So Biden could lock him up as a threat to democracy and the republic?
Joe Biden could shoot Donald Trump with a gun.
How would that be an official presidential act?
Declare him to be a Clear and Present Danger to the Union. Now it’s an official act to safeguard against the danger. So take official action, then wait and see if anybody prosecutes after the fact to prove it wasn’t an official act.
Well we used to straight up kill traitors instead of letting them off and letting them try running for an office that they once tried to steal multiple times through various nefarious ways.
Killing a traitor sure sounds like an official act.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Capture the man and exile him to an island. Start a reality show where contestants are gradually moved onto the island with him one by one. He will establish a new form of governance and be given the keys to the next presidency as a reward for a certain benchmark of success in creating a new functional democracy. Lol
Fingers crossed
As a domestic terrorist?
At this point of time, I’m wondering why Fox News and maga isn’t defined as a terrorist organisation.
Fox News and Trump are already doing small things again to set up a civil war.
Money. That’s why.
Biden should now officially order those judges executed. Put in place a law that the supreme court must contain an even split of representatives from both/all major parties.
Then install judges who will reverse the immunity law… Meaning this problem will not come up again.
EDIT: Upon reflection, maybe they just reaffirmed the presumption of innocence for someone who’s job it is to sometimes order the deaths of people. So he has “The presumption of immunity” until determined by a court case, or impeachment hearing? Is that what’s going on?
Your supreme court decides what counts as official and unofficial.
Your nation is fucked. The chances and opportunities to prevent it being fucked have passed, and now it is too late.
The only hope for the rest of the world is that the US tears itself apart internally.
It’s arguably been been fucked at least as far back as Citizen’s United if not longer. Once they opened the floodgates for legalized bribery, there was no coming back.
Truth hurts my heart, but I’ve seen it for quite a while.
“No! Not like that!”
So, would official acts as president be legal by definition? Would there be such a thing as an official act as president that may otherwise be criminal?
And how does the ruling protect against treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors (specifically, the past part)? How is this ruling not in direct contrast to the constitution?
This is the Supreme Court more or less officially agreeing with the nixonian logic of “if the president does it, that means that it is not illegal”. I honestly don’t see another way to describe it.
Biden should by all means act accordingly. But I sincerely doubt he will.
I would encourage you to read the first couple paragraphs of this article so you are informed of your misunderstanding.
I understand what the “official” position is, but I can also read between the lines.
The job of President throughout the 20th century has involved committing crimes. If they gave that away, then all of these ghouls could potentially be prosecuted.
In the future, the former President could go to jail for the next version of Iran-Contra… and we couldn’t possibly allow that to happen.
I wonder what the US would’ve been like if leaders were actually held accountable…
We wouldn’t exist as the US.
Because no one else gave you an actual explanation I will. The highest law in the US legal system is the Constitution. In it the president’s official duties are described. Congress could not pass a law blocking him from doing his official duties as Constitution>Enacted Bill. To override the Constitution they would need to pass an amendment. Because of this any law enacted that may be otherwise lawful is unlawful as applied to the president if they were doing the act as part of their official duties.
If Congress could pass a law saying no one can issue pardons and arrest the president for doing so they’d have effectively stripped text out of the constitution.
As for protecting against treason and bribery, those don’t sound like official acts. But they did cite an earlier case about Nixon that had previously set restrictions on how prosecutors may obtain information, that may benefit in any trial.
Quid quo pro is back on the menu boys!
If a president threatens you if you don’t invest in his/her company it is not abuse of office, it is an official act.
If another country wants American weapons but you need to donate to the party of the president it is not bribery, it is an official act.
The supreme court has made the rule of law meaningless for top government officials. The president now has absolute power and will need to be removed by bloodshed.
P.S. the supreme court also ruled a kickback after a government decision is NOT bribery as well. #worstsupremecourt.
Impeach Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, John Roberts and Donald Trump.
Ah. Well, if all official duties of the Executive are immune to all laws lower than the Constitution itself, which itself bars him from very little and gives the Executive responsibility for enforcement of all laws, I guess a Constitutional Amendment is ultimately required then.
Authoritarians are irritating.
Never gonna get an amendment in this country without a mass change in voting patterns. We would have to own congress for that.
It’ll definitely take some time, effort and big time coalition building. I doubt this specific one would be as impossible as it might seem though, due to the specifics.
Small govt types could be convinced to support something limiting executive power. That’s all the libertarians and some conservatives. In a bloc with liberals and progressives, it could reach 2/3rds support with the populace. Barely. Then 2/3rds the states would have to ratify.
The fact that it would be for limiting the power of govt, is critical though. Fascists don’t want small govt and just lie about it, but many people actually do. That becomes a middle position liberals can work with in a case like this, since we support separation of powers.
You’re a lot more optimistic than I am. Look at the voting patterns of the right wing of our congress. I don’t see any small gov advocates there who pay anything but lip service to the concept. They’ll fall over themselves to not only protect Trump, but to be the loudest and most supportive of him.
Well, a lot of them were purged over the past few years. Fascists doing their thing you know. Things change though, that is one certainty. Not very predictably either.
Also note, I didn’t exactly say it would be easy. Simply possible. Where, say, an amendment that made voting mandatory would be actually fully impossible.
The country will cease to exist before that ever happens.
Been hearing that line for a long time. No point in it.
There’s no point in thinking it’s possible for it to get better without the entire system collapsing. Authoritarian regeims very rarely end through the democratic process.
Fortunately we’re not fully there yet. Still several steps away.
Aipac …
What? I don’t agree with AIPAC on a lot of things, but they’re not the reason we don’t have viability for an amendment to the constitution.
I’d call them more than irritating lmao.
It’s a battle that’s been going for centuries, bigger than any one of us. Taking it personally only has drawbacks, it’s not required for motivation. Breathing exercises can help.
I, officially, declare myself as grand-emperor of the US. I declare, officially, that all dissenters shall be silenced. I declare, using official declaration of course, that all those richer than I owe me 100% of their assets for the rest of eternity. I officially decree that no government official, except for myself, can leave their building of work, can excuse themselves from their position, and cannot access the Internet, watch television, listen to radio broadcasts, or read books of any kind. And they have to bring their own lunches every day. Breaking any rule is punishable by exile to the Mariana trench. Exiles will be given one submersible operated by a Logitech gamepad. Making all of these rules officially of course, wouldn’t want them to be criminal acts.
Fuckin stellar. Wtg SCROTUS.
That ruling goes Way Beyond core Constitutional Powers I don’t know what the fuck the author of this is talking about.
Cool, great, immediately imprison The Idiot. As an official act.
Deleting my apparently wrong comment. Pft.
Call me silly, but isn’t this sort of good? I think they’re trying to say “you’re immune if you do stuff that presidents do, like be in charge of war, torture, etc, but if you’re a normal criminal, you’re still a criminal”.
Not really, in this case they are equating actions Trump took to overturn his election loss as official duties. It’s definitely a messy part of the law, but if you bundle the actions taken to bring down a governmental system with those taken in the administration of that system you’re probably only trying to help bring it down.
No, they’re saying if it was an official duty, he’s immune. If he did something unofficial (as decided by lower courts), he’s not immune. I don’t know many details off the top of my head, but for example tweeting to the Proud Boys, could be considered unofficial. Or whatever. I’m not a law person.
He can still be prosecuted etc., but it’s going to take time for lower courts to figure out how to handle it.
They’re also saying that you can’t use communication with his administration against him. The place where you would be most likely to find evidence that an act was unofficial has been ruled off limits by these asshats. It’s a lot worse than it seems.
The supreme court has already ruled Congress does (via the 14th amendment debacle). There is going to be a lot more impeachment hearings because if Congress doesn’t like the president it will find every way to declare the presidential act non official and impeach.
The catch is the courts say what is official and unofficial. A president could then remove Supreme Court members and replace them with ones who agree that such a removal is official and therefore legal.
It’s sort of good if you believe in a unitary presidency or in the rules-based international order.
If the president circumvents congress and declares war on another country, say Mexico, that would be an official act and they would be immune. They could fire nukes without repercussions.
I really hate to quote Roberts, but circumventing congress wouldn’t be “within his “conclusive and preclusive” constitutional authority”, would it?
Oh, there would be repercussions.
This has always been the case. There is a specific way that congress can put a check on POTUS. Liberals being told how the government works and has always worked, and suddenly getting upset. I’m sure they will vote harder then they have ever voted before to fix it this time.
let’s all come together and vote for the candidate they offer! that will surely make things suck less!
To explain this from my understanding because most of the comments are silly and incorrect. It doesnt give the president complete immunity from crimes, it prevents the president from being prosecuted by other politicians while in office. So a DA of a state cant directly charge and get a conviction of a president. This actually makes sense so that no branch has control over the other branch directly. Instead the president has to get impeached and then thrown out of office before they are procesuted.
Your understanding is bad.
Wow, thats great!
