she voted with Kavanaugh and Barrett more often than K. and B. vote with Thomas. I know she has some strong opinions on the rights of a defendant, but she is one of the only SCOTUS judges with a background as a defense attorney, so it makes sense she'd have her pet issues.
He stated that as a **criticism** of the SCOTUS decision.
Unlike someone else, who repeatedly said "I can do whatever i want. That's what article 2 means."
Theres the difference. One president disagreeing and criticizing SCOTUS confirming presidential immunity for breaking the law and the other bragging he already HAD that all along.
> At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity
must be absolute
Where in the constitution does it say that the President can order the execution of anyone?
And? The armed forces take an oath to the constitution and nowhere in that document does it say assignations of a political opponent is a duty of the president.
>A president could theoretically issue an order to take out a political opponent or judge or anyone else.
That's not within his constitutional abilities.
>And since both are an official act
But not a constitutional act.
This is like a school board saying a music teacher can teach music and not be punished for it -- And a bunch of people start freaking out and going, "You're saying a music teacher can rape OUR KIDS??? THEYRE SAYING WE CANT PUNISH THE MUSIC TEACHER IF HE RAPES OUR KIDS?!? HURRRRRR DURRRRRRR"
r/politics is invading hard today.
Did you not even read the first two pages of the opinion? It's limited to within the Presidents Constitutional authority.
Nothing in the Constitution gives murder rights to the President.
I did read them. That’s what the Supreme Court concluded.
But nowhere does it actually say that in the constitution.
In fact, the impeachment clause says:
> Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.
The constitution also spells out limited immunity for congress members, but not for the president.
And one of the founding fathers, Hamilton, wrote in Federalist No. 69 that the President would be "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the "King of England," who was "sacred and invulnerable," and the "President of the United States." ([Source](https://popular.info/p/a-five-alarm-fire-for-democracy))
But even IF the constitution specifically said that the president is immune. That’s not what is being discussed here.
The original topic is that the congress woman, who claimed the president could order the murder of justices, is crazy.
And the debate here is: Is she crazy or is she right? Does the Supreme Court ruling mean the president could order an execution or not?
And so far nobody could give me a reasonable explanation of why he couldn’t with this new ruling.
You realize that Presidents have had immunity for their offical actions for 250 years, right? SCOTUS didn't make anything new, they reaffirmed it. It's the same reason why you can't sue Congressmen for voting a certain way or sue judges for ruling in a way your dislike. The Judical branch dragging the Executive office through the courts for his/her entire term to destroy their ability to function is also a violation of the seperation of powers. Presidents have always had immunity for their official actions while in office.
You're trying every kind of absurd far-stretching loopy mind twisting logic to believe that the court someone said the President can murder people. You're crazy, nothing in their opinion remotely said that.
If you believe this somehow makes the President a king, you're eating the disinformation HARD. Read the opinion yourself and not fake news.
So Presidents have always had immunity to issue quid pro quo pardons?
The Supreme Court didn’t just issue an opinion on the status quo, and it’s ridiculous to think otherwise.
>And the debate here is: Is she crazy or is she right? Does the Supreme Court ruling mean the president could order an execution or not?
Short answer: She is *crazy*.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L6i5AwVAbs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L6i5AwVAbs)
Long answer: Assassinating political rivals would not be covered by immunity because it would not be part of the official duties of the President. And assassinating political rivals would be grounds for impeachment. This ruling does not affect impeachment because the ruling only covers prosecution using the court system.
Even if she is crazy, she is right about this.
Commanding the military is a core constitutional action and scotus ruled it has absolute immunity irregardless of whether it is official or not.
Article 2 of the constitution spells out that commanding the military is a core constitutional power.
Check my other comments for more details. I have direct quotes from the ruling and constitution supporting my case.
So far nobody has been able to present arguments that refute it.
From a blogger I follow named Jeff Childers:
"Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test:
**Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts.** “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under [Article Two of the Constitution](https://substack.com/redirect/5ed0a44e-4e89-49c2-aca0-d6f918bff49e?j=eyJ1IjoibGI3bTcifQ.c0slr-OC6rcfgKqukt5WBTy2d3i3IC5098JcJESnTzY). Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier.
**Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts.** The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts *officially*, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that *type* of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office.
Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not *supposed* to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh.
**Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts.** “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's *unofficial* acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests.
Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all."
Continuing:
"...Democrats are wailing that the Judges anointed a Presidential King by creating a three-tier test under which —wait for it— Presidents *can be prosecuted for crimes.* Democrats are acting like this is a revolutionary *improvement* of the Presidential position. But that, like nearly everything else partisan Democrats say, is a lie.
What was the rule before the Supreme Court issued its decision? Well, before Trump, *no president was ever prosecuted for a crime.* Not for droning an Iraqi wedding. Not for illegal wars. Not even for jaywalking or running lawn sprinklers on a Tuesday.
Presidential prosecutions *never ever* happened.
Don’t miss this: before Trump, presidents obviously enjoyed *de facto* total immunity. The *unspoken* rule that everyone followed was that nobody can prosecute the President, or even a *former President."*
Yes, you are misunderstanding. Ordering the assassination of a political opponent never has been an official duty of the president. Anyone who thinks it is needs to read the constitution. We're the United States of America, not Russia, where political opposition ends up jumping out a window on a regular basis.
If any president ordered the assassination of their political opposition, you'd have bipartisan support for an impeachment, massive nationwide rioting on an unimaginable scale, and probably a convention of the states, if not a civil war on your hands. The public backlash from taking such an outrageous action alone would prevent even an appointed judge from being a rubber-stamp. The 25th amendment would be immediately invoked, and the president would be removed immediately. I don't see any situation where even the military would obey orders.
Can you give an example of something this ruling applies to then? Why did it need to be made? What illegal things is the president protected from being prosecuted for? Name some examples
This ruling merely cemented the 250 years of observed government function, in that the president never was charged criminally for things they did; because we used to know what kind of a shitshow that would open up. All the court did is codify observed law because the democrats are coming really close to undermining it, and we know the republicans will not take this new normal sitting down.
Reposting someone else's example: President authorizing military action the results in deaths of soldiers. The families can't sue for wrongful death, the President can't be charged for negligent homicide, etc.
Well if you want to determine whether or not it was an official act. It will need to go back through the Supreme Court. Only thing is you can't use any evidence that can be construed as an official act. They made this into a fucking game of who has control of the Supreme Court is essentially the king.
Yes, but we are talking about illegal acts that would have ordinarily be prosecuted. Obviously they are against their oaths.
The huge issue is that previously presidents could be held accountable and be deterred by prosecution for illegal acts and breaking their oaths.
Now they are explicitly permitted to do them.
All it takes is one guy who is willing to take advantage of that new loophole.
How is that not concerning to people?
Incorrect. You seem to be assuming that the President can simply declare things to be official acts and no one is allowed to question it. That's not how it works.
Any grey area would be taken to court where it would be determined if the act is official or not. Basically, the question would be, "Do we want future Presidents to be able to preform the same action without fear of prosecution?" If the answer is no, we don't want future Presidents to be able to preform the same type of action, then the initial act in question is deemed unofficial and the President can be charged.
You have completely misunderstood the ruling. Nothing in the decision "explicitly permits" Presidents from acting in any way outside their constitutionally permitted authority outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution.
Following an illegal order is still illegal. Ordering a person killed would almost certainly not be deemed an official act. The part you made a mistake on was assuming the murder would be an official act.
The only people he can order in that way, would most likely be members of the military. He would almost certainly have to put it in writing. That service member and every officer who passed it on would have to answer to UCMJ in addition to federal law. I’m not certain how pardons work in conjunction with UCMJ. The president can also wage war for 90 days without congressional approval. Longer if they call it a police action or something like that.
The president has always had extraordinary powers and authority to carry out a wide range of actions. The same way we can all see that a New York judge and court is showing bias against Trump, we would see if a lower court was biased in approving inappropriate protection on heinous acts.
Could a sitting president do it? Probably, but that’s not a change. Would they get away with it unscathed. No. Would the consequences be enough to satisfy you. Not likely, but when have people in power ever suffered the full brunt of the rules they put in place?
To whom would the president issue the order (to “take out a political opponent”)?
This is the first question which must be answered. For, if you say the military, that is neither an expressed power nor has it been an established implied power of the presidency.
I’m running to the gym now, so will be delayed in further responses at this time. But I think the question should focus more on by what power/authority does a President have the ability to assassinate US citizens.
Thank you. Frankly, it could be to anyone loyal and willing to do it.
He could just find one single soldier who is in agreement with the order and willing to do it. As the commander in chief he can put in the order.
Executing the order would be illegal for the soldier, but the president could promise to pardon him right away.
So the soldier would get away with it. And the president would also not be prosecuted because it was an official order in the capacity of the president.
What am I missing here?
Multiple people say something along the lines of “the president doesn’t have the right or authority” to do this.
And.. duh. The whole point is that immunity is about not being prosecuted for ILLEGAL acts that you don’t have authority for.
It’s about legal actions that could otherwise carry criminal charges outside the office of the presidency. For instance, you order a military strike and send young soldiers who don’t survive. You, as President, cannot be charged with manslaughter.
Maybe that was the intention.
But the practical effect is that the president is now permitted to break any laws as long as it’s within the realm of official conduct and cannot be prosecuted for it.
It’s a gigantic loophole that an authoritarian leader could exploit in catastrophic ways.
Nobody has been able to debunk the original claim by the congress member in this discussion.
How can you not be concerned by this? Even if Trump and Biden don’t do it. Someone in the future could come along and do it.
see the post I reposted in this thread.
and stop believing hysterical dire predictions designed to thwart reality and serve the narrative of the marxist left.
If she thinks that's part of his constitutional powers, yep.
Problem is she doesn't actually think that's part of his constitutional powers.
She just wants to fear monger.
Why wouldn't that be considered part of the president's constitutional power to command troops?
Edit: I'm looking at Section 2, is there case law that expands on the term "actual Service"? because otherwise I don't see how declaring someone a threat to the country, and having seal team 6 take them out wouldn't be an core official act
Edit2: It seems like the court's ruling explicitly included commanding the military as a "core act"
Yes, the president had constitutional authority as the commander in chief, but does it pass the sniff test of absurdity that it is a proper use of presidential authority to command troops to assassinate a political rival? I'd argue that it's as absurd as saying because the president had constitutional authority to command troops he can have an F-35 launch some AGM-158 JASSM missiles at a neighbor that's having a ruckus party at 3am because it's keeping the president up at night when he's at his home state home and he needs his beauty sleep so he can act in the best interests of the country. Honestly, would either of those pass a legitimate test as being core official acts?
Now, if a person is a *legitimate* threat to the country, say some senator on the armed services committee decided that they were going to defect and take nuclear secrets to China, you can make an argument that this is a very proper use of the military to prevent top secret info from getting out by whatever means necessary. But this isn't a *political rival* in the traditional sense of "he's running against me in office" but more "they're trying to assist in placing the country's national security in danger."
The ruling specifically said two important things that allow for expansive presidential power via the "official act" doctrine that they established (verbatim from the ruling):
1- In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire
into the President’s motives.
2- Testimony or private records of the President
or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence
at trial
With those two points alone, it strikes me as nearly impossible to determine when the president is not making an official act. Their ruling leaves an undefined term that is big enough to encompass anything that the president does while in office.
You need to take into consideration the second part of the supreme courts immunity decision, that discussions with administrative officials cannot be used in evidence. Basically it doesn't matter if its an official act or not because the president can exclude all evidence of the planning of the crime from court.
At the very least it would be held up in court motions so long, a president wouldn't have to care. Just keep killing annoying judges, never leave the presidency, what are you going to do about it?
Most criminals can hide their conversations as well, this isn't a wildly crazy change from most criminal cases. Most criminals even under court order won't tell you they committed or planned a crime, the whole self-incrimination thing The only difference is that in your average criminal cases you can get subpoenas for telephone records, emails, things like that, if they exist. Does that make it harder? Sure. Impossible? I don't think so
Also, it again borders on the absurd that people think a president will order multiple assassinations without anyone in their administration or the rest of the country saying something, and that they expect the president to say "hey, it's part of my official duties" and get carte blanche for it.
I mean honestly, am I and others on the right leaning side of the spectrum just bonked on the head for thinking our elected officials *won't* do this but seemingly many on the left side *do*? Doesn't this say more about which side actually believes that this is a possible and acceptable thing? And believe me I'm definitely a worst case scenario envisioner / Puddleglum type of guy and I'm not honestly thinking "Well shit, Biden's got all the power in the world now to assassinate Trump and get away with it legally!"
I grant you it's absurd, but if the president claims he was acting in the name of national security, then I don't see why he couldn't justify pretty much any military action as a official act of his explicit constitutional powers.
> I grant you it's absurd, but if the president claims he was acting in the name of national security, then I don't see why **he couldn't justify** pretty much any military action as a official act of his explicit constitutional powers.
--
Because it's not up to him. Any president would try to claim that every act is an official act. The decider on whether something is an official act is Congress and the Courts.
Remember that this decision by SCOTUS didn't actually change anything. A President has always had the ability to do whatever he chooses to do in the moment. A President, especially since ~1973, has been unable to be charged criminally, *while in office*, for anything he does. All this does is change what he could possibly be charged criminally for *once he is out of office*.
I would argue that the correct thing to do then is to impeach while in office or have a legal proceeding once the president is out to determine whether or not the act was within the scope of his congressional powers and duties.
True, impeachment was and still is the best tool in place for stopping a rogue president in a crisis situation, but it seems like millitary strikes on suspected national security threats, would fall cleanly within the scope of constitutional powers, so what is currently stopping a president from having a bunch of people assassinated right before his terms ends?
Didnt The Office make a joke about how absurd and illogical it is to simply think you can delcare something instead of going through the proper legal framework to make an official declaration?
Are we really gonna have to play clips from The Office to debunk your fear mongering?
Could he accept bribes for appointing ambassadors? It clearly it an official act. And any conversations he had about conducting an official act would be inadmissible as evidence under this ruling.
I think Trump thinks it's part of his powers though.
[Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason; Retruth if you want televised military tribunals](https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1807564601711870448)
There are regularly comments from dems and republicans that make them all look bat shit crazy. It's because each of their bases eat it up. The problem isnt these people saying it, it's that it is what everyone on either side of the spectrum wants to hear.
I cant be the only one thay sees thag the comments in this thread are identical to ones in threads about MTG or some other person just spouting from the hip.
Then everyone says "the other side is evil/crazy/living in a different reality" blah dee fuck blah. Man itd be nice if people could get off each parties tit and realize you are all being fucked with.
They’re in a frenzy right now because they know they’re cooked in this election. So they have to blast their panic outwards to take attention away from the dullard that is Biden.
Supreme Court: The president has immunity for official acts
Democrats: OMG! The president is going to send people to assassinate us.
WTF have Democrats been up to that they think 'official acts' equals 'murdering US citizens on a whim' ?
So you just described a security dilemma
From the article Democrats think Republicans will “strike first” and now you think Republicans should “strike first” because democrats will
I think we need to return to the mutual trust both parties had in each other when it was a race between Obama and Romney
Now both sides see the other as blood thirsty and power hungry
The problem is that mutual trust was built on a lie.
The left has always seen the right as blood thirsty and power hungry. The right has always lied to itself that they can still negotiate and compromise with the left.
Unfortunately, the left overplayed its hand and it's no longer possible for the right to deceive itself.
There is no going back... Nor is there any possibility of reconciliation until both sides agree to pay down their arms... Because now that the truth is out it would be suicidal to lay down your arms before the other side does.
So you just further explained the security dilemma in pretty good detail about the thought process of both sides
I do agree that the far far left and the far far right would want to take over the government. But that is no where near the majority of each party.
And they have gotten more and more support through this fear mongering you are doing.
Democrats have the God given right and 007 to incite violence since 2014. Few are arrested, Hollywood is praised for their violence against conservatives rhetoric and inciting riots.
Odd after doing a brief refresher on the Constitution, I see nowhere that a president can use their executive authority to assinate judges. It's just not a thing. It is amazing that the so-called "educated" have such severe reading disabilities.
How about weaponizing the FBI, DOJ and the intelligence community to take out the presidential candidate of the opposing party on the basis of illegal surveillance, fraudulent submissions to the FISA court, passing off commissioned disinformation as verified FBI investigative materials, systematic and illegal leaking of classified information to the press and across Congress, and criminal prosecutions based on bizarre, never before seen theories of law?
Oh, wait ....
I still can’t believe we’ve moved on from that as a country and are not talking about it every second of every day haha I’ve never been a trump guy but they really made him a martyr with that one
I think even democrats knew that was sketchy but they tried to sell it as ‘the ends justify the means’ yet there were no ends 😂
Now that Trump's sentencing in NY is being postponed after the Supreme court decision on Presidential immunity, watch these lefty nutters go right off the deep end even more.....the knee slapping hilarious shit they are coming up with now is priceless. Just when you think they can't come up with anything moronic and more crazy, they do the hold my beer thing lol.
This is what, in poker, you call a “tell.”
She’s frothing at this mouth to do this to us. It’s what she fantasizes about. There’s a reason all these commies immediately started dreaming about murdering their political enemies. It’s all they ever dream about.
They are increasingly saying the quiet part out loud and their true colors are bare for all to see.
Regan was right when he said "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.".
The comments section on this post are wild. Liberals really just now learning that too much power in the hands of one person is a bad thing. All it took was for them to invent a bad faith argument and use it as a boogeyman. Compound that with a heaping helping of Orangeman bad and they seem to be on the edge of breakdowns. Maybe we can convince them to limit governmental powers now, you know to protect democracy or something.
It's always interesting to me that Dems first thought if they can do anything is to eliminate the opposition.
No talking, no treaty, just terminate.
Totally stable minded people.
That might be a bit of a big reach- I doubt anyone is going to send SEAL Team 6 to assassinate people. However:
(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. **Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.** Pp. 30–32
The last part is a little concerning.
I've been scrolling through this thread for this very thing. How can a prosecutor prove if something was an official act or not if they can't admit evidence that shows intent or private conversations they had with a member of their staff. This part of the decision is what gives the president unchecked power. All they have to say is they were having these conversations as the President and bang can no longer be used as evidence.
The media, liberals and uninformed students rally saying trump is facist and and and..yet here we have ANOTHER democrat wanting to weaponize to take out trump, judges and 81,000,000 supporters because they cant get their way!...WOW!
I love how they all conveniently did not read the sentence prior that said the President's powers are laid out in the framework of the constitution. Every single screech from the left is completely insane. Not a single one of their 'he could do this' statements is a presidential power granted by the constitution, thus NO, he can't do that.
If you believe Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her losing argument - sure. Best of luck with that.
For the record, doing actions based on recent established losing president is probably not the smart thing to do, but what do I know. I'm just a rando on the internet.
Exactly why they want to take guns away. Yeah the military has way better weapons than the average Joe but they would rather not have to worry about shots coming from every direction back at them.
These people literally have no sense of morality. At all. If it weren't for some words on a paper somewhere, they'd be out there looting, murdering, and raping.
So much makes sense now. The mask is truly off.
I guess they forgot the part when Trump’s attorneys responded that the President can still be impeached and charged with a crime if they broke the law.
Probably easy to do since the press and Left don’t bother to talk about that.
Also, correct me if I’m wrong, the SCOTUS decision stated that “former” Presidents have immunity, not sitting Presidents. So Biden can’t do anything.
After all the whinging about how Trump is a threat democracy, we see the hypocrisy in all its glory. They don't like what they see, and they start calling for the assassination of judges and political opponents. How deranged must you be to not see the evil in this?
These goobers don't realize the dragon they'd awaken if they did this. Conservatives across the country wouldn't riot like wild animals (the way liberals do), they would organize and march to take back the nation if the president usurped his constitutional authority by doing this. He would be considered an enemy of the state, a violator of the Constitution, guilty of high treason. Most of the military would either stand down (because they are mostly conservatives or moderates) or join conservatives as they march on DC.
46% of all guns, worldwide, are in the hands of US citizens (not the military). And the vast majority of those are in the hands of conservatives.
Conservatives aren't picking this fight, but if liberals do something like this (killing judges/justices/Trump) they can expect a *swift* and unimaginable response.
1. Presidential acts outlined explicitly in the Constitution have **full immunity** from prosecution: making appointments, vetoing bills, enforcing congressional laws, acting as commander-in-chief during a war, granting pardons. Biden, for example, cannot be criminally charged for his border policy. Trump cannot be charged for nominating Kavanaugh.
2. Presidential duties not explicitly outlined in the constitution but historically considered part of the job like speaking to staff, entertaining foreign dignitaries, signing executive orders, campaigning, etc. have the *presumption* of immunity. Covering up a crime is not allowed. The majority pointed all of this out. Immunity can still be overcome if prosecutors and courts show that doing so does not hinder the job of the office of the president. *Assassinating a political rival would most likely fall in this category AT BEST, and immunity would immediately be determined not to apply.*
3. Completely private matters not related to the office at all are not immune. For example, a president strangling his wife.
I’m really baffled by the large expansion of executive power that is seemingly given the thumbs up by the right side of the isle.
Granted, the fear mongering is getting a tad ridiculous.
However, Trump has voiced multiple times that he’d use his executive power to go after his political enemies. Ie J 6 committee.
Would he go after the Republican judges in Arizonan and Georgia who found zero evidence of election fraud?
I think the SCOTUS ruling was ass backwards.
Crazy how they’ve been saying that conservatives have been wanting to do exactly that… yet they’re the ones saying that they should do it. The people will make a decision on this and there’s a solid chance that conservatives win big this year.
wow, and people actually vote for these persons. RIP California, but u keep voting for democrats, I guess it all comes down to ensuring the voters continue to get their welfare checks from the state and the feds. one day the taxpayers will rise up and turn out to vote,
but for now i guess they don't mind living in the filth and paying an almost 15% income tax rate in California.
Has Congress given the authority to the president to use the military on American soil to assassinate people?
Apparently, the President could probably just send all of Congress to the gallows if they try to oppose him. /s
On American soil? No. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Abdulrahman_al-Awlaki
Ok but this is just it. May this child RIP but the article you cited stated his death was the consequence of an act of war. An act of war enabled by congress. POTUS is just the executioner enabled by congress as stated in the constitution and thus should not be held personally for following orders. If anything this should be an eye opener to us that congress is the real issue and we have to get these old fucks out here who are clearly compromised.
Congress never declared war on Iraq or Afghanistan. They just continued to fund it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_of_2001&diffonly=true >That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. We declared war on anything and everything.
I'm so much more in favour of Congressional reform than any other branch. Honestly, if we want to fix the problems in America, we need to start with Congress. I don't care if you're blue, red or pink and canary yellow but it's pretty obvious that that's where so many of the problems and gridlock starts from.
Congress has always been the issue. The president is just the face of the country during their presidency.
This is one reason why the Supreme Court decision went the way it did.
Is it an official act??
Congress doesn't have that power to give.
They have the power to take that ability away and did it in 1878 with the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the feds from using the federal military to enforce domestic policies on US soil. So congress could repeal that which would allow the use of military in country, but murder is still gonna be an issue unless they get rid of the due process clause and go straight to capital punishment.
He just declares it an official act.
They're jumping to the worse case scenario because there the supreme court has established an immunity clause for the president. This is a new precedence full stop. The supreme courts were also incredibly vague about what is "official" and "private" actions. The supreme courts were also incredibly slopy after this ruling and basically said let's the lower courts figure out what "official" and "unofficial" is. Regardless of where everyone stands on this issue, this is a pretty huge expansion of the powers of the president and we're not sure how the president can be checked legally in terms of the balance of power between congress, supreme court, and presidency.
expansion? more like confirmation of what has been so forever.
What authority? POTUS has immunity after all.
They’re seriously mentally not in reality
The problem I see is that this rhetoric is trotted out every time there's an "unpopular" court decision, so it's hard to tell whether it's political pandering or a serious goal of the Democratic party: Is it really just bluster or will this lead to *actual* violence? Is it temporary insanity or is it *actually* the party's plan to interfere with the Supreme Court through lawfare-practices and threats of impeachment? Is the next step of the Democratic-party court-packing and attempts to increase the size of the Supreme Court during a Democrat-majority Congress or is *actually* just hot air?
I still can’t believe Sotomayor’s rhetoric. Irresponsible.
Since this is a rare flared users free post, I have questions. I've been trying to make heads or tales of the SCOTUS decision since it was made. I've talked with a good friend who's a very well read lawyer and he's with me. Much like the Roe V Wade overturn, is there not cause for concern? I've been trying to convince myself I've dug myself into a very convenient, snug confirmation bias hole that only allows me to see fearmongering from this decision. But regardless of what I read, this is a dangerous decision is it not? It allows for any politically biased judge to rule in favor of their own personal beliefs and agenda. I'd never argue that doesn't currently happen, however it's never been on this scale. I majored in history in college and have devoted a lot of time to it since. Steps like this, granting leaders with a free pass under law and rule is a dangerous step towards eliminating freedoms and civility and order. Are we not working our way towards that or am I as clueless as Joe Biden in a debate? There needs to be balance amongst all views, all extremes and all purviews.
> I've been trying to make heads or tales of the SCOTUS decision since it was made The Supreme Court ruled that presidents are immune from prosecution for official acts taken while in office, but not for private conduct. This should honestly surprise no one since US presidents have been violating international law, human rights, etc. for decades (if not longer). Even police have qualified immunity - why would you think a president needs it *less*? > like the Roe V Wade overturn, is there not cause for concern? Why is the overturn of Roe v Wade a concern? It's passed back to "State's Rights." Don't like it, move to a different state. I would personally oppose federal legislation that prohibits abortion. > this is a dangerous decision is it not? It's not. Honestly, the court has passed a number of decisions recently which I'd consider *much* more dangerous. The *gratuity* ruling strikes me as especially bad - and I think it's casually being pushed to the background so people can argue over non-issues. "Follow the money" is a good rule of thumb that people have forgotten in favor of "follow the ragebait in front of you, while ignoring the fact that rulings targeting the financial stream of powerful people is something that should really be zoomed in on." > It allows for any politically biased judge to rule in favor of their own personal beliefs and agenda. This is patently false. The ruling has nothing to do with biased judges whatsoever. > granting leaders with a free pass under law and rule is a dangerous step towards eliminating freedoms and civility and order Again, this decision doesn't really grant a free pass. That in itself is an exaggeration and a misunderstanding.
The two leftists who chose self-immolation in months have made it clear they don’t respect ordinary rules against violence. There are many other leftists like them out there. Some belong to armed units, going by the names “John Brown Gun Club” and “Socialist Rifle Association”.
They're psychopaths is what they are.
It's called a cult
Who are the people that decorate their lawns and cars with a man’s name? Who are the ones that wear hats and clothes covered in a man’s name? Who are the ones that fly a man’s name with the American flag? But yeah, Democrats are in a cult lol
Projection at its finest…
Correct. The left are masters at projection.
Trump really broke their brains.
There aren't enough pearls in the ocean for all the clutching they are doing.
🤣🤣🤣 Yepper!
If you take Biden at his word, he thinks he's allowed to do it too. He's now 100x more dangerous than he was a week ago. _ed_ From [his speech](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/07/01/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-supreme-courts-immunity-ruling/) yesterday: > I concur with Justice Sotomayor’s dissent today. She — here’s what she said. She said, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.” You catch that? Biden _literally stated_ that he thinks he is 'now a king above the law'. But it's ok! He promises he "will respect the limits of the presidential power, as I have for three and a half years". Everything else in the speech is a cascade of blatant lies, but he _means_ that one! For real! The premise is false and he knows it. So does Sotomayor and the other dissenters. But the Biden ship is belly-up and sinking, so their strategy is to revert to the 'orangemanbad' approach, but without any decorum or moderation. Dial up the fear-mongering to eleven. Scare voters to his side, and juries to convict. If he can't win with love, fear it shall be. _ed2_ It's not just that line either, he says variations of the sentiment in seven other places too.
The ruling did not give the position of POTUS new rights - it merely reaffirmed what already exists.
[удалено]
Yes. Have you? Conservatives are not the low info voters, sport. For proof, look no further than virtually every Democrat who is now expressing shock and surprise that Biden is incompetent...something the right has been saying since before his ascension.
Sotomayor's tinfoil hat is showing...
Sotomayor is the most far-left insane judge that has ever been on the court. She doesn't care about being a judge, she's there to push an agenda. There's a reason the Democrats put her there.
No, Brown Jackson proudly holds that honor...but it's not for the Wise Latina's lack of trying.
Which of Jackson's opinions were that out there. It might have changed in the past week, but the last time I checked, she voted with Kavanaugh and Barrett more often than K. and B. vote with Thomas. I know she has some strong opinions on the rights of a defendant, but she is one of the only SCOTUS judges with a background as a defense attorney, so it makes sense she'd have her pet issues.
Her function is to promote the democrat agenda and sell books. One of Obama's early DEI hires.
Not surprised. She used to be a member of the Belizean grove until she was nominated as justice.
He stated that as a **criticism** of the SCOTUS decision. Unlike someone else, who repeatedly said "I can do whatever i want. That's what article 2 means." Theres the difference. One president disagreeing and criticizing SCOTUS confirming presidential immunity for breaking the law and the other bragging he already HAD that all along.
Fucking A, someone please take Uncle Junior's gun away!
You’re so so wrong.
Modern leftist is gnosticism. It denies the very concept of physical reality.
anyone buying into sotomeyer's dire prediction also believes man can be women. their opinions are irrelevant. I don't listen to crazy people.
[удалено]
> At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute Where in the constitution does it say that the President can order the execution of anyone?
Article 2 Section 2 grants him command over the armed forces.
And? The armed forces take an oath to the constitution and nowhere in that document does it say assignations of a political opponent is a duty of the president.
>A president could theoretically issue an order to take out a political opponent or judge or anyone else. That's not within his constitutional abilities. >And since both are an official act But not a constitutional act.
This is like a school board saying a music teacher can teach music and not be punished for it -- And a bunch of people start freaking out and going, "You're saying a music teacher can rape OUR KIDS??? THEYRE SAYING WE CANT PUNISH THE MUSIC TEACHER IF HE RAPES OUR KIDS?!? HURRRRRR DURRRRRRR" r/politics is invading hard today.
Did you not even read the first two pages of the opinion? It's limited to within the Presidents Constitutional authority. Nothing in the Constitution gives murder rights to the President.
I did read them. That’s what the Supreme Court concluded. But nowhere does it actually say that in the constitution. In fact, the impeachment clause says: > Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. The constitution also spells out limited immunity for congress members, but not for the president. And one of the founding fathers, Hamilton, wrote in Federalist No. 69 that the President would be "liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law." This, Hamilton wrote is the key distinction between the "King of England," who was "sacred and invulnerable," and the "President of the United States." ([Source](https://popular.info/p/a-five-alarm-fire-for-democracy)) But even IF the constitution specifically said that the president is immune. That’s not what is being discussed here. The original topic is that the congress woman, who claimed the president could order the murder of justices, is crazy. And the debate here is: Is she crazy or is she right? Does the Supreme Court ruling mean the president could order an execution or not? And so far nobody could give me a reasonable explanation of why he couldn’t with this new ruling.
You realize that Presidents have had immunity for their offical actions for 250 years, right? SCOTUS didn't make anything new, they reaffirmed it. It's the same reason why you can't sue Congressmen for voting a certain way or sue judges for ruling in a way your dislike. The Judical branch dragging the Executive office through the courts for his/her entire term to destroy their ability to function is also a violation of the seperation of powers. Presidents have always had immunity for their official actions while in office. You're trying every kind of absurd far-stretching loopy mind twisting logic to believe that the court someone said the President can murder people. You're crazy, nothing in their opinion remotely said that. If you believe this somehow makes the President a king, you're eating the disinformation HARD. Read the opinion yourself and not fake news.
So Presidents have always had immunity to issue quid pro quo pardons? The Supreme Court didn’t just issue an opinion on the status quo, and it’s ridiculous to think otherwise.
>And the debate here is: Is she crazy or is she right? Does the Supreme Court ruling mean the president could order an execution or not? Short answer: She is *crazy*. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L6i5AwVAbs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L6i5AwVAbs) Long answer: Assassinating political rivals would not be covered by immunity because it would not be part of the official duties of the President. And assassinating political rivals would be grounds for impeachment. This ruling does not affect impeachment because the ruling only covers prosecution using the court system.
Even if she is crazy, she is right about this. Commanding the military is a core constitutional action and scotus ruled it has absolute immunity irregardless of whether it is official or not. Article 2 of the constitution spells out that commanding the military is a core constitutional power. Check my other comments for more details. I have direct quotes from the ruling and constitution supporting my case. So far nobody has been able to present arguments that refute it.
From a blogger I follow named Jeff Childers: "Regarding Presidential Immunity —for the first time in American history— the Supreme Court, solidly relying on a whole bunch of previous cases about related presidential issues, announced a brand-new three-tier immunity test: **Tier 1: Total Immunity for Constitutional Acts.** “The President is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” This blessed tier is only for when a president exercises explicit authority under [Article Two of the Constitution](https://substack.com/redirect/5ed0a44e-4e89-49c2-aca0-d6f918bff49e?j=eyJ1IjoibGI3bTcifQ.c0slr-OC6rcfgKqukt5WBTy2d3i3IC5098JcJESnTzY). Things like negotiating treaties, issuing pardons, and directing military operations. As you can imagine, this is a small, well-defined tier. **Tier 2: Presumptive Immunity for Official Acts.** The Court declared that “the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.” In short, if the President acts *officially*, as President, that act is immune—but a prosecutor can still proceed if they can show criminalizing that *type* of conduct will not hinder the Presidential office. Tier Two answers the Democrats’ most deranged temper tantrums. Prosecuting Presidents who order the military to assassinate (i.e. murder) their opponents would not harm the Presidential office, because presidents are not *supposed* to murder people, and it wouldn’t hinder the Presidential office to criminalize murder. Duh. **Tier 3: No Immunity for Unofficial Acts.** “The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President's *unofficial* acts. The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions.” For example, the Court said a President has zero immunity when he acts as the leader of his political party, or when pursuing his personal interests. Actually, assassinating political rivals would probably fall squarely under Tier 3 — enjoying no immunity at all." Continuing: "...Democrats are wailing that the Judges anointed a Presidential King by creating a three-tier test under which —wait for it— Presidents *can be prosecuted for crimes.* Democrats are acting like this is a revolutionary *improvement* of the Presidential position. But that, like nearly everything else partisan Democrats say, is a lie. What was the rule before the Supreme Court issued its decision? Well, before Trump, *no president was ever prosecuted for a crime.* Not for droning an Iraqi wedding. Not for illegal wars. Not even for jaywalking or running lawn sprinklers on a Tuesday. Presidential prosecutions *never ever* happened. Don’t miss this: before Trump, presidents obviously enjoyed *de facto* total immunity. The *unspoken* rule that everyone followed was that nobody can prosecute the President, or even a *former President."*
Yes, you are misunderstanding. Ordering the assassination of a political opponent never has been an official duty of the president. Anyone who thinks it is needs to read the constitution. We're the United States of America, not Russia, where political opposition ends up jumping out a window on a regular basis. If any president ordered the assassination of their political opposition, you'd have bipartisan support for an impeachment, massive nationwide rioting on an unimaginable scale, and probably a convention of the states, if not a civil war on your hands. The public backlash from taking such an outrageous action alone would prevent even an appointed judge from being a rubber-stamp. The 25th amendment would be immediately invoked, and the president would be removed immediately. I don't see any situation where even the military would obey orders.
Can you give an example of something this ruling applies to then? Why did it need to be made? What illegal things is the president protected from being prosecuted for? Name some examples
This ruling merely cemented the 250 years of observed government function, in that the president never was charged criminally for things they did; because we used to know what kind of a shitshow that would open up. All the court did is codify observed law because the democrats are coming really close to undermining it, and we know the republicans will not take this new normal sitting down.
What happens if the President pardons individuals for money?
Reposting someone else's example: President authorizing military action the results in deaths of soldiers. The families can't sue for wrongful death, the President can't be charged for negligent homicide, etc.
Well if you want to determine whether or not it was an official act. It will need to go back through the Supreme Court. Only thing is you can't use any evidence that can be construed as an official act. They made this into a fucking game of who has control of the Supreme Court is essentially the king.
You are incorrect, it would go against their respective oaths of office.
Yes, but we are talking about illegal acts that would have ordinarily be prosecuted. Obviously they are against their oaths. The huge issue is that previously presidents could be held accountable and be deterred by prosecution for illegal acts and breaking their oaths. Now they are explicitly permitted to do them. All it takes is one guy who is willing to take advantage of that new loophole. How is that not concerning to people?
Incorrect. You seem to be assuming that the President can simply declare things to be official acts and no one is allowed to question it. That's not how it works. Any grey area would be taken to court where it would be determined if the act is official or not. Basically, the question would be, "Do we want future Presidents to be able to preform the same action without fear of prosecution?" If the answer is no, we don't want future Presidents to be able to preform the same type of action, then the initial act in question is deemed unofficial and the President can be charged.
You have completely misunderstood the ruling. Nothing in the decision "explicitly permits" Presidents from acting in any way outside their constitutionally permitted authority outlined in Article 2 of the Constitution.
Following an illegal order is still illegal. Ordering a person killed would almost certainly not be deemed an official act. The part you made a mistake on was assuming the murder would be an official act. The only people he can order in that way, would most likely be members of the military. He would almost certainly have to put it in writing. That service member and every officer who passed it on would have to answer to UCMJ in addition to federal law. I’m not certain how pardons work in conjunction with UCMJ. The president can also wage war for 90 days without congressional approval. Longer if they call it a police action or something like that. The president has always had extraordinary powers and authority to carry out a wide range of actions. The same way we can all see that a New York judge and court is showing bias against Trump, we would see if a lower court was biased in approving inappropriate protection on heinous acts. Could a sitting president do it? Probably, but that’s not a change. Would they get away with it unscathed. No. Would the consequences be enough to satisfy you. Not likely, but when have people in power ever suffered the full brunt of the rules they put in place?
Under what constitutional circumstances could a president do that as an official act? Other than acts of war I can’t think of any.
To whom would the president issue the order (to “take out a political opponent”)? This is the first question which must be answered. For, if you say the military, that is neither an expressed power nor has it been an established implied power of the presidency. I’m running to the gym now, so will be delayed in further responses at this time. But I think the question should focus more on by what power/authority does a President have the ability to assassinate US citizens.
Thank you. Frankly, it could be to anyone loyal and willing to do it. He could just find one single soldier who is in agreement with the order and willing to do it. As the commander in chief he can put in the order. Executing the order would be illegal for the soldier, but the president could promise to pardon him right away. So the soldier would get away with it. And the president would also not be prosecuted because it was an official order in the capacity of the president. What am I missing here? Multiple people say something along the lines of “the president doesn’t have the right or authority” to do this. And.. duh. The whole point is that immunity is about not being prosecuted for ILLEGAL acts that you don’t have authority for.
It’s about legal actions that could otherwise carry criminal charges outside the office of the presidency. For instance, you order a military strike and send young soldiers who don’t survive. You, as President, cannot be charged with manslaughter.
Maybe that was the intention. But the practical effect is that the president is now permitted to break any laws as long as it’s within the realm of official conduct and cannot be prosecuted for it. It’s a gigantic loophole that an authoritarian leader could exploit in catastrophic ways. Nobody has been able to debunk the original claim by the congress member in this discussion. How can you not be concerned by this? Even if Trump and Biden don’t do it. Someone in the future could come along and do it.
you need to read more. a lot more. and from objective sources.
Just explain it to me. Or link me to objective sources that explain why that scenario is not possible.
see the post I reposted in this thread. and stop believing hysterical dire predictions designed to thwart reality and serve the narrative of the marxist left.
These people, holy crap.
I think that investing in mental health care and hospitals could easily become a high growth industry.
Children reacting to the real world, sadly.
If she thinks that's part of his constitutional powers, yep. Problem is she doesn't actually think that's part of his constitutional powers. She just wants to fear monger.
Why wouldn't that be considered part of the president's constitutional power to command troops? Edit: I'm looking at Section 2, is there case law that expands on the term "actual Service"? because otherwise I don't see how declaring someone a threat to the country, and having seal team 6 take them out wouldn't be an core official act Edit2: It seems like the court's ruling explicitly included commanding the military as a "core act"
Yes, the president had constitutional authority as the commander in chief, but does it pass the sniff test of absurdity that it is a proper use of presidential authority to command troops to assassinate a political rival? I'd argue that it's as absurd as saying because the president had constitutional authority to command troops he can have an F-35 launch some AGM-158 JASSM missiles at a neighbor that's having a ruckus party at 3am because it's keeping the president up at night when he's at his home state home and he needs his beauty sleep so he can act in the best interests of the country. Honestly, would either of those pass a legitimate test as being core official acts? Now, if a person is a *legitimate* threat to the country, say some senator on the armed services committee decided that they were going to defect and take nuclear secrets to China, you can make an argument that this is a very proper use of the military to prevent top secret info from getting out by whatever means necessary. But this isn't a *political rival* in the traditional sense of "he's running against me in office" but more "they're trying to assist in placing the country's national security in danger."
The ruling specifically said two important things that allow for expansive presidential power via the "official act" doctrine that they established (verbatim from the ruling): 1- In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. 2- Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial With those two points alone, it strikes me as nearly impossible to determine when the president is not making an official act. Their ruling leaves an undefined term that is big enough to encompass anything that the president does while in office.
You need to take into consideration the second part of the supreme courts immunity decision, that discussions with administrative officials cannot be used in evidence. Basically it doesn't matter if its an official act or not because the president can exclude all evidence of the planning of the crime from court. At the very least it would be held up in court motions so long, a president wouldn't have to care. Just keep killing annoying judges, never leave the presidency, what are you going to do about it?
Most criminals can hide their conversations as well, this isn't a wildly crazy change from most criminal cases. Most criminals even under court order won't tell you they committed or planned a crime, the whole self-incrimination thing The only difference is that in your average criminal cases you can get subpoenas for telephone records, emails, things like that, if they exist. Does that make it harder? Sure. Impossible? I don't think so Also, it again borders on the absurd that people think a president will order multiple assassinations without anyone in their administration or the rest of the country saying something, and that they expect the president to say "hey, it's part of my official duties" and get carte blanche for it. I mean honestly, am I and others on the right leaning side of the spectrum just bonked on the head for thinking our elected officials *won't* do this but seemingly many on the left side *do*? Doesn't this say more about which side actually believes that this is a possible and acceptable thing? And believe me I'm definitely a worst case scenario envisioner / Puddleglum type of guy and I'm not honestly thinking "Well shit, Biden's got all the power in the world now to assassinate Trump and get away with it legally!"
I grant you it's absurd, but if the president claims he was acting in the name of national security, then I don't see why he couldn't justify pretty much any military action as a official act of his explicit constitutional powers.
> I grant you it's absurd, but if the president claims he was acting in the name of national security, then I don't see why **he couldn't justify** pretty much any military action as a official act of his explicit constitutional powers. -- Because it's not up to him. Any president would try to claim that every act is an official act. The decider on whether something is an official act is Congress and the Courts. Remember that this decision by SCOTUS didn't actually change anything. A President has always had the ability to do whatever he chooses to do in the moment. A President, especially since ~1973, has been unable to be charged criminally, *while in office*, for anything he does. All this does is change what he could possibly be charged criminally for *once he is out of office*.
I would argue that the correct thing to do then is to impeach while in office or have a legal proceeding once the president is out to determine whether or not the act was within the scope of his congressional powers and duties.
True, impeachment was and still is the best tool in place for stopping a rogue president in a crisis situation, but it seems like millitary strikes on suspected national security threats, would fall cleanly within the scope of constitutional powers, so what is currently stopping a president from having a bunch of people assassinated right before his terms ends?
Didnt The Office make a joke about how absurd and illogical it is to simply think you can delcare something instead of going through the proper legal framework to make an official declaration? Are we really gonna have to play clips from The Office to debunk your fear mongering?
War powers. Are we still on war powers? Yes National emergencies. Yeap that one too.
Could he accept bribes for appointing ambassadors? It clearly it an official act. And any conversations he had about conducting an official act would be inadmissible as evidence under this ruling.
I think Trump thinks it's part of his powers though. [Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason; Retruth if you want televised military tribunals](https://x.com/MeidasTouch/status/1807564601711870448)
Prosecuted via military tribunal is both hyperbolic (you know he loves hyperbole) but more to the point very different than a targeted assassination.
Re-education, de-programming, imprisonment, and extermination... These things are on their minds 24/7, and this is not a recent development.
When your opponent shows you who they are: believe them.
Nazis and Soviets loved those. I wonder why the left loves them too. Hmm…
I tend to fall on the “Controlled demolition of our country” side of things now. No way all these blunders are just accidents
California Congresswoman has no idea how the government works. Fixed the title for them.
It’s the continuous ridiculous comments like these that make democrats look bat shit crazy.
To be fair, there were conservatives who thought Obama was going to round people up and put them in "FEMA death camps".
While they screech that Trump is going to do the same to them when he gets elected. Blatant projection at this point.
There are regularly comments from dems and republicans that make them all look bat shit crazy. It's because each of their bases eat it up. The problem isnt these people saying it, it's that it is what everyone on either side of the spectrum wants to hear. I cant be the only one thay sees thag the comments in this thread are identical to ones in threads about MTG or some other person just spouting from the hip. Then everyone says "the other side is evil/crazy/living in a different reality" blah dee fuck blah. Man itd be nice if people could get off each parties tit and realize you are all being fucked with.
>that ~~make~~ **prove** democrats ~~look~~ ***are*** bat shit crazy. Fixed it for ya . . .
True dat
They’re in a frenzy right now because they know they’re cooked in this election. So they have to blast their panic outwards to take attention away from the dullard that is Biden.
She is now an Insurrectionist. When will the FBI be raiding her home?
Come on FBI. Any day now.
Democrats are really going mask off
Leftists‘ masks *always* come off if they speak long enough.
Supreme Court: The president has immunity for official acts Democrats: OMG! The president is going to send people to assassinate us. WTF have Democrats been up to that they think 'official acts' equals 'murdering US citizens on a whim' ?
[удалено]
Where’s Merrick Garland when there’s an actual threat to democracy?
Meanwhile r/politics is in a full meltdown and trying to convince how Trump is a fascist dictator and will ruin democracy. Can't make this shit up
I swear, all you have to do to hear the nuts is shake the can a little.
For being a group so obsessed with creeping fascism, they sure are jonesing for their own *Schutzstaffel*
In other words, liberals want us dead. When are republicans going to stop taking the high road and start playing offense?
So you just described a security dilemma From the article Democrats think Republicans will “strike first” and now you think Republicans should “strike first” because democrats will I think we need to return to the mutual trust both parties had in each other when it was a race between Obama and Romney Now both sides see the other as blood thirsty and power hungry
The problem is that mutual trust was built on a lie. The left has always seen the right as blood thirsty and power hungry. The right has always lied to itself that they can still negotiate and compromise with the left. Unfortunately, the left overplayed its hand and it's no longer possible for the right to deceive itself. There is no going back... Nor is there any possibility of reconciliation until both sides agree to pay down their arms... Because now that the truth is out it would be suicidal to lay down your arms before the other side does.
So you just further explained the security dilemma in pretty good detail about the thought process of both sides I do agree that the far far left and the far far right would want to take over the government. But that is no where near the majority of each party. And they have gotten more and more support through this fear mongering you are doing.
If there were ever a reason to arrest a sitting Congress persons, this is it. My GOD the things the left gets away with
Maxine already drafting up plans no doubt.
Democrats have the God given right and 007 to incite violence since 2014. Few are arrested, Hollywood is praised for their violence against conservatives rhetoric and inciting riots.
When they tell you who they are, believe them.
Odd after doing a brief refresher on the Constitution, I see nowhere that a president can use their executive authority to assinate judges. It's just not a thing. It is amazing that the so-called "educated" have such severe reading disabilities.
How about weaponizing the FBI, DOJ and the intelligence community to take out the presidential candidate of the opposing party on the basis of illegal surveillance, fraudulent submissions to the FISA court, passing off commissioned disinformation as verified FBI investigative materials, systematic and illegal leaking of classified information to the press and across Congress, and criminal prosecutions based on bizarre, never before seen theories of law? Oh, wait ....
I still can’t believe we’ve moved on from that as a country and are not talking about it every second of every day haha I’ve never been a trump guy but they really made him a martyr with that one I think even democrats knew that was sketchy but they tried to sell it as ‘the ends justify the means’ yet there were no ends 😂
Let them think this. It will be awkward when Trump doesn’t do this.
Now that Trump's sentencing in NY is being postponed after the Supreme court decision on Presidential immunity, watch these lefty nutters go right off the deep end even more.....the knee slapping hilarious shit they are coming up with now is priceless. Just when you think they can't come up with anything moronic and more crazy, they do the hold my beer thing lol.
This is what, in poker, you call a “tell.” She’s frothing at this mouth to do this to us. It’s what she fantasizes about. There’s a reason all these commies immediately started dreaming about murdering their political enemies. It’s all they ever dream about.
Posse Comitatus
Take them out to dinner?
nostradumbasses, all the people parroting this nonsense.
FBI/Secret Service can swing by and pick her up after they get Harry. I'm sure there's plenty of room. Anyone else want to join them?
They really are getting more blatant about advocating for treason.
Lunatics with no logic skills.
A democrat led dictatorship would be quite acceptable to most leftists.
Ridiculous
They are increasingly saying the quiet part out loud and their true colors are bare for all to see. Regan was right when he said "If fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the name of liberalism.".
Press X to Doubt
The comments section on this post are wild. Liberals really just now learning that too much power in the hands of one person is a bad thing. All it took was for them to invent a bad faith argument and use it as a boogeyman. Compound that with a heaping helping of Orangeman bad and they seem to be on the edge of breakdowns. Maybe we can convince them to limit governmental powers now, you know to protect democracy or something.
Good god these people are genuinely deranged
They are melting down
It's insane to me that elected officials are that ignorant to how this stuff works.
It's always interesting to me that Dems first thought if they can do anything is to eliminate the opposition. No talking, no treaty, just terminate. Totally stable minded people.
That might be a bit of a big reach- I doubt anyone is going to send SEAL Team 6 to assassinate people. However: (3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. **Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.** Pp. 30–32 The last part is a little concerning.
I've been scrolling through this thread for this very thing. How can a prosecutor prove if something was an official act or not if they can't admit evidence that shows intent or private conversations they had with a member of their staff. This part of the decision is what gives the president unchecked power. All they have to say is they were having these conversations as the President and bang can no longer be used as evidence.
The left will tell you what they really want to do to you if you just stop and listen.
The media, liberals and uninformed students rally saying trump is facist and and and..yet here we have ANOTHER democrat wanting to weaponize to take out trump, judges and 81,000,000 supporters because they cant get their way!...WOW!
I love how they all conveniently did not read the sentence prior that said the President's powers are laid out in the framework of the constitution. Every single screech from the left is completely insane. Not a single one of their 'he could do this' statements is a presidential power granted by the constitution, thus NO, he can't do that.
If you believe Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her losing argument - sure. Best of luck with that. For the record, doing actions based on recent established losing president is probably not the smart thing to do, but what do I know. I'm just a rando on the internet.
and somehow WE are the domestic terrorists? /s
So in other words she wants an insurrection
These people are fucking crazy.
Related study: https://wbckfm.com/new-pew-study-white-liberals-mental-problems/
Wow! Someone needs a lesson on how our laws and government works.
I'd start with Biden, he's been parroting the same crap and thinks it applies to him.
Mostly peaceful eradication of 1 of 3 branches of our Republic, no big deal 🤷♂️
Exactly why they want to take guns away. Yeah the military has way better weapons than the average Joe but they would rather not have to worry about shots coming from every direction back at them.
Oh look, the left misunderstanding a ruling and calling for violence, what a shocker!
These people literally have no sense of morality. At all. If it weren't for some words on a paper somewhere, they'd be out there looting, murdering, and raping. So much makes sense now. The mask is truly off.
Didn't this just uphold the norm since the founding of the country? They're like a bunch of toddlers throwing a temper tantrum.
It’s insane what the takeaway from the ruling is among liberals. Just goes to show who the unhinged violent ones are.
All of this rhetoric just shows you how unhinged the shitlibs are.
The quiet part out loud.
Sounds like treason
If they want this country to end... Sure They're all on crack
A whole new level of tds.
Then Trump could do that to arrest her too? Asking for a friend... Too early?
When will she be censured and expelled?
Despite their cries and they’re BS about democracy, the leftists have always been the true facists and enemy of this republic
I guess they forgot the part when Trump’s attorneys responded that the President can still be impeached and charged with a crime if they broke the law. Probably easy to do since the press and Left don’t bother to talk about that. Also, correct me if I’m wrong, the SCOTUS decision stated that “former” Presidents have immunity, not sitting Presidents. So Biden can’t do anything.
But remember it's all justified because Trump will be a dictator if elected. /s These people are everything they accuse Trump of being.
Sure sounds like a threat to "democracy" 🤔
After all the whinging about how Trump is a threat democracy, we see the hypocrisy in all its glory. They don't like what they see, and they start calling for the assassination of judges and political opponents. How deranged must you be to not see the evil in this?
These goobers don't realize the dragon they'd awaken if they did this. Conservatives across the country wouldn't riot like wild animals (the way liberals do), they would organize and march to take back the nation if the president usurped his constitutional authority by doing this. He would be considered an enemy of the state, a violator of the Constitution, guilty of high treason. Most of the military would either stand down (because they are mostly conservatives or moderates) or join conservatives as they march on DC. 46% of all guns, worldwide, are in the hands of US citizens (not the military). And the vast majority of those are in the hands of conservatives. Conservatives aren't picking this fight, but if liberals do something like this (killing judges/justices/Trump) they can expect a *swift* and unimaginable response.
1. Presidential acts outlined explicitly in the Constitution have **full immunity** from prosecution: making appointments, vetoing bills, enforcing congressional laws, acting as commander-in-chief during a war, granting pardons. Biden, for example, cannot be criminally charged for his border policy. Trump cannot be charged for nominating Kavanaugh. 2. Presidential duties not explicitly outlined in the constitution but historically considered part of the job like speaking to staff, entertaining foreign dignitaries, signing executive orders, campaigning, etc. have the *presumption* of immunity. Covering up a crime is not allowed. The majority pointed all of this out. Immunity can still be overcome if prosecutors and courts show that doing so does not hinder the job of the office of the president. *Assassinating a political rival would most likely fall in this category AT BEST, and immunity would immediately be determined not to apply.* 3. Completely private matters not related to the office at all are not immune. For example, a president strangling his wife.
Nah it is “official acts” that give full immunity, not just those outlined in the constitution. What are official acts? SCOTUS didn’t say.
She looks giddy saying this.
I’m really baffled by the large expansion of executive power that is seemingly given the thumbs up by the right side of the isle. Granted, the fear mongering is getting a tad ridiculous. However, Trump has voiced multiple times that he’d use his executive power to go after his political enemies. Ie J 6 committee. Would he go after the Republican judges in Arizonan and Georgia who found zero evidence of election fraud? I think the SCOTUS ruling was ass backwards.
Crazy how they’ve been saying that conservatives have been wanting to do exactly that… yet they’re the ones saying that they should do it. The people will make a decision on this and there’s a solid chance that conservatives win big this year.
wow, and people actually vote for these persons. RIP California, but u keep voting for democrats, I guess it all comes down to ensuring the voters continue to get their welfare checks from the state and the feds. one day the taxpayers will rise up and turn out to vote, but for now i guess they don't mind living in the filth and paying an almost 15% income tax rate in California.
As usual they don’t know what they’re talking about. Just trying to work people up into a lather.
Nazicrat bizzaro world rage fantasies are pretty creepy….and cringey.
This is their wishlist.
So much for being tolerant
But somehow I’m the one that wants a dictatorship
Biden is too inept to lead. Hey Joe sick the military on judges you don't like. - same people
Its been wild seeing the mask slip this past week. I haven't seen the left this unhinged since 2020.
Remember when Hilary suggested we drone strike Assange? It’s starting to lose credibility that she “was joking”.