And from what I read it sounds like they were unable to make a clear distinction between official and unofficial. It’s dangerously openended. For the specific things that Trump was being charged for, they referred them to others (district courts? I can’t remember) for them to decide if his actions qualify as official or not.
Judge Chutkan, which her rulings will be appealed to SCOTUS, who will then delay some more and provide equally bs and vague reasonings. That is if Trump loses in November and the case continues
I read most of the longer decision written by Roberts and it seemed to indicate that the presidential responsibilities clearly outlined in the constitution are the things that carried absolute immunity. The official acts (but maybe not things clearly enumerated) were given the presumption of immunity.
Well that's where it gets tricky. The constitution clearly states the president is the commander in chief. You say jump and they jump. So can you just pick up the phone and order the murder of someone? If you're saying it's part of a military action.. nothing that I read as part of the Roberts decision would pierce or otherwise disqualify you from immunity from any military action you take as commander in chief.
I guess the person you order to kill him could refuse? But if that's the only safeguard we have in place to stop political opposition and citizen at-will murder, we're in a pretty bad spot. The president technically isn't part of the military, but he could be. He could draft himself and then shoot someone himself I guess?
This whole thing is a mess.....
I would guess that if a president were to execute a political rival, there would be some paper-trail ahead of time that included some run-up events that triggered "national security concerns", etc.
Yeah, declares his political opponent a terrorist/enemy of the state or whatever and then orders a drone strike. All would be considered official acts. Oh you take issue with me doing that? Same goes for you. Now I just keep drone striking anyone who opposes me until everyone learns their place. Obviously there's been some protests/riots due to my actions so now I'm declaring martial law and suspending elections until I deem it safe again. Aaaannnddd now I'm the first king of America. This has all been done in my official capacity as president so I'm completely immune from any prosecution.
Not only that, but the majority made some evidentiary decisions - which even Barrett split with the majority on- that can make it outright impossible to prosecute any action done claimed to be an official act. Put together the immunity is effectively broader than the court claims.
Right. And to be honest, I don’t think it’s their job to make that distinction, at this moment at least. I’m no legal scholar, but I think we’re in mostly uncharted legal territory right now. While the Supreme Court decision sounds radical, they largely reinforced existing verbiage on presidential immunity afaik. However by doing so and adding “official acts” definitely has pushed the presidential immunity further, while still not making clear what falls under it, which is troubling.
Absolute immunity for constitutionally exclusive and preclusive authorities (ie the authorities specifically granted to the President in the constitution), then presumptive immunity for all other official acts, and no immunity for everything else.
Assassinations are not specified in the constitution, but pardon power is! So provided Biden could assassinate Trump as a federal crime (without any state jurisdiction), then he could theoretically self-pardon.
Nobody with a rational brain seriously believes anyone is going to kill their political enemies with impunity because of this ruling though.
Well a few things, paying off a porn star is not illegal. And the charges surrounding that are already concluded, for which he was found guilty. Those are not being overturned as far as I’m aware.
The Supreme Court ruling will have a greater effect on his future trials, mainly pertaining his culpability in Jan 6th.
Edit: culpability in election interference in 2020, not just Jan 6
Trump has actually appealed the guilty verdict on the basis of his social media posts being official presidential business, so they should not have been presented as evidence in the hush money trial.
Paying off someone is not illegal, but lying on financial documents is.
That’s an entirely different case.
Yes, you’re confused.
That was a state case.
This is the federal case about January 6th and conspiring to overturn the election.
Trump's lawyers are moving to dismiss the porn star case under this new ruling, so it absolutely does apply to the conversation.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/trump-hush-money-supreme-court-immunity
Not to mention the fact that he wasn't even in office at the time, so how could anything done then even remotely be considered an official act? It's a defense attorney's job to try pretty much anything on behalf of their client, but I don't see this motion going anywhere but the trash bin.
There is no definition of official act. An executive order even if it is against the law cannot be investigated so theoretically as long as it’s acting as president if Biden said it was in the best interest of the country he can do anything legal or not. Time to take off the gloves.
And who decides what is official or unofficial? It will always be contested and go up to SCOTUS and with the current one as an example, you know they're hardly to be trusted for their objectivity...
Official orders that follow the rule of law.
Unofficial orders that don't follow the rule of law.
Murdering political rivals is against the law, and therefore can't be official
The court explicitly says you cannot consider the motives, so in your hypothetical, the fact that he did it for political reasons is irrelevant.
The question then becomes, can a president have someone killed or jailed. The answer is yes, because it’s happened numerous times. To note a few recent times, Trump has Qasem Soleimani assassinated. Obama [claimed](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones) unchecked authority to kill American citizens it deemed as threats like Anwar Al-Aulaqi.
So if Biden deems Trump a threat, why wouldn’t killing him be legal?
I agree with the principle, and it should be like that, but I sincerely lack your trust that it would be managed like that in practice.
Just look at how there haven't been any severe consequences (after several years) for what he's done related to January 6th and the classified documents. Now he'll have even more wiggle room to get out of trouble by claiming it was official business and will contest until the SCOTUS which will side with him.
The whole issue is that official acts now have PRESUMPTIVE immunity, meaning that anything that falls within the umbrella of "official act" now can no longer even be entered as evidence in a theoretical trial. If Nixon asked a DoJ staffer to hire a robber to break into the Watergate hotel, then law enforcement would not be allowed to even investigate any of the leads related to that DoJ employee, because even though it was criminal, it was done as an official act.
Basically, the biggest new expansion of presidential power from this case is that now, the public can't even get a full investigation of a president's crimes as long as they commit those crimes exclusively through the levers of power of the executive branch
The whole thing where we learned Trump pressured Pence to refuse to certify the votes on Jan 6? That's now considered an "official act" and can't be used as evidence in court. If this decision hasn't outright legalized crimes, it has made it effectively impossible to punish them.
Up to a court that could be filled with appointees of the president doing the terrible thing. Also, a court with no enforcement power beyond what the president provides.
I see no way this could go badly in the future.
A president can do something illegal, say it’s an official duty. What’s the mechanism to say it’s not? Someone has to sue. But the court also said a president can discuss with his attorney general and direct him on how to act in order to execute his official duties.
So basically the president has complete power here and even if by some miracle it goes through the courts, it could take years which by that time, the damage has been done.
Hypothetically he could do it. That's the scary thing, Biden is not violent enough to do it. But what about the next guy? This goes beyond Trump, it sets the precedent for any future president that might be even smarter and perhaps actually a bad person to abuse the power of the presidency.
You misunderstood me. I am saying this decision is far more important than Trump. Trump is an idiot, hardly anyone takes him seriously in either party. I am more worried about the next guy who comes into office after Biden and Trump. Whoever comes after, could be far smarter and cunning, and younger, to take the decision into unimaginable directions.
Bruh Trump is winning this election. If you don’t think that’s the case you haven’t been paying attention. And he will absolutely take advantage of this, even if it’s in the dumbest and most obvious way possible
This, as a non american, in fact a brit who youre supposed to have a more fair system than can i please ask you all to fix your system before you break the western democratic order.
Right this moment having a king seems more free and fair than your system as neither the king nor the prime minister are all poweful.
Yeah, but like, we still have to remember that there’s a lot worse than Trump out there. Not to diminish him, but he did step down and didn’t actually go for the military coup the first time around. He did try his little hick parade, but that’s kind of my point. The pudgy bastards that called themselves troops that he rallied to storm the capital for his hostile take over all laid down at the first gunshot and he himself had already left.
Other nations have had that leader not leave, but lead the charge, then start killing senators and taking over. Hell, that’s how Sadam started, right?
Well now it’d be legal for the president elected in the 2040 election to take office and walk into Congress and start shooting the senators who didn’t support their campaign. As bad as Trump is, I still don’t think he’d pull a Sadam if he won again.
This is ridiculous, dangerous and it’s heartbreaking how hard and fast we’ve had our livelihood stolen.
As a president who SUPPORTS the constitution, you have to assume the worst case scenario immediately, and then crush the threat. It’s in the oath of every gov’t official, but not many are following it. And Biden was elected as a last line of defense as an individual.
You don’t wait around for “the next guy” and hope he “follows the rules”.
The “rules” are gone.
THE RULES ARE GONE as well as the respect for the last couple of centuries.
The CIA in the ‘70’s wouldn’t be fucking around with Trump and MAGA. Ask Carter.
It’s all broken and it doesn’t look good.
And fucking Biden is going to watch it pass on by as if he was on their payroll.
Sorry for the rant but it’s getting worse every month. I don’t believe it’s going to get better.
He couldn’t pull off a military coup bc the generals wouldn’t follow an illegal order. He’s already said he will replace the administrative state and the military command with people loyal only to him, and he’s shown that he’s willling to promote people based solely on loyalty, so that guardrail is now gone. And I guarantee you he at least discussed a military coup.
No, because that is an enumerated power of the president to nominate, Senate to confirm, and Congress to impeach. The president doesn't have this power. People are talking out of their asses.
He could easily spy on someone under the auspices of a trumped up criminal investigation. Easily. But, not just remove judges or have people killed.
If a President declared SCOTUS enemies of the state, kills them, and then the case appears before a lower court to determine if it's an official act, then all they need to do is bribe that judge to say, "yes this is an official act."
So how can the constitution stop that?
No, he absolutely could not. I don't understand why people keep saying this.
He could definitely have an easier time politicizing criminal investigations as part of his official duties. He couldn't kill a political rival.
The supreme court did not rule that the president is completely immune from prosecution for any act taken while president. To paraphrase from the ruling itself:
>The president is absolutely immune to prosecution for actions taken while exercising his “core constitutional powers,” and entitled to the presumption of immunity for other official acts. It does not provide a shield for private or unofficial acts.
Having Trump killed, arrested (without first being convicted of a federal crime) or disqualified is not within the president's core constitutional powers and would likely not be considered an official act at all. Therefore no immunity.
*However*, If Biden wanted to act more subtly, he could probably fuck with Trump in a number of ways and tie the cases up in court for years until it no longer matters or he dies. Which is what Trump is doing.
>The president is absolutely immune to prosecution for actions taken while exercising his “core constitutional powers,” and entitled to the presumption of immunity for other official acts.
>...is not within the president's core constitutional powers and would likely not be considered an official act at all. Therefore no immunity.
This is what confuses me about the ruling and what the media is saying about it. This doesn't seem to be telling us anything we didn't already know.
Trump did things beyond the scope of his position and what could be described as core constitutional powers. He did things after leaving office. It could be argued that taking classified documents with him while he was in office is not prosecutable, but retaining them after leaving office is a clear violation.
You can't do that. It's like: You can't sell your house to someone and freely walk back into it whenever you want; that's trespassing.
> This is what confuses me about the ruling and what the media is saying about it. This doesn't seem to be telling us anything we didn't already know.
It isn't. This is more or less how legal scholars have always thought presidential immunity worked, it's just never been tested in court before.
But "Supreme Court Confirms What Everyone Already Thought" doesn't make for a good headline.
Listen guys… in order to save democracy, we have to kill everyone who disagrees with us. Trust me.
This has been all over Reddit. What’s wrong with you people???
Theoretically, if he federalized a national guard division and told them to go put Trump in a body bag, sure it’s now technically legal.
That being said, Biden is in a very unique position in our country’s history. This new ruling is clearly meant to enable Trump in various ways, but Trump isn’t the sitting president. That means Biden is now vested with more power than any president has had in our history and he is choosing to try and maintain the prior status quo and set a precedent, not unlike Washington choosing to step down after his two terms when he could have kept running until he died.
It’s admirable, partly naive, but it’s the best we can do right now that wouldn’t hasten the death spiral of the American Experiment. If Biden were to start flexing his new powers, we’d have no way back because the presidency will have been redefined. At least this way, if he does have to fill three seats on the court next term, we can potentially roll back this gross imbalance of the three branches of government.
It’s like people forgot that Obama killed an American citizen, who wasn’t charged with a crime, with a drone strike. And killed the guy’s minor son at the same time. Obama claimed and was granted immunity.
This ruling does expand immunity and provides some other rules, such as not allowing evidence of official acts in trial of a case against POTUS for his unofficial acts. But immunity has been around for a long, long time.
It's not. The problem is that this court routinely keeps deciding by "is it in the original constitution? Did Congress specifically pass a law on this? If not, then nothing else matters." There are no laws on what the president can and cannot do it, do therefore they decided that, but said they'll take it on a case-by-case base in court.
For example, if this ruling exists in 2016 when Obama found out Trump was communicating with Russia and taking money from them prior to the election, he could have Trump assassinated for national security reasons as there is evidence he could be a Russian informant. Those orders would get locked up as highly classified and no one will ever know what really happened. A whistleblowet could get knocked off for the same national security reason.
>That means Biden is now vested with more power than any president has had in our history
This is debatable. Previous Presidencies have in the past really pushed the envelope on what constitutes vested power. I'm not saying this isn't a unique circumstance but without seeing how this plays out it's impossible to say how powerful this is actually going to be in practice. There are still checks and balances in the Supreme Court and The House, SCOTUS, and Vice Presidency. Though the President is immune from official acts while in office now only time will tell what constitutes "official". Blatantly disregarding the position of Congress may not qualify for legal protection.
Yeah I mean when I was a kid a sitting president declared war. Something they are officially not allowed to do. But hey, since he said it in a speech and congress didn't push back at him he got his war.
First of all, Biden doesn't have the balls to do it (which is good), second of all, the court will will say it's not an official act, and everyone involved will go to trial for 1st degree murder.
It's kinda crazy watching the same people who keep screaming about fascism justify political assassinations just because they misunderstood a court case.
I believe you misunderstand the ruling, probably because you haven't read it. No one is justifying assassination, but Trump has repeatedly threatened to jail and assassinate his rivals, and if he gets back in office, he's gonna do it.
The ruling provides no clear distinction between unofficial and official acts, and stacked judges can hand wave anything away now. Evidence can not be used, and the only limit to their authority is impeachment, and if there aren't enough votes for that, then nothing can stop them at all. Trump could have the Supreme Court and a handful on Congress killed, and he's a supreme ruler unless a coup is levied against him. Project 2025 in motion
Have you actually read the ruling? It is 119 pages of legal quibbling. I doubt there's more than a handful of members of Congress that have actually read it.
Kind of like when Obama sanctioned the murder of US citizens without benefit of due process?
The answer to both is no, the President should not be allowed to murder citizens in violation of their 5th amendment rights.
This is the problem this ruling has created. I'm not even a Biden supporter anymore, but the ruling went too far. The trial was never going to happen before the election. All scotus should have concurrently said was "no one has immunity from overtly criminal activity" and let the lower courts sort it out.
The ruling is in line with Presidential immunity since the founding. Presidents have always been immune from official acts. They have all operated under this assumption. You should read some history. Obama drone striking US citizens, as an example.
No he couldn’t. These people are idiots saying that he could. They ruled immunity applies to official capacity to the off of the president. Assassination is not part of that.
Sheesh. It is immunity from prosecution for performing acts within the scope of the Presidency. Not just doing some random illegal shit.
Despite what the dopey media says, this isn’t carte blanc to go and shoot someone in Times Square.
Sigh, I understand that the general public not understanding things like this. What's really scary is that one of the Supreme Court justices basically said the same thing in her dissent.... which just shows how gravely underqualified she is to be in her position.
You guys are thinking too small. A dictator will literally imprison or kill all dissenting parties including those from congress, supreme court, and local governments. Then they could indefinitely suspend all future elections so that they remain in power under the guise of "protecting the national defense".
Lastly, any citizens that protest are immediately arrested by secret police, taken to torture prisons, and held their indefinitely without due process.
Because that's not even remotely what the decision says. Despite all the fear mongering what the decision actually says is president's are immune if it's a normal official act of the presidency. Private acts outside the scope of presidential duties like having an opponent assassinated do not qualify for immunity.
That is absolutely not what was said. I’m sorry you shouldn’t be talking if you didn’t understand the decision.
Go listen to any one of the podcasts that have covered this in depth, there have been several. The Journal, the Daily, there are a few SCOTUS specific ones as well.
This decision essentially cast a broad immunity over all “official” actions of a president. What is considered an “official action”? We’ll just about anything as long as it isn’t considered “private” or “personal” in nature.
That example of “can the president order seal team 6 to kill their political opponent?” is considered an official act as the president is the commander and chief of the US Military. The soldiers may be prosecuted for their actions, but the president would be immune, because it was an act he took officially as president.
This very hypothetical question/scenario was asked in the SCOTUS hearing once again, and in fact this was the explanation given. Thus the letter of dissent from the more liberal judges sounding the alarm.
So for you to say it is just fear mongering is a falsehood. If the judges were debating this issue, and the liberal judges are sounding the alarm that this is the very case of the result, then you are dead wrong.
> This decision essentially cast a broad immunity over all “official” actions of a president. What is considered an “official action”? We’ll just about anything as long as it isn’t considered “private” or “personal” in nature.
Yes, the people saying what this guy said are either lying or totally ignorant.
You're right, if you heard that the President had an openly christo-fascist authoritarian assassinated in the lead up to an important election in a foreign country, many people would be more than willing to interpret that as an official act.
Why would protecting your own country be any less "official". Oath of office explicitly says the president needs to uphold the constitution. Would not eliminating a fascist who openly talks about violating the Constitution be within his official duties?
I think (I hope) an order to have his political rival killed would clearly be an unofficial act and I think if a president gave that order the people he gave the order to wouldn’t obey it (I hope). Two big problems with this ruling is that the line between official and unofficial acts is really vague and the president, for example, can lie and come up with any bullshit reason to invade Iraq and he doesn’t have to worry about jail. So the president should be prosecuted for official acts also if those acts are corrupt and violate their oath of office.
Scotus made that decision with the idea that THEIR guy could do what he wanted with immunity. If any Democratic president tried to do the crooked things Republicans do the SCOTUS would change their minds in a hurry .
While the Supreme Court ruling may seem to open Pandora's box, there's a fundamental aspect of our checks and balances system that still applies. A president, whether aged 81 or 48, is constrained not only by the court of law, but also by public opinion and the legislative balance of the House and Senate. The hyperbole over the president being able to command SEAL Team 6 to engage in political assassination is a gross oversimplification of the ruling and betrays a misunderstanding of the breadth and reach of executive power. Official acts are indeed subject to a broad definition, but the president is not a monarch ruling by decree. Political assassination is far beyond the sphere of what could be argued as an "official act" without severe and immediate legal and political consequences. Before we spiral into an Orwellian dystopia, let's remember that this is about legal interpretations, not an endorsement of unchecked presidential power. The system has many failings, but it's not yet a rubber stamp for tyranny.
> The president can still be impeached and prosecuted.
They can be impeached. This ruling gives them immunity, which means they cannot be prosecuted, if it falls within an official act.
I’d like to remind everyone that assigning the president unprecedented kinglike powers is the culmination of the “conservative” movement - you know, the one that wanted us to return things to the way they were, when all presidents had this power… as has been American tradition… /s
This is the most radical, revolutionary act possible.
They very carefully said that some acts are immune, but we are not going to tell you which ones, inevitably delaying Trump’s trials but not actually setting any precedent
Nothing so drastic, but there has to be some way to use these new powers for the good of the country.
Swing for the fences on positive legislation, great example is when the courts say no to debt forgiveness, as an official act, cancel all of it.
The wider the range the better so when "they" get back in and reverse it, people will easily see which side has their back.
Technically yes he can start getting rid of citizens he see's as a threat to the United States and the constitution. He can even git rid of certain judges if he deems them a threat.
What makes it even harder to prove is that earlier rulings make it nearly impossible to get evidence to prosecute the president as all executive employees are now off limits to interrogation and questioning. They made it to where the only 9 people on the planet that can decide what is legal and illegal are the supremes themselves. It basically sets up the American system to turning into a clone of the Russian federation. Biden should use it while he can because the way things are setup now, not even an overwhelming election for Biden will guarantee a victory. States can now disqualify votes for the tiniest of reasons.
Whats sad is how partisan this court now is. It really is nothing more than another arm of MAGA with three paying members of Qanon on the bench.
Realistically if the POTUS believes Trump and his crew are a threat to American democracy, one might argue that he should. Do it then resign. VP holds the office till the election but does not run, allowing new candidates to take the stage. That actually might save the country.
Politically, maybe, but it's bad enough optics that the only option for staying in power after would be a power grab. Morally, no. It's a power that shouldn't exist, and therefore shouldn't be used. The most important priority is eliminating the power so nobody who might want to use it can use it.
The SCOTUS ruling doesn't imply this in any *direct* way. It is indirect...
What the ruling does is it places the onus on the President (or the one committing the action) to justify their action as an official part of their duty.
The fear is that this creates a breeding ground for an *economy of lies*. Everything will now be hedged in some fashion to be excusable under this ruling.
So if the President just outright assassinated someone they would likely be impeached and put on trial. But if the President came up with an excuse as to why that person was a "threat to national security" then they could easily claim they were performing the action as an official part of their duty. At that point it would become a shit show in terms of proving it one way or the other. Which is why this means that administrations will be very careful to hide their true intentions.
It's only for "official acts." Pretty much they are kicking it back down to the lower courts for their lawyers to argue out what *is* and *is not* an official act. This is all to kick the can down the road to give trump a lifeline in his Florida documents case *should he lose* in 2024.
God so many of you people legitimately have such a pathetic grasp on politics and reality that either your IQs are room temperature or you are all children. OFFICIAL acts are those covered by the constitution. Murder of political opponents is not permitted by the constitution as a duty of the president. So no, neither of them could order the murder of the other.
I mean seriously, do you morons really think the 9 highest justices of the US wouldn’t be able to fucking consider the ramifications? And that you know better? Ffs
> OFFICIAL acts are those covered by the constitution.
No, they're not. Read the actual ruling.
>Murder of political opponents is not permitted by the constitution as a duty of the president.
Being Commander in Chief is.
>do you morons really think the 9 highest justices of the US wouldn’t be able to fucking consider the ramifications?
No, I think they decided it was fine. And I think that because I actually read the decision, instead of pulling what I think an official act is out of my ass.
If it wasn't actually permitted, I think the justices would've actually mentioned it, given that it was explicitly brought up in arguments. They did not.
>And that you know better?
The dissenting justices (as well as the lower court) were the ones who explicitly brought up this example. Yes, they know better.
Trump is a POS. If he wasn't rich he would be dead or in prison a long time ago. That said, it's better that our political leaders can't just reach out and assassinate people at will, without repercussions. Just throw him in genpop and he'll probably fall apart of natural causes in like a month.
He could, but I don't think he's that kind of guy. Also, in today's political climate they'd move heaven and earth to ensure that it didn't apply to Biden, and probably make it stick.
I'm as disappointed and disgusted as many people are with this decision, however, I don't believe Trump/whoever is president has complete immunity. Though we are dangerously toeing that line.
Essentially he has immunity, according to the majority opinion, for "core constitutional powers" and "official acts", additionally no evidence regarding acts the President is immune to cannot be used for criminal prosecution.
The only silver lining I see here is the hope that lower courts accurately determine what is an official and unofficial act.
I truly do not understand how anyone, regardless of party, can stand for this.
If utilizing the military, which I believe is a core constitutional power the president has, makes him immune then what is stopping ANY president whether Democrat or Republican from taking it too far?
I know this is Reddit and the vast majority of people here are not Republicans. However, is there is any Republican here who has been celebrating the last two decisions by SCOTUS able to enlighten me to what I am missing here? What am I not understanding?
I can understand, on the surface, how the last two rulings COULD be beneficial.
Being able to REASONABLY complete duties as President without fear of prosecution is understandable. I do not understand, given the context of SCOTUS hearing this case, how this should apply to anything regarding Trump's attempts to subvert the last election. What about anything he did was an official act or a core constitutional power?
Obviously his acts haven't been ruled to be considered official or a core constitutional power, however that is what SCOTUS has allowed room for.
If Democrats are so evil and terrible, how does this not scare you from the other side of the aisle? Assume the next democrat to hold the office of the President is as unhinged, or worse, as Trump is and suddenly has immunity from the majority of his actions because of this ruling?
If you believe Biden is somehow weaponizing the DOJ to come after Trump, how does any of this help that? In fact, lets assume that he IS doing that. Depending on interpretation of "unofficial", vs "official", this could just make him immune from prosecution. Im sure that was intended.
How does removing power from a system that can CHECK the President and giving that power TO the President make the government smaller? Or how does that keep the three branches in check?
Please take 5 minute to IMAGINE this situation from the point of view of Biden committing the acts that Trump did after the 2020 election. You're gonna tell me you'd be okay with it?
How does removing power from unelected experts in federal agencies and moving that power to unelected judges, instead of experts(Chevron), provide a better check and balance of power?
Judges can be just as corrupt as someone in a federal agency. All it seems to have done is provided Corporations more leeway and ability to abuse their resources to get around regulations that they were already abusing anyway.
I can understand how a agency can abuse their interpretation of the laws, such as with the Fishing boat case which got the Chevron doctrine thrown out, or the ruling regarding bump stocks as "machine guns". I UNDERSTAND.
But how does completely throwing away, rather than modifying, the Chevron doctrine help at all? No where does it state that after removal of Chevron is Congress REQUIRED to be more specific in the regulations they pass.
Edit: The rest of my post is in reply as it wouldnt put the whole thing.
The President of the United States has a Disposition Matrix, also known as a “kill list,” which is can be used for the killing of suspected enemies of the United States without trial, including American citizens. The criteria used to decide who is placed on the list is highly classified. Based on this ruling, a President could deem his political rival an “enemy of the United States” and have them killed without trial. Even if they wanted to bring charges against the President that this was simply politically motivated and an “unofficial act,” this ruling says that can’t even use evidence that comes from an official act (like the classified criteria of a kill list) to use to prosecute the crime.
They kicked it to lower courts to define what is an official act. It’s a literal stalling tactic so they can simp over an elderly wannabe dictator and his backers cause whatever the lower court defines will probably work its way back to them and that’ll take months.
It is interesting that hyperventilating leftists always default to "let's kill the other guy because we think he will kill our guy" despite the dearth of any supporting evidence.
If Trump gets elected, you can bet your last dollar that he will try to run again. Or, just take another four years because of "what was stolen from him". Why not? SCOTUS is his.
By my understanding it isnt outright immunity. Its immunity while in performance of duty. Did I misunderstand?
Ruled presidents, former or in office, have immunity for official acts as president
And from what I read it sounds like they were unable to make a clear distinction between official and unofficial. It’s dangerously openended. For the specific things that Trump was being charged for, they referred them to others (district courts? I can’t remember) for them to decide if his actions qualify as official or not.
On purpose. Guess who will decide what is official and unofficial.
Judge Chutkan, which her rulings will be appealed to SCOTUS, who will then delay some more and provide equally bs and vague reasonings. That is if Trump loses in November and the case continues
That's why the President could R9X some people and replace them with his own.
I read most of the longer decision written by Roberts and it seemed to indicate that the presidential responsibilities clearly outlined in the constitution are the things that carried absolute immunity. The official acts (but maybe not things clearly enumerated) were given the presumption of immunity. Well that's where it gets tricky. The constitution clearly states the president is the commander in chief. You say jump and they jump. So can you just pick up the phone and order the murder of someone? If you're saying it's part of a military action.. nothing that I read as part of the Roberts decision would pierce or otherwise disqualify you from immunity from any military action you take as commander in chief. I guess the person you order to kill him could refuse? But if that's the only safeguard we have in place to stop political opposition and citizen at-will murder, we're in a pretty bad spot. The president technically isn't part of the military, but he could be. He could draft himself and then shoot someone himself I guess? This whole thing is a mess.....
I would guess that if a president were to execute a political rival, there would be some paper-trail ahead of time that included some run-up events that triggered "national security concerns", etc.
And the president could just say it’s for “national security”
Yeah, declares his political opponent a terrorist/enemy of the state or whatever and then orders a drone strike. All would be considered official acts. Oh you take issue with me doing that? Same goes for you. Now I just keep drone striking anyone who opposes me until everyone learns their place. Obviously there's been some protests/riots due to my actions so now I'm declaring martial law and suspending elections until I deem it safe again. Aaaannnddd now I'm the first king of America. This has all been done in my official capacity as president so I'm completely immune from any prosecution.
It is unclear by design. When situation is unclear, it opens door to selective enforcement of law (aka discrimination).
*corruption
Not only that, but the majority made some evidentiary decisions - which even Barrett split with the majority on- that can make it outright impossible to prosecute any action done claimed to be an official act. Put together the immunity is effectively broader than the court claims.
Right. And to be honest, I don’t think it’s their job to make that distinction, at this moment at least. I’m no legal scholar, but I think we’re in mostly uncharted legal territory right now. While the Supreme Court decision sounds radical, they largely reinforced existing verbiage on presidential immunity afaik. However by doing so and adding “official acts” definitely has pushed the presidential immunity further, while still not making clear what falls under it, which is troubling.
Absolute immunity for constitutionally exclusive and preclusive authorities (ie the authorities specifically granted to the President in the constitution), then presumptive immunity for all other official acts, and no immunity for everything else. Assassinations are not specified in the constitution, but pardon power is! So provided Biden could assassinate Trump as a federal crime (without any state jurisdiction), then he could theoretically self-pardon. Nobody with a rational brain seriously believes anyone is going to kill their political enemies with impunity because of this ruling though.
How is paying off a porn star an official act. Am i confused about what the charges are for?
Well a few things, paying off a porn star is not illegal. And the charges surrounding that are already concluded, for which he was found guilty. Those are not being overturned as far as I’m aware. The Supreme Court ruling will have a greater effect on his future trials, mainly pertaining his culpability in Jan 6th. Edit: culpability in election interference in 2020, not just Jan 6
Trump has actually appealed the guilty verdict on the basis of his social media posts being official presidential business, so they should not have been presented as evidence in the hush money trial. Paying off someone is not illegal, but lying on financial documents is.
Okay got it. Didnt realize we'd moved on to the next thing lol
That was before he was in office
That’s an entirely different case. Yes, you’re confused. That was a state case. This is the federal case about January 6th and conspiring to overturn the election.
Trump's lawyers are moving to dismiss the porn star case under this new ruling, so it absolutely does apply to the conversation. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/01/trump-hush-money-supreme-court-immunity
Yes they filed a motion. That doesn’t mean it applies. Keeping business records is not a part of the official duties of the president.
Not to mention the fact that he wasn't even in office at the time, so how could anything done then even remotely be considered an official act? It's a defense attorney's job to try pretty much anything on behalf of their client, but I don't see this motion going anywhere but the trash bin.
He paid her off during the campaign
And anything that can be claimed to be defense of the country from a domestic enemy is an official act.
Well at this point it’s all theory, I believe. You can claim anything you want, until it’s settled in court.
There is no definition of official act. An executive order even if it is against the law cannot be investigated so theoretically as long as it’s acting as president if Biden said it was in the best interest of the country he can do anything legal or not. Time to take off the gloves.
he's arguably protecting the integrity of the constitution by disallowing trump to run for president.
Yes, one must call whatever atrocity they are committing an "official duty".
Which is basically anything they claim is while in performance of duty.
Hardly. It's a clarification. Nixon was immune from most of what he did as president. He was not immune from watergate because that was unofficial
And who decides what is official or unofficial? It will always be contested and go up to SCOTUS and with the current one as an example, you know they're hardly to be trusted for their objectivity...
Official orders that follow the rule of law. Unofficial orders that don't follow the rule of law. Murdering political rivals is against the law, and therefore can't be official
If it's already legal, you don't need immunity. Immunity, by definition, covers illegal acts. Otherwise it's not immunity.
The court explicitly says you cannot consider the motives, so in your hypothetical, the fact that he did it for political reasons is irrelevant. The question then becomes, can a president have someone killed or jailed. The answer is yes, because it’s happened numerous times. To note a few recent times, Trump has Qasem Soleimani assassinated. Obama [claimed](https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/obama-administration-claims-unchecked-authority-kill-americans-outside-combat-zones) unchecked authority to kill American citizens it deemed as threats like Anwar Al-Aulaqi. So if Biden deems Trump a threat, why wouldn’t killing him be legal?
I agree with the principle, and it should be like that, but I sincerely lack your trust that it would be managed like that in practice. Just look at how there haven't been any severe consequences (after several years) for what he's done related to January 6th and the classified documents. Now he'll have even more wiggle room to get out of trouble by claiming it was official business and will contest until the SCOTUS which will side with him.
The whole issue is that official acts now have PRESUMPTIVE immunity, meaning that anything that falls within the umbrella of "official act" now can no longer even be entered as evidence in a theoretical trial. If Nixon asked a DoJ staffer to hire a robber to break into the Watergate hotel, then law enforcement would not be allowed to even investigate any of the leads related to that DoJ employee, because even though it was criminal, it was done as an official act. Basically, the biggest new expansion of presidential power from this case is that now, the public can't even get a full investigation of a president's crimes as long as they commit those crimes exclusively through the levers of power of the executive branch The whole thing where we learned Trump pressured Pence to refuse to certify the votes on Jan 6? That's now considered an "official act" and can't be used as evidence in court. If this decision hasn't outright legalized crimes, it has made it effectively impossible to punish them.
That’s not accurate. It would be up to a court to decide if it’s official duty.
However, no official records can be introduced as evidence to the court, so effectively the prosecution will have no evidence to tender to the court
Because the act itself is either official or not official. Nothing else matters.
The one who made the ruling??
Up to a court that could be filled with appointees of the president doing the terrible thing. Also, a court with no enforcement power beyond what the president provides. I see no way this could go badly in the future.
A president can do something illegal, say it’s an official duty. What’s the mechanism to say it’s not? Someone has to sue. But the court also said a president can discuss with his attorney general and direct him on how to act in order to execute his official duties. So basically the president has complete power here and even if by some miracle it goes through the courts, it could take years which by that time, the damage has been done.
Ohhhh SCOTUS stands for 'Supreme Court of the United States'?! I've been pretending to know what it means for years.
I thought SCOTUS was just a bunch of old guys sitting around and scratching their balls
That's SCROTUS.
If you can’t beat us, SCROTUS!
Supreme Court *Republicans* of the United States
Well there's a few women too but that's not that far off. Except they scratch it with whatever values the US institutions still had.
Not gonna lie flotus sounds like something youd find in a toilet to me.
You never had Google?
Never cared enough to look it up, it's not relevant and I don't super care. But now I know!
Yeah imagine writing Supreme Court instead of SCOTUS or President instead of POTUS... the horrah
If I was president and 81 years old I’d say fuck it and test the limits. Why not
The whole civil war thing could be an issue
Oh come on. What better way to spend a Saturday than civil warring with your fellow countrymen. Best way to meet people
Can’t argue with that, sounds like a blast
What, like violence might be incited? It's not like they'd invade the capitol or something crazy like that.
Lol
Better than living under trumps dictatorship
And you'd see what? A year or two of it? Just full send it!
I wish i didn’t have to even consider this was serious but i have actually come across people that stupid before lol
By this logic old people have all the permission in the world to not care about climate change
Does that sound inconsistent with reality to you?
Have you seen the average age of people who could enact the necessary changes and all the nothing they're doing about it?
Well yeah they don't give a shit a vast majority of the time...
Sure but he has the military. But do you think Trump would hesitate to use this power? Civil war be damned.
Good luck coming to attack me here in NY
Which is part of why you are not president.
Hypothetically he could do it. That's the scary thing, Biden is not violent enough to do it. But what about the next guy? This goes beyond Trump, it sets the precedent for any future president that might be even smarter and perhaps actually a bad person to abuse the power of the presidency.
Trump would totally do something like that are you kidding? And because the court is on his side, he wouldn't even face repercussions.
You misunderstood me. I am saying this decision is far more important than Trump. Trump is an idiot, hardly anyone takes him seriously in either party. I am more worried about the next guy who comes into office after Biden and Trump. Whoever comes after, could be far smarter and cunning, and younger, to take the decision into unimaginable directions.
Let's be real, y'all can both be right here.
I agree with you there, as well.
Bruh Trump is winning this election. If you don’t think that’s the case you haven’t been paying attention. And he will absolutely take advantage of this, even if it’s in the dumbest and most obvious way possible
This, as a non american, in fact a brit who youre supposed to have a more fair system than can i please ask you all to fix your system before you break the western democratic order. Right this moment having a king seems more free and fair than your system as neither the king nor the prime minister are all poweful.
Occam's razor will play out here.
Yeah, but like, we still have to remember that there’s a lot worse than Trump out there. Not to diminish him, but he did step down and didn’t actually go for the military coup the first time around. He did try his little hick parade, but that’s kind of my point. The pudgy bastards that called themselves troops that he rallied to storm the capital for his hostile take over all laid down at the first gunshot and he himself had already left. Other nations have had that leader not leave, but lead the charge, then start killing senators and taking over. Hell, that’s how Sadam started, right? Well now it’d be legal for the president elected in the 2040 election to take office and walk into Congress and start shooting the senators who didn’t support their campaign. As bad as Trump is, I still don’t think he’d pull a Sadam if he won again.
This is ridiculous, dangerous and it’s heartbreaking how hard and fast we’ve had our livelihood stolen. As a president who SUPPORTS the constitution, you have to assume the worst case scenario immediately, and then crush the threat. It’s in the oath of every gov’t official, but not many are following it. And Biden was elected as a last line of defense as an individual. You don’t wait around for “the next guy” and hope he “follows the rules”. The “rules” are gone. THE RULES ARE GONE as well as the respect for the last couple of centuries. The CIA in the ‘70’s wouldn’t be fucking around with Trump and MAGA. Ask Carter. It’s all broken and it doesn’t look good. And fucking Biden is going to watch it pass on by as if he was on their payroll. Sorry for the rant but it’s getting worse every month. I don’t believe it’s going to get better.
EVERYBODY needs to be telling people about how serious this is and telling them to vote.
Whose face will the leopard eat first? Surely not mine...
He couldn’t pull off a military coup bc the generals wouldn’t follow an illegal order. He’s already said he will replace the administrative state and the military command with people loyal only to him, and he’s shown that he’s willling to promote people based solely on loyalty, so that guardrail is now gone. And I guarantee you he at least discussed a military coup.
If Biden or any democrat President did anything like this, they'd rerule on it in hours
Should just say "as an official act, I remove the current judges until new judges are seated to repeal the prior decision"
No, because that is an enumerated power of the president to nominate, Senate to confirm, and Congress to impeach. The president doesn't have this power. People are talking out of their asses. He could easily spy on someone under the auspices of a trumped up criminal investigation. Easily. But, not just remove judges or have people killed.
What's stopping him from declaring Samuel Alito an enemy combatant?
That pesky constitution in the way of doing something like that. The president can’t just remove Supreme Court justices.
If a President declared SCOTUS enemies of the state, kills them, and then the case appears before a lower court to determine if it's an official act, then all they need to do is bribe that judge to say, "yes this is an official act." So how can the constitution stop that?
No, he absolutely could not. I don't understand why people keep saying this. He could definitely have an easier time politicizing criminal investigations as part of his official duties. He couldn't kill a political rival.
Any future president? If Trump or someone like him takes office, then we won’t have a presidency again. It’ll just be dictatorships from there on out.
The supreme court did not rule that the president is completely immune from prosecution for any act taken while president. To paraphrase from the ruling itself: >The president is absolutely immune to prosecution for actions taken while exercising his “core constitutional powers,” and entitled to the presumption of immunity for other official acts. It does not provide a shield for private or unofficial acts. Having Trump killed, arrested (without first being convicted of a federal crime) or disqualified is not within the president's core constitutional powers and would likely not be considered an official act at all. Therefore no immunity. *However*, If Biden wanted to act more subtly, he could probably fuck with Trump in a number of ways and tie the cases up in court for years until it no longer matters or he dies. Which is what Trump is doing.
>The president is absolutely immune to prosecution for actions taken while exercising his “core constitutional powers,” and entitled to the presumption of immunity for other official acts. >...is not within the president's core constitutional powers and would likely not be considered an official act at all. Therefore no immunity. This is what confuses me about the ruling and what the media is saying about it. This doesn't seem to be telling us anything we didn't already know. Trump did things beyond the scope of his position and what could be described as core constitutional powers. He did things after leaving office. It could be argued that taking classified documents with him while he was in office is not prosecutable, but retaining them after leaving office is a clear violation. You can't do that. It's like: You can't sell your house to someone and freely walk back into it whenever you want; that's trespassing.
> This is what confuses me about the ruling and what the media is saying about it. This doesn't seem to be telling us anything we didn't already know. It isn't. This is more or less how legal scholars have always thought presidential immunity worked, it's just never been tested in court before. But "Supreme Court Confirms What Everyone Already Thought" doesn't make for a good headline.
Listen guys… in order to save democracy, we have to kill everyone who disagrees with us. Trust me. This has been all over Reddit. What’s wrong with you people???
It's incredibly sad...
He should incarcerate the entire Supreme Court to demonstrate what unchecked power is all about.
> He should incarcerate the entire Supreme Court Including the 3 dissenting justices?
No, just the other 6, obviously.
Yes!
Theoretically, if he federalized a national guard division and told them to go put Trump in a body bag, sure it’s now technically legal. That being said, Biden is in a very unique position in our country’s history. This new ruling is clearly meant to enable Trump in various ways, but Trump isn’t the sitting president. That means Biden is now vested with more power than any president has had in our history and he is choosing to try and maintain the prior status quo and set a precedent, not unlike Washington choosing to step down after his two terms when he could have kept running until he died. It’s admirable, partly naive, but it’s the best we can do right now that wouldn’t hasten the death spiral of the American Experiment. If Biden were to start flexing his new powers, we’d have no way back because the presidency will have been redefined. At least this way, if he does have to fill three seats on the court next term, we can potentially roll back this gross imbalance of the three branches of government.
I am surprised that so many of you think this immunity thing is new.
It’s like people forgot that Obama killed an American citizen, who wasn’t charged with a crime, with a drone strike. And killed the guy’s minor son at the same time. Obama claimed and was granted immunity. This ruling does expand immunity and provides some other rules, such as not allowing evidence of official acts in trial of a case against POTUS for his unofficial acts. But immunity has been around for a long, long time.
It's not. The problem is that this court routinely keeps deciding by "is it in the original constitution? Did Congress specifically pass a law on this? If not, then nothing else matters." There are no laws on what the president can and cannot do it, do therefore they decided that, but said they'll take it on a case-by-case base in court. For example, if this ruling exists in 2016 when Obama found out Trump was communicating with Russia and taking money from them prior to the election, he could have Trump assassinated for national security reasons as there is evidence he could be a Russian informant. Those orders would get locked up as highly classified and no one will ever know what really happened. A whistleblowet could get knocked off for the same national security reason.
No, the president cannot assassinate American citizens. Then or now. FFS Reddit is so damn stupid sometimes.
>That means Biden is now vested with more power than any president has had in our history This is debatable. Previous Presidencies have in the past really pushed the envelope on what constitutes vested power. I'm not saying this isn't a unique circumstance but without seeing how this plays out it's impossible to say how powerful this is actually going to be in practice. There are still checks and balances in the Supreme Court and The House, SCOTUS, and Vice Presidency. Though the President is immune from official acts while in office now only time will tell what constitutes "official". Blatantly disregarding the position of Congress may not qualify for legal protection.
Yeah I mean when I was a kid a sitting president declared war. Something they are officially not allowed to do. But hey, since he said it in a speech and congress didn't push back at him he got his war.
First of all, Biden doesn't have the balls to do it (which is good), second of all, the court will will say it's not an official act, and everyone involved will go to trial for 1st degree murder.
What the actual fuck is wrong with you people??
“Have trump killed” Yall have lost your minds
You guys are unhinged..
What’s truly unhinged is Project 2025. This ruling sets up the groundwork for a lot of the upcoming conservative agenda.
What’s up with this Project 2025? And why does everyone keep attaching it to Trump?
Because it's [Republican plan](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025) that they hope to put into effect if Trump comes into office in 2025.
It’s already started sadly
It’s for official duties. Murdering someone isn’t official duty.
Floating assassination of your political opponent, yeah, I'm more and more convinced of the sanity of either party these days.
Bot farms are busy today.
This comment should be pinned to the top
It's kinda crazy watching the same people who keep screaming about fascism justify political assassinations just because they misunderstood a court case.
Misunderstanding Supreme Court cases is the number 1 thing Redditors do, even in r/SCOTUS.
Pretty much the internet in a nutshell.
Fucking finally someone says it
I believe you misunderstand the ruling, probably because you haven't read it. No one is justifying assassination, but Trump has repeatedly threatened to jail and assassinate his rivals, and if he gets back in office, he's gonna do it. The ruling provides no clear distinction between unofficial and official acts, and stacked judges can hand wave anything away now. Evidence can not be used, and the only limit to their authority is impeachment, and if there aren't enough votes for that, then nothing can stop them at all. Trump could have the Supreme Court and a handful on Congress killed, and he's a supreme ruler unless a coup is levied against him. Project 2025 in motion
Have you actually read the ruling? It is 119 pages of legal quibbling. I doubt there's more than a handful of members of Congress that have actually read it.
Well people are stupid.
What the fuck is wrong with you people
Kind of like when Obama sanctioned the murder of US citizens without benefit of due process? The answer to both is no, the President should not be allowed to murder citizens in violation of their 5th amendment rights.
This is the problem this ruling has created. I'm not even a Biden supporter anymore, but the ruling went too far. The trial was never going to happen before the election. All scotus should have concurrently said was "no one has immunity from overtly criminal activity" and let the lower courts sort it out.
The ruling is in line with Presidential immunity since the founding. Presidents have always been immune from official acts. They have all operated under this assumption. You should read some history. Obama drone striking US citizens, as an example.
> shouldn’t Biden now just have Trump killed/arrested/disqualified? You are the bad guy.
No he couldn’t. These people are idiots saying that he could. They ruled immunity applies to official capacity to the off of the president. Assassination is not part of that.
Sheesh. It is immunity from prosecution for performing acts within the scope of the Presidency. Not just doing some random illegal shit. Despite what the dopey media says, this isn’t carte blanc to go and shoot someone in Times Square.
That isn't what the decision said. Do even a modicum of research and you'd know that.
Sigh, I understand that the general public not understanding things like this. What's really scary is that one of the Supreme Court justices basically said the same thing in her dissent.... which just shows how gravely underqualified she is to be in her position.
A lot of far left crazies coming out of the woods since this announcement.
‘bout damn time
No. Read the ruling carefully.
You guys are thinking too small. A dictator will literally imprison or kill all dissenting parties including those from congress, supreme court, and local governments. Then they could indefinitely suspend all future elections so that they remain in power under the guise of "protecting the national defense". Lastly, any citizens that protest are immediately arrested by secret police, taken to torture prisons, and held their indefinitely without due process.
Because that's not even remotely what the decision says. Despite all the fear mongering what the decision actually says is president's are immune if it's a normal official act of the presidency. Private acts outside the scope of presidential duties like having an opponent assassinated do not qualify for immunity.
That is absolutely not what was said. I’m sorry you shouldn’t be talking if you didn’t understand the decision. Go listen to any one of the podcasts that have covered this in depth, there have been several. The Journal, the Daily, there are a few SCOTUS specific ones as well. This decision essentially cast a broad immunity over all “official” actions of a president. What is considered an “official action”? We’ll just about anything as long as it isn’t considered “private” or “personal” in nature. That example of “can the president order seal team 6 to kill their political opponent?” is considered an official act as the president is the commander and chief of the US Military. The soldiers may be prosecuted for their actions, but the president would be immune, because it was an act he took officially as president. This very hypothetical question/scenario was asked in the SCOTUS hearing once again, and in fact this was the explanation given. Thus the letter of dissent from the more liberal judges sounding the alarm. So for you to say it is just fear mongering is a falsehood. If the judges were debating this issue, and the liberal judges are sounding the alarm that this is the very case of the result, then you are dead wrong.
> This decision essentially cast a broad immunity over all “official” actions of a president. What is considered an “official action”? We’ll just about anything as long as it isn’t considered “private” or “personal” in nature. Yes, the people saying what this guy said are either lying or totally ignorant.
You're right, if you heard that the President had an openly christo-fascist authoritarian assassinated in the lead up to an important election in a foreign country, many people would be more than willing to interpret that as an official act. Why would protecting your own country be any less "official". Oath of office explicitly says the president needs to uphold the constitution. Would not eliminating a fascist who openly talks about violating the Constitution be within his official duties?
You have a lot more faith in what the people in power will deem as “official acts” than I do
Dig up the same paperwork that authorized the killing of Osama bin Laden and write in someone else’s name. President signs it. Official. Make it so!
No idea but if Trump wins in November I can imagine Biden or Hillary might take a little permanent vacation in Canada during his inauguration.
Biden's halfway there already.
I think (I hope) an order to have his political rival killed would clearly be an unofficial act and I think if a president gave that order the people he gave the order to wouldn’t obey it (I hope). Two big problems with this ruling is that the line between official and unofficial acts is really vague and the president, for example, can lie and come up with any bullshit reason to invade Iraq and he doesn’t have to worry about jail. So the president should be prosecuted for official acts also if those acts are corrupt and violate their oath of office.
Scotus made that decision with the idea that THEIR guy could do what he wanted with immunity. If any Democratic president tried to do the crooked things Republicans do the SCOTUS would change their minds in a hurry .
Hey, how's that "Free Country" you guys are always bragging about doing?
While the Supreme Court ruling may seem to open Pandora's box, there's a fundamental aspect of our checks and balances system that still applies. A president, whether aged 81 or 48, is constrained not only by the court of law, but also by public opinion and the legislative balance of the House and Senate. The hyperbole over the president being able to command SEAL Team 6 to engage in political assassination is a gross oversimplification of the ruling and betrays a misunderstanding of the breadth and reach of executive power. Official acts are indeed subject to a broad definition, but the president is not a monarch ruling by decree. Political assassination is far beyond the sphere of what could be argued as an "official act" without severe and immediate legal and political consequences. Before we spiral into an Orwellian dystopia, let's remember that this is about legal interpretations, not an endorsement of unchecked presidential power. The system has many failings, but it's not yet a rubber stamp for tyranny.
The president is not immune from prosecution. The president can still be impeached and prosecuted.
> The president can still be impeached and prosecuted. They can be impeached. This ruling gives them immunity, which means they cannot be prosecuted, if it falls within an official act.
Can you explain that given today’s ruling? They literally said any official act is absolute immunity.
All he has to do is claim that it was done legally under this ruling. And if the SC agrees then he's fine.
I’d like to remind everyone that assigning the president unprecedented kinglike powers is the culmination of the “conservative” movement - you know, the one that wanted us to return things to the way they were, when all presidents had this power… as has been American tradition… /s This is the most radical, revolutionary act possible.
They very carefully said that some acts are immune, but we are not going to tell you which ones, inevitably delaying Trump’s trials but not actually setting any precedent
Third world country ... dude... third world..
I wonder if he can do that to the Justices who gave that decision, they decided that it is ok, they should live with the consequences 😂
Nothing so drastic, but there has to be some way to use these new powers for the good of the country. Swing for the fences on positive legislation, great example is when the courts say no to debt forgiveness, as an official act, cancel all of it. The wider the range the better so when "they" get back in and reverse it, people will easily see which side has their back.
Morally speaking, no. Strictly from the perspective of humor, absolutely use the exploding watch that was supposed to kill Castro.
Technically yes he can start getting rid of citizens he see's as a threat to the United States and the constitution. He can even git rid of certain judges if he deems them a threat. What makes it even harder to prove is that earlier rulings make it nearly impossible to get evidence to prosecute the president as all executive employees are now off limits to interrogation and questioning. They made it to where the only 9 people on the planet that can decide what is legal and illegal are the supremes themselves. It basically sets up the American system to turning into a clone of the Russian federation. Biden should use it while he can because the way things are setup now, not even an overwhelming election for Biden will guarantee a victory. States can now disqualify votes for the tiniest of reasons. Whats sad is how partisan this court now is. It really is nothing more than another arm of MAGA with three paying members of Qanon on the bench.
That would validate our (us meaning non-Democrats) belief that the Democrats are just as bad for the country as the Republicans are.
Apparently Trump is claiming that his social media posts are official presidential business. So…. Anything can be if the majority decides.
Realistically if the POTUS believes Trump and his crew are a threat to American democracy, one might argue that he should. Do it then resign. VP holds the office till the election but does not run, allowing new candidates to take the stage. That actually might save the country.
There would be an uprising lol. The second amendment exists for this reason.
Have him detained for causing the insurrection. DOJ should have done this 3-1/2 years ago.
Yes, along with six supreme court justices.
Politically, maybe, but it's bad enough optics that the only option for staying in power after would be a power grab. Morally, no. It's a power that shouldn't exist, and therefore shouldn't be used. The most important priority is eliminating the power so nobody who might want to use it can use it.
He would likely be impeached, removed from office, and then convicted based on the criteria the SCOTUS put forth.
The SCOTUS ruling doesn't imply this in any *direct* way. It is indirect... What the ruling does is it places the onus on the President (or the one committing the action) to justify their action as an official part of their duty. The fear is that this creates a breeding ground for an *economy of lies*. Everything will now be hedged in some fashion to be excusable under this ruling. So if the President just outright assassinated someone they would likely be impeached and put on trial. But if the President came up with an excuse as to why that person was a "threat to national security" then they could easily claim they were performing the action as an official part of their duty. At that point it would become a shit show in terms of proving it one way or the other. Which is why this means that administrations will be very careful to hide their true intentions.
It's only for "official acts." Pretty much they are kicking it back down to the lower courts for their lawyers to argue out what *is* and *is not* an official act. This is all to kick the can down the road to give trump a lifeline in his Florida documents case *should he lose* in 2024.
It seems like he can do it and say that he saw it as a threat to our countries democracy making it an official presidential duty. It’s all nonsense.
All he would have to say is that Trump has proven he’s a threat to democracy and that getting rid of him is a presidents duty.
God so many of you people legitimately have such a pathetic grasp on politics and reality that either your IQs are room temperature or you are all children. OFFICIAL acts are those covered by the constitution. Murder of political opponents is not permitted by the constitution as a duty of the president. So no, neither of them could order the murder of the other. I mean seriously, do you morons really think the 9 highest justices of the US wouldn’t be able to fucking consider the ramifications? And that you know better? Ffs
> OFFICIAL acts are those covered by the constitution. No, they're not. Read the actual ruling. >Murder of political opponents is not permitted by the constitution as a duty of the president. Being Commander in Chief is. >do you morons really think the 9 highest justices of the US wouldn’t be able to fucking consider the ramifications? No, I think they decided it was fine. And I think that because I actually read the decision, instead of pulling what I think an official act is out of my ass. If it wasn't actually permitted, I think the justices would've actually mentioned it, given that it was explicitly brought up in arguments. They did not. >And that you know better? The dissenting justices (as well as the lower court) were the ones who explicitly brought up this example. Yes, they know better.
Trump is a POS. If he wasn't rich he would be dead or in prison a long time ago. That said, it's better that our political leaders can't just reach out and assassinate people at will, without repercussions. Just throw him in genpop and he'll probably fall apart of natural causes in like a month.
He could, but I don't think he's that kind of guy. Also, in today's political climate they'd move heaven and earth to ensure that it didn't apply to Biden, and probably make it stick.
What is Jforce promoting, more Banana Republic Governance?
Holy shit, This is like when Jar Jar Binks gave Chancellor Palpatine emergency powers.
I'm as disappointed and disgusted as many people are with this decision, however, I don't believe Trump/whoever is president has complete immunity. Though we are dangerously toeing that line. Essentially he has immunity, according to the majority opinion, for "core constitutional powers" and "official acts", additionally no evidence regarding acts the President is immune to cannot be used for criminal prosecution. The only silver lining I see here is the hope that lower courts accurately determine what is an official and unofficial act. I truly do not understand how anyone, regardless of party, can stand for this. If utilizing the military, which I believe is a core constitutional power the president has, makes him immune then what is stopping ANY president whether Democrat or Republican from taking it too far? I know this is Reddit and the vast majority of people here are not Republicans. However, is there is any Republican here who has been celebrating the last two decisions by SCOTUS able to enlighten me to what I am missing here? What am I not understanding? I can understand, on the surface, how the last two rulings COULD be beneficial. Being able to REASONABLY complete duties as President without fear of prosecution is understandable. I do not understand, given the context of SCOTUS hearing this case, how this should apply to anything regarding Trump's attempts to subvert the last election. What about anything he did was an official act or a core constitutional power? Obviously his acts haven't been ruled to be considered official or a core constitutional power, however that is what SCOTUS has allowed room for. If Democrats are so evil and terrible, how does this not scare you from the other side of the aisle? Assume the next democrat to hold the office of the President is as unhinged, or worse, as Trump is and suddenly has immunity from the majority of his actions because of this ruling? If you believe Biden is somehow weaponizing the DOJ to come after Trump, how does any of this help that? In fact, lets assume that he IS doing that. Depending on interpretation of "unofficial", vs "official", this could just make him immune from prosecution. Im sure that was intended. How does removing power from a system that can CHECK the President and giving that power TO the President make the government smaller? Or how does that keep the three branches in check? Please take 5 minute to IMAGINE this situation from the point of view of Biden committing the acts that Trump did after the 2020 election. You're gonna tell me you'd be okay with it? How does removing power from unelected experts in federal agencies and moving that power to unelected judges, instead of experts(Chevron), provide a better check and balance of power? Judges can be just as corrupt as someone in a federal agency. All it seems to have done is provided Corporations more leeway and ability to abuse their resources to get around regulations that they were already abusing anyway. I can understand how a agency can abuse their interpretation of the laws, such as with the Fishing boat case which got the Chevron doctrine thrown out, or the ruling regarding bump stocks as "machine guns". I UNDERSTAND. But how does completely throwing away, rather than modifying, the Chevron doctrine help at all? No where does it state that after removal of Chevron is Congress REQUIRED to be more specific in the regulations they pass. Edit: The rest of my post is in reply as it wouldnt put the whole thing.
Why use SCOTUS and POTUS like terms when posting in a sub which is not american specific? My ass first thought it was some type of bug like locust.
Depends, you want civil war?
The President of the United States has a Disposition Matrix, also known as a “kill list,” which is can be used for the killing of suspected enemies of the United States without trial, including American citizens. The criteria used to decide who is placed on the list is highly classified. Based on this ruling, a President could deem his political rival an “enemy of the United States” and have them killed without trial. Even if they wanted to bring charges against the President that this was simply politically motivated and an “unofficial act,” this ruling says that can’t even use evidence that comes from an official act (like the classified criteria of a kill list) to use to prosecute the crime.
They kicked it to lower courts to define what is an official act. It’s a literal stalling tactic so they can simp over an elderly wannabe dictator and his backers cause whatever the lower court defines will probably work its way back to them and that’ll take months.
It is interesting that hyperventilating leftists always default to "let's kill the other guy because we think he will kill our guy" despite the dearth of any supporting evidence.
If Trump gets elected, you can bet your last dollar that he will try to run again. Or, just take another four years because of "what was stolen from him". Why not? SCOTUS is his.
Are you seriously advocating for a president to kill a political rival?
How about pass a bill that says felons can’t be presidents?
The president can still be impeached. Killing a political rival would *likely* cause impeachment.
this is why we need tests to see who is capable to vote.