Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.
So like, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I’ve been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.
I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?
Disclaimer: someone calm me and op down.
I couldn’t believe that every post wasn’t about this ruling all day
No, you shouldn’t calm down, this decision is absolutely cataclysmic for the US should a dangerous person be elected or the ruling not overturned.
I’ve been saying the states are okay despite all SCOTUS’ stripping of civil rights and everything else wrong with that country because as long as there were checks and balances, voting had relevance.
With this ruling,I can’t see that it will continue to.
A president can order their political opponents murdered.
They can order that all civil rights be suspended indefinitely.
They can order a suspension or abolition of term limits.
They can abolish voting altogether in a hundred different ways and nothing can be legally done to halt that president from continuing to abolish voting until it sticks.
If anyone does manage to legally stop the president, the president can kill them or cut off their fingers and remove their voice box.
Literally anything is now legal, fair game.
Biden has spoken out against that kind of power and he has it right now, so VOTE for BIDEN to buy yourselves some time.
Whoever comes after this term or the next likely won’t have the same scruples.
This is far and away the most dangerous and harmful decision SCOTUS has ever made, which is saying a LOT.
It is the antithesis of the line in the Constitution explicitly stating that no elected official (like the president) has legal immunity.
The decision to grant an entire branch of the government absolute(it is absolute, anything can become “official”) legal immunity could very rapidly destroy the country as it is and turn it into a true authoritarian state within a week.
It takes some time to write, print and sign the executive orders or I’d say a day.
I have to read up on it more because I haven’t read or heard enough yet to convince me that this decision is not utterly catastrophic.
I’m shocked the dollar hasn’t collapsed, any further international faith in US stability is misplaced.
Antiquated.
Article II, Section 3 - the president must take care to execute the laws faithfully. No president meeting the requirements of the office could issue an illegal official order. If the president orders something illegal, it’s necessarily against the oath of office and should not be considered official.
My feeling is that this ruling means any cases brought against the president would need to establish that an act was unofficial before criminal proceedings could proceed. Thay seems fine to me to adjudicate in each case.
You are not considering the part where we can’t use relevant testimony or documents to prove that what the President does is illegal in the first place. The President can just say whatever illegal things they did were official acts, and all the evidence that might prove otherwise is off-limits. It relies on other people in the administration to not follow the illegal order, but of course that is a weak protection and the President can fire them or do something illegal to them without consequence too.
If you follow an illegal order, guess what you just did: broke the law.
Please, fhis strident unreality being pushed is JUST LIKE the fear mongering on the right.
This decision is by no means great, it may totally delay trials for Trump until after the election, that’s horeshit in my opinion. But I also don’t beleive this bullshit about this ruling making the president a king. Stop FUDing for them. Trump STILL HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW IF HE IS ELECTED. Please STOP REINFORCING THE IDEA THAT HE DOES NOT.
Did you even read Sotomayor’ dissent? I did.
Yes, and I sadly had to agree with John Roberts, not a good place to be.
The doomerism is just ridiculous to me.
Unfortunately I think you’re missing something here. The court ruled that the president has immunity. Like the kind of immunity diplomats get in foreign countries that enables them to run over people in their cars. Immunity as a concept only makes sense if the action performed is actually illegal. Nobody can be prosecuted for legal actions. The president is now unprosecutable for both legal AND illegal actions.
It’s a nonsensical and horrifying ruling. The fact that the president would be violating his oath of office doesn’t cancel out the immunity, it just makes the crime that much more disgusting, and the impossibility of justice that much more galling.
Please back this up with some quotes from the ruling or something because this is not how I read it.
The reason the president is immune for official acts is to protect people like Obama who ordered extrajudicial killings of American citizens. That is a very grey offical act - these were US citizens in a war zone fighting for the other side. I may not fully agree that that should be protected, but I understand the reasoning around a president feeling free to act (legally) in the best interests of the nation without fear that their actions would lead to legal jeopardy after they leave office.
(To be clear: I would be ok with a trial to decide if Obama’s actions were official, for instance. And if they were deemed not, then he could be tried for those assassinations. Also, to be clear: I am a progressive who would vote for Obama over Trump in a heartbeat.)
It’s all over the Syllabus section, but here’s a specific quote:
Personally I am ok with courts not being able to deem something unofficial based on allegations rather than on a decision.
So how do they prosecute then? If the president commits a crime, let’s say he accepts a bribe for a pardon, you aren’t allowed to bring a prosecution unless a court deems the act unofficial. And the court isn’t permitted to find that the act was unofficial because the bribery is merely an allegation and hasn’t been proved. And you can’t prove the allegation because you can’t prosecute a president for official acts.
The trial court is supposed to determine if there is sufficient evidence such that is not a mere allegation?
I appreciate this response. It makes me feel a little better. I still think we should be concerned about SCOTUS probably getting to make some of these decisions of what’s official or not. Seems more corrupt on the judicial branch side of things rather than executive. Overall not great.
I mean, it’s definitely not great. This court is a sham that never should have had this makeup.
And this absolutely makes it harder to bring Trump to trial before the election.
This is not great.
But it is not “the president can assasinate people!!!”
At least, not to this layman. I would hope supreme court justices know better, but even the dissent seems a little unhinged to me, a progressive who thinks the rule of law should AND STILL DOES apply to everyone. (I am also not willing to just give up and say “yeah, guess assassination is legal now” - I think that junk is counterproductive and maybe being propagandized against us by unfriendly foreign governments.)
The president absolutely can assassinate people according to this. They can have someone picked up on any charge (execution of laws and giving orders to the military are part of their “official acts”), taken to a federal facility, and executed (espionage, national defense, exigent circumstances, whatever), then pardon everyone involved, and no evidence could even be brought up because it is all tied to an official act and investigating it would be impossible because any evidence tied to the official act is prohibited (giving orders to the military, directing federal law enforcement) and the investigation would burden the president’s ability to execute their core responsibilities.
I’m not reading this. Your first sentence is incorrect.
Bull. The president giving orders to the military is a core responsibility, and he has full immunity in that regard. That plus a pardon for the military members involved means he can have anyone assassinated and nobody would face consequences. Period.
Legal orders. The president is bound by Article II, Section 3.
Disclaimer: someone calm me and op down.
Nope. Too busy losing my goddamn shit over this insane, dictator-making, Enabling Act 2.0 garbage.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences.
This isn’t true.
They ruled that the President has criminal immunity for official acts in line with the constitutional rights and duties of the POTUS.
They also ruled that non-official acts, or acts taken in a personal capacity as a private citizen, are not immune to criminal prosecution, and that there’s a large gray area in between the two where it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
And as I understand it, they SCOTUS get to decide what counts as official. So theoretically, they could decide, for example, that killing a political opponent is official. After all someone who disagrees might effect the smooth running of the government. And so on.
Technically its the lower court but you know they will all be appealed and ultimately the supreme court will decide.
i know this is a dumb question, but why isn’t there some kind of law mandating equal amounts of SC Justices from each party? that way, they would HAVE to work together and one side can’t take control. i thought this country was sooo proud of our checks and balances, but it seems to me that they aren’t working.
The SC judges are supposed to be non-partisan. The idea was that life terms would insulate them from partisan pressures. This has never really been the case. As far back as 1857, the Dred Scott decision was largely viewed as influenced by partisan politics. You can look to the tensions between Roosevelt and the court for more stark evidence of the political nature of the Supreme Court.
Changing this would require a constitutional amendment, which seems unlikely in the near future given the present state of affairs.
thank you for the informative reply. i was unfortunately homeschooled with very white washed Southern Baptist curriculum so i am still learning basics about how our government ACTUALLY works. and the more i learn, the more i hate it here.
it seems so obvious to me that life terms themselves are extremely prone to corruption, especially in a capitalist society. isn’t this the whole reason Washington refused a third term? it is very interesting, albeit terrifying, to see the same principal held for certain parts of government, but not for others, with no discernable way to fix it at this point.
I’m happy I could help. My sympathies for having to make up later in life an education you were rightly owed. I’m from the south myself and know more than a few people who experienced the same. Fortunately it’s never to late to learn and what better time than an election year?
If you’re interested Scott Abernathy’s “American Government: Stories of a Nation” is a great and comprehensive overview of the structure and function of the US government. It provides a fairly balanced view and a narrative style that is easier to digest than more textbook-like sources.
Our country is indeed in trouble and while I won’t say fixing it will be easy, I urge you not to give in to doomerism. Stay informed, be critical, and most of all, find some way to get involved, if you can, at the local level.
It’s yet another tactic to delay.
They also said that official acts cover just about everything when using presidential power, and you can’t take motive into account when determining if it’s an official act or not. Shooting a gun at someone himself. Not official sure. Ordering someone in the military to do it. You can’t ask why he did it, and if it was legal, why would immunity matter?
As commander in chief, communicating with the military is definitely a core duty and absolutely immune. So is writing pardons. So you just order the military to crime in your name and pardon them afterward.
Or the CIA. We all know how trigger happy they are after all.
They left it intentionally vague so cases will make it to the supreme Court so the court can decide based on of the president is on their team or not.
No it doesn’t concern me. I have no illusions that the top of society is full of people with unfair power over me. And it’s relieving that the law finally reflects the reality of the situation.
The only thing worse than a nightmare is a nightmare with lipstick on.
Ive allways wondered the point of putting presedents like this into writing, I beleave the reason is to ligitimize it. From “we can do evil but our court trial will look like Trump’s trial, and thats a headache and a risk”. Now it is “ligitimate” to break the law and a “just action done for the good of our nation”.
Yep. I’m so over American politics and I think the nation is headed in the wrong direction. I feel that the people are powerless against changing our trajectory. I had been considering doing a PhD abroad and this is really pushing that decision now.
Do it. Do it now. You know what kind of person lived a life knowing they made the right decision?
Everyone that left Germany in 1932.
Let’s say the best possible thing happens. Biden crushes Trump, the Republicans lose so many seats Team Not Fascists can push through Constitutional Amendments.
What would Democrats actually change for the better?
Do you think that is likely?
Or will you be spending the rest of your life wondering if this is the election year that starts a civil war in one of the the most militarised nations on the planet? Do you want to be in a major nuclear power where one side specifically hates cities when it has a civil war?
Even if things go relatively well, this bullshit isn’t ending without one. As a best outcome! The other is no one even doing that! Every two fucking years you’re going to be watching which Congressional seats fall to fascism because one team has just chosen to abandon reality and democracy.
What would Democrats actually change for the better?
-
See Canada
-
See Norway
-
Do like them.
That’s about 20 years of reform.
- GO TO 1
The democrats are not even left enough to be a centrist party in Canada. They will not reform.
While you might be generally correct, some of the legislation passed during Biden’s term is genuinely better than what even Europe could come up with.
You’re right that they could.
Now look at their past legislation. Will they?
-
They basically just performed a coup for whoever becomes the next Republican president. It may not be Trump in 2024, but it doesnt matter, as soon as a Republican president is voted in it is over.
I don’t understand why a democrat president wouldn’t abuse this. In fact, why doesn’t the person who tells Biden what to do order Trump executed right now? I’m sure an accident with reasonable doubt could be arranged.
because it relies on the… i don’t remember the name of their position but they’re the top judges, it relies on them to actually say that it counts as an official act, and since the majority of them are corrupt republicans they’ll just find a way to say “well actually what biden did wasn’t an official act”.
It’s just a farce to make people think the country still has a functional legal system and government when in fact they pulled out the life support years ago…
Because “principles.” The very thing that Republicans use against them: Democrats mostly fight fair, which this fight, is very fucking stupid. Biden should absolutely use his new authority to clean house. From top to fucking bottom. But he won’t, and Republicans know that.
The profound importance of your comment can not be overestimated, imo. The American people need to wake up quickly and learn about soft coup and especially Operation Condor. History is repeating, and I get the feeling the soft coups shepherded by the USA abroad were test runs.
I don’t know why people care. Obama dronestriked an American citizen and nothing happened. Snowden revealed that we are all under mass surveillance and nothing happened. Biden withheld funds from Ukraine to halt an investigation into his son and nothing happened. This ruling just reflects reality.
Biden withheld funds from Ukraine to halt an investigation into his son and nothing happened.
Bit of a refresher as it’s so hard to keep all of the lies straight: Republicans claimed that an FBI informant said that Hunter Biden took a position on the board of Burisma, and the Bidens took a bribe, in return for Joe pressuring Ukraine to fire the government official investigating Burisma. Nobody can produce the evidence, and said government official wasn’t investigating Burisma, after all.
Pres. Trump threatened to withhold funds from Ukraine unless Zelenskyy dug up kompromat on Trump’s political opponents. He was impeached over it. So that happened.
You don’t think this series of events is indicative of corruption?
The CIA also censored references to Shokins book on twitter.
Unrelated but the same people censored the Hunter Biden laptop story and called it Russian disinfo during peak election season. It turned out to be true. 🤔
That is indeed a series of events. Did they ever come up with any evidence linking them in a causal way?
Well is there any evidence?!
The title of the article is literally about the oversight committee demanding communication records as recently as last fall.
Biden is a uniparty member and for all of this smoke he was never properly investigated by the justice department at home or abroad. Every inquiry is some anemic posturing.
Special counsel David Weiss let Hunter Biden’s most egregious financial crimes elapse past the statute of limitations – convenient. Hunter was making millions overseas in Ukraine and moving it through Romania and China. He wasn’t investigated for years until he ended up picking up a gun charge.
Why would an energy company in Ukraine pay Hunter Biden, a crack smoking drug addict, 50-80k a month if not for political access or a quid-pro-quo? Who is “the big guy” in Hunter Bidens email? Why were they trying to give him a plea deal that would absolve him of everything last July? If this were anyone that was not a member of the privileged class they wouldn’t be able to move due to all the investigation instead you are labeled as crazy for thinking this is old fashioned political corruption.
Wikipedia dismisses it as a Russian disinfo conspiracy theory. Where have we heard that before? 🤔
It goes back to my original point these people are above the law.
So… no.
Lol good one it’s like you missed the entire point of my post.
I get the intent of such posts: To confuse and demoralize people with a “both sides” or “they’re all bad” message. I object because they discourage participation in the democratic process and serve authoritarian interests, and in the abstract, truth matters.
We’re completely fucked. The cult of 45 has a superpower few people understand: bottomless stupidity. It’s more frightening than it sounds. They will destroy themselves for their orange god, and take the rest of us with them. They have nothing to lose, and their only desire is for their dictator to “make the libruls cry”.
And as usual, the leaders of the Democrats are bringing educational pamphlets to a gun fight.
When he went to Miami to be indicted he was disappointed because not a single person showed up. Hard to square with all these supposed super fans. Grateful Dead or Phish had more loyal fans.
I appreciate the counterpoint and hope it means something. The polls show Biden trailing Trump by an uncomfortable margin. Not that I put much faith in polls anymore.
It’s not stupidity, it’s loyalty to the level of irrationality.
You’ll understand the current American right if you assume that they have no attachment to the meaning of their words, and the prime axiom they operate by is: “My team is always right”.
They use words as weapons to convince those who can be swayed by them, but they themselves are immune to being swayed by words, and largely indifferent to their literal meaning - only their emotional content.
This is not to deify the left, they have their own problems.
The working class folks on the right have a lot more in common with the working class folks on the left than they realize or will admit to themselves. They see “liberals” as both the enemy and the source of all their problems. Trump and the Republicans could dismantle Social Security and Medicare and every social program that exists, causing tremendous harm to working class people on both sides…and Trump’s cult followers would still blame the left for it. They consistently vote against their own interests and fail to acknowledge facts or truth. If that’s not stupidity, I don’t know what stupidity means.
Can’t Biden just have a reaper drone fire a hellfire missile at Trump? Or am I missing something?
He could but he wont. Trump would definitely do it tho.
The whole Trump presidency was filled with Trump abusing vague powers because when it was written, they assumed that the president wasn’t a asshole.
This new law plus Trump is a cluster fuck.
The problem is, Biden wouldn’t do it, because he is demented and Trump would, because, well he can. So US are already fucked and the EU are probably next (ukraine war). While both sides are bad, I still think the demented guy is the one to vote for.
Democrats care more about decorum than the country.
SCOTUS
POTUS
FLOTUSUsing these instead of just “the Supreme Court” and “the President” seems so weird as someone not from the US
Beau of the Fifth Column on Youtube: https://youtu.be/vNzFQ10uSfU https://youtu.be/0Y-C1fWx37g
“This is now the most important election issue; it has to supersede all of the other ones. The American people now are no longer no longer choosing between two candidates that they really don’t like as many of the previous election cycles have been. They’re trying to make a determination which one is less likely to become a tyrant.”
The only problem I have with this quote is that a large portion of the electorate want the tyrant.
The same people who want the tyrant are the same crowd that wanted covid. There’s too many morons.
I was hoping the Anti-Vaxxers would take themselves out by refusing medicine… Too many of them survived…
I wonder who killed JFK. Yeah it was Bush Senior and his ilk. Those responsible for the business (biznuss) plot by fascist scum in the 30s to coup d’etat the American government then. If it was not for Smedley Butler being the person they tried to get to lead this failed coup, and him going to congress instead to lead their army of hundreds of thousands… history would be VERY different.
This link is a link to one of Americas greatest heroes, in my opinion. I hope he rests in peace.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler
This link has a picture of the most ruthless killers in history all together cozy as a family, being two faced little biatches & fleecing the American people with wedge issue politics where people morally feel they need to choose a side (abortion, gun control, social issues like LGBTQ rights etc), instead of the American people uh, focusing on the economic side of things . https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/04/the-story-of-the-viral-photo-of-the-presidential-families.html
Biden has no balls. He should take one for the team and order the execution of SCOTUS. Either he gets prosecuted or he’ll put an end to this nonsense by force. Even if he gets prosecuted he’s old as fuck he’ll never see prison.
Just throw the six that voted for immunity in prison for treason. A fate worse than death
Easily proved. Especially if you bring it in front of what’s left of SCOTUS.
But then Biden is a dictator too. It’s fun to dream about revenge but it always hurts the wrong people in the end.
At this point, we need someone to seize the reins long enough to save us. And then put them down.
History says it never, ever, works like that.
It tells of many examples of when people thought it was a good idea…
Roman dictators did exactly that, though
Not saying their system was perfect by any means but people out here acting like there’s 0 historic examples are just wrong
Yeah, that’s a perfect example of how awful things can get. A slave driven economy … and society full off ancient bullshit and death and strife and murder and horrific genocides… if you’re holding up the Roman empire as a good thing for people…well, I’m not going to convince you of much.
They’ve had great marketing since though… Especially the holy Catholic Church who has just the BEST history of being so great, like I think Epstein’s greatest blunder was not being a Catholic. They would have protected him much better.
Careful, this is the exact mantra of the right. They just want a little dictatorship to get things back in line and then things will go back to normal.
SPOILER: it won’t
Isn’t that the exact story of The Phantom Menace?
Just the once though. Then balance/expand the SCOTUS. Give the Republicans a few to make it fair. Vote to overturn, and forget it ever happened. Logical people can’t get that upset that the only thing he did with his new king powers is do what it takes to save democracy
As with the lowest posts in this thread, this will not be popular, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’m not concerned. Not because I think everything is fine. It’s because it’s not been fine for a long long time. Now the curtain is being pulled back and everyone can see the reality that’s always been there. Privilege just means private law, and the president is the most privileged person in the US. As time moves forward the window dressing is removed and we can see reality for what it really is. It reminds me of This Vicious Cabaret:
But the backdrop’s peel and the sets give way and the cast gets eaten by the play / There’s a murderer at the Matinee, there are dead men in the aisles / And the patrons and actors too are uncertain if the show is through / And with side-long looks await their cue but the frozen mask just smiles.
This ruling is only possible and accepted because the current political climate allows for that, true. Things haven’t been fine for a while. But this is a sign that they keep getting worse.
I vehemently disagree with the idea that it’s a good thing to have “the curtain pulled back”. Realpolitik is and has been true forever - but public perception and acceptance matters a huge amount. These popular illusions and ideals are a part of the calculation of realpolitik.
Society should be idealistic, it should expect better - because those expectations shape the actions of politicians. Our society losing its ideals shouldn’t be applauded, it should be mourned.
Well, that’s one way to look at it, but too, keep in mind Hemingway’s famous description of how somebody goes broke: Slowly, then all at once.
Yes, it scares the shit out of me. Even if we manage to never elect Trump before he dies, the next time any Republican makes it to the presidency, the American Experiment is over.
I think it’s silly to assume that this can’t and won’t be abused by Democrats as well, given time. The worst thing we could do in this situation is make it partisan.
No president should have this power.
It could be abused by Democrats as well. If we get to that point, all hope is lost anyway.
Not to defend the democrats too much but even if they do it, the SCOTUS is heavily biased against them which means that they would get heavily punished.
Also at the least the liberal wing of the SCOTUS voted against this, unlike the republican appointed judges.
So there’s clearly one side pushing for this and one trying to prevent it.
I’m more worried about them making being homeless illegal, which pretty much guarantees slavery via for-profit prisons.
Every prison is for-profit.
how?
Police unions. Less than ten percent of federal prisons are private. Who do you think lobbies more: 10% of prisons or the unions for 90% of federal prison employees?
The public ones still give out contracts for all of the services performed.
oh i see, you mean every US prison. couldn’t think of a reason why any prison would be for profit this side of the pond
I mean the UK put a dude in prison for four months for having a miniature Master Sword on a street alone thanks to CCTV.
yes but i seem to be missing the for-profit bit of that arrest
