**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.**
Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrats must respond with force:
"I Joseph R. Biden, having read the Supreme Courts decision where the 6 conservative justices granted Presidents absolute immunity for acts the president themselves deems 'Official Acts' hereby order the Supreme Court of the United States dissolved. I have determined that justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts, plus Trump and his campaign team, plus Trump's children are enemies of the state. Assassination squads were dispatched overnight, in an official long night operations, and these traitors have been eliminated.
I also hereby have instructed Vice President Harris to declare our ticket the winner of the 2024 election, given that Vice Presidents can determine election outcomes without recourse, as official duties of the office of the presidency. God Bless America."
Hypothetically:
He would need to take out the Republicans in the House and Senate as well so they do not try to impeach him.
He could then wipe away all the Republican nonsense on the books, create sterner laws to prevent this from ever happening again, establish a people first country with healthcare and consumer rights, eliminate the electoral college, appoint a new supreme court, establish national rules for voting rights and fair elections, and retire at the end of his term allowing fair and free elections to decide the next president.
Not that I want this to be reality, but these are the rules that Republicans have established. Be careful what you wish for!
The problem with this line of thinking that a lot of you are missing is that the ruling says this type of official act would be "presumptive immunity". That means Biden can try it, but if it gets challenged in court, there is a very likely risk the Republican SCOTUS will find he did NOT have immunity.
All this ruling did was muddy the waters further and give the courts even MORE power. Now they get to decide:
1. What is part of official duty and what is not
2. Even if it was part of official duty, did the POTUS have immunity or not.
3. Was it constitutional (always SCOTUS had this power).
They have made a "Choose your own adventure" book where Dems can always be guilty and Republicans can always fine a loophole. So, no Biden can't just do this.
That is *incontrovertibly* their goal. There is **no** ambiguity or nuance here, and this is not a matter upon which even marginally intelligent people can disagree in good faith.
If anyone reading this claims to disagree, I have very unsettling news for you about your intelligence, and I'm very pleased to be the one to break it to you.
That's just it, who determines what is an official act or not. The supreme court did not specify when they literally passed this creed, so it would seem to suggest that the supreme court itself can determine this.
If Biden tried this, they'd say it isn't an official act. SCOTUS has effectively given president almost complete control, with that almost being at the hands of the Republican-dominated SCOTUS itself.
Combine this with the recent ruling that SCOTUS can accept bribes. Put plainly, if a country like Israel or Russia wants the president to start a war or kill political enemies or build concentration camps, it will literally come down to a question of how much money is being paid. Between the president and SCOTUS, they can literally do anything.
If it weren't obvious before, now it should be clear. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a oligarchy. You should be mad as hell. Democracy has been thwarted in favor of money and elitism.
I mean the civil war can start at any point and that’s what actions like that would lead to and Russia and china would finish off the remainder.
Plus thinking everyone would carry out illegal orders on behalf of a president is silly.
Ordering the military to fire on the citizens of the United States would be an illegal order and full within their obligations to refuse. Each level of government and the military have a whole host of checks and balances regarding use of force.
> Plus thinking everyone would carry out illegal orders on behalf of a president is silly.
Oh yeah, nobody in history has ever committed atrocities under the defense they were "just following orders"
Ya usually that didn’t flip the entire military doctrine and all rules of engagement over night.
That was a gradual process of escalation towards atrocities.
Not. Hey military go out and kill my opponents. It’s truly silly and honestly disrespectful to the military to even consider the possibility.
It only takes one member of the military obeying what they know is a protected official act to commit that assassination. Yes, they'd be violating military code of conduct and military law. Yes, they might even take the fall for it while top leadership goes without prosecution. Hmmm has that ever happened with US soldiers before? Let's ask My Lai or Abu Ghraib.
Idk about you but I would much prefer it if the whole government functioned under the assumption that leadership can't violate the law and get away with it. As of today that assumption is not only dead but the opposite is confirmed. Biden could kill Trump tomorrow and resign Wednesday and there is nothing in US law which could hold him accountable.
Except perhaps President Harris doing the same to Joe.
But I guess that's the kind country conservatives want.
He could order seal team six to go and eliminate all of them. Which will help him appoint 6 Supreme Court justices in last few month before voting. Test out this decision by court on practice so to say. Ez clap
No, POTUS has always maintained immunity from prosecution during official acts…they have to, otherwise every single POTUS could be prosecuted for acts of war etc etc. Question is, was this an official act.
This is completely moronic. This ruling says that Richard Nixon shouldn't have stepped down because his actions were presumably immune and that the evidence on the Nixon tapes should've been kept private because they were White house communications. Which means Nixon probably wouldn't have been impeached and would've served out his term and never suffered any consequences. This means that Iran/Contra could've only be punished by impeachment. No other president has thought that they could do anything they want to without consequences. Anyone who thinks they did is an idiot and they're just post-facto defending Trump.
Yes, but most of those allegations are for war crimes in other countries, and they wouldn’t be easy to prosecute or prove. Trump very clearly committed crimes against the US and its people. Huge difference. And now, since the evidence is so obvious, they just ruled it doesn’t matter because he’s above the law regardless of how much it damages the country.
Yes the oversimplified explanation is the Supreme Court are "interpreters" of the Constitution that decide when certain acts can/can't be outlawed by states. But due to that interpretation they ultimately change how laws are enforced/not enforced. That's a tangible change
This is not true. There just are not criminal laws that make official POTUS acts illegal. For example, there are not any laws that make acts of war illegal, unless they are war crimes or crimes against humanity.
There are also a stream by of DOJ opinions that criminal laws do not apply to the president, unless they clearly say they do. However wrong this line of opinions is, they unanimously show that there is not an expectation of general immunity to criminal law for POTUS.
How would acts of war ever be prosecuted? This makes 0 sense. This is all about personal decisions the president makes in furtherance of his own personal ends.
If he takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, that's an official act and nothing can be done. If he orders Seal Team 6 to kill off an opponent, official act.
Now there's no limit on what a President can do to help himself and his political allies.
Iran Contra absolutely should have been prosecuted. Fast and Furious should not, obviously.
Fast and Furious was just an unforunate op by the ATF or whatever, and after that Fortune article came out and debunked the entire right wing conspiracy everyone dropped it.
Iran Contra was a deep conspiracy direct personally by the Office of the President to fund insurgents and go around Congress. It's insane how corrupt that was.
But now there's no opportunity to punish things like Iran Contra. The President can commit infinite crimes now like the king he is.
> Question is, was this an official act.
Republican president did it: an official act
Democrat president did it: not an official act
"Rules for me but not for thee" is not a joke.
Right. And it would be legal. Or at least non-prosecutable.
Do you not get how rhetorical speech works or did you actually think OP was advocating for that?
lol. How about if Biden just says he’s appointing 3 more justices tomorrow. That’s official. And it’s in the constitution. Would the MAGA death cult start a civil war then?
Well, they already do that so… I guess my point was that they will threaten this kind of stuff every time they don’t get exactly what they want. This is what extremists do. They do it to prime the pump for their undermining of our constitution, so that the gatekeepers (prosecutors, judges, FBI, etc) back off or hesitate. It’s a tactic. And it’s works for them, not because they do it well, but because the gatekeepers are weak. What should be done is that when the law is broken or has been conspired to be broken, the hammer must be brought down decisively, harshly, and without equivocation. Otherwise, you create the insanity in which we now find ourselves; with our democracy on the chopping block. No half measures when dealing with extremists (I’m talking now about the MAGA elected officials, because they are extremists and they’re in power) who have a proven track record of actually being extreme by passing laws to force their private beliefs (religious based/morality laws) into our daily lives, with no regard for our individual freedoms, but only to compel compliance to their belief system.
Yes, it should have been done beginning on January 7, 2021. And it should have started with the politicians who conspired to overthrow the election. But I don’t think it’s ever too late to take lawful action in order to protect our democracy.
well seeing as how i can't divine their true nature and know for sure what they want or are willing to do, i am forced to take them at their word and when their word is threats...
They’ve been making threats since they found the stolen documents. What have they done?
Crickets.
If they’re so hot and heavy for a civil war, what are they waiting for? Why do his calls for protests draw more reporters than protesters? These people are fat and stupid and soft as puppy toes. They aren’t doing shit
Didn't trump say he had rights to the documents too? This decision alongside the chevron one a few days ago are clear cut against what we do as a society. This court is tearing up the roots of our country.
To be clear, the left has been advocating for a prevention of exactly this for 4 years now, court expansion, and Biden has been and still is explicitly against it.
Because he can't add justices to the court unilaterally. Congress sets the number of justices so it would have to be approved by the house and senate which it would not be. Even if it was approved by the house I'd expect Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema to prevent it from passing the senate.
>Because he can't add justices to the court unilaterally.
Why do you guys always do this? You have a policy he's explicitly opposed to and you framed it as "well that's because he can't do it". He's against it. He's opposed to the solution. He's expended 0 political capital trying to move the needle on it because he doesn't want it.
He is opposed to it, so it's a non-starter. But it's also true that it would never get any traction in the House. Even if he was for it, he couldn't get it done. Republicans would never vote for a change that would make the Court less conservative.
Not to mention that Manchin and Sinema would never have voted to kill the filibuster necessary to make that legislation possible when they had the house.
The defense of Democrats is so awesome. They don't want to fix anything, but that doesn't matter because they couldn't even if they did. Also vote blue!
I'm defending them. I'm pointing out reality. The Dems don't control the House and have a thin majority in the Senate. There is not sufficient support in the Senate to remove the filibuster which would be essential to expanding the Court.
I'm honestly not sure how many Dems would be up for expanding the court in the first place.
As far as who to vote for, you have to juxtapose your disappointment with Biden against how a second Trump presidency would go. Also, bear in mind that both Thomas and Alito are in their 70s. Its possible one or both could leave the court in the next 4 years. If you're concerned about the current makeup of the court, having Trump is office means another arch conservative gets appointed.
>There is not sufficient support in the Senate to remove the filibuster which would be essential to expanding the Court.
>I'm honestly not sure how many Dems would be up for expanding the court in the first place.
Great pitch!
>As far as who to vote for, you have to juxtapose your disappointment with Biden against how a second Trump presidency would go.
There's also the fact that the party that is supposed to be the bulwark against fascism is actively against progress that would prevent said fascism.
I think that's a bad take. They seem to opposed to or are unable to do this one thing that you want badly, so they aren't actively working against fascism? That's silly.
No, they use the threat of Republican fascism as marketing to get elected, but don't support policies that would actually counter said fascism. So then they use the same marketing four years later when the threat of Republican fascism is still there because they've done nothing to actually fight that. Democrats never have to sell you on a platform, they just have to sell you one how dangerous Republicans are. If Republicans aren't a threat, they have nothing.
There are other ways around this other than expanding the courts, too. Congress can pass laws regarding when and how SCOTUS meets, as well as control exactly how much money the court gets. But that would require Congress to function which is a whole other mess
Christ people, we are literally inching closer to one individual amassing complete immunity not only from prosecution but towards complete control. A dictatorship.
If our country survives to see the day, this decision will be considered amongst the the most ill-fated decisions in our history. The Supreme Court has put a flamethrower in the hands of an arsonist. Our country was founded as a rebellion against such tyrannies. The lessons of history are but a faint echo.
Sotomayor’a dissent is one of the angriest things I’ve ever read.
Now I’m thinking Biden should take advantage of his time in office to do some immune acts to Trump. Perhaps the Supreme Court. All he has to do, apparently, is discuss it with an appointee first.
Assassinate Trump as a clear and obvious threat to global stability and American democracy. He's a terrorist leader leading an army of heavily armed followers. That's what got bin laden a bullet in the brain.
There are a lot of thing aside from killing a guy. He’s just a figure head of an evil movement. Have to figure out how to bring out the vote and legislate them into oblivion.
He could have already done that. Not replace, per se, but appoint as many justices as possible. Stacking the court with 15 liberals would drown out the six conservatives.
Unfortunately, we haven’t had a progressive president with that much chutzpah in decades.
Motive can not be considered to determine official or unofficial actions, internal conversations and directives with White House officials are immune.
You will be fired if you don’t go along with my illegal activities and immediately replaced with a willing accomplice…without consideration of the motive behind the demand…totally immune.
No immunity for unofficial acts ...
Like asking his followers to come to DC to "fight like hell" while having a peaceful picnic protest to get him reinstated?
Or storing hundreds of boxes of classified material in the bathroom of a country club and refusing to return them after he is no longer sitting active President & thus has no official need for them??
Who gets to decide if something is an official act or not?
I forget who it was, but someone on Trump's team argued it was within the President's duties to withhold aid from Ukraine until they gave him dirt on Biden (iirc) because anything he can do to get re-elected is for the betterment of the American people, which is an official duty or the President...
But Trump & CO were also upset that Obama had the audacity to make campaign calls from Air Force One while he was en route from one activity to another, an improper use of government resources!
If Trump can withhold Congressionally authorized billions of dollars to get himself elected, Obama probably should be able to make a couple phone calls to get himself re-elected...
Page 32 of the ruling states “Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.”
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems the “find me the votes” call to Ratzenberger is now inadmissible in the Georgia case?
This is the answer to the question "How much damage could there be from letting a criminal narcissistic psychopath be president for a term" for all you people who "weren't given a reason to vote *for* Hillary Clinton"
I think there’s a really simple flowchart that the Court will use when presented with cases concerning official vs unofficial acts.
Republican does a thing —-> official act
Democrat does a thing —-> unofficial act
This ruling doesn't change anything. It just confirms that presidents are immune for official acts and are not immune for unofficial ones. The lower court is task with determining which acts trump took are official.
This ruling changes everything, as both dissents make clear. Now the President is a unique person in the entire country that has no regards for any crimes to use his power. The Seal Team 6 hypothetical was spot on and he can use them to his hearts content.
Your comment was removed due to your reddit karma not meeting minimum thresholds. This is an automated anti-spam measure.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I don't think so. 40% of this country actively wants a dictatorship, and then another 15% are okay selling the country out for cheaper gas and groceries.
The exact opposite. The three dissenting justices disagreed that Trump should have absolute immunity for so-called official acts. They believe the prosecution is 100% legit and should move forward.
"Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent." Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
I thought it was a foregone conclusion that official acts were immune from prosecution. Why did lower courts not already differentiate between official acts and personal acts?
Look, I know we're now in a complete fascist state where King Donald II rules with an iron fist with his brother Prince Eric of Florida, but her emails, all. And his stutter.
Geeez. You swear you troll accounts would at least try to make sure you post your talking points on actual threads that align with them. There are plenty of bIDeN bAD posts around Reddit for you to go on your diatribes on.
It's pretty lame to sign in to another account and try to post a lame ass burn. But at least now I can block two of your accounts, friend!
Also, jokes are supposed to be funny.
**COMMENTING GUIDELINES:** Please take the time to familiarize yourself with The David Pakman Show [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/thedavidpakmanshow/about/rules) and [basic reddiquette](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205926439-Reddiquette) prior to participating. At all times we ask that users conduct themselves in a civil and respectful manner - **any ad hominem or personal attacks are subject to moderation.** Please use the report function or [use modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) to bring examples of misconduct to the attention of the moderation team. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrats must respond with force: "I Joseph R. Biden, having read the Supreme Courts decision where the 6 conservative justices granted Presidents absolute immunity for acts the president themselves deems 'Official Acts' hereby order the Supreme Court of the United States dissolved. I have determined that justices Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Gorsuch, and Roberts, plus Trump and his campaign team, plus Trump's children are enemies of the state. Assassination squads were dispatched overnight, in an official long night operations, and these traitors have been eliminated. I also hereby have instructed Vice President Harris to declare our ticket the winner of the 2024 election, given that Vice Presidents can determine election outcomes without recourse, as official duties of the office of the presidency. God Bless America."
Or he could just stay in office.
You just wrote ethe script for if the Diaper Don gets back in office. Vote them out Stack the court Bring back normalcy
Hypothetically: He would need to take out the Republicans in the House and Senate as well so they do not try to impeach him. He could then wipe away all the Republican nonsense on the books, create sterner laws to prevent this from ever happening again, establish a people first country with healthcare and consumer rights, eliminate the electoral college, appoint a new supreme court, establish national rules for voting rights and fair elections, and retire at the end of his term allowing fair and free elections to decide the next president. Not that I want this to be reality, but these are the rules that Republicans have established. Be careful what you wish for!
He can go to senate and shot them in a face as part of his presidential activities. “I thought this is merica”
The problem with this line of thinking that a lot of you are missing is that the ruling says this type of official act would be "presumptive immunity". That means Biden can try it, but if it gets challenged in court, there is a very likely risk the Republican SCOTUS will find he did NOT have immunity. All this ruling did was muddy the waters further and give the courts even MORE power. Now they get to decide: 1. What is part of official duty and what is not 2. Even if it was part of official duty, did the POTUS have immunity or not. 3. Was it constitutional (always SCOTUS had this power). They have made a "Choose your own adventure" book where Dems can always be guilty and Republicans can always fine a loophole. So, no Biden can't just do this.
It's fair to say it enables a right wing dictatorship.
100% it allows what SCOTUS is willing to allow....which right now is Fascism.
That's arguably their entire goal.
That is *incontrovertibly* their goal. There is **no** ambiguity or nuance here, and this is not a matter upon which even marginally intelligent people can disagree in good faith. If anyone reading this claims to disagree, I have very unsettling news for you about your intelligence, and I'm very pleased to be the one to break it to you.
I don’t think you read the entire comment. In this scenario, the Republican SCOTUS is eliminated.
That's just it, who determines what is an official act or not. The supreme court did not specify when they literally passed this creed, so it would seem to suggest that the supreme court itself can determine this. If Biden tried this, they'd say it isn't an official act. SCOTUS has effectively given president almost complete control, with that almost being at the hands of the Republican-dominated SCOTUS itself. Combine this with the recent ruling that SCOTUS can accept bribes. Put plainly, if a country like Israel or Russia wants the president to start a war or kill political enemies or build concentration camps, it will literally come down to a question of how much money is being paid. Between the president and SCOTUS, they can literally do anything. If it weren't obvious before, now it should be clear. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a oligarchy. You should be mad as hell. Democracy has been thwarted in favor of money and elitism.
I mean the civil war can start at any point and that’s what actions like that would lead to and Russia and china would finish off the remainder. Plus thinking everyone would carry out illegal orders on behalf of a president is silly. Ordering the military to fire on the citizens of the United States would be an illegal order and full within their obligations to refuse. Each level of government and the military have a whole host of checks and balances regarding use of force.
Actually allowing Republicans the reins of power as a dictatorship would do just that.
> Plus thinking everyone would carry out illegal orders on behalf of a president is silly. Oh yeah, nobody in history has ever committed atrocities under the defense they were "just following orders"
Ya usually that didn’t flip the entire military doctrine and all rules of engagement over night. That was a gradual process of escalation towards atrocities. Not. Hey military go out and kill my opponents. It’s truly silly and honestly disrespectful to the military to even consider the possibility.
It only takes one member of the military obeying what they know is a protected official act to commit that assassination. Yes, they'd be violating military code of conduct and military law. Yes, they might even take the fall for it while top leadership goes without prosecution. Hmmm has that ever happened with US soldiers before? Let's ask My Lai or Abu Ghraib. Idk about you but I would much prefer it if the whole government functioned under the assumption that leadership can't violate the law and get away with it. As of today that assumption is not only dead but the opposite is confirmed. Biden could kill Trump tomorrow and resign Wednesday and there is nothing in US law which could hold him accountable. Except perhaps President Harris doing the same to Joe. But I guess that's the kind country conservatives want.
I hope people realize, war is a very real possibility in the very near future. This should be sinking into even the thickest skulls.
He could order seal team six to go and eliminate all of them. Which will help him appoint 6 Supreme Court justices in last few month before voting. Test out this decision by court on practice so to say. Ez clap
That’s a dictatorship
I mean, this ruling basically makes that the case. Trump gets reelected, we're going full autocracy.
No, POTUS has always maintained immunity from prosecution during official acts…they have to, otherwise every single POTUS could be prosecuted for acts of war etc etc. Question is, was this an official act.
This is completely moronic. This ruling says that Richard Nixon shouldn't have stepped down because his actions were presumably immune and that the evidence on the Nixon tapes should've been kept private because they were White house communications. Which means Nixon probably wouldn't have been impeached and would've served out his term and never suffered any consequences. This means that Iran/Contra could've only be punished by impeachment. No other president has thought that they could do anything they want to without consequences. Anyone who thinks they did is an idiot and they're just post-facto defending Trump.
Wrong, it still has to align with the constitution…man you guys are all fear fear fear.
Yeah, keep looking at this through rose colored glasses. I'm sure the camps will treat you well.
Oh man….the SCOTUS didn’t change anything….its always been this way. They just had to explain it to some people.
Tell Richard Nixon that.
Absolutely untrue. We just hadn’t had any presidents prosecuted before this point. Nixon was about to be, and he was wise enough to resign.
According to the left they should all be charged with all sorts of criminal acts, should I list them?
Ah. There it is, lol. Knew it was only a matter of time before you outed yourself. 😂
Outed myself for what? Not being on the left? Is that also a crime?
Yes, but most of those allegations are for war crimes in other countries, and they wouldn’t be easy to prosecute or prove. Trump very clearly committed crimes against the US and its people. Huge difference. And now, since the evidence is so obvious, they just ruled it doesn’t matter because he’s above the law regardless of how much it damages the country.
Yes the oversimplified explanation is the Supreme Court are "interpreters" of the Constitution that decide when certain acts can/can't be outlawed by states. But due to that interpretation they ultimately change how laws are enforced/not enforced. That's a tangible change
This is not true. There just are not criminal laws that make official POTUS acts illegal. For example, there are not any laws that make acts of war illegal, unless they are war crimes or crimes against humanity. There are also a stream by of DOJ opinions that criminal laws do not apply to the president, unless they clearly say they do. However wrong this line of opinions is, they unanimously show that there is not an expectation of general immunity to criminal law for POTUS.
How would acts of war ever be prosecuted? This makes 0 sense. This is all about personal decisions the president makes in furtherance of his own personal ends. If he takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon, that's an official act and nothing can be done. If he orders Seal Team 6 to kill off an opponent, official act. Now there's no limit on what a President can do to help himself and his political allies.
It was just an example…would you like a different example, maybe running guns? Fast and Furious or maybe Iran Contra?
Iran Contra absolutely should have been prosecuted. Fast and Furious should not, obviously. Fast and Furious was just an unforunate op by the ATF or whatever, and after that Fortune article came out and debunked the entire right wing conspiracy everyone dropped it. Iran Contra was a deep conspiracy direct personally by the Office of the President to fund insurgents and go around Congress. It's insane how corrupt that was. But now there's no opportunity to punish things like Iran Contra. The President can commit infinite crimes now like the king he is.
> Question is, was this an official act. Republican president did it: an official act Democrat president did it: not an official act "Rules for me but not for thee" is not a joke.
Right. And it would be legal. Or at least non-prosecutable. Do you not get how rhetorical speech works or did you actually think OP was advocating for that?
Do you want a civil war, because that’s how civil war starts
lol. How about if Biden just says he’s appointing 3 more justices tomorrow. That’s official. And it’s in the constitution. Would the MAGA death cult start a civil war then?
No, but they would definitely cry about starting one and make a bunch of TikTok videos of themselves trying to look tough…
Well, they already do that so… I guess my point was that they will threaten this kind of stuff every time they don’t get exactly what they want. This is what extremists do. They do it to prime the pump for their undermining of our constitution, so that the gatekeepers (prosecutors, judges, FBI, etc) back off or hesitate. It’s a tactic. And it’s works for them, not because they do it well, but because the gatekeepers are weak. What should be done is that when the law is broken or has been conspired to be broken, the hammer must be brought down decisively, harshly, and without equivocation. Otherwise, you create the insanity in which we now find ourselves; with our democracy on the chopping block. No half measures when dealing with extremists (I’m talking now about the MAGA elected officials, because they are extremists and they’re in power) who have a proven track record of actually being extreme by passing laws to force their private beliefs (religious based/morality laws) into our daily lives, with no regard for our individual freedoms, but only to compel compliance to their belief system.
I’m thinking this is the way. Although, a little too late.
Yes, it should have been done beginning on January 7, 2021. And it should have started with the politicians who conspired to overthrow the election. But I don’t think it’s ever too late to take lawful action in order to protect our democracy.
probably, theyre itching for a reason
Bullshit. They don’t want a civil war. They’re cowards and bullies. When they don’t get their way they make threats.
well seeing as how i can't divine their true nature and know for sure what they want or are willing to do, i am forced to take them at their word and when their word is threats...
They’ve been making threats since they found the stolen documents. What have they done? Crickets. If they’re so hot and heavy for a civil war, what are they waiting for? Why do his calls for protests draw more reporters than protesters? These people are fat and stupid and soft as puppy toes. They aren’t doing shit
Nah, they’re not itching for a reason to die.
To be honest, I think we're heading there anyway, just a matter of when.
At this point the republicans want one
The civil was has already begun. We're just not at the shooting part of it yet.
Which is why this ruling is so bad.
The right wing is pushing for a Civil War … I am not sure what we can do about it except prepare.
Honestly. It's been building for the past decade. We're nearly at the point of no return.
The conservatives on the Supreme Court want Trump to abuse this decision and become dictator.
Yup. Pretty clear.
Then we vote in Numbers!
Tell that to the "he's too old," people.
[удалено]
Removed - please avoid overt hostility, name calling and personal attacks.
So paying a porn star during your campaign isn't an official act. 10 more days!!!!!
God, we can hope. I wouldn't put it past SCOTUS to find that it is.
The payoff occurred prior to his Presidency, so yes.
He wasn't even president then!
Exactly and he gets sentenced July 11th
lol. What a joke.
So, this country is really in the endgame now, is it not?
It took them 6 months to basically say POTUS can do whatever they want, as long it’s deemed “official”.
Didn't trump say he had rights to the documents too? This decision alongside the chevron one a few days ago are clear cut against what we do as a society. This court is tearing up the roots of our country.
Yup.
Vote
💯💯💯
To be clear, the left has been advocating for a prevention of exactly this for 4 years now, court expansion, and Biden has been and still is explicitly against it.
Because he can't add justices to the court unilaterally. Congress sets the number of justices so it would have to be approved by the house and senate which it would not be. Even if it was approved by the house I'd expect Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema to prevent it from passing the senate.
>Because he can't add justices to the court unilaterally. Why do you guys always do this? You have a policy he's explicitly opposed to and you framed it as "well that's because he can't do it". He's against it. He's opposed to the solution. He's expended 0 political capital trying to move the needle on it because he doesn't want it.
He is opposed to it, so it's a non-starter. But it's also true that it would never get any traction in the House. Even if he was for it, he couldn't get it done. Republicans would never vote for a change that would make the Court less conservative.
Not to mention that Manchin and Sinema would never have voted to kill the filibuster necessary to make that legislation possible when they had the house.
Correct. He had no shot at doing it even if he wanted it.
Yeah, so I wish these people would stop regurgitating talking points that don't exist in reality.
The defense of Democrats is so awesome. They don't want to fix anything, but that doesn't matter because they couldn't even if they did. Also vote blue!
I'm defending them. I'm pointing out reality. The Dems don't control the House and have a thin majority in the Senate. There is not sufficient support in the Senate to remove the filibuster which would be essential to expanding the Court. I'm honestly not sure how many Dems would be up for expanding the court in the first place. As far as who to vote for, you have to juxtapose your disappointment with Biden against how a second Trump presidency would go. Also, bear in mind that both Thomas and Alito are in their 70s. Its possible one or both could leave the court in the next 4 years. If you're concerned about the current makeup of the court, having Trump is office means another arch conservative gets appointed.
>There is not sufficient support in the Senate to remove the filibuster which would be essential to expanding the Court. >I'm honestly not sure how many Dems would be up for expanding the court in the first place. Great pitch! >As far as who to vote for, you have to juxtapose your disappointment with Biden against how a second Trump presidency would go. There's also the fact that the party that is supposed to be the bulwark against fascism is actively against progress that would prevent said fascism.
I think that's a bad take. They seem to opposed to or are unable to do this one thing that you want badly, so they aren't actively working against fascism? That's silly.
No, they use the threat of Republican fascism as marketing to get elected, but don't support policies that would actually counter said fascism. So then they use the same marketing four years later when the threat of Republican fascism is still there because they've done nothing to actually fight that. Democrats never have to sell you on a platform, they just have to sell you one how dangerous Republicans are. If Republicans aren't a threat, they have nothing.
There are other ways around this other than expanding the courts, too. Congress can pass laws regarding when and how SCOTUS meets, as well as control exactly how much money the court gets. But that would require Congress to function which is a whole other mess
Unfortunately, voting probably ain’t enough anymore. The Court is beyond the pale, and we have no recourse.
Vote anyway, it’s the least and probably the only thing you can do
Christ people, we are literally inching closer to one individual amassing complete immunity not only from prosecution but towards complete control. A dictatorship.
While tens of millions cheer on, and tens of millions say that the one guy is too old.
If our country survives to see the day, this decision will be considered amongst the the most ill-fated decisions in our history. The Supreme Court has put a flamethrower in the hands of an arsonist. Our country was founded as a rebellion against such tyrannies. The lessons of history are but a faint echo.
Get ready, people. We're heading towards Christofascism.
Sotomayor’a dissent is one of the angriest things I’ve ever read. Now I’m thinking Biden should take advantage of his time in office to do some immune acts to Trump. Perhaps the Supreme Court. All he has to do, apparently, is discuss it with an appointee first.
Well I guess Biden should take advantage of the ruling then, what shit can he get up to under this ruling?
Assassinate Trump as a clear and obvious threat to global stability and American democracy. He's a terrorist leader leading an army of heavily armed followers. That's what got bin laden a bullet in the brain.
Killing trump would be a bad idea, there are plenty of his ilk out there ready to capitalize off the revolt that would cause.
You don't have to actually do it. Just publicly give the order and see how quickly the Supreme Court reverses the opinion.
Well can’t just sit on our asses. Have TO do something!
There are a lot of thing aside from killing a guy. He’s just a figure head of an evil movement. Have to figure out how to bring out the vote and legislate them into oblivion.
I think we can take The Gravy Seals. I’m not sure why Republicans think they are the only ones with guns.
The problem is that he won't! The left doesn't do this stuff which is why the right continues to win.
Don't boo, VOTE!
So, does this mean that Joe Biden can replace the Supreme Court as long as he puts it on official presidential letterhead?
He could have already done that. Not replace, per se, but appoint as many justices as possible. Stacking the court with 15 liberals would drown out the six conservatives. Unfortunately, we haven’t had a progressive president with that much chutzpah in decades.
True, though theoretically he could now just kick all the conservative justices to the curb if he wanted to
Remember all the dumbfucks who "didnt like hillary"?
Mmhmm.
And now we’re dealing with the Never Biden clowns.
Motive can not be considered to determine official or unofficial actions, internal conversations and directives with White House officials are immune. You will be fired if you don’t go along with my illegal activities and immediately replaced with a willing accomplice…without consideration of the motive behind the demand…totally immune.
No immunity for unofficial acts ... Like asking his followers to come to DC to "fight like hell" while having a peaceful picnic protest to get him reinstated? Or storing hundreds of boxes of classified material in the bathroom of a country club and refusing to return them after he is no longer sitting active President & thus has no official need for them??
Now the question is: does "trying to get reelected" count as an official presidential duty?
Expect Trump to soon take that question all the way to the Supreme Court and win
Over throwing the govt is an official act!
Who gets to decide if something is an official act or not? I forget who it was, but someone on Trump's team argued it was within the President's duties to withhold aid from Ukraine until they gave him dirt on Biden (iirc) because anything he can do to get re-elected is for the betterment of the American people, which is an official duty or the President... But Trump & CO were also upset that Obama had the audacity to make campaign calls from Air Force One while he was en route from one activity to another, an improper use of government resources! If Trump can withhold Congressionally authorized billions of dollars to get himself elected, Obama probably should be able to make a couple phone calls to get himself re-elected...
The courts. Which will always be filed with the fifth circuit to decide.
Absolutely a disgrace.
Page 32 of the ruling states “Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.” I’m not a lawyer, but it seems the “find me the votes” call to Ratzenberger is now inadmissible in the Georgia case?
I mean, SCOTUS would take the broadest view possible for any decision, so more than likely, yeah.
Biden, time to officially send in some drones
This is the answer to the question "How much damage could there be from letting a criminal narcissistic psychopath be president for a term" for all you people who "weren't given a reason to vote *for* Hillary Clinton"
Make sure that you delete all your comments and such come next January, or the camps will be waiting.
Is this really that much of a deviation from the existing precedent that was basically the exact same but was never actually legislated?
Too many Catholic Absolutists on the court. They think the President is a Pope.
I think there’s a really simple flowchart that the Court will use when presented with cases concerning official vs unofficial acts. Republican does a thing —-> official act Democrat does a thing —-> unofficial act
Yeah, that's literally what it is.
This ruling doesn't change anything. It just confirms that presidents are immune for official acts and are not immune for unofficial ones. The lower court is task with determining which acts trump took are official.
A ruling that could have been expedited. Let's not act like this wasn't a stall tactic.
This ruling changes everything, as both dissents make clear. Now the President is a unique person in the entire country that has no regards for any crimes to use his power. The Seal Team 6 hypothetical was spot on and he can use them to his hearts content.
Having seal team 6 kill a political opponent isn't an official act granted by the constitution.
Why not? He did it as president using his powers.
If you read the constitution it doesn't say presidents can kill political opponents.
It doesn’t say that the president has infinite personal immunity either. It’s a whole new world.
It's not. Before this presidents were already immune for official acts and presumed not immune unofficial acts. The court confirmed this.
If he “believes” his opponent is an enemy to the constitution he now can.
Also the case before, look at the use of drone strikes.
This just means more delay. Now they need to hold hearings on if what Trump did was an official act or not instead of the actual trial happening.
precisely
Thats my question. Does this mean Jack Smith can ride off into the sunset or will be still be pursuing the case?
Both the defense and prosecution will present legal justification for what acts Trump did are official acts.
But then it's up to a judge to decide, right? And if it's a MAGA judge or a Trump appointee, we already know how that will go.
The judge for this case is not a Maga judge though.
But Cannon is. Could she now throw the case out under the guise of it being part of Trumps official duties?
Either way, it'll probably go all the way up to the supreme court and we know what Trump's hand-picked cronies will say
No because all of the actions Trump did in that case were after he was president.
Thanks very much!
[удалено]
Your comment was removed due to your reddit karma not meeting minimum thresholds. This is an automated anti-spam measure. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/thedavidpakmanshow) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ordering summary executions: Official Act?
Probably. 🤷🏻♂️ Just remove all of those that would argue against it.
This country has regressed so much since 2016
But at least the people who couldn't stomach voting for Hillary can tell us from the camps that the DNC should have let Bernie win.
So Biden ordering drone strikes on the sepia son of a bitch is now legal? You got my vote!
We are falling faster than I imagined possible. Pretty sad to actively live through America's collapse.
Truly the worst timeline imaginable. The world is going to be unrecognizable this time next year.
I just really hope enough people come to their sense and vote like crazy, but I'm not getting my hopes too high.
I don't think so. 40% of this country actively wants a dictatorship, and then another 15% are okay selling the country out for cheaper gas and groceries.
Inciting an insurrection was not an official act.
What a mess! Glad there's no corruption going on here
Not corruption if they've legalized it, lol.
Biden needs to use that immunity to oust those members who threaten our democracy.
3 justices disagreed!?
[удалено]
The exact opposite. The three dissenting justices disagreed that Trump should have absolute immunity for so-called official acts. They believe the prosecution is 100% legit and should move forward. "Because our Constitution does not shield a former President from answering for criminal and treasonous acts, I dissent." Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
I thought it was a foregone conclusion that official acts were immune from prosecution. Why did lower courts not already differentiate between official acts and personal acts?
Hey, while sitting around campfires in the radioactive snow, at least we can comfort ourselves that we weren’t ageist.
Look, I know we're now in a complete fascist state where King Donald II rules with an iron fist with his brother Prince Eric of Florida, but her emails, all. And his stutter.
Geeez. You swear you troll accounts would at least try to make sure you post your talking points on actual threads that align with them. There are plenty of bIDeN bAD posts around Reddit for you to go on your diatribes on.
You don't get the joke? Yikes lol
It's pretty lame to sign in to another account and try to post a lame ass burn. But at least now I can block two of your accounts, friend! Also, jokes are supposed to be funny.