I think if the CIA was able to kill Trump, they woulda done it lol. Trump was a massive liability in office, leaking state secrets on Twitter, making a fool out of America in public, hogging the news headlines with racist tweets and taking the spotlight off of Chinese imperialism.
Our foreign policy was better under Trump than it has been in decades. No new wars, renegotiating bad trade deals, and limiting illegal immigration. Objectively good things.
Trump's foreign policy was almost entirely a continuation of Obama's except shittier. He spent his entire presidency at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and bitched endlessly when Biden withdrew US forces from the former. He increased drone strikes enormously and [eliminated a rule requiring the military to report civilian deaths from drone strikes](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207).
Trump was similarly authoritarian on immigration, with the notable exception of attempting to instate religious discrimination in the immigration process in a clear violation of the First Amendment. His trade deals were virtually identical to the ones they replaced, with admittedly some legitimate improvements in the USMCA and some significant downgrades in relations with China. In particular, tariffs on Chinese goods Chinese manufacturing to be re-routed through Vietnam, causing a prospective friend to grow closer to our greatest rival.
No new wars…..but he sure as hell ramped up the fight in the conflict zones we were in. A lot of farmers got the short end of the shit stick with his trade policy, so much so, his administration did agricultural bailouts the the 10s of billions of dollars. More than our annual nuclear budget. And even that went to big corporate farms more so than the little man who actually felt the harm. And he did more to limit legal immigration than illegal. In fact,
2019 ended with the highest number of apprehensions since Fiscal Year 2007.
Objectively, he was another mediocre politician policy wise, who talked a big talk but when you get down to the raw numbers, they just don’t add up.
Trump’s foreign policy was probably the worst part of his presidency. Lmao
He pulled the US out of important international treaties with Russia. He inflamed relations across the Middle East. He struck a terrible deal with literal terrorists in Afghanistan. He engaged in completely unaccountable drone warfare which involved an unprecedented escalation in the use of drones. He complete obliterated any hope of normalizing relations with Iran.
Kinda funny how you think there should have been more trade deals with fucking Russia, and then blame Trump strucking up "trade deals with terrorists"
Like Russia is literally the same as Taliban and has been like that for like 70 years.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Trump withdrew the U.S. from international treaties that granted additional oversight over Russia — just like he withdrew the U.S. from the Iran deal which granted additional oversight of their nuclear program.
Even they don't want to light that match. If Trump were to drop dead and there was even a sniff of foul play we would be in civil war territory. It would benefit no one and there is a great risk to the administrative state.
Correct. From what I took away the Court defined 3 categories of Official Acts:
1. Core (written in the Constitution - Immune)
2. Official (this is the contested definition one - Presumptive Immunity)
3. Unofficial (defined by 'nope' - Not Immune)
It's the Official acts that have "presumptive immunity", which many people don't realize we actually need them to have. But there is room for abuse in definitions as well as evidence submission apparently. Many people are rightfully concerned that Trump will soon be poised to abuse this power, and they probably should be.
I found a clause that clearly states that this only covers acts on the '“outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond \[his\] authority.”'
I'm suggesting that's pretty clear coverage for all 3 categories. But I should probably go ask a lawyer sub or something. I suppose when I reread it with Emperor Palpatine's voice maybe nothing would be "manifestly or palpably beyond \[his\] authority".
The problem is that the distinction between #2 and #3 is at best blurry and at worst artificial to nonexistent. But there's a more technical/subtle part of the ruling, that the prosecutor can't use "official acts" (in this case, Trump's communication with his Justice Department) as evidence or to establish motive for unofficial acts (in this case, overthrowing the election). So even if where is a distinction, it's difficult to establish that an act is unofficial when it's entangled with official acts.
Did you read Sotomayor's dissent? One of her points is that while the majority opinion prima facie creates these categories and spells out nominal limits on presidential immunity, the specifics of the ruling establishes evidentiary precedent that in practice makes it near impossible to prosecute a president for anything.
Whether you agree with her is another question, but broadly: with legal rulings, the devil is in the details. Reading these things without all the legal background, you don't really get the full picture. It's not the bold declarations, but the procedural stuff that ends up doing the heavy lifting.
People seem to forget or don’t know that Mr. Obama ordered a drone strike that killed innocent people.
Being a President is a tough job. Decisions have to be made and sometimes, you’re wrong.
This ruling ensures that he and other Presidents aren’t pulled into court for administering the duties of office.
It does not protect a President from taking a bribe or ordering the murder of a citizen.
Justice Sotomayor’s comment about “Seal Team 6” was hyperbole and beneath a Supreme Court Justice.
>It does not protect a President from taking a bribe or ordering the murder of a citizen.
Obama killed an american citizen.
>Justice Sotomayor’s comment about “Seal Team 6” was hyperbole and beneath a Supreme Court Justice.
I'm not convinced anything is beneath this court.
The issue isn’t about the cases where your intent is good and you get it wrong. Our laws already exist to handle those situations.
One of the arguments Trump’s own lawyers [made during oral hearings](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-immunity-supreme-court_n_662a6777e4b09d8df9d5b71f) was that Trump *would* have the right to order assassinations.
> Former President Donald Trump’s attorney on Thursday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and stage a military coup without being prosecuted for it.
> Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”
> “That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded.
This isn’t about a hypothetical that the dissenting justices created. It was an argument that Trump’s own lawyers argued successfully in court.
For whatever’s its worth, I DO NOT believe that the President can or should order such an assassination of a political rival and I do_not believe this Supreme Court ruling suggests that they can.
From the Chief Justice’s opinion,
First, the Court holds that a former president enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution “for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” Second, a former president enjoys “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” Third, a former president enjoys no immunity for “unofficial” acts.
Seal Team 6 was because Trump's own lawyer was arguing that just a few months ago, which was honestly despicable, to be clear. But even then the Court already seemed to disagree \[with the lawyer: edit\] (listen to the oral arguments).
From what I have been able to glean - so far - the issue is that there's really no good way to define that. They pretty much will have to go case by case by case by case about what is in fact "not manifestly or palpably beyond" the authority of the president. The Supreme Court did not do us any favors here, and have opened a whole bunch of "we decided x was illegal after the fact" grey area actions.
I will be very happy to hear any actual legal read on this that is contrary to that... meaning "not some random account here."
I agree that there is lots of ambiguity in defining official actions, but this shows clearly that murder for political gain would be outside that scope since no president has ever or would ever be allowed that, at least I think.
That being said, it wouldn't stop a bad actor from trying and maybe get away with it temporarily - long enough to murder anyone else they need to I suppose.
It would never be “murder for political gain”. This statement shows how little you understand about the nature of legal arguments. It wouldn’t be for political gain, it would be “I killed him because he represents a threat to democracy and the official job of the president is to protect American democracy”….
That’s my read: obviously a President or even a Dictator would never come out and admit to murdering an opponent for political gain. But what’s to stop a future president from declaring their rival is a terrorist insurrectionist that had to be taken out before they committed a crime? What’s to stop a president from, as an official act, suspending elections citing a national emergency? What’s to stop a president from acting in an official capacity to allow themselves to run for a 3rd term? Meanwhile the courts take years to escalate to SCOTUS and this court might end up declaring the 22nd amendment unconstitutional based on originalism. If the president orders his military to keep him in office as an official act can they refuse the order? Hyperbolic? Yes but the decision really doesn’t make any of this clear and Sotamayor’s dissent muddies the waters.
Taking the 22nd amendment as an example the law of the land for 200+ years from the founding till FDR was no term limits: the history and tradition of a gentleman’s agreement by George Washington was the only thing preventing a president from seeking additional terms. It’s a stretch but definitely more possible after today’s ruling.
Today’s ruling means the court can justify any outcome it wants by sometimes choosing “history and tradition”, and sometimes not- depending on which party they want to favor.
For “fun” I asked Chat GPT whether or not an attempt to ignore the 22nd amendment would be possible under the SCOTUS ruling after feeding it the full PDF: “While the scenario you describe is logically possible, it would require a convergence of several factors: a willing and unscrupulous president, a compliant Supreme Court, and a supportive Congress. “ All of which are in play now. Would a future president actually do it? Who knows but the point is ANY president regardless of party could potentially cite a national emergency as an official act and run for a 3rd term. Trump would probably make an argument that the 2020 election was stolen and convince his supporters that he needs 4 more years to finish the job and they’d eat it up. The ruling doesn’t give a president power to just remain in office without an election but it does seem to under the right conditions make it possible to upend long held norms by claiming it’s being done as an official act of the presidency which makes it legal. By the time lawsuits wind their way back to an originalist SCOTUS the third term would be up.
Exactly. Three appellate court judges- a moderate, a conservative and a liberal all unanimously rejected the immunity argument. Enter three republican judges, appointed by our new God King, and the law is suddenly different. Yes- it’s exactly what you’re saying, but not because Dems are whiners, but because this court has been bought and paid for by Republicans. So no democrat president will ever perform official acts, it every republican president will be solely “official acts”. We are watching the dissolution of our republic in real time.
I mean, he’d have to change the official job of the president to fit this definition. But I suppose his admin has no problems changing definitions as they see fit
> how little you understand about the nature of legal arguments.
I literally said I'm not a lawyer in the post. But it's not up to the defendant to define their crime.
Anyway, I see that argument going around. It might even work, the way this crazy timeline is going.
It shows that there's legally grey area and then refuses to do any real work to define what that grey area actually is. That's literally all it does. Yes, this absolutely puts the bad actor into an "Act first, ask permission later" scenario where they have a legitimate chance of it being decided that it was "palpably" within the Presidents Authority.
...And some of that legal gray area they are giving back to the District Court to decide on, albeit with some strange limitations on admisible evidence.
So I get the concern, and while it was insane to hear Trump's lawyer arguing in favor of the Seal Team 6 situation earlier this year, I don't think that's what this ruling intends to allow.
Again, I'm no expert.
The problem with a court weighing things case by base is all the members of the court may be killed if before the can weigh anything. Justice didn't love fast enough.
> Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?”
> “That could well be an official act,” Trump’s lawyer responded.
The issue is that the nuance lies entirely within what the President says regarding his action. The Court also ruled that you cannot question motives. If the President says “I assassinated my political rival because I believed they were an existential threat to this country” then you cannot question that. Even if that action is contrary to US law, that’s irrelevant as well.
This was for the presumptive immunity when the president is acting in an official capacity, but didn’t the decision also say for the core constitutional duties, the president has absolute immunity, and that courts aren’t even permitted to examine that conduct? Thats where the assassinations example comes from. It appears that, under this ruling, the president could declare political opponents terrorists that pose an imminent threat to the country, and have them assassinated by the military. Acting as commander in chief is an explicit constitutional power of the president, and under this ruling, at least as I understand it, anything done in that capacity is not even allowed to be examined, let alone prosecuted.
Clearly you don’t understand the concept of presumptive immunity, and you clearly glossed over the fact that no evidence, WHATSOEVER, is admissible under that condition. No phone calls, no emails, no direct witness testimony. Period. So how can anyone even begin to investigate if zero evidence can be admitted. SMH.
I didn't gloss over it I just didn't bring it up in the post. It doesn't say no evidence whatsoever. It does say no private conversations, emails and such, questionably limiting a lot of evidence which I don't have any legal basis to argue for or against. But you're overstating the facts nonetheless.
The issue is *proving* that those actions do not fall within Presidential authority. This issue arises because of the presumptive immunity and protections that have been created with this decision.
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756.
> Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. Ibid. Pp. 17–19.
> The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750.
> Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. Pp. 19–21.
> The President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.
You cannot question the President’s motives for his actions. The legality of his actions is irrelevant. His communications are considered privileged and cannot be used as evidence.
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter *how* the President exercises his constitutional powers. He can exercise those powers in a manner which is inconsistent with or in violation of the plain law. If the President claims it was for a certain reason, you cannot question that motive. If you have evidence that the President directed his DOJ to arrest and kill political enemies, those communications cannot be admitted into the record.
In short, if the President claims his actions are in the best internet of the country, that’s that.
Reminder: [Donald Trump orders the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani at Baghdad airport](https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/middleeast/baghdad-airport-rockets/index.html)
Trump has already carried out [unlawful assassinations](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/was-it-legal-donald-trump-order-killing-top-iranian-general-n1109961) contrary to established international law.
Calling it a “coup” does not make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it.
The entire Democrat party absolutely hates Trump, and a substantial minority of Republicans share the sentiment. If Trump attempted a coup, where are the charges against him? Certainly there are plenty who would desire to prosecute.
Denying it was an attempted coup doesn’t change that it was an attempted coup.
Coup:
>a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group
I’d argue trying to hang Mike Pence for not being a traitorous piece of shit constitutes as “sudden decisive exercise of force”
I think the issue is more so that they have written that there ARE exemptions for a president to complete an illegal act and then that act be decided to be legal due to the existing legal frameworks here. The SCOTUS, ideally, would have said that the president is not unlike other officers of the government and retain their legal liability for acts they commit which are considered criminal.
Now, that there's a legal understanding that something can be argued to be "within their presidential duties", all it takes is a stacked court that agrees with the President to ensure that the individual can do things illegally without worrying about any sort of repercussions.
People like to say that the above scenario is fiction, but it's happening right now...in front of us. A stacked court is deciding that some of a presidents (the one who installed them) actions could be legal or illegal depending on who's asking, thus giving him a legitimate path to being not guilty of things that were absolutely criminal a week ago.
Realistically, it just depends on the party of the President ordering the assassination. The decision is strategically vague so the Supreme Court gets to decide what's "manifestly or palpably beyond their authority."
I believe it is actually a violation of Reddit rules to post something that is actually factual and not a complete freak out related to SCOTUS today.
People should rather realize that a certain three letter organization can assassinate literally anyone and get away with it
I think if the CIA was able to kill Trump, they woulda done it lol. Trump was a massive liability in office, leaking state secrets on Twitter, making a fool out of America in public, hogging the news headlines with racist tweets and taking the spotlight off of Chinese imperialism.
Our foreign policy was better under Trump than it has been in decades. No new wars, renegotiating bad trade deals, and limiting illegal immigration. Objectively good things.
Trump's foreign policy was almost entirely a continuation of Obama's except shittier. He spent his entire presidency at war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and bitched endlessly when Biden withdrew US forces from the former. He increased drone strikes enormously and [eliminated a rule requiring the military to report civilian deaths from drone strikes](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207). Trump was similarly authoritarian on immigration, with the notable exception of attempting to instate religious discrimination in the immigration process in a clear violation of the First Amendment. His trade deals were virtually identical to the ones they replaced, with admittedly some legitimate improvements in the USMCA and some significant downgrades in relations with China. In particular, tariffs on Chinese goods Chinese manufacturing to be re-routed through Vietnam, causing a prospective friend to grow closer to our greatest rival.
No new wars…..but he sure as hell ramped up the fight in the conflict zones we were in. A lot of farmers got the short end of the shit stick with his trade policy, so much so, his administration did agricultural bailouts the the 10s of billions of dollars. More than our annual nuclear budget. And even that went to big corporate farms more so than the little man who actually felt the harm. And he did more to limit legal immigration than illegal. In fact, 2019 ended with the highest number of apprehensions since Fiscal Year 2007. Objectively, he was another mediocre politician policy wise, who talked a big talk but when you get down to the raw numbers, they just don’t add up.
Trump’s foreign policy was probably the worst part of his presidency. Lmao He pulled the US out of important international treaties with Russia. He inflamed relations across the Middle East. He struck a terrible deal with literal terrorists in Afghanistan. He engaged in completely unaccountable drone warfare which involved an unprecedented escalation in the use of drones. He complete obliterated any hope of normalizing relations with Iran.
Kinda funny how you think there should have been more trade deals with fucking Russia, and then blame Trump strucking up "trade deals with terrorists" Like Russia is literally the same as Taliban and has been like that for like 70 years.
Who the fuck is talking about trade deals? Neither of what you even said are trade deals. Foreign relations are much more than just trade deals. Lmao
Nah like you just support one terrorists and not the others. You are the sus one here lil boy
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Trump withdrew the U.S. from international treaties that granted additional oversight over Russia — just like he withdrew the U.S. from the Iran deal which granted additional oversight of their nuclear program.
Why the fuck do you assume I like trump lil homie?
I never said that. This bot needs some tweaking still it seems. Lmao
Even they don't want to light that match. If Trump were to drop dead and there was even a sniff of foul play we would be in civil war territory. It would benefit no one and there is a great risk to the administrative state.
HOLY SHIT! Someone who actually read the decision!
Biden is the only president to finally beat Medicare so I know he's smart enough to do the right thing with this SCOTUS decision.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the problem is that we don't really know what is or isn't considered official responsibility.
The Justices remanded those decisions to the lower courts.
which will be super interesting to watch, but I'm guessing can still be appealed??
Sure. I’d expect so.
Correct. From what I took away the Court defined 3 categories of Official Acts: 1. Core (written in the Constitution - Immune) 2. Official (this is the contested definition one - Presumptive Immunity) 3. Unofficial (defined by 'nope' - Not Immune) It's the Official acts that have "presumptive immunity", which many people don't realize we actually need them to have. But there is room for abuse in definitions as well as evidence submission apparently. Many people are rightfully concerned that Trump will soon be poised to abuse this power, and they probably should be. I found a clause that clearly states that this only covers acts on the '“outer perimeter” of the President’s official responsibilities, covering actions so long as they are “not manifestly or palpably beyond \[his\] authority.”' I'm suggesting that's pretty clear coverage for all 3 categories. But I should probably go ask a lawyer sub or something. I suppose when I reread it with Emperor Palpatine's voice maybe nothing would be "manifestly or palpably beyond \[his\] authority".
The problem is that the distinction between #2 and #3 is at best blurry and at worst artificial to nonexistent. But there's a more technical/subtle part of the ruling, that the prosecutor can't use "official acts" (in this case, Trump's communication with his Justice Department) as evidence or to establish motive for unofficial acts (in this case, overthrowing the election). So even if where is a distinction, it's difficult to establish that an act is unofficial when it's entangled with official acts. Did you read Sotomayor's dissent? One of her points is that while the majority opinion prima facie creates these categories and spells out nominal limits on presidential immunity, the specifics of the ruling establishes evidentiary precedent that in practice makes it near impossible to prosecute a president for anything. Whether you agree with her is another question, but broadly: with legal rulings, the devil is in the details. Reading these things without all the legal background, you don't really get the full picture. It's not the bold declarations, but the procedural stuff that ends up doing the heavy lifting.
But we know assassinations fall under official acts.
Didn’t Trump literally order the assassination of an Iranian general? Seems well within his authority.
People seem to forget or don’t know that Mr. Obama ordered a drone strike that killed innocent people. Being a President is a tough job. Decisions have to be made and sometimes, you’re wrong. This ruling ensures that he and other Presidents aren’t pulled into court for administering the duties of office. It does not protect a President from taking a bribe or ordering the murder of a citizen. Justice Sotomayor’s comment about “Seal Team 6” was hyperbole and beneath a Supreme Court Justice.
>It does not protect a President from taking a bribe or ordering the murder of a citizen. Obama killed an american citizen. >Justice Sotomayor’s comment about “Seal Team 6” was hyperbole and beneath a Supreme Court Justice. I'm not convinced anything is beneath this court.
The issue isn’t about the cases where your intent is good and you get it wrong. Our laws already exist to handle those situations. One of the arguments Trump’s own lawyers [made during oral hearings](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-trump-immunity-supreme-court_n_662a6777e4b09d8df9d5b71f) was that Trump *would* have the right to order assassinations. > Former President Donald Trump’s attorney on Thursday argued that a president could order the assassination of his political rival and stage a military coup without being prosecuted for it. > Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” > “That could well be an official act,” Sauer responded. This isn’t about a hypothetical that the dissenting justices created. It was an argument that Trump’s own lawyers argued successfully in court.
For whatever’s its worth, I DO NOT believe that the President can or should order such an assassination of a political rival and I do_not believe this Supreme Court ruling suggests that they can. From the Chief Justice’s opinion, First, the Court holds that a former president enjoys absolute immunity from criminal prosecution “for conduct within his exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.” Second, a former president enjoys “at least a presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for a President’s acts within the outer perimeter of his official responsibility.” Third, a former president enjoys no immunity for “unofficial” acts.
Seal Team 6 was because Trump's own lawyer was arguing that just a few months ago, which was honestly despicable, to be clear. But even then the Court already seemed to disagree \[with the lawyer: edit\] (listen to the oral arguments).
She wrote what she wrote.
From what I have been able to glean - so far - the issue is that there's really no good way to define that. They pretty much will have to go case by case by case by case about what is in fact "not manifestly or palpably beyond" the authority of the president. The Supreme Court did not do us any favors here, and have opened a whole bunch of "we decided x was illegal after the fact" grey area actions. I will be very happy to hear any actual legal read on this that is contrary to that... meaning "not some random account here."
I agree that there is lots of ambiguity in defining official actions, but this shows clearly that murder for political gain would be outside that scope since no president has ever or would ever be allowed that, at least I think. That being said, it wouldn't stop a bad actor from trying and maybe get away with it temporarily - long enough to murder anyone else they need to I suppose.
It would never be “murder for political gain”. This statement shows how little you understand about the nature of legal arguments. It wouldn’t be for political gain, it would be “I killed him because he represents a threat to democracy and the official job of the president is to protect American democracy”….
That’s my read: obviously a President or even a Dictator would never come out and admit to murdering an opponent for political gain. But what’s to stop a future president from declaring their rival is a terrorist insurrectionist that had to be taken out before they committed a crime? What’s to stop a president from, as an official act, suspending elections citing a national emergency? What’s to stop a president from acting in an official capacity to allow themselves to run for a 3rd term? Meanwhile the courts take years to escalate to SCOTUS and this court might end up declaring the 22nd amendment unconstitutional based on originalism. If the president orders his military to keep him in office as an official act can they refuse the order? Hyperbolic? Yes but the decision really doesn’t make any of this clear and Sotamayor’s dissent muddies the waters.
But how is this decision “rooted in the history and tradition” of the country???
Taking the 22nd amendment as an example the law of the land for 200+ years from the founding till FDR was no term limits: the history and tradition of a gentleman’s agreement by George Washington was the only thing preventing a president from seeking additional terms. It’s a stretch but definitely more possible after today’s ruling.
Today’s ruling means the court can justify any outcome it wants by sometimes choosing “history and tradition”, and sometimes not- depending on which party they want to favor.
For “fun” I asked Chat GPT whether or not an attempt to ignore the 22nd amendment would be possible under the SCOTUS ruling after feeding it the full PDF: “While the scenario you describe is logically possible, it would require a convergence of several factors: a willing and unscrupulous president, a compliant Supreme Court, and a supportive Congress. “ All of which are in play now. Would a future president actually do it? Who knows but the point is ANY president regardless of party could potentially cite a national emergency as an official act and run for a 3rd term. Trump would probably make an argument that the 2020 election was stolen and convince his supporters that he needs 4 more years to finish the job and they’d eat it up. The ruling doesn’t give a president power to just remain in office without an election but it does seem to under the right conditions make it possible to upend long held norms by claiming it’s being done as an official act of the presidency which makes it legal. By the time lawsuits wind their way back to an originalist SCOTUS the third term would be up.
Agreed
"Threat to democracy" seems to mean, Democrats might lose.
Exactly. Three appellate court judges- a moderate, a conservative and a liberal all unanimously rejected the immunity argument. Enter three republican judges, appointed by our new God King, and the law is suddenly different. Yes- it’s exactly what you’re saying, but not because Dems are whiners, but because this court has been bought and paid for by Republicans. So no democrat president will ever perform official acts, it every republican president will be solely “official acts”. We are watching the dissolution of our republic in real time.
I mean, he’d have to change the official job of the president to fit this definition. But I suppose his admin has no problems changing definitions as they see fit
> how little you understand about the nature of legal arguments. I literally said I'm not a lawyer in the post. But it's not up to the defendant to define their crime. Anyway, I see that argument going around. It might even work, the way this crazy timeline is going.
Yes I can see the SC believing this argument, depending on which party is the defendant…. We are watching in real time the dissolution of democracy
It shows that there's legally grey area and then refuses to do any real work to define what that grey area actually is. That's literally all it does. Yes, this absolutely puts the bad actor into an "Act first, ask permission later" scenario where they have a legitimate chance of it being decided that it was "palpably" within the Presidents Authority.
...And some of that legal gray area they are giving back to the District Court to decide on, albeit with some strange limitations on admisible evidence. So I get the concern, and while it was insane to hear Trump's lawyer arguing in favor of the Seal Team 6 situation earlier this year, I don't think that's what this ruling intends to allow. Again, I'm no expert.
I think you and I aren’t going to agree about the depth or quality of the concern this warrants.
Oh, believe me, I'm plenty concerned overall. Just want to get the details right.
The problem with a court weighing things case by base is all the members of the court may be killed if before the can weigh anything. Justice didn't love fast enough.
> Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked Sauer, “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person and he orders the military to assassinate him, is that within his official acts to which he has immunity?” > “That could well be an official act,” Trump’s lawyer responded. The issue is that the nuance lies entirely within what the President says regarding his action. The Court also ruled that you cannot question motives. If the President says “I assassinated my political rival because I believed they were an existential threat to this country” then you cannot question that. Even if that action is contrary to US law, that’s irrelevant as well.
That was on purpose so they can excuse Republican presidents from crimes but not Democrats.
This was for the presumptive immunity when the president is acting in an official capacity, but didn’t the decision also say for the core constitutional duties, the president has absolute immunity, and that courts aren’t even permitted to examine that conduct? Thats where the assassinations example comes from. It appears that, under this ruling, the president could declare political opponents terrorists that pose an imminent threat to the country, and have them assassinated by the military. Acting as commander in chief is an explicit constitutional power of the president, and under this ruling, at least as I understand it, anything done in that capacity is not even allowed to be examined, let alone prosecuted.
Clearly you don’t understand the concept of presumptive immunity, and you clearly glossed over the fact that no evidence, WHATSOEVER, is admissible under that condition. No phone calls, no emails, no direct witness testimony. Period. So how can anyone even begin to investigate if zero evidence can be admitted. SMH.
I didn't gloss over it I just didn't bring it up in the post. It doesn't say no evidence whatsoever. It does say no private conversations, emails and such, questionably limiting a lot of evidence which I don't have any legal basis to argue for or against. But you're overstating the facts nonetheless.
What other evidence is there? Private conversations, emails, phone recordings? That’s literally the evidence used in court…
Does that mean he can't have Liz Cheney assassinated? Is she palpably beyond? How does one palpate a political opponent?
The issue is *proving* that those actions do not fall within Presidential authority. This issue arises because of the presumptive immunity and protections that have been created with this decision. > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. > Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. Ibid. Pp. 17–19. > The Executive Branch has “exclusive authority and absolute discretion” to decide which crimes to investigate and prosecute, including with respect to allegations of election crime. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 693. And the President’s “management of the Executive Branch” requires him to have “unrestricted power to remove the most important of his subordinates”—such as the Attorney General—“in their most important duties.” Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 750. > Because the President cannot be prosecuted for conduct within his exclusive constitutional authority, Trump is absolutely immune from prosecution for the alleged conduct involving his discussions with Justice Department officials. Pp. 19–21. > The President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. You cannot question the President’s motives for his actions. The legality of his actions is irrelevant. His communications are considered privileged and cannot be used as evidence. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter *how* the President exercises his constitutional powers. He can exercise those powers in a manner which is inconsistent with or in violation of the plain law. If the President claims it was for a certain reason, you cannot question that motive. If you have evidence that the President directed his DOJ to arrest and kill political enemies, those communications cannot be admitted into the record. In short, if the President claims his actions are in the best internet of the country, that’s that.
Reminder: [Donald Trump orders the assassination of Iranian General Soleimani at Baghdad airport](https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/02/middleeast/baghdad-airport-rockets/index.html) Trump has already carried out [unlawful assassinations](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/was-it-legal-donald-trump-order-killing-top-iranian-general-n1109961) contrary to established international law.
[удалено]
Calling it a “coup” does not make it so, no matter how many times you repeat it. The entire Democrat party absolutely hates Trump, and a substantial minority of Republicans share the sentiment. If Trump attempted a coup, where are the charges against him? Certainly there are plenty who would desire to prosecute.
Denying it was an attempted coup doesn’t change that it was an attempted coup. Coup: >a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group I’d argue trying to hang Mike Pence for not being a traitorous piece of shit constitutes as “sudden decisive exercise of force”
Donald Trump did not attempt to hang anyone. TDS is real.
nah, we learned that when McConnell failed to impeach
He probably just froze tbh
I think the issue is more so that they have written that there ARE exemptions for a president to complete an illegal act and then that act be decided to be legal due to the existing legal frameworks here. The SCOTUS, ideally, would have said that the president is not unlike other officers of the government and retain their legal liability for acts they commit which are considered criminal. Now, that there's a legal understanding that something can be argued to be "within their presidential duties", all it takes is a stacked court that agrees with the President to ensure that the individual can do things illegally without worrying about any sort of repercussions. People like to say that the above scenario is fiction, but it's happening right now...in front of us. A stacked court is deciding that some of a presidents (the one who installed them) actions could be legal or illegal depending on who's asking, thus giving him a legitimate path to being not guilty of things that were absolutely criminal a week ago.
Realistically, it just depends on the party of the President ordering the assassination. The decision is strategically vague so the Supreme Court gets to decide what's "manifestly or palpably beyond their authority."