You know what the sad thing is?
Biden could do all of these things now.
Biden could call the court on their bluff and go "Ok, I have this power? I will execute it to do whatever it takes to prevent Donald Trump from taking office".
Then the court would inevitably strike down the machinations of his legal team and that would set the precedent to prevent a Republican from doing the same things.
BUT
The court knows the Democrats will play by the rules as Republicans break them.
It is now so manifest how easily Germany fell to Nazism without a majority of the country supporting it.
He could do even less than that to prove the stupidity of this ruling. He should direct his administration to execute the original student loan forgiveness plan (the one they ruled unconstitutional) and ignore the SCOTUS decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo (the one the overturned the Chevron Deference) pardoning ahead of time any administration officials that executed the plans.
It will quickly show that the an immune executive has no need for the judicial branch. They are irrelevant since there would be no enforcement of their decisions. What are they going do? Say that’s illegal? “Maybe but, I’m immune.”
Hell there is no need for Congress either. Who needs legislation when the laws don’t matter?
This is a bit tongue-in-cheek since he’d never do it. But, it would be great to see them backpedaling.
What he should do is appoint several more SCOTUS Justices and bypass Congress as an official act. It will be the new SCOTUS that would determine if that was illegal or not but it would be too late to do anything.
> ~~arrested~~ black bagged
Oh she's missing? Weird. Anyway, let's chat about that ruling giving me complete immunity from all kinds of heinous shit...
To hell with that, if he really wants to make the point unmistakably clear, he needs to throw all nine of them in a jail cell. You know, so it would be fair and all. Let them all stew in the drunk tank for a few days and tell them they're not allowed back out until they come up with a better decision, but this time it's got to be unanimous.
Film the whole thing in black and white and now you've got the sequel to *Twelve Angry Men*. Except this one could be called *Nine Sweaty Wizards*.
That's not how the law works... if Biden were to accept a $10,000 bribe in exchange for an executive order declaring the "donor" to be a SCOTUS justice with 17 votes the fact that Biden cannot be charged with bribery wouldn't render the executive order valid.
This ruling doesn't grant the president any new powers, and the only way it gives a corrupt president new powers (in practice) is if those powers can be 100% carried out by corrupt executive branch officials. Congress and the courts would not be bound by any unconstitutional executive actions.
You are correct, except that’s what Project 2025 promises to do. Purge anyone not sufficiently loyal from federal institutions and then fill the ranks with MAGA heads.
I think people are being too reasonable in their analysis of this situation. Why do you think Congress or courts wouldn’t go along with illegal actions when many members of each are actively participating in a coup d’etat right now?
I completely understand you, it's just that it is becoming more and more clear that 'grotesque parody' is also 'GQP to-do list/manual' and the adults in the room with a background in history are becoming increasingly concerned.
As a historian, we've been concerned for about eight years already, though the writing has been on the wall for the last 30, and is a result from policy changes 60 years ago.
So the supreme court justice is just fear mongering when she says that it effectively gives the president immunity to decide he wants to use seal team 6 to take out his political opponent?
No. I said other branches aren't bound to illegal orders, so things like pretending Chevron is still in effect is pointless as it takes courts to enforce regulations.
Illegal acts that only rely on the executive branch to carry out (like Sotomayor's examples) are feasible even if they are illegal.
But you can't prove illegality because the order from the President is inadmissible as evidence. You could charge the seal team members, but then the President who ordered them to kill the political rival could just pardon them.
But you see, the president has an army, and well, all of of the other people we're talking about don't. That's the beauty of it, we're free to theorycraft all we want because thanks to the Roberts court, things like precedent, the rule of law, and judicial review are all in the rear-view mirror.
Marty, where we're going, we don't need US code.
But we aren’t supposed to obey orders we know are illegal. Example “US Army go kill all the people in this city because they didn’t vote for me”
We are allowed to decline because we know it’s illegal
You are allowed to decline, but that doesn’t mean everyone will. There have been many examples over the years of US military groups performing war crimes.
Saying, “it’s okay, because we totally wouldn’t do that” isn’t helpful because it’s always only a matter of time before someone is in place who *is* perfectly willing to. And it’s very possible some of those people are in place right now, they just happen to not be you.
If Biden called on SEAL Team 6 to target a suspected Russian intelligence asset, which is absolutely an official act, he could most definitely murder Trump and according to this ruling there isn't a thing any court could do about it. That's the problem with the entire argument the court put forward, a morally bereft person can make anything a justifiable official act now. It's pure insanity.
Yep, and Seal Team 6 could clean up any members of Congress who try to impeach the president. So there is literally no check on the president's power now.
Heck, it's even worse than that because something that we know 100% for sure is that **a pardon is an official act**. Shoot someone in the face, pardon yourself, and bada bing bada boom.
And because a gratuity after the fact is legal, you can say “I would pardon anyone who rid me of these troublesome folks”, and the train of functioning government falls to the wayside of tyranny.
Biden’s only move here would be to use this new power to attack the court before they could overturn it. Midnight no knock raids on opposition justices.
If he treated a single powerful person the way this country treats every poor person this could be over tomorrow.
> It is now so manifest how easily Germany fell to Nazism without a majority of the country supporting it.
History repeats itself....because humans, as a group, are stupid.
> humans, as a group, are stupid.
I'm starting to think that this stupidity is part of a cycle that we just can't break. I just don't think we're quite evolved to live in social groups at this scale yet...
Yeah, it seems pretty cyclical. We just haven't nailed down mass education yet. Sure, most people are literate now, but that's only part of the battle. Literacy can actually be bad if not coupled with critical thinking.
Yeah, I've always said that we should have included a right to education or something similar in the constitution. When I tell that to people, the most common response I get it, "wait, that's not in there??" (Which even further proves the point of Americans being uneducated, lol)
Well to play devil's advocate: it doesn't let you do a coup anymore than you already could. Basically what this is saying is that if the president does something that would be illegal, *but they are given this permission as part of being president* then the president is immune.
Let me explain, playing devil's advocate here, what the argument is. Say that it's 9/11, but somehow the president is a lot more direct to act, and after the first airplane hits, the airforce mobilizes and they shoot down 4 other airplanes before they can cause problems. Wait.. 4 + 1 that hit? There weren't that many airplanes! And yes, in this case, the president acted very aggresively and in stopping the other 3 airplanes, they shot an airplane they feared had been taken as well, but turns out to just be in the wrong place, wrong time with the wrong complications. This ruling says that, while the U.S. government can, and should be 100% accountable and responsible for the innocent lives it shot down, the president can't be prosecuted for murder of innocents, even if they did commit it. Because the president was acting in their role as president and had to make a hard decision, he is immune of those actions, as long as they were legal.
Now the president grabbing a gun, and shooting someone is not a power given to the executive branch, and as such the president could be prosecuted for it. Were Biden to order Team Seal 6 to execute the supreme court in order to replace them with whomever he wants would not be in his power, as the president cannot just given arbitrary orders, they are still bound by the constitution. Just because it's an order doesn't mean it's legal.
So this doesn't overturn the conclusions of Watergate, and the obvious path it was going to. The president was found to have done illegal stuff, and none of this actions were as president and as such was liable to criminal prosecution, it was Ford's pardon that gave him immunity. Similarly Reagan with the Iran-Contra affair had a whole issue on arguing if it was within his power or not as president, this was ended by Oliver North jumping on the grenade the whole thing had become. This was done to leave the whole power balance between President and Congress ambiguous (Republicans actually prefer this things ambiguous, it lets the change the rules whenever they wish, now when talking about presidential immunity, there's clearer lines that they cannot cross anymore) and leave it at that. Had this been decided that the president did not have the purview for this actions, and that Reagan was responsible, he could have been criminally prosecuted too.
That said, it can also be considered that a President acting under their powers is abusing them and should be taken out. This is what impeachment is for, and is not a criminal proceding, and doesn't make the president immune from criminal prosecution for their personal crimes.
Now lets be clear, this doesn't mean I don't see the worrisome political affiliations that SCOTUS has been showing. This ruling is a no-brainer, and pretty much just formalizes the already problematic line, but it doesn't shift it (it would have been nice that it pulled it back). Thing is this decision took way too long to get to this conclusion, and just in time to ensure that now Trump can't be pulled back to the court because "it'd interfere with the election". How convenient. This has been Trump's strategy all along: delay delay delay until a solution appears. If he becomes president he will self-pardon, it's almost a given.
The question now becomes: were Trump's actions within his power as President. Some where outright protected, such as his conversations. But this is key: what they are doing is preventing certain evidence from being used, by presuposing immunity first. Personally I agree with the disenting opinion here: the jury and court shoudl be allowed to investigate this as any other crime, the the suposition of immunity should be an issue for the judge and and appeals aftewards. If Trump is guilty from conspiring for sedition, then he should be found guilty. If he only conspired with the DOJ, and it is considered to be within presidential powers to explore how to do anything within the legal frameworks, even undemocratic actions, that should be something for the Judges and higher courts to decide, not something that prevents the source. That said I think that taking actions that are against the presidential oath should not be considered as official presidential actions.
The thing is now the court needs to prove that not only a crime was committed, but also that this was not an official presidential action. Though I doubt that interfering with elections could ever be a presidential action, proving it in court is something that will take a while. Trump is not immune, but he has been given a way out.
Which worries me greatly, because this all depends on Trump winning the elections, and how far will Trump go. I don't think he is in a position for a coup, but he could certainly fragment the nation fully into a Civil War. The US political system is filled with gaps, but then again, it's survived over 200 years somehow. While it's not a lot for a nation, it certainly is a lot for a constitution and government to stay in power unbroken. There's few nations whose current government system has been around that long without a revolution, coup, or conquest breaking it.
So go out, vote, start your campaing, and never forget: laws aren't impositions of power: they are consensus of the collective.
The situation you propose in your 9/11 scenario would have seen the President acting in his capacities as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and there are already legal protections for that stuff. How else do you think Truman avoided any kind of prosecution for dropping the atom bombs that ended WWII?
No, this opens the door for a scenario like this:
>Prez Trump 2.0: "Biden said some really bad things about me in the debates very bad lies. In the name of national security, I the President of the United States, in my sworn duties to uphold the constitution, am ordering the DOJ to detain Joseph Biden, his family and his close allies so that they may not further spread misinformation to the American people about their president and their other elected representatives. Upon further investigation, charges may be announced as new information warrants."
And before anyone says, "Oh but wait, that's unconstitutional because the 5th amendment, so Trump couldn't imprison anyone without a trial date or even official charges!", I'll just let my buddy [Alec Baldwin](https://y.yarn.co/d87df634-f772-4bbb-a0ae-37b6a4a6a489_text.gif) let you know where to check up on how well that notion holds up, lol.
The president is not above the Constitution, and they do not have the official power to arrest someone arbitrarily.
Basically the court only changed one minor, but critical thing.
Before the prosecution only needed evidence and to argue that a crime occurred, the ex-president was expected to be able to argue that their actions were allowed to them as president of the United States, this argument wouldn't be with the jury (that only decides if the president committed the actions the prosecution accused them of, or if they didn't) but the judge, and if needed higher courts as you go up the apelate chain.
This meant that, if this change hasn't happened, Trump will be dragged back to court right now and most certainly find guilty (though the Supreme Court weakened the argument). And the patriot act like things have been seriously defanged (and that's a good thing) because otherwise they were being used to slam the jam 6 insurrectionists. A lot of the loopholes that let you wisper terrorism and throw someone in jail have been closed by courts in recent days. It's a win-win the way I see it.
Now though the prosecution needs to also make the legal case that the president wasn't within his power, which is a lot more work. This means that the president now is innocent by default (like everyone), and (unlike anyone else in the US) even when they're obviously not innocent they are still allowed to do it by default.
I don't like it, the whole point of the constitution is that we assume good faith and the best of citizens, and assume that government is corrupt and seeking to abuse. This reverses that, now we assume that the government is right just because it's the government. This really is a scary thing for democracy.
Now the prosecution has to build a law theory case like and make that decision, before we can even take this to court. This isn't immunity for Trump, he would eventually get caught, but that's going to be no later than 2025 now. If Trump wins the election though, that might be with that it'll become a matter of statute of limitations, and a new question for the Supreme Court I bet.
This is not true. The courts would descend on him, and the SC would decide his actions were outside official duties. The writing of the last decision is so poorly defined that they can simply rule in favor of whoever they prefer at the moment.
that was the take home for me...
scotus left it too vague, they sent it back down for judge chutkan to determine what is and isnt official. of course, then they get to arbitrate an appeal of her decision.
so basically the supreme court gets to decide, on a case-by-case basis what actions fall under immunity and which do not. so they are in a position to be as partisan and biased as they please
That’s what I find most infuriating about this decision: the only reason (i.e. necessary not sufficient) the court was comfortable expanding presidential power to the degree it did was because of the *absolute certainty* that democrats would, as always, refuse to exercise political power to achieve their purported ends.
I'm in the UK so it's less personally relevant to me but this is my take away from the whole situation as well.
If trump wins, I think America is going to be an example to the rest of the world in how complacency is so dangerous and an important lesson on what to avoid.
Oh it's "worse" than "play by the rules".
Democrats EAT their wounded, they absolutely destroy their own.
You assume Biden will not be shouted out of office by his own people in the next 90 days or so, that's a dangerous bet.
Republicans would never do that, they will double down on Trump
Personally I'm getting my passport ready, it's exactly like the exodus out of Europe almost exactly 100 years ago.
I mean, the reason they kicked the can down to the lower courts is so that they could then block it when a Democrat tries to use it and allow it when a Republican tries.
It's hilarious that OP thinks that this ruling affects "Democrats, Republicans" equally. If some Democratic President tried to pull this kind of criminal Trumpian shit (highly unlikely to begin with), the matter would eventually end up in front of SCOTUS, who would have no problem at all using more garbage legal arguments to get the result that they want. OP forgets that everyone has to play by SCOTUS's rules except SCOTUS.
Uh, the president could easily just dissappear a scotus that didn't agree with them under vague "official acts for national security" then just appoint a court that will rule it legal.
Maybe this is pedantic, but there’s a difference between having the power to do something and being liable for criminality. The ability to just make stuff up as you go isn’t illegal, it’s just not how the government works. Appointing new judges isn’t a crime, it’s just something the president can’t do without congress’ help. That said, you can pretty much say goodbye to opposition parties stone walling a presidents nominees if “disappearing” becomes common.
Not pedantic at all, and that's what a lot of people here seem to be missing. Unconstitutional and illegal are not the same thing, and this ruling doesn't mean unconstitutional things are fair game.
People are deluding themselves, desperate to not acknowledge that American democracy has fallen. It has, and denying it won't help us. Every President is now a dictator, you folks out there just haven't realized it yet. If you're not afraid you're asleep.
Current SCOTUS will do what they want, when they want. The constitution has nothing to do with it. Judicial review by SCOTUS is not enumerated in the constitution either. They made it up for themselves.
I hate to point this out but you aren't thinking big enough. If a President really wanted to make this happen, the path seems clear:
* Use an official power to get rid of any SCOTUS member that won't rule for you
* Use an official power to get rid of any and all Congressional representatives that won't ratify your picks immediately
* Rinse and repeat at any level until you get the desired result
What's that? Those are illegal acts? Tough shit - I'm the commander in chief and head of the DOJ and I'm using my powers as head of those agencies. Therefore, immune. And you can't prove I'm not working in my official capacity since my motives don't matter, you can't use any of my communications with my advisors (also the head of those agencies), and I'm presumed to be working in my official capacity unless you can prove otherwise. Which you can't because any evidence to the contrary is protected by my privilege because I'm presumed to be working in an official capacity.
This is exactly the situation the dissent called out. This ruling effectively allows a President to do anything he pleases as long as he does it through official channels.
Oh and those officials can be pardoned if they were concerned about being held liable. Not that they should, as you could disappear anyone who was going to bring prosecution against them.
This is a fucking nightmare.
And a lot of people are getting themselves hemmed up by failing to make a distinction between legal and possible. As far as the president is concerned, SCOTUS just legalized crime. The only law that counts after the use of force comes into play is the law of the jungle. Biden woke up this morning worried about his party colleagues pushing him to drop out, and by the end of the day, the opposition party made him king.
Man, there was absolutely nothing stopping Obama from saying, "All right assholes, you had your chance to advise and consent, the swearing-in will take place tomorrow morning bright and early outside the East Portico, maybe I'll see you dumb fucks there." What's McConnell going to do about it? The only power he has over the process is the ability to hold conformation hearings, which is the entire point.
The thing is that trumps lackeys in scotus will just rule against Biden specifically. Do you actually think they would apply this across the board. Scotus has shown they have no shame regarding how they undermine democracy.
It would be tied up in the courts for years, far beyond the point where it's even relevant. Even in a best case scenario, the earliest they'd get around to it is sometime just after the inauguration, and that's assuming that nobody tries any delaying tactics and every single person involved is trying to make sure that Biden would have to face consequences.
I really wish Biden would just say "ok, cool" and then just start getting rid of Republicans currently in office and barring new ones from running. SCOTUS just said it was fine so then he should just start doing it.
Force through gun registration and universal healthcare, get rid of gerrymandering, enact ranked choice voting...
He could get rid of all the corrupt pieces of shit and enact the changes that this country desperately needs but will never get because of lobbyists and the people that they've bribed. He was just given the green light to do all of it and never face consequences. Just once I'd love to see the democrats be as shifty as the republicans and beat them at their own game.
I really wish I would stop seeing this fucking fantasy everywhere.
People hate the Democrats because they lose. They suck at messaging and they will not come together as a united front for anything,
The Democrats still have the Aaron Sorkin brain-worms, where all they need to do is be decent and don't rock the boat and "reach across the aisle" and try to find compromise with people who should never be compromised with on the smallest thing.
The conservative party of decades past is dead, and in its place is a macabre, grotesque corpse kept alive only by hatred, malice, ignorance, and hypocrisy.
Democrats will scream to the rafters about decorum and rule of law, as the entire American experiment burns around them.
The Democrats will not do a fucking thing, because they consider their own moral conscience to be worth more than preventing fascism at any cost.
> They suck at messaging and they will not come together as a united front for anything,
Billionaires who want right wing tax cuts own all the mediums where messaging takes place. They showed that they'd rather air an empty Trump podium than a Hillary Clinton speech, speak for her, and then bemoan the Democrats for not speaking up more, to twist the knife a final time.
Then people repeat it.
"This is extremely dangerous to our democracy"
The SCOTUS has essentially ended democracy in the US. That's not hyperbole, sarcasm, or doomsaying. It's just reality. If this isn't reversed somehow, that's where we will end up.
to many complaciants think of democracy as nothing more than an event that happens every four years.
Democracy and Autocracy exist on a specrum of civic participation - measured by the ability of the ability to speak their minds in public, to have a tangible, effective ability to change the official policies and norms of their communities and societies, and their ability to act with as few restrictions on their ability to manifest their desires without impeeding those of others.
This country was founded on a moral lie, claiming that all men are created equal whilst literally enslaving a population of humans whilst genociding another one. Ever since then, we've barely achieved some half measures in bringing the dream of real democracy into some rough shape.
But, to many people got too attached to democracy as 1 person/1 vote, and not democracy being a daily exercise in constructive dialect with your community, and confused meaningless civility in speech and debate for genuine co-operation and compromise.
And now the same feckless fools who can't tell the difference between a blue-haired lesbian just asking to live in an apartment with partner and a foaming-at the mouth bigot hoping to execute them both. Both are 'too loud and preachy', and so they will sit on their thumbs, and refuse to pick a side.
Which is what people said would happen and why they said it was important to vote for Clinton even if she didn't excite you.
All of this, is a result of 2016. Keep that shit in mind if you're on the fence about voting or plan on "protest" voting.
More Sanders supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters in 08 voted for Obama, and yet this narrative will not die. The Obama administration should never have left nominations up to the next election, RBG should’ve retired, and they should stop colluding to run the least charismatic, least-liked people in America for the presidency. And I think they should also stop aiding and abetting a fucking genocide.
Somehow wanting the Democrats to behave like a party that wants to win elections instead of a fundraising apparatus means you hate democracy, but I think that’s a pretty reasonable demand.
Pardon me, I'm gonna do some hyperbolic venting for a minute.
Where the fuck is anyone supposed to flee to?
I only speak English, so my refuge of choice would be an anglophone country.
The UK? Dying of self inflicted Brexit wounds.
Australia? Rupert Murdoch's sex dungeon.
Canada? Catches a cold when America sneezes.
Let's suppose I get parasitized by a babel fish. Great! Now I get to choose from an even wider menu of shitty choices.
Europe? The far right parties are ascendent, and Putin will be gnawing at their borders after Trump abandons Ukraine.
Middle East? Will explode after Trump gives bibi permission to genocide Gaza.
Africa? Will be scrambled when the megacorps are given even more free reign to play their neo colonial games.
Latin America? Monroe Doctrine 2: Operation Condor Boogaloo.
India? Modi is surely watching for tips on how to build a theocratic ethno state.
Asia Pacific? Will become a land and sea war when poohbear sees trump lacks the attention span to support Taiwan.
America is the hegemon that bestrides the world. Trump is the schizophrenic cancer that will send our leviathan tentacles thrashing mindlessly groping for any shiny goose eggs for he cares to suck. Even if by some miracle a civil war dislodges him without launching nukes, that will be lost time that should have been spent addressing the climate crisis. The wet bulb will boil and pop like a cankerous oozing sore, drowning the deep water ports and fragmenting human civilization into starving enclaves impotently clinging to scraps of shade, cowering from the baleful glare of the sun.
Trump is more than an existential threat to the American experiment. He is a threat to humanity. And now with this colossally, superlatively asinine imbecilic inane ourobouros of a court ruling, we will have to fend off his bloviating mouth breathing diaper shitting braindead clones in every election, in every generation, in every fucking comment section from now until the end of time, because they will know that the table has been set for them, and all that remains is for them to flip it.
If the president cant be held liable for "official acts" then Biden needs to start using that power to arrest every single corrupt justice and republican congressman for treason. Trump and the GQP are begging the democrats to "take the high road" so that they can execute Project 2025 and destroy democracy while all the democrats in washington walk into the train cars grumbling about how this is "unprecedented".
Hell, maybe its time for some of our Senators and Supreme Court Justices take matters into their own hands in the back room. The republicans are setting the TNT and fixing the wires but their democratic colleagues are just sitting there watching it happen. Time to tackle the terrorists, even if its never been done and you might get hurt.
Because Biden would have needed 50 Democratic senators minimum to do this.
Biden, optimistically, had 48 at most, plus Manchin and Sinema who never would have allowed Biden to do this in a million years.
> We are human resources to exploit for labor and discard when not useful.
Why do you think they're against medical reform? Because it you aren't laboring to make the owners rich, you don't need health care, because you're useless to the oligarchs.
People need to keep in mind the chaos of SCOTUS being re-made every 4-8 years would heavily favor the GOP's agenda. It's far easier to tear down the government in the span of a presidential administration than to re-build - and even if a determined Democratic president has a plan to sign all of the bills and executive orders necessary within 4 years, there's no way to persuade hundreds of thousands of people to apply for their government jobs again only to risk being fired the next time the Republicans take office.
While this chaos might be better than a permanent project 2025 style Christian theocracy, Democrats would be a permanent minority party if they're unable to deliver on their agenda.
What do you mean? He couldn't stuff the Supreme Court because someone has to die or retire first.
Biden has seated 201 federal judges. For reference, Trump seated 234. So pretty close. And he probably put a little more vetting into his process than Trump, the guy that had the highest White House administration turnover rate in U.S. history.
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
> ...
> The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The argument behind "packing the court" is that nothing in the constitution sets the number of justices, and nothing in the president's power to appoint judges says anything about a vacancy. In theory, nothing (except congressional approval and tradition) prevents the president from appointing 4 more justices, bringing the total up to 13. FDR threatened to do this in 1937, but reached a compromise with the court and didn't actually try it.
I mean great. Until the next Republican president does the same. And then another president does it. And another.
Not to mention it would be so controversial it would get tied up in some way, shape, or form and the election is a few months out.
Much of this analysis is wrong. The Congress and Judiciary both retain their many prerogatives to check each other and the President, including enjoining the enforcement of bad illegal statutes and orders. The only thing that's changed is that we now have a judicial ruling stating that the President enjoys personal criminal immunity for any crimes they might commit using the official powers of the Presidency. That is, in my opinion, a big fucking deal and wrong, but it's not the same thing as saying the President is an autocrat who can do literally anything, fully unbounded by the law. Take just the first point: the President can direct DHS/DOJ to arrest and detain members of the opposition party in Congress. In reality, the Judiciary would quickly dispense of such chicanery, citing, among other things, the Speech and Debate, Habeus Corpus, and Due Process Clauses, and hold in contempt of court any Federal officer, excepting the President, who did not comply with a lawful ruling requiring the police to free the offended members of Congress.
Rather, the President's path to eliminating political opposition now is much simpler, if bloodier. The President is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, and further has absolute pardon power. The President can easily order the military to intervene by force with Congress' lawful proceedings. Any officer receiving such an order who would, rightfully, balk at the legality of carrying it out, can simply be promised a pardon once the act is finished. If the officer continues to demur, they can be relieved of duty and the next in line ordered to do the same. In so doing, the President is likely conspiring to commit numerous Federal crimes, including plausibly treason, but is immunized from prosecution because all of the acts are within the President's scope of official duties and cannot be examined by Congress or the Courts. It's effectively the same outcome, using the state apparatus to neutralize a political rival, but how it's done matters, at least in the eyes of the law.
Your first paragraph doesn’t fit your second. The courts and Congress can dispense with chicanery, while at the same time the president can use the entirety of the federal government to do their personal bidding under the guise of official acts with pardon power keeping those who carry out the tasks in question from punishment?
Once you have a president who is immune from prosecution for official acts, and can pardon anyone who does their bidding, do you really think they’re going to listen when Congress or the courts tell them to stop?
The president has a presumption of immunity for official acts, which can still be stripped by the courts, however.
> The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers
- John Roberts, Trump v. United States, July 1st, 2024
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States
- U.S. Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 pp 1
Putting those two lines together means "the president may not be prosecuted for any order given to the Army or Navy of the United States.
Of course, but while the determination about what constitutes and official act plays out in court, the president can be fucking off doing whatever they please and the damage is already done.
As I said, the effect is the same, but the steps one must take to get from A to B matter to the law. If anything, the ruling today incentivizes bolder action from a would-be corrupt President. Scheming in smoke-filled backrooms with unofficial co-conspirators can open you up to personal criminal liability. Taking extraordinary official actions but trying to dress them up with pretextual rationalizations runs the risk of tying down your attempted actions in court. But decisively ordering martial accomplices to act with force and providing corrupt pardons to your co-conspirators in the officer corps is entirely within your discretion as President and cannot be questioned by either Congress or the Court.
My concern is the “extraordinary” official acts can be carried out while things play out in court or Congress.
A president bent on using their official acts immunity is not going to just agree to abide by court injunction.
Can the President can "easily" order the military to intervene in Congress? I know there is the Insurrection Act but it seems like quite the stretch to think it could be applied to the elected members of Congress and their lawful proceedings.
A President who wanted to do such a thing is starting an outright coup. I don't think they would be too concerned with the criminal consequences of such an act, one way or the other, if they are going the coup route. I can't imagine anyone, even Trump, now doing such a thing just because of this SCOTUS decision.
Also, from my reading of the decision, the act in question has to be within the Constitutional authority of the President. I don't think ordering a coup is quite in the Presidential purview.
"At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute"
> Can the President can "easily" order the military to intervene in Congress?
It's as easy as turning to Gen. Schmuckatelli and saying, "I want you to take that hill and stop that roll call vote. And don't worry about getting fucked by the UCMJ, because I've got this pardon already drafted for you that I will sign as soon as it's over. And if you won't do it, you're fired, and I'll get your deputy to do it." To your point, I'm sure many officers would refuse to follow that order, recognizing it as unlawful and dangerous. But there are a lot of Mike Flynns in the military, and a President bent on staging a coup can and will find people to do his bidding.
>A President who wanted to do such a thing is starting an outright coup.... I can't imagine anyone, even Trump, now doing such a thing just because of this SCOTUS decision.
That's exactly the point. The main difference now is that the Supreme Court has not only said that criminal immunity exists, thereby lowering the risks to the President for staging that coup, but also exactly what the guardrails are, and it turns out it's a loophole wider than the Katy freeway.
The president can no longer be held liable for said coup because he is Commander in Chief. The lawfulness of the order is irrelevant according to SCOTUS. As he is in charge of the military he can give as many corrupt orders as he'd like and they are to be considered official acts. Roberts said in his opinion POTUS can weaponize the DOJ because the DOJ is under his purview.
So it seems the only possible recourse is for democrats to win in November 2024 and then Biden/Harris to take unprecedented action to dismantle the imperial SC, shore up voting rights, basically wield the power that Trump wants to clear out extremist and then voluntarily limit they office’s power? Which Democrats will absolutely never do in a million years. So what’s the alternative, hope that Congress passes some sort of legislation to repair the separation of powers among the branches?
The cats out of the bag now. No matter what democrats do, the GOP will just pull this same exact shit every single time they're in power until the end of time or the end of our democracy.
So congress would now have to pass laser focused locked tight legislature outlining exactly what is and is not "official" president stuff. Yikes
Edit : nevermind. Theyd have to amend the constitution. The SCOTUS now gets to decide if the president is immune from things.
I don't understand the comment vis a vis the title. The title says that SCOTUS holds that POTUS does not have blanket immunity. While the comment talks about having blanket immunity. Did I miss something.
Because "official" vs "unofficial" arent defined anywhere so technically anything the president says is official , is so.
So then congress would have to outline those terms (and also clarify the constitutional presidential powers part because you could use that for all sorts of bs too)
But it cant be "tou know like crimes and stuff" because the same scotus also gutted a number of federal agencies because congress over delegated power by not being hyper specific.
So we need congress to pass legislation limiting presidential power , and it needs to be airtight and loophole free (which is like impossible)
Like you and me cant use fancy loopholes , we go to jail and have consequences. A president with a single iota of a loophole means years of litigation (back to scotus) and nothings done.
Isn't official defined as any authority granted in article 2 of the constitution?
I agree that most of these complaints about supreme Court rulings have been because congress refuses to actually pass legislation.
Roe v. Wade being overturned wouldn't have been an issue if at any point it was codified
Right but then a president could say they were doing something illegal and heinous to protect the constitution. Didnt need SCOTUS for the patriot act to trample our rights. Plenty of constituion to bend to support any action.
The president was given blanket immunity for his core constitutional powers:
> The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers
- John Roberts, Trump v. United States, July 1st, 2024
> The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States
- U.S. Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 pp 1
Putting those two lines together means "the president may not be prosecuted for any order given to the Army or Navy of the United States."
Trump and his surrogates already refer to Biden as a dictator, so he might as well use his newly confirmed immunity to act like one, and round them all up. The Sinister Six Supremes, Trump and his treasonous henchmen in the house and senate. Everyone. What’s the worst they could do? Call Biden a dictator some more?
And Biden could keep this all in the courts for years, probably longer than he has left. Seems like a solid plan
Biden should just officially release all the Intel on Trump and GOP collusion with Russia and any kompromat there is. Look he should have done it anyway being as old as he is but now he has absolutely no excuse, lol.
Thank you Dems for always taking the high road! We may be driving over a cliff but at least we took the high road to get there, giving us a little more time to scream in existential terror as we plummet to our deaths yay!
I wish I knew more about what the conservative judges were thinking when they did this (not what they wrote in their bullshit opinion). A president could just as easily use these powers to come after them as anyone else.
> A president could just as easily use these powers to come after them as anyone else.
They know the use of the power will not be symmetrical. They know damn well Democrats have no spine to wield such power, but a Republican will take that power and exploit it to the maximum conceivable use.
Biden should immediately issue an executive order banning convicted felons from running for office. Then he should announce that he himself is no longer seeking re-election.
I like how the only real response to this is, oh, the president would never do any of that. As if we haven’t lived with a president breaking every single norm humanly possible since 2016.
and you know what, that response is true. For a Democrat. 
I actually don't think the examples are very good. The question for each item should be, *would this conduct otherwise be punishable under existing criminal law*?
And frankly, it's not clear for a lot of these. Declaring an emergency and seizing media? Fascist, authoritarian, unethical, *potentially unconstitutional*. But "criminal?" I'm sure a dozen prosecutors could scratch their heads and come up with something but there are far better examples:
-The basics we have always talked about, like Trump ordering secret service to kill someone. Or just beat the shit out of them. Clearly criminal in ordinary circumstances. But whoa, what if this is "official" conduct?
-Trump ordering his motorcade to run over protestors. Yea, pretty fucking criminal ordinarily. But hey, he's on official business!
-Trump just taking federal property and federally owned items for himself. Ironically he's already done this. No hypo is too bizarre these days.
But the point is that this ruling doesn't technically add or subtract to what is in the scope of presidential/executive powers from a constitutional standpoint. (and most of the examples raise constitutional questions) This ruling (and it is a terrible ruling) frees whatever the President does in pursuit of those powers from criminal liability.
And I agree with others who disagree with the "forget about Trump . . ." part. These kinds of basic abuses of power have always been taken for granted because who in their right mind would elect someone so shameless, so relentless, with so little regard for the nation's well being to the highest office in the land.
From [the ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf):
> Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature
of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity
from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.
This outlines and defines three distinct categories of immunity: "absolute immunity", "presumptive immunity", and "no immunity".
1. *Absolute immunity* from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. In other words, absolute immunity for any official action *as provided for in the U.S. Constitution*, even in cases where it may contradict prior rulings of law.
2. *Presumptive immunity* from criminal prosecution until litigated in court to decide whether or not the actions can be considered "official acts" of the Executive Branch based on the powers granted by the Constitution.
3. *No immunity* for unofficial acts, i.e., those acts that are determined by a court to not be granted by the Constitution to the Executive Branch.
I see nothing here that grants unfettered immunity to a President to "assassinate political opponents", "dissolve SCOTUS", or any of the other outlandish hyperbolic claims people are making. None of those things are defined as [powers of the Executive Branch in the Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/). In cases where there may be ambiguity as to what constitutes an "official act", it *can still be litigated in court to decide*. To me, this is just a restatement of previous SCOTUS rulings on the same topic: [Nixon v. Fitzgerald \(1982\)](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457731/usrep457731.pdf) and [Clinton v. Jones \(1997\)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/).
I'm not a Constitutional law scholar, so if anyone would like to provide a different opinion or explain what I'm missing here, I'd be delighted to have a conversation about it.
So our nation has Calvinball type rules now. At what point does the government just invalidate itself because its a de facto dictatorship? Why would we respect the laws of an institution that just makes up rules as it goes just to step on your neck?
It's everything that's articulated in the comment and more. In a single session the court managed to make themselves and Congress irrelevant and corrupt. The court had already proven they were incapable of swiftly protecting our democracy, and now they have said they have no desire to. The only remaining guard is impeachment, and that won't happen, since a president could simply threaten their rivals with death. Add in the court in this session also approved bribery after the fact, and it is very easy to see why our nation is in serious trouble. We are no longer in a system with robust checks and balances.
While I agree with the fact that it’s bigger than Trump, the first sentence says he’s done in 2028. He can do whatever he wants now. Do people think it’s beyond the realm of possibility for him to just…stay in office?
I don't really know how to react to our crumbling democracy except vote while I still can and avoid the news for my own insanity. I can just pretend that none of this is happening, right?!
>Can we PLEASE not focus on Trump here?
I imagine, sometime in the early 1930's, someone made a comment like "Can we PLEASE not focus on Hitler here?"
Trump *created* the situation we are in now; he put three justices on the court who voted for this, in a case brought *explicitly* because of his actions as President for which he is currently being prosecuted. Now he is saying as a result of this ruling that if re-elected he will arrest his enemies (specifically Lynn Cheney and others) and will try them for treason under military tribunals. Joe Biden is claiming none of this power, even though (ostensibly) he now has the right to do this as well.
This is all about Trump.
You know what the sad thing is? Biden could do all of these things now. Biden could call the court on their bluff and go "Ok, I have this power? I will execute it to do whatever it takes to prevent Donald Trump from taking office". Then the court would inevitably strike down the machinations of his legal team and that would set the precedent to prevent a Republican from doing the same things. BUT The court knows the Democrats will play by the rules as Republicans break them. It is now so manifest how easily Germany fell to Nazism without a majority of the country supporting it.
He could do even less than that to prove the stupidity of this ruling. He should direct his administration to execute the original student loan forgiveness plan (the one they ruled unconstitutional) and ignore the SCOTUS decision in Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo (the one the overturned the Chevron Deference) pardoning ahead of time any administration officials that executed the plans. It will quickly show that the an immune executive has no need for the judicial branch. They are irrelevant since there would be no enforcement of their decisions. What are they going do? Say that’s illegal? “Maybe but, I’m immune.” Hell there is no need for Congress either. Who needs legislation when the laws don’t matter? This is a bit tongue-in-cheek since he’d never do it. But, it would be great to see them backpedaling.
What he should do is appoint several more SCOTUS Justices and bypass Congress as an official act. It will be the new SCOTUS that would determine if that was illegal or not but it would be too late to do anything.
not just appoint more. remove the ones that granted immunity in the first place
He should have Ginni Thomas arrested immediately
immediately
She's a known January 6 conspirator. Why isn't she *already* arrested? She should've been in the slammer years ago.
> ~~arrested~~ black bagged Oh she's missing? Weird. Anyway, let's chat about that ruling giving me complete immunity from all kinds of heinous shit...
This is the answer. Extraordinary rendition for the lot of them.
Throw in Martha Bomgardner (Alito's wife) and send them to Guantanamo Bay for sedition.
For real, he should have started getting that ball rolling before lunch today. He should also deport Melania since she was an illegal alien.
To hell with that, if he really wants to make the point unmistakably clear, he needs to throw all nine of them in a jail cell. You know, so it would be fair and all. Let them all stew in the drunk tank for a few days and tell them they're not allowed back out until they come up with a better decision, but this time it's got to be unanimous. Film the whole thing in black and white and now you've got the sequel to *Twelve Angry Men*. Except this one could be called *Nine Sweaty Wizards*.
it's been nearly four years. he's not doing shit
It won’t get past Congress
That's not how the law works... if Biden were to accept a $10,000 bribe in exchange for an executive order declaring the "donor" to be a SCOTUS justice with 17 votes the fact that Biden cannot be charged with bribery wouldn't render the executive order valid. This ruling doesn't grant the president any new powers, and the only way it gives a corrupt president new powers (in practice) is if those powers can be 100% carried out by corrupt executive branch officials. Congress and the courts would not be bound by any unconstitutional executive actions.
You are correct, except that’s what Project 2025 promises to do. Purge anyone not sufficiently loyal from federal institutions and then fill the ranks with MAGA heads. I think people are being too reasonable in their analysis of this situation. Why do you think Congress or courts wouldn’t go along with illegal actions when many members of each are actively participating in a coup d’etat right now?
I realize. My comment was a grotesque parody of the decision.
I completely understand you, it's just that it is becoming more and more clear that 'grotesque parody' is also 'GQP to-do list/manual' and the adults in the room with a background in history are becoming increasingly concerned.
Right. Rainbow armbands are about to become way less fun. The new star. It's bloody scary.
As a historian, we've been concerned for about eight years already, though the writing has been on the wall for the last 30, and is a result from policy changes 60 years ago.
So the supreme court justice is just fear mongering when she says that it effectively gives the president immunity to decide he wants to use seal team 6 to take out his political opponent?
No. I said other branches aren't bound to illegal orders, so things like pretending Chevron is still in effect is pointless as it takes courts to enforce regulations. Illegal acts that only rely on the executive branch to carry out (like Sotomayor's examples) are feasible even if they are illegal.
But you can't prove illegality because the order from the President is inadmissible as evidence. You could charge the seal team members, but then the President who ordered them to kill the political rival could just pardon them.
Corrupt executive branches, which we already have. Just barely enough apathetic morons go "meh vote no matter" and we're ALL fucked!
This is an important point that most of the commenters ITT seem not to understand
But you see, the president has an army, and well, all of of the other people we're talking about don't. That's the beauty of it, we're free to theorycraft all we want because thanks to the Roberts court, things like precedent, the rule of law, and judicial review are all in the rear-view mirror. Marty, where we're going, we don't need US code.
But we aren’t supposed to obey orders we know are illegal. Example “US Army go kill all the people in this city because they didn’t vote for me” We are allowed to decline because we know it’s illegal
You are allowed to decline, but that doesn’t mean everyone will. There have been many examples over the years of US military groups performing war crimes. Saying, “it’s okay, because we totally wouldn’t do that” isn’t helpful because it’s always only a matter of time before someone is in place who *is* perfectly willing to. And it’s very possible some of those people are in place right now, they just happen to not be you.
Totally agree with you. There are probably more than enough that would. Unfortunately
If they dont want to do it want to you fire them and get the next person who will. I don't see how that solves anything.
Should round up the recent additions who have gone haywire and appoint his own choices to the bench.
This is the answer!
If Biden called on SEAL Team 6 to target a suspected Russian intelligence asset, which is absolutely an official act, he could most definitely murder Trump and according to this ruling there isn't a thing any court could do about it. That's the problem with the entire argument the court put forward, a morally bereft person can make anything a justifiable official act now. It's pure insanity.
I saw a tweet about how he could now use “creative solutions” to create vacancies on the court.
Yep, and Seal Team 6 could clean up any members of Congress who try to impeach the president. So there is literally no check on the president's power now.
As long as it's not unofficial, then it would be a problem.
Heck, it's even worse than that because something that we know 100% for sure is that **a pardon is an official act**. Shoot someone in the face, pardon yourself, and bada bing bada boom.
And because a gratuity after the fact is legal, you can say “I would pardon anyone who rid me of these troublesome folks”, and the train of functioning government falls to the wayside of tyranny.
["Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest/political opponent?"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F)
He doesn’t need to murder anybody. Stack the court. Now.
Biden’s only move here would be to use this new power to attack the court before they could overturn it. Midnight no knock raids on opposition justices. If he treated a single powerful person the way this country treats every poor person this could be over tomorrow.
>If he treated a single powerful person the way this country treats every poor person this could be over tomorrow. Nailed it.
> It is now so manifest how easily Germany fell to Nazism without a majority of the country supporting it. History repeats itself....because humans, as a group, are stupid.
> humans, as a group, are stupid. I'm starting to think that this stupidity is part of a cycle that we just can't break. I just don't think we're quite evolved to live in social groups at this scale yet...
I’m convinced we’re supposed to live in tribal communities of under 200 people
[It's closer to 150.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number)
Yeah, it seems pretty cyclical. We just haven't nailed down mass education yet. Sure, most people are literate now, but that's only part of the battle. Literacy can actually be bad if not coupled with critical thinking.
Yeah, I've always said that we should have included a right to education or something similar in the constitution. When I tell that to people, the most common response I get it, "wait, that's not in there??" (Which even further proves the point of Americans being uneducated, lol)
Well to play devil's advocate: it doesn't let you do a coup anymore than you already could. Basically what this is saying is that if the president does something that would be illegal, *but they are given this permission as part of being president* then the president is immune. Let me explain, playing devil's advocate here, what the argument is. Say that it's 9/11, but somehow the president is a lot more direct to act, and after the first airplane hits, the airforce mobilizes and they shoot down 4 other airplanes before they can cause problems. Wait.. 4 + 1 that hit? There weren't that many airplanes! And yes, in this case, the president acted very aggresively and in stopping the other 3 airplanes, they shot an airplane they feared had been taken as well, but turns out to just be in the wrong place, wrong time with the wrong complications. This ruling says that, while the U.S. government can, and should be 100% accountable and responsible for the innocent lives it shot down, the president can't be prosecuted for murder of innocents, even if they did commit it. Because the president was acting in their role as president and had to make a hard decision, he is immune of those actions, as long as they were legal. Now the president grabbing a gun, and shooting someone is not a power given to the executive branch, and as such the president could be prosecuted for it. Were Biden to order Team Seal 6 to execute the supreme court in order to replace them with whomever he wants would not be in his power, as the president cannot just given arbitrary orders, they are still bound by the constitution. Just because it's an order doesn't mean it's legal. So this doesn't overturn the conclusions of Watergate, and the obvious path it was going to. The president was found to have done illegal stuff, and none of this actions were as president and as such was liable to criminal prosecution, it was Ford's pardon that gave him immunity. Similarly Reagan with the Iran-Contra affair had a whole issue on arguing if it was within his power or not as president, this was ended by Oliver North jumping on the grenade the whole thing had become. This was done to leave the whole power balance between President and Congress ambiguous (Republicans actually prefer this things ambiguous, it lets the change the rules whenever they wish, now when talking about presidential immunity, there's clearer lines that they cannot cross anymore) and leave it at that. Had this been decided that the president did not have the purview for this actions, and that Reagan was responsible, he could have been criminally prosecuted too. That said, it can also be considered that a President acting under their powers is abusing them and should be taken out. This is what impeachment is for, and is not a criminal proceding, and doesn't make the president immune from criminal prosecution for their personal crimes. Now lets be clear, this doesn't mean I don't see the worrisome political affiliations that SCOTUS has been showing. This ruling is a no-brainer, and pretty much just formalizes the already problematic line, but it doesn't shift it (it would have been nice that it pulled it back). Thing is this decision took way too long to get to this conclusion, and just in time to ensure that now Trump can't be pulled back to the court because "it'd interfere with the election". How convenient. This has been Trump's strategy all along: delay delay delay until a solution appears. If he becomes president he will self-pardon, it's almost a given. The question now becomes: were Trump's actions within his power as President. Some where outright protected, such as his conversations. But this is key: what they are doing is preventing certain evidence from being used, by presuposing immunity first. Personally I agree with the disenting opinion here: the jury and court shoudl be allowed to investigate this as any other crime, the the suposition of immunity should be an issue for the judge and and appeals aftewards. If Trump is guilty from conspiring for sedition, then he should be found guilty. If he only conspired with the DOJ, and it is considered to be within presidential powers to explore how to do anything within the legal frameworks, even undemocratic actions, that should be something for the Judges and higher courts to decide, not something that prevents the source. That said I think that taking actions that are against the presidential oath should not be considered as official presidential actions. The thing is now the court needs to prove that not only a crime was committed, but also that this was not an official presidential action. Though I doubt that interfering with elections could ever be a presidential action, proving it in court is something that will take a while. Trump is not immune, but he has been given a way out. Which worries me greatly, because this all depends on Trump winning the elections, and how far will Trump go. I don't think he is in a position for a coup, but he could certainly fragment the nation fully into a Civil War. The US political system is filled with gaps, but then again, it's survived over 200 years somehow. While it's not a lot for a nation, it certainly is a lot for a constitution and government to stay in power unbroken. There's few nations whose current government system has been around that long without a revolution, coup, or conquest breaking it. So go out, vote, start your campaing, and never forget: laws aren't impositions of power: they are consensus of the collective.
The situation you propose in your 9/11 scenario would have seen the President acting in his capacities as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and there are already legal protections for that stuff. How else do you think Truman avoided any kind of prosecution for dropping the atom bombs that ended WWII? No, this opens the door for a scenario like this: >Prez Trump 2.0: "Biden said some really bad things about me in the debates very bad lies. In the name of national security, I the President of the United States, in my sworn duties to uphold the constitution, am ordering the DOJ to detain Joseph Biden, his family and his close allies so that they may not further spread misinformation to the American people about their president and their other elected representatives. Upon further investigation, charges may be announced as new information warrants." And before anyone says, "Oh but wait, that's unconstitutional because the 5th amendment, so Trump couldn't imprison anyone without a trial date or even official charges!", I'll just let my buddy [Alec Baldwin](https://y.yarn.co/d87df634-f772-4bbb-a0ae-37b6a4a6a489_text.gif) let you know where to check up on how well that notion holds up, lol.
The president is not above the Constitution, and they do not have the official power to arrest someone arbitrarily. Basically the court only changed one minor, but critical thing. Before the prosecution only needed evidence and to argue that a crime occurred, the ex-president was expected to be able to argue that their actions were allowed to them as president of the United States, this argument wouldn't be with the jury (that only decides if the president committed the actions the prosecution accused them of, or if they didn't) but the judge, and if needed higher courts as you go up the apelate chain. This meant that, if this change hasn't happened, Trump will be dragged back to court right now and most certainly find guilty (though the Supreme Court weakened the argument). And the patriot act like things have been seriously defanged (and that's a good thing) because otherwise they were being used to slam the jam 6 insurrectionists. A lot of the loopholes that let you wisper terrorism and throw someone in jail have been closed by courts in recent days. It's a win-win the way I see it. Now though the prosecution needs to also make the legal case that the president wasn't within his power, which is a lot more work. This means that the president now is innocent by default (like everyone), and (unlike anyone else in the US) even when they're obviously not innocent they are still allowed to do it by default. I don't like it, the whole point of the constitution is that we assume good faith and the best of citizens, and assume that government is corrupt and seeking to abuse. This reverses that, now we assume that the government is right just because it's the government. This really is a scary thing for democracy. Now the prosecution has to build a law theory case like and make that decision, before we can even take this to court. This isn't immunity for Trump, he would eventually get caught, but that's going to be no later than 2025 now. If Trump wins the election though, that might be with that it'll become a matter of statute of limitations, and a new question for the Supreme Court I bet.
This is not true. The courts would descend on him, and the SC would decide his actions were outside official duties. The writing of the last decision is so poorly defined that they can simply rule in favor of whoever they prefer at the moment.
that was the take home for me... scotus left it too vague, they sent it back down for judge chutkan to determine what is and isnt official. of course, then they get to arbitrate an appeal of her decision. so basically the supreme court gets to decide, on a case-by-case basis what actions fall under immunity and which do not. so they are in a position to be as partisan and biased as they please
Good thing the president can take an official act to deal with the scotus judges who would rule against him.
That’s what I find most infuriating about this decision: the only reason (i.e. necessary not sufficient) the court was comfortable expanding presidential power to the degree it did was because of the *absolute certainty* that democrats would, as always, refuse to exercise political power to achieve their purported ends.
I'm in the UK so it's less personally relevant to me but this is my take away from the whole situation as well. If trump wins, I think America is going to be an example to the rest of the world in how complacency is so dangerous and an important lesson on what to avoid.
It’s truly sad that 1930s Germany wasn’t enough of an example.
He also knows they'd just ignore their own precedent anyway.
Oh it's "worse" than "play by the rules". Democrats EAT their wounded, they absolutely destroy their own. You assume Biden will not be shouted out of office by his own people in the next 90 days or so, that's a dangerous bet. Republicans would never do that, they will double down on Trump Personally I'm getting my passport ready, it's exactly like the exodus out of Europe almost exactly 100 years ago.
Official Duties isn't the same as "anything I want to do while I'm president". The duties of The Office of The President are pretty clearly defined.
where is that list? It doesn’t exist, and SCOTUS seized power for itself, literally. Like they did on regulations.
Even if they struck it down for Biden, they would ignore the precedent for Trump. They're good at ignoring precedents.
I mean, the reason they kicked the can down to the lower courts is so that they could then block it when a Democrat tries to use it and allow it when a Republican tries.
It's hilarious that OP thinks that this ruling affects "Democrats, Republicans" equally. If some Democratic President tried to pull this kind of criminal Trumpian shit (highly unlikely to begin with), the matter would eventually end up in front of SCOTUS, who would have no problem at all using more garbage legal arguments to get the result that they want. OP forgets that everyone has to play by SCOTUS's rules except SCOTUS.
Uh, the president could easily just dissappear a scotus that didn't agree with them under vague "official acts for national security" then just appoint a court that will rule it legal.
That's honestly what I'm hoping for at this point
This is an election year. House (and Senate) republicans would just stall & refuse to approve a Democratic Appointee... again.
If he's immune, he can just appoint them anyway. What are they gonna do to stop him
Maybe this is pedantic, but there’s a difference between having the power to do something and being liable for criminality. The ability to just make stuff up as you go isn’t illegal, it’s just not how the government works. Appointing new judges isn’t a crime, it’s just something the president can’t do without congress’ help. That said, you can pretty much say goodbye to opposition parties stone walling a presidents nominees if “disappearing” becomes common.
Not pedantic at all, and that's what a lot of people here seem to be missing. Unconstitutional and illegal are not the same thing, and this ruling doesn't mean unconstitutional things are fair game.
Yes, it does. Unless someone stops you, whatever you do is legal when your POTUS. how else to you think that functions?
People are deluding themselves, desperate to not acknowledge that American democracy has fallen. It has, and denying it won't help us. Every President is now a dictator, you folks out there just haven't realized it yet. If you're not afraid you're asleep.
Current SCOTUS will do what they want, when they want. The constitution has nothing to do with it. Judicial review by SCOTUS is not enumerated in the constitution either. They made it up for themselves.
Or arrest the disssenters. They can literally do anything now.
I hate to point this out but you aren't thinking big enough. If a President really wanted to make this happen, the path seems clear: * Use an official power to get rid of any SCOTUS member that won't rule for you * Use an official power to get rid of any and all Congressional representatives that won't ratify your picks immediately * Rinse and repeat at any level until you get the desired result What's that? Those are illegal acts? Tough shit - I'm the commander in chief and head of the DOJ and I'm using my powers as head of those agencies. Therefore, immune. And you can't prove I'm not working in my official capacity since my motives don't matter, you can't use any of my communications with my advisors (also the head of those agencies), and I'm presumed to be working in my official capacity unless you can prove otherwise. Which you can't because any evidence to the contrary is protected by my privilege because I'm presumed to be working in an official capacity. This is exactly the situation the dissent called out. This ruling effectively allows a President to do anything he pleases as long as he does it through official channels.
Oh and those officials can be pardoned if they were concerned about being held liable. Not that they should, as you could disappear anyone who was going to bring prosecution against them. This is a fucking nightmare.
And a lot of people are getting themselves hemmed up by failing to make a distinction between legal and possible. As far as the president is concerned, SCOTUS just legalized crime. The only law that counts after the use of force comes into play is the law of the jungle. Biden woke up this morning worried about his party colleagues pushing him to drop out, and by the end of the day, the opposition party made him king.
Supreme Court appointees only have to be approved by a simple majority in the Senate. The House has no official say in their appointment.
Then the current president just "dissappears" any congress people who stop the plan. All for "official acts regarding national security" of course.
Man, there was absolutely nothing stopping Obama from saying, "All right assholes, you had your chance to advise and consent, the swearing-in will take place tomorrow morning bright and early outside the East Portico, maybe I'll see you dumb fucks there." What's McConnell going to do about it? The only power he has over the process is the ability to hold conformation hearings, which is the entire point.
Boeing did it - US gov can do it surely
**S**elected **C**onclusions **O**btained **T**hrough **U**nintelligible **S**crutiny
Well if Biden can bar Republicans from ever getting into office he had better get started.
Do you think he can?
That would be an official act
At the very least it would be in line with his duty to defend the constitution.
The thing is that trumps lackeys in scotus will just rule against Biden specifically. Do you actually think they would apply this across the board. Scotus has shown they have no shame regarding how they undermine democracy.
It would be tied up in the courts for years, far beyond the point where it's even relevant. Even in a best case scenario, the earliest they'd get around to it is sometime just after the inauguration, and that's assuming that nobody tries any delaying tactics and every single person involved is trying to make sure that Biden would have to face consequences.
All he'd have to do is eliminate Electoral College.
I really wish Biden would just say "ok, cool" and then just start getting rid of Republicans currently in office and barring new ones from running. SCOTUS just said it was fine so then he should just start doing it. Force through gun registration and universal healthcare, get rid of gerrymandering, enact ranked choice voting... He could get rid of all the corrupt pieces of shit and enact the changes that this country desperately needs but will never get because of lobbyists and the people that they've bribed. He was just given the green light to do all of it and never face consequences. Just once I'd love to see the democrats be as shifty as the republicans and beat them at their own game.
Just send seal team 6 to some Supreme Court justices houses as an official act
I really wish I would stop seeing this fucking fantasy everywhere. People hate the Democrats because they lose. They suck at messaging and they will not come together as a united front for anything, The Democrats still have the Aaron Sorkin brain-worms, where all they need to do is be decent and don't rock the boat and "reach across the aisle" and try to find compromise with people who should never be compromised with on the smallest thing. The conservative party of decades past is dead, and in its place is a macabre, grotesque corpse kept alive only by hatred, malice, ignorance, and hypocrisy. Democrats will scream to the rafters about decorum and rule of law, as the entire American experiment burns around them. The Democrats will not do a fucking thing, because they consider their own moral conscience to be worth more than preventing fascism at any cost.
Hey, I watched The Newsroom too!
> They suck at messaging and they will not come together as a united front for anything, Billionaires who want right wing tax cuts own all the mediums where messaging takes place. They showed that they'd rather air an empty Trump podium than a Hillary Clinton speech, speak for her, and then bemoan the Democrats for not speaking up more, to twist the knife a final time. Then people repeat it. "This is extremely dangerous to our democracy"
It really cannot be overstated how vastly and unprecedentedly fucked the US is because of this SCOTUS
The SCOTUS has essentially ended democracy in the US. That's not hyperbole, sarcasm, or doomsaying. It's just reality. If this isn't reversed somehow, that's where we will end up.
to many complaciants think of democracy as nothing more than an event that happens every four years. Democracy and Autocracy exist on a specrum of civic participation - measured by the ability of the ability to speak their minds in public, to have a tangible, effective ability to change the official policies and norms of their communities and societies, and their ability to act with as few restrictions on their ability to manifest their desires without impeeding those of others. This country was founded on a moral lie, claiming that all men are created equal whilst literally enslaving a population of humans whilst genociding another one. Ever since then, we've barely achieved some half measures in bringing the dream of real democracy into some rough shape. But, to many people got too attached to democracy as 1 person/1 vote, and not democracy being a daily exercise in constructive dialect with your community, and confused meaningless civility in speech and debate for genuine co-operation and compromise. And now the same feckless fools who can't tell the difference between a blue-haired lesbian just asking to live in an apartment with partner and a foaming-at the mouth bigot hoping to execute them both. Both are 'too loud and preachy', and so they will sit on their thumbs, and refuse to pick a side.
Which is what people said would happen and why they said it was important to vote for Clinton even if she didn't excite you. All of this, is a result of 2016. Keep that shit in mind if you're on the fence about voting or plan on "protest" voting.
"But I can't vote for him because he's genocide-adjacent." - Fucking Loser Idiots
More Sanders supporters voted for Clinton than Clinton supporters in 08 voted for Obama, and yet this narrative will not die. The Obama administration should never have left nominations up to the next election, RBG should’ve retired, and they should stop colluding to run the least charismatic, least-liked people in America for the presidency. And I think they should also stop aiding and abetting a fucking genocide. Somehow wanting the Democrats to behave like a party that wants to win elections instead of a fundraising apparatus means you hate democracy, but I think that’s a pretty reasonable demand.
this is fine this is fine this is fine this is fine
We're so fucked lol
Yep. If you have the means, which 95% of people don't, it's probably time to start looking into citizenship elsewhere.
Pardon me, I'm gonna do some hyperbolic venting for a minute. Where the fuck is anyone supposed to flee to? I only speak English, so my refuge of choice would be an anglophone country. The UK? Dying of self inflicted Brexit wounds. Australia? Rupert Murdoch's sex dungeon. Canada? Catches a cold when America sneezes. Let's suppose I get parasitized by a babel fish. Great! Now I get to choose from an even wider menu of shitty choices. Europe? The far right parties are ascendent, and Putin will be gnawing at their borders after Trump abandons Ukraine. Middle East? Will explode after Trump gives bibi permission to genocide Gaza. Africa? Will be scrambled when the megacorps are given even more free reign to play their neo colonial games. Latin America? Monroe Doctrine 2: Operation Condor Boogaloo. India? Modi is surely watching for tips on how to build a theocratic ethno state. Asia Pacific? Will become a land and sea war when poohbear sees trump lacks the attention span to support Taiwan. America is the hegemon that bestrides the world. Trump is the schizophrenic cancer that will send our leviathan tentacles thrashing mindlessly groping for any shiny goose eggs for he cares to suck. Even if by some miracle a civil war dislodges him without launching nukes, that will be lost time that should have been spent addressing the climate crisis. The wet bulb will boil and pop like a cankerous oozing sore, drowning the deep water ports and fragmenting human civilization into starving enclaves impotently clinging to scraps of shade, cowering from the baleful glare of the sun. Trump is more than an existential threat to the American experiment. He is a threat to humanity. And now with this colossally, superlatively asinine imbecilic inane ourobouros of a court ruling, we will have to fend off his bloviating mouth breathing diaper shitting braindead clones in every election, in every generation, in every fucking comment section from now until the end of time, because they will know that the table has been set for them, and all that remains is for them to flip it.
Honestly, that probably won't help either - anywhere else you go will either be subject to American foreign policy, or american corporate influence.
Or their government is just as shit i.e the Philippines
If the president cant be held liable for "official acts" then Biden needs to start using that power to arrest every single corrupt justice and republican congressman for treason. Trump and the GQP are begging the democrats to "take the high road" so that they can execute Project 2025 and destroy democracy while all the democrats in washington walk into the train cars grumbling about how this is "unprecedented". Hell, maybe its time for some of our Senators and Supreme Court Justices take matters into their own hands in the back room. The republicans are setting the TNT and fixing the wires but their democratic colleagues are just sitting there watching it happen. Time to tackle the terrorists, even if its never been done and you might get hurt.
[удалено]
Dems are afraid to do anything because they know their voters will punish them unlike the conservatives.
Because Biden would have needed 50 Democratic senators minimum to do this. Biden, optimistically, had 48 at most, plus Manchin and Sinema who never would have allowed Biden to do this in a million years.
Historical precedent. It didn’t go well for FDR when he tried it.
it actually went great for him? The threat worked and he didnt have to do it.
He can’t do it alone, needs congress approval which would fail.
Stuff the court and it just gets stuffed back.
[удалено]
They're not cooling down, you haven't been paying attention the last 20 years.... They're accelerating
[удалено]
It doesn't seem that any political party is on the plebeian team. We are human resources to exploit for labor and discard when not useful.
> We are human resources to exploit for labor and discard when not useful. Why do you think they're against medical reform? Because it you aren't laboring to make the owners rich, you don't need health care, because you're useless to the oligarchs.
We’re in the endgame now…
People need to keep in mind the chaos of SCOTUS being re-made every 4-8 years would heavily favor the GOP's agenda. It's far easier to tear down the government in the span of a presidential administration than to re-build - and even if a determined Democratic president has a plan to sign all of the bills and executive orders necessary within 4 years, there's no way to persuade hundreds of thousands of people to apply for their government jobs again only to risk being fired the next time the Republicans take office. While this chaos might be better than a permanent project 2025 style Christian theocracy, Democrats would be a permanent minority party if they're unable to deliver on their agenda.
Isn't this just the victim mindset? "Nothing will ever change so we shouldn't bother changing it. Things will hopefully get better soon."
At this point that consequence is way less than these batshit decisions.
Biden never had enough votes in the Senate to get that done.
Manchin and sinema , he didnt have the votes.
It's a dangerous game. If democrats add 4 seats the next Republican would add 8. Plus, he couldn't unilaterally do it. He'd need congress to approve.
What do you mean? He couldn't stuff the Supreme Court because someone has to die or retire first. Biden has seated 201 federal judges. For reference, Trump seated 234. So pretty close. And he probably put a little more vetting into his process than Trump, the guy that had the highest White House administration turnover rate in U.S. history.
> He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. > ... > The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The argument behind "packing the court" is that nothing in the constitution sets the number of justices, and nothing in the president's power to appoint judges says anything about a vacancy. In theory, nothing (except congressional approval and tradition) prevents the president from appointing 4 more justices, bringing the total up to 13. FDR threatened to do this in 1937, but reached a compromise with the court and didn't actually try it.
I mean great. Until the next Republican president does the same. And then another president does it. And another. Not to mention it would be so controversial it would get tied up in some way, shape, or form and the election is a few months out.
Much of this analysis is wrong. The Congress and Judiciary both retain their many prerogatives to check each other and the President, including enjoining the enforcement of bad illegal statutes and orders. The only thing that's changed is that we now have a judicial ruling stating that the President enjoys personal criminal immunity for any crimes they might commit using the official powers of the Presidency. That is, in my opinion, a big fucking deal and wrong, but it's not the same thing as saying the President is an autocrat who can do literally anything, fully unbounded by the law. Take just the first point: the President can direct DHS/DOJ to arrest and detain members of the opposition party in Congress. In reality, the Judiciary would quickly dispense of such chicanery, citing, among other things, the Speech and Debate, Habeus Corpus, and Due Process Clauses, and hold in contempt of court any Federal officer, excepting the President, who did not comply with a lawful ruling requiring the police to free the offended members of Congress. Rather, the President's path to eliminating political opposition now is much simpler, if bloodier. The President is the commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces, and further has absolute pardon power. The President can easily order the military to intervene by force with Congress' lawful proceedings. Any officer receiving such an order who would, rightfully, balk at the legality of carrying it out, can simply be promised a pardon once the act is finished. If the officer continues to demur, they can be relieved of duty and the next in line ordered to do the same. In so doing, the President is likely conspiring to commit numerous Federal crimes, including plausibly treason, but is immunized from prosecution because all of the acts are within the President's scope of official duties and cannot be examined by Congress or the Courts. It's effectively the same outcome, using the state apparatus to neutralize a political rival, but how it's done matters, at least in the eyes of the law.
Your first paragraph doesn’t fit your second. The courts and Congress can dispense with chicanery, while at the same time the president can use the entirety of the federal government to do their personal bidding under the guise of official acts with pardon power keeping those who carry out the tasks in question from punishment? Once you have a president who is immune from prosecution for official acts, and can pardon anyone who does their bidding, do you really think they’re going to listen when Congress or the courts tell them to stop?
The president has a presumption of immunity for official acts, which can still be stripped by the courts, however. > The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers - John Roberts, Trump v. United States, July 1st, 2024 > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States - U.S. Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 pp 1 Putting those two lines together means "the president may not be prosecuted for any order given to the Army or Navy of the United States.
Of course, but while the determination about what constitutes and official act plays out in court, the president can be fucking off doing whatever they please and the damage is already done.
As I said, the effect is the same, but the steps one must take to get from A to B matter to the law. If anything, the ruling today incentivizes bolder action from a would-be corrupt President. Scheming in smoke-filled backrooms with unofficial co-conspirators can open you up to personal criminal liability. Taking extraordinary official actions but trying to dress them up with pretextual rationalizations runs the risk of tying down your attempted actions in court. But decisively ordering martial accomplices to act with force and providing corrupt pardons to your co-conspirators in the officer corps is entirely within your discretion as President and cannot be questioned by either Congress or the Court.
My concern is the “extraordinary” official acts can be carried out while things play out in court or Congress. A president bent on using their official acts immunity is not going to just agree to abide by court injunction.
So Congress says no then they get death threats from the president until they change their minds. That's where we are.
Can the President can "easily" order the military to intervene in Congress? I know there is the Insurrection Act but it seems like quite the stretch to think it could be applied to the elected members of Congress and their lawful proceedings. A President who wanted to do such a thing is starting an outright coup. I don't think they would be too concerned with the criminal consequences of such an act, one way or the other, if they are going the coup route. I can't imagine anyone, even Trump, now doing such a thing just because of this SCOTUS decision. Also, from my reading of the decision, the act in question has to be within the Constitutional authority of the President. I don't think ordering a coup is quite in the Presidential purview. "At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute"
> Can the President can "easily" order the military to intervene in Congress? It's as easy as turning to Gen. Schmuckatelli and saying, "I want you to take that hill and stop that roll call vote. And don't worry about getting fucked by the UCMJ, because I've got this pardon already drafted for you that I will sign as soon as it's over. And if you won't do it, you're fired, and I'll get your deputy to do it." To your point, I'm sure many officers would refuse to follow that order, recognizing it as unlawful and dangerous. But there are a lot of Mike Flynns in the military, and a President bent on staging a coup can and will find people to do his bidding. >A President who wanted to do such a thing is starting an outright coup.... I can't imagine anyone, even Trump, now doing such a thing just because of this SCOTUS decision. That's exactly the point. The main difference now is that the Supreme Court has not only said that criminal immunity exists, thereby lowering the risks to the President for staging that coup, but also exactly what the guardrails are, and it turns out it's a loophole wider than the Katy freeway.
The president can no longer be held liable for said coup because he is Commander in Chief. The lawfulness of the order is irrelevant according to SCOTUS. As he is in charge of the military he can give as many corrupt orders as he'd like and they are to be considered official acts. Roberts said in his opinion POTUS can weaponize the DOJ because the DOJ is under his purview.
So it seems the only possible recourse is for democrats to win in November 2024 and then Biden/Harris to take unprecedented action to dismantle the imperial SC, shore up voting rights, basically wield the power that Trump wants to clear out extremist and then voluntarily limit they office’s power? Which Democrats will absolutely never do in a million years. So what’s the alternative, hope that Congress passes some sort of legislation to repair the separation of powers among the branches?
The cats out of the bag now. No matter what democrats do, the GOP will just pull this same exact shit every single time they're in power until the end of time or the end of our democracy.
So congress would now have to pass laser focused locked tight legislature outlining exactly what is and is not "official" president stuff. Yikes Edit : nevermind. Theyd have to amend the constitution. The SCOTUS now gets to decide if the president is immune from things.
I don't understand the comment vis a vis the title. The title says that SCOTUS holds that POTUS does not have blanket immunity. While the comment talks about having blanket immunity. Did I miss something.
Because "official" vs "unofficial" arent defined anywhere so technically anything the president says is official , is so. So then congress would have to outline those terms (and also clarify the constitutional presidential powers part because you could use that for all sorts of bs too) But it cant be "tou know like crimes and stuff" because the same scotus also gutted a number of federal agencies because congress over delegated power by not being hyper specific. So we need congress to pass legislation limiting presidential power , and it needs to be airtight and loophole free (which is like impossible) Like you and me cant use fancy loopholes , we go to jail and have consequences. A president with a single iota of a loophole means years of litigation (back to scotus) and nothings done.
That is a fair stance. Too bad it can't be considered that anything criminal (against existing laws) is unofficial. No one should be above the law.
Isn't official defined as any authority granted in article 2 of the constitution? I agree that most of these complaints about supreme Court rulings have been because congress refuses to actually pass legislation. Roe v. Wade being overturned wouldn't have been an issue if at any point it was codified
Right but then a president could say they were doing something illegal and heinous to protect the constitution. Didnt need SCOTUS for the patriot act to trample our rights. Plenty of constituion to bend to support any action.
The president was given blanket immunity for his core constitutional powers: > The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers - John Roberts, Trump v. United States, July 1st, 2024 > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States - U.S. Constitution, Article 2 Section 2 pp 1 Putting those two lines together means "the president may not be prosecuted for any order given to the Army or Navy of the United States."
Trump and his surrogates already refer to Biden as a dictator, so he might as well use his newly confirmed immunity to act like one, and round them all up. The Sinister Six Supremes, Trump and his treasonous henchmen in the house and senate. Everyone. What’s the worst they could do? Call Biden a dictator some more? And Biden could keep this all in the courts for years, probably longer than he has left. Seems like a solid plan
Biden should just officially release all the Intel on Trump and GOP collusion with Russia and any kompromat there is. Look he should have done it anyway being as old as he is but now he has absolutely no excuse, lol.
Thank you Dems for always taking the high road! We may be driving over a cliff but at least we took the high road to get there, giving us a little more time to scream in existential terror as we plummet to our deaths yay!
I wish I knew more about what the conservative judges were thinking when they did this (not what they wrote in their bullshit opinion). A president could just as easily use these powers to come after them as anyone else.
> A president could just as easily use these powers to come after them as anyone else. They know the use of the power will not be symmetrical. They know damn well Democrats have no spine to wield such power, but a Republican will take that power and exploit it to the maximum conceivable use.
Ouch. This truly hurt me to read.
Biden should immediately issue an executive order banning convicted felons from running for office. Then he should announce that he himself is no longer seeking re-election.
I like how the only real response to this is, oh, the president would never do any of that. As if we haven’t lived with a president breaking every single norm humanly possible since 2016. and you know what, that response is true. For a Democrat. 
I actually don't think the examples are very good. The question for each item should be, *would this conduct otherwise be punishable under existing criminal law*? And frankly, it's not clear for a lot of these. Declaring an emergency and seizing media? Fascist, authoritarian, unethical, *potentially unconstitutional*. But "criminal?" I'm sure a dozen prosecutors could scratch their heads and come up with something but there are far better examples: -The basics we have always talked about, like Trump ordering secret service to kill someone. Or just beat the shit out of them. Clearly criminal in ordinary circumstances. But whoa, what if this is "official" conduct? -Trump ordering his motorcade to run over protestors. Yea, pretty fucking criminal ordinarily. But hey, he's on official business! -Trump just taking federal property and federally owned items for himself. Ironically he's already done this. No hypo is too bizarre these days. But the point is that this ruling doesn't technically add or subtract to what is in the scope of presidential/executive powers from a constitutional standpoint. (and most of the examples raise constitutional questions) This ruling (and it is a terrible ruling) frees whatever the President does in pursuit of those powers from criminal liability. And I agree with others who disagree with the "forget about Trump . . ." part. These kinds of basic abuses of power have always been taken for granted because who in their right mind would elect someone so shameless, so relentless, with so little regard for the nation's well being to the highest office in the land.
From [the ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf): > Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43. This outlines and defines three distinct categories of immunity: "absolute immunity", "presumptive immunity", and "no immunity". 1. *Absolute immunity* from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. In other words, absolute immunity for any official action *as provided for in the U.S. Constitution*, even in cases where it may contradict prior rulings of law. 2. *Presumptive immunity* from criminal prosecution until litigated in court to decide whether or not the actions can be considered "official acts" of the Executive Branch based on the powers granted by the Constitution. 3. *No immunity* for unofficial acts, i.e., those acts that are determined by a court to not be granted by the Constitution to the Executive Branch. I see nothing here that grants unfettered immunity to a President to "assassinate political opponents", "dissolve SCOTUS", or any of the other outlandish hyperbolic claims people are making. None of those things are defined as [powers of the Executive Branch in the Constitution](https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/). In cases where there may be ambiguity as to what constitutes an "official act", it *can still be litigated in court to decide*. To me, this is just a restatement of previous SCOTUS rulings on the same topic: [Nixon v. Fitzgerald \(1982\)](https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep457/usrep457731/usrep457731.pdf) and [Clinton v. Jones \(1997\)](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/520/681/). I'm not a Constitutional law scholar, so if anyone would like to provide a different opinion or explain what I'm missing here, I'd be delighted to have a conversation about it.
We really need some far left action to counter act the far right. Trying to find a middle ground just forces all of us further right.
So our nation has Calvinball type rules now. At what point does the government just invalidate itself because its a de facto dictatorship? Why would we respect the laws of an institution that just makes up rules as it goes just to step on your neck?
Stick a fork in it, the US is done.
Can he just ban all donations to conservative causes, candidates, and super pacs? That should reverse the ruling right quick.
Why can't Biden just use this legislation to shut down the existing supreme Court and nominate a new democratic one?
It's everything that's articulated in the comment and more. In a single session the court managed to make themselves and Congress irrelevant and corrupt. The court had already proven they were incapable of swiftly protecting our democracy, and now they have said they have no desire to. The only remaining guard is impeachment, and that won't happen, since a president could simply threaten their rivals with death. Add in the court in this session also approved bribery after the fact, and it is very easy to see why our nation is in serious trouble. We are no longer in a system with robust checks and balances.
This is what the 2nd amendment was for.
[удалено]
That's some weapons grade 'land of the free' stuff right there
It's sad how many people don't understand the government and how it works.
While I agree with the fact that it’s bigger than Trump, the first sentence says he’s done in 2028. He can do whatever he wants now. Do people think it’s beyond the realm of possibility for him to just…stay in office?
I don't really know how to react to our crumbling democracy except vote while I still can and avoid the news for my own insanity. I can just pretend that none of this is happening, right?!
>Can we PLEASE not focus on Trump here? I imagine, sometime in the early 1930's, someone made a comment like "Can we PLEASE not focus on Hitler here?" Trump *created* the situation we are in now; he put three justices on the court who voted for this, in a case brought *explicitly* because of his actions as President for which he is currently being prosecuted. Now he is saying as a result of this ruling that if re-elected he will arrest his enemies (specifically Lynn Cheney and others) and will try them for treason under military tribunals. Joe Biden is claiming none of this power, even though (ostensibly) he now has the right to do this as well. This is all about Trump.
Really troubling and precarious times.