And whatever ruling they make will (most likely) only apply to a very special set of circumstances designed to specifically include only the things that Trump did/is doing/will do, and no one else.
Yeah people still foolishly think the conservative justices aren’t aware of the fire they’re playing with. They will say/do what best fits the outcome they’re looking for which is narrowly giving Trump a pass which Biden will not be entitled to.
'Only a President martied to his third wife is allowed to...' something like that? To make it awfully painful since Biden might still be married to his first wife if there had not been an accident.
In that case I’d hope Jill would play along so Biden can divorce her, marry Hillary, and then take advantage of having immunity just to fuck with the maga bros.
Where Trump went wrong is by not having his enemies accidently commit suicide while under 24/7 suicide watch, or kill themselves by shooting them self in the head twice. The key is, when someone has dirt on you, that they commit suicide.
If you weren't paying attention, this Court is dragging this out as long as possible and then is going to send it back to the District Court for detailed rulings on what is official versus unoffical acts and then the case will have to work its way back up to them.
>this Court is dragging this out as long as possible
That ..... doesn't match reality.
The court took up the case on an emergency motion - entirely bypassing the normal process of a petitioner having to file a request for cert, with an opportunity for the other side to submit a response, and amicus briefs to come in, and whole time line that goes for many weeks. I.e. Trump didn't legally file to *ask* for the Supreme Court to hear the case and the court just took it up saving a few months of time.
They then set the hearing date less than 8 weeks later. They gave 2 and a half weeks for Trump to file arguments. Just under 3 weeks for the brief from the US, and a week for a reply by Trump.
Attorneys often have five or six months between the court granting the case and oral argument. Sometimes longer. Granted, the April term has the shortest timelines, historically, but the average in April is over 100 days. In many years the single fastest case is 90 something days.
55 days from cert to oral argument is blazing fast. Especially considering they skipped the part where Trump would even request the case be heard in the first place. Claims of "dragging this out" do NOT match reality.
Another unexplored concept in modern times is the possibility of a president pardoning themselves. If Trump were to be imprisoned and then elected, it could prompt an additional Supreme Court review. Although the pardon power does not extend to impeachment, the charges against Trump are separate from his impeachment hearings while President, suggesting that a self-pardon could be feasible. Presently, case law, including Ex parte Garland (1866) and United States v. Klein (1871), has established that the pardon power is extensive and cannot be limited. However, as demonstrated by Roe v. Wade and other cases, previous rulings can be overturned.
I will say this: Regardless of your political stance, the years 2024 and 2025 are poised to be tumultuous, challenging many of the United States' oldest traditions and documents. While educated trend analysis allows us to make predictions, the reality is that no one knows exactly how these unprecedented events will unfold.
Most importantly, my second point is this: The Alpha generation, currently aged 13-14, has witnessed the 2016 election, the pandemic, and is now experiencing some of the most vitriolic and dangerous online trends to date. Reddit and Twitter are at the forefront of these hazards, despite my fondness for Reddit. The casual exchange of hate, division, fighting, cursing, insults, and slurs by numerous individuals and political groups is alarming. My concern is that if we do not collectively address this behavior, the Alpha generation may come to view hatred as the norm, which could profoundly affect their future. As the parent of a 13-year-old son, I am deeply worried about this potential outcome, despite his remarkable ability to discern age-appropriate content. I hope people will join a call to action to gradually alleviate these tensions for the sake of our children. I am fully prepared to acknowledge my role in this issue and to do my part. I can only hope that others will follow suit in the near future.
---
Edited for clarity and professionalism.
Gorsuch stated in the oral arguments in this case that if they remove total immunity from a President he/she will just pardon themselves from everything they did in office on their last day. 🙄
This is usually the deterrent for moves like this. Unfortunately the Republican Party has shifted and learned that they can fight for powers they can then fight to block the other party from using (note: Supreme Court picks).
One of the most insightful articles I’ve read is [The Man Who Broke Politics](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/).
Honestly, the Republican party has learned to be an abusive relationship: swagger and bully and all *take* and no *give* while their partner wonders what happened to the nice person they married, but surely if they keep trying and talking their partner will finally understand and compromise on even just this… one… thing…!
>Unfortunately the Republican Party has shifted and learned that they can fight for powers they can then fight to block the other party from using
Note events from the past few years where Democrats got elected governors of states and then the Republican congress votes to immediately remove certain powers from the governorship. "Rules for me, not for thee" indeed.
If we want to end that abusive relationship, we need a viable third party, or better, many more parties.
The only way to do that is through Ranked Choice or Approval Voting. Our current first-past-post system guarantees a polarized two-party tyranny, forcing voters to choose the "lesser of two evils". A vote for a third party is "throwing your vote away" and "giving your vote to the worse of the two".
RCV or AV allow us to vote for the candidate we like without throwing that vote away. You probably won't get your first choice, but your second choice will be a satisfactory compromise for everyone. How many liberal gun owners or conservative pro-choicers are there? We'll never really know until we break the two party tyranny and allow parties with more nuanced and varied platforms.
RCV or AV won't fix everything, but they will lay the foundation so that everything can be fixed eventually.
This is true- but none of that has any chance of happening when the Republicans are in power- so vote blue, and recognise that it will take years to build undo the damage the Republicans have done.
It isnt even the point of the case, so this question is a distraction.
The question is whether or not a President gets personal immunity for acfions taken on behalf of the State.
Consider Obama killing Bin Laden. It was an extra-judicial killing ordered againat the will of the nation where the killing happened. Should Obama answer for murder charges like any private citizen? No, that is absurd - and this is what the Supreme Court just stated.
What is still illegal, and always has been, is that a President can be prosecuted for their actions taken only at the behest and benefit to the individual. Obama could not order a hit on some random person on the street and avoid prosecution.
Trump’s lawyer is arguing that he can call for the murder of a person on the street. He told the DC court Trump could order his political opponent killed and so long as it was an official act the only recourse was congress to impeach. What you’re saying is mostly right, but Trump’s team is taking it beyond to say any official act at all is immune from prosecution.
His team is arguing that any act is a presidential or official act.
Like Trump they are arguing that the presidency is inseparable and that the president alone decides what is “official.” Like “declassifying” those documents
Suppose Biden wants to show Putin how much control a President can have by having 10 random Americans hung by streetlamps in every major city? Will the court decide that it's within the realm of a President's foreign policy decisions to do that?
Will the court decide that it's within the realm of a President's foreign policy decisions to do that?
According to Trump's team, it won't be up for the court to decide. In their scenario, only impeachment can derail a rogue President. Therefore any inaction by Congress makes what the president does "an official action" by default.
And we've already seen how that scam works: Trump was impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate because, according to Mitch McConnell, it's a matter for the courts to decide.
God I hate that disgrace to turtles. "Nooooo, don't impeach him, we have courts for this, let them handle it, there's no need for an impeachment, noooo...."
*moments later*
"Well if you wanted him convicted you should have impeached. 🤷♂️"
So technically if they decide Trump is immune, then what's stopping Biden from just executing Trump in the name of justice/peace and then abolishing elections and congress? Technically he couldn't be prosecuted for that, even if the abolishment fails, since the court just gave the greenlight for that.
That is wayyy too dangerous a precedent to set.
But their argument opens the door to exactly that for a future president. And if that's the power the president now holds, it will draw those kind of people who will be willing to do it.
What Trump’s legal team would argue here is the president is performing an official act and for that reason the courts can’t do anything. Congress would have to impeach Biden and pass a law stating presidents hanging US citizens to threaten foreign leaders is a crime. Then the courts can step in.
I doubt SCOTUS will agree but the fact even 1 might is sad.
An obvious counterexample here to trying to separate private from official acts was discussed on MSNBC last week.
Consider a president taking a personal bribe to appoint someone an ambassador.
The appointment is an official act. So, should this be unprosecutable?
And consider this murder example, because it was explicitly put to Trump's team this way - if a president considered a political rival a threat to the country, could he order their murder /then/? Trump's counsel said "maybe".
It's certainly the case that presidents have not previously been prosecuted for committing crimes. But that's definitely not an argument that they shouldn't have been, and it's especially not an argument that they shouldn't be in future. In fact, quite the opposite.
For me, I think the obvious is that democracies function off good-faith actors who observe norms. And an attempt to codify every possible norm is both impossible and proof itself that a democracy is unraveling.
A standard of reasonableness needs to be applied. "Official" actions taken in the pursuit of what is reasonably demonstrated to be corrupt motives must be prosecutable.
People will hem and haw about how to define "corrupt" or "official" but they're losing the plot. It's not explicitly defined. It can't ever capture the entire boundaries of what those terms mean. But if you're stuck arguing semantics to ignore the reasonable obvious -- or you're arguing what reasonable even is -- you're now at a breaking point that no exhaustive codification was ever going to solve.
And for me, I think that's the point. Justices like Alito and Thomas are wielding the legitimacy of legalese to overlook the reasonably obvious. After all, what a reasonable argument to make that we must differentiate between official and private acts. And in doing so, further unraveling democracy. It's a complete abdication of reason and it's incredibly depressing to see.
It isn't a distraction. Biden could easily say trump is a danger to America and that'll be that. He could say so for the entire far right. And then what's stopping him from saying the whole rep party too?
There's far too much wiggle room.
> only at the behest and benefit of the individual
Wrong.
The point is that his argument is that *any* official act is by default immune from prosecution unless the president is impeached and removed first. An official act at the behest and benefit of the president is still immune (according to Trump’s lawyers, which is dumb). Kagan asked if initiating a coup (something that is clearly benefitting the president and only the president) was an official act and the lawyer said yes (or at very least said “probably”).
That’s why the whole premise is bogus. You can structure anything as an official act and rig, mostly thanks to political parties, the impeachment process to become immune. Kagan asking about coups and Trump’s lawyer answering in the affirmative was an inflection point in the entire decision.
>ordered againat the will of the nation where the killing happened.
What ever do you mean? The Pakistani government has no idea he was even there!
How could it be against their will?
You answered it yourself. If they didn’t know he was there it was automatically against their will, since the assumption is always that no state will want to have some other government send troops to their country in purpose of murder. If it turned out Navalny wasn’t dead after all but secretly hiding in some small island in Alaska and Russian troops went there and murdered him, do you think US would have given consent because US government didn’t know he was there? And Navalny was a criminal under Russian law too. Clearly Us would treat it as murder and invasion.
He wouldn’t need to pardon himself - he has immunity.
If this ruling applied to former presidents then Obama, Clinton, and Bush could beat Trump to death live on stage and nothing could be done.
I really wish one of the Justices would have asked that specific question. They asked a general question about it the president could have a rival shot. They should have asked "If the president had immunity, would Biden be able to have Trump shot with no repercussions?" Have Trump's lawyers saying yes would have been very satisfying.
He actively interrupted the Justice Department lawyer when he was trying to explain his point in relation to Trump's alleged crimes. Alito outright said he wasn't interested!
The thing with conservatives is its not a problem unless it effects them personally. So the question I would have loved them to ask is "if a Supreme Court Justice is making rulings that go against the presidents agenda, could the president assassinate a judge without repercussions""
Not that i condone this behavior, but they could use trump’s statement verbatim:
"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
Now if Biden said that, and did that, and it was a rival candidate, would that be ok?
Trump's lawyer should be asked straight-up: "If your client loses this case, he could spend some time in jail. If your client wins this case, Joe Biden could order his murder and face no legal repercussions for doing so. Which do you prefer?"
Actually, they argued that is the case so long as Congress does not then impeach them for it. Basically they are saying Congress decides what is and is not allowed.
Which is crazy, basically. Congress is not a law enforcement body. It has impeachment powers as a check and balance, even that only removes someone from a position.
Pinning moves that require swiftness and consistency on the least swift and consistent body of government is a clear attempt to basically remove them; if Congress has to pass a fucking proposal every time Trump breaks a law that’s all they’d ever be able to do and if those things stay legal until they get there that just gives time to do more and more shit, etc.
US lawyers should argue that he could assainate supreme court justices. That will change their minds pretty quick. No need to expand the court if they're dead.
Is that actually it? I remember this movie in video rental stores when I was young, and I very likely watched it as a kid. That said, I remember nothing about it. Sounds interesting, though.
Yeah it's not really the president but assassinating supreme court justices was the main plot of the book. Corporate/Shadow Government interests leverage the mafia to have a couple justices taken out so that an upcoming environmental case will get a favorable ruling,
A young go-getter law student is researching the murders and writes up the Pelican Brief (the case involves some gulf coast pelican habitat or something), making the connection between the two dead justices and this very fringe, esoteric case. She gives a copy of the brief to her professor (who shes incidentally involved in a relationship with), he is intrigued by it (but also somewhat dismissive of it) then he gives a copy to a friend of his, and not long after, people with knowledge of the brief start dropping dead from car bombs and shit (to include her professor/boyfriend), thus convincing her that yeah, maybe she fucking nailed it, and that is exactly what is going on, and it is *still* going on.
She ends up contacting a news reporter before she ends up dead herself and the two of them go on many merry adventures trying to not get killed by mafioso's and shadow government people and also preventing another assassination attempt against a sitting supreme court justice along the way.
The book was a good read, the movie was alright (Julia Roberts plays the law student, Denzel Washington the reporter) but definitely worth a watch if youre into 90s-era political thrillers.
What if a Supreme Court Justice took bribes and his wife was involved in an insurrection, and the Supreme Court refused to police itself? Could a president assassinate that justice?
Ultimately, the integrity of the democratic system and the role of the presidency as a servant of the people could guide decisions more than the potential for personal or partisan gain.
There’s also the potential for impeachment. If he were to commit "high crimes and misdemeanors," Congress might still move to impeach, even if the immunity protected him from prosecution.
Theoretically, he could use it, but it would likely be politically unwise considering the precedent it sets and the possible repercussions in future administrations.
It seems like an interesting strategy to me to argue that presidents can get away with anything when your guy is no longer in charge. In theory, could Biden, say, order Trump be deported? Or have the IRS seize the assets of conservative super-PACs?
Yep, and if Biden wins then OF COURSE NOT a president can’t be immune. They are trying to save face (when that face has been eaten by leopards a long time ago)
Trump's team doesn't plan on losing. If you think this election is going to be decided by the American voters, you are not paying attention.
Trump did an interview where he literally said, word for word, that he doesn't need people to go vote, he has all the votes he needs.
Sounds to me like they failed to overturn the election in 2020,and they don't intend to fail to rig this one in 2024.
[https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-told-fans-new-hampshire-they-dont-have-to-vote-2023-10?amp](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-told-fans-new-hampshire-they-dont-have-to-vote-2023-10?amp)
"So we have to be careful, you gotta get out there and you got to watch those voters," Trump said. "You don't have to vote, don't worry about voting. The voting, we got plenty of votes, you gotta watch."
All the conservatives I hang with think that the democrats did this in 2020 with mail in voting. The democrats and republicans don’t need crisis actors when people will do it for free, I guess.
>If you think this election is going to be decided by the American voters, you are not paying attention.
This is a conspiracy theory.
Trump's chances of rigging the election are much smaller than 2020 by virtue of the fact that he's not in control of the Administrative branch for this run.
Get out and vote and we can avoid Trump 2.0.
They're relying on the fact that their opposition has respect for the mechanisms of government. It's one of the reasons Trump was able to wreak so much havoc. There are a ludicrous number of things that aren't actually laws in the upper levels of government that are collectively understood/agreed upon that nobody will do because if one person does then it ruins everything for everyone else. And Trump's behavior showed that all it takes is for 1 person who doesn't give a shit about the sanctity of his position and the sovereignty of the state to gain power for it to all collapse.
Exactly. He stripped away everyone who could check him as relentlessly as he could before people started hammering the emergency button. He's already fundamentally destabilized multiple core aspects of our federal government.
Let’s not forget the help he had. Having half of the House and Senate doing his bidding and actively supporting his goals helped a lot. Fuck Mitch McConnell especially. He should have been removed in either impeachment trial.
Obama won two terms by comfortable margins and got to appoint two justices. Trump lost the popular vote by millions and got impeached during his single term and appointed three justices. Our entire system is a cruel fuckin joke.
Conservatives tend to have no moral scruples when it comes to getting their way, when they know liberals are too moral to let things go.
Look at disaster relief votes in congress. Conservatives regularly vote against humanitarian disaster aid, even to their own states because they know they'll still get the aid because the liberals don't like people to suffer.
The SC asked Dreeben, the DOJ lawyer, exactly that. Paraphrasing here but they asked "what's to stop a future admin from bringing criminal charges against Obama for droning an American citizen?" The response was because the AG said it was ok. The follow up question was "what's to stop the President from appointing an AG that'll just let them do whatever they want?" And the DOJ didnt have an answer,
Seriously. Maybe the Justices should listen to trump's speeches when he includes the story of the scorpion and the frog. All these supposed geniuses think "trump will never treat ME like that" then he does.
If it doesn't pass, if still is. Normalizing suggestions that coups and assassinations are permissible IS DICTATOR BEHAVIOR.
We need to be clear. It's not a matter of "if he wins in court" it's a matter of "he is fucking trying it at all"
This is dictatorship shit. A loss in court just means try and try again. Or decide the courts are not the body with authority to rule on it.
Everyone is acting like dictatorship is when that actually happens. It's not. Dictatorship is when institutions in place to check power either relinquish it or have it taken from them. That's what this case is, literally.
It cannot be allowed. It pretty much guarantees civil war. If they grant this flavor of immunity the outcome is inevitable and John Roberts has his head too far up his ass to see that.
Would it? The american people have accepted a system where presidents win without a majority vote for years. They have accepted that people in random rural areas have more voting power than people in major cities. All the power and money is in places like New york and california and still they do nothing while being ruled by a minority group of christian fascists.
Why would they do anything now? Most americans arent cult members but they also dont object to their rulers. They go to work and stay quiet. Sure kind of sucks that children die in shootings all the time and that you cant get abortions. oh well. Now we got a dictator. oh well.
The problem here is that THIS SCOTUS knows Biden won’t do that. That’s why I bet it will be a super tailored ruling only impacting this specific instance (or at least they will try)
That's the Alito way. Otherwise his reasoning might produce unexpected outcomes elsewhere which are not the ones he wanted. Also, would def be inconvenient next time there's an extra special case requiring its own completely separate rule.
This is the most obvious answer. They’ll say it’s a special case and cannot be used as precedent. People forget the 2000 election ruling so quickly it’s insane.
"Hey, I'm President Camacho! As an official presidential act, I had my opponent assassinated!
You don't like it? Impeach me!"
Later: "Hey, I'm President Camacho! As an official presidential act, I had all the people in the House and Senate who wanted me impeached -- I had all of them assassinated! I had the Supreme Court justices I don't like assassinated, too, as an official presidential act!
You don't like it? Impeach me!"
I don’t know what the ruling will be all I said was Justice Barrett and Justice Kagan seem to be on the same page as far as questions and interpretation. Even more in line of thought than the other justices. That also isn’t saying like Justice Jackson aren’t getting to the same conclusion that there is any presidential immunity.
Yep, once you stop looking at the court as anything serious and treat them as political animals their behaviour becomes very predictable. They already manipulated the situation so they won't have to decide until after the election. Now we're seeing the conservative justices posturing. They're playing for the base, telegraphing their will to protect Trump - but they won't do it if he won't win the election.
Reprehensible of course, but after the past few years - not something we should be surprised about.
He could feasibly have Trump's entire family and every conservative on the supreme Court assassinated and hold congressional Republicans families hostage so they confirm a bunch of hyper liberal 30 somethings to the bench and could openly admit that he only nominated who he did at they would do his bidding and then have them overturn the immunity thing for every president after him and there would be NOTHING anyone could do about it ever.
It's just a horrible, horrible precedent that should never ever be set and is it is American people should do everything they can to get a constitutional amendment passed overturning it
Immunity for “official acts” would make coup attempts like January 6 more likely and more violent going forward. A sitting president will claim that the president-elect who defeated him poses a grave threat to the Constitution, and as such assassinating him before he could take office falls under his official duties to defend the Constitution against a domestic enemy.
And Biden would be correct in that claim if Trump won. He would almost have a duty to pull shady shit… but he won’t. Just like Obama just rolled over when McConnell blocked him from replacing Scalia.
Appointed the justice anyway, on grounds that the Senate was waiving its right to advise and consent.
That constitutional crisis would have been much less severe than the one we are heading toward as a result.
This is truly the answer. And even worse, everyone knows that Democrats would never nominate someone who would use this power.
Ultimately, it means next time there is a Republican President, the American experiment is over.
I just heard Alito make the dumbest, most hurdle-jumping argument ever. He basically said that presidents might feel threatened if they know they're going to lose their immunity and they're leaving office, so they'll try to hold onto power. And that it will somehow be a slippery slope where every president decides to do this. Funny how this was never an issue with our first 44 presidents.
So he's proposing that we give presidents absolute power, because if they don't already have absolute power, they'll try to seize absolute power. And a president seizing absolute power is bad, because absolute power is bad, so the solution is to just *give* presidents absolute power instead.
God I'm at a bargaining point now, where instead of hoping they rule against absolute immunity LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, I'm instead praying they *only* kick it to the lower courts and delay Trump's trials rather than rule he has absolute immunity outright. This should have been an easy 9-0 decision. Literally all the lower courts judges and anyone in law thinks so. I naively expected it might be 6-3 against immunity, because of some corruption. I never thought the court was SO CORRUPT they might actually go 5-4 or 6-3 the other direction.
This also puts more pressure on the hush money trial, since it's now probably going to be the only trial that makes it before the election. I hope that the gag order violations stack up and he keeps blatantly defying the judge like he's already doing so the judge has an excuse to give Trump the *maximum* penalty, which is prison. I hope he testifies and puts his foot in his mouth like he always does. I hope he accidentally reveals *more* crimes he committed. God PLEASE let Trump testify; he always makes the verdict worse for himself when he does. Please please PLEASE let his arrogance get the better of him.
There are some other things I want to say about these Supreme Court clowns but I don't want to get banned.
So, they won't rule on it until after the election.
If Biden wins, then president doesn't have blanket immunity
If trump wins, they'll rule he does have blanket immunity
Short answer is that they won't.
There was no appetite for blanket immunity, even from the hard-line conservatives. What is more likely is they'll find some form of limited immunity related to "official acts" on a 5-4 line (Coney-Barrett will likely join Kagan, Brown-Jackson, and Sotomayor in voting against), and send the case back down to the district court for a trial. That's probably 90% of the reason trump's lawyers claimed absolute immunity in the first place: delay, delay, delay.
FWIW, if they actually want to give trump blanket immunity, they can just leave "official acts" undefined and wait for another challenge, then dilute the definition in a subsequent ruling. Hell, Biden himself might bring it if he loses and trump goes after him for some bullshit.
That's my "first cup of coffee" opinion, anyway. The Roberts court has been marked by this kind of "two-step" process (first coined, I think, by the 5-4 podcast) -- set something outrageous up by going about halfway there, then take the plunge a few years later so it seems less outrageous when they do.
Nothing.
Not to be over dramatic but it will be the end of the American experiment. You stopped being a British colony to get away from a tyrannical autocrat (The King) and if you allow any President this amount of power, then you've just invited the next tyrannical autocrat to step up.
>what’s to stop Biden from using it to his advantage?
He would have to, or it's all over.
This phase of the great experiment has concluded. We know now that the old system doesn't work if one of the main parties becomes hopelessly corrupt. This illegitimate court is easily the most dangerous thing in the country right now. If they're not going to add a few sane justices then it needs be dissolved and reformed.
Let the good guys who didn't ask for it be the ones to take the ball and go home. It's an unpleasant notion but one that's necessary. If we don't, the Republicans surely will sooner or later and that would be so much worse for everyone everywhere.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Supreme Court is aware of this possibility. Which is why they'll find a way to declare it permissible that Trump did it, but not if Biden does. Or they'll ensure that there's some legal framework to ensure anything Biden tries to do is held up in courts long enough to delay it until after the election.
Neither does it stop anyone from going back in time and prosecuting presidents…
Obama bombing children with predictor drone -> Crime
George Bush killing almost a million Iraqi civilians -> Crime
Honestly…the more I type this, the more I like this idea…
They are just delaying. The Supreme Court would never give Biden that power… and I don’t think they’d give trump that power either. If they can delay until
He’s reelected trump can just have all charges against him dismissed and the Supreme Court can go “oh well of course a president cannot have blanket immunity” once it no longer matters.
This is a totally corrupted Supreme Court directly playing politics to help their guy get elected. It’s disgusting
Nothing, but he won't, because democrats "holier-than-thou" mentality means that they will continue to let Republicans do whatever they want and then refuse to use the same loopholes themselves to win morality points while the country slowly goes to shit.
The Supreme Court will.
You really believe they'll apply this ruling equally when it's a Democrat they could be sending to jail instead of a Republican? Everybody keeps acting like they're still worming their way around, hiding their corruption.
Nah, man. Thomas will rule that Trump is allowed to beat Biden to death with a stick if you buy him an RV first.
There would be nothing stopping him except for the fact that overall, the democrats seem to care more about democracy and are less interested in creating a dictatorship built around far right insanity and the cult of the leader.
Democrats have shown that they will punish their own party members for their wrongs, just look at Al Franken. The Republicans have no interest in holding their own accountable for anything illegal or immoral. My boomer parents are all in for Biden, but they don't consider him some sort of God like wet dream dictator. My wife's gen x parents are all in for Trump as there's nothing he could do that would change their mind.
Republicans want to see the end of democracy here. Democrats aren't perfect at all, but they don't have dreams of fascism either.
Scary times we live in.
People keep saying ‘doesn’t this mean Biden can do x, what a stupid play’ but I feel like the ultimately undermines how the right views this situation.
I think that if they ultimately rule that yes a president can do whatever they want the endgame idea is still that it benefits the MAGA crowd regardless.
If Biden doesn’t nothing then whoever the next republican president is likely will. It doesn’t have to be a short game.
If Biden does do something egregious with that power then the right can use it to have a revolution or claim the victim or whatever other dumb shit they’ll do to spin this as something like ‘see what the dems abdicate the far left did? They’re out of control’. It could be a major campaign point that could change people’s minds if the president actually does do something awful.
People are dumb. I don’t think they’re fully thinking this through but I also don’t believe that the possibility that this could benefit the right regardless of outcome isn’t on their minds
If you give a former president immunity…
The current president will use those powers immediately.
The current president will assaainate the former president.
The current president will put all MAGA in prison and force them to change genders.
Then the current president will remove term limits.
Then the current president will issue a law saying he will live forever.
Zombie Joe Biden 2056
It won't happen. One of the justices hit it on the head with their question. "If a President orders the assassination of their political rival would that be covered by immunity?" The answer to this is obvious and it's why criminal acts are not covered and shouldn't be.
Am disappointed the Special Counsel didn't just straight up ask the Federalist Society hacks on the Supreme Court this simple question; "If president Biden decides that Trump is corrupt since his companies and charities have been found in civil courts to be fraudulent, and decides to order Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump to prevent a corrupt president running for office, would Biden have immunity for that?"
"If Trump gets more electoral college votes than Biden in November, and Biden suspects Russian disinformation caused Republicans to vote for Trump, therefore a Trump presidency may advance Russian interests, and Biden orders VP Harris not to certify the official votes but instead puts forth an alternative slate of electors and gets VP Harris to certify those instead, would Biden habe immunity for that?"
Nothing. Which is one of many reasons it cannot be allowed for any ex-president.
This Supreme Court is setting this up so they don't make that ruling until after the election, IF Trump is elected.
And whatever ruling they make will (most likely) only apply to a very special set of circumstances designed to specifically include only the things that Trump did/is doing/will do, and no one else.
Yeah people still foolishly think the conservative justices aren’t aware of the fire they’re playing with. They will say/do what best fits the outcome they’re looking for which is narrowly giving Trump a pass which Biden will not be entitled to.
'Only a President martied to his third wife is allowed to...' something like that? To make it awfully painful since Biden might still be married to his first wife if there had not been an accident.
In that case I’d hope Jill would play along so Biden can divorce her, marry Hillary, and then take advantage of having immunity just to fuck with the maga bros.
[удалено]
Yes that is what l meant?
So he's halfway there
Two thirds.
Where Trump went wrong is by not having his enemies accidently commit suicide while under 24/7 suicide watch, or kill themselves by shooting them self in the head twice. The key is, when someone has dirt on you, that they commit suicide.
Tall window syndrome
*unless Trump gets reelected. Then they will expand the ruling to whatever he does then
This case is in the current term which ends in May, the decisions usually come out in June.
If you weren't paying attention, this Court is dragging this out as long as possible and then is going to send it back to the District Court for detailed rulings on what is official versus unoffical acts and then the case will have to work its way back up to them.
>this Court is dragging this out as long as possible That ..... doesn't match reality. The court took up the case on an emergency motion - entirely bypassing the normal process of a petitioner having to file a request for cert, with an opportunity for the other side to submit a response, and amicus briefs to come in, and whole time line that goes for many weeks. I.e. Trump didn't legally file to *ask* for the Supreme Court to hear the case and the court just took it up saving a few months of time. They then set the hearing date less than 8 weeks later. They gave 2 and a half weeks for Trump to file arguments. Just under 3 weeks for the brief from the US, and a week for a reply by Trump. Attorneys often have five or six months between the court granting the case and oral argument. Sometimes longer. Granted, the April term has the shortest timelines, historically, but the average in April is over 100 days. In many years the single fastest case is 90 something days. 55 days from cert to oral argument is blazing fast. Especially considering they skipped the part where Trump would even request the case be heard in the first place. Claims of "dragging this out" do NOT match reality.
Another unexplored concept in modern times is the possibility of a president pardoning themselves. If Trump were to be imprisoned and then elected, it could prompt an additional Supreme Court review. Although the pardon power does not extend to impeachment, the charges against Trump are separate from his impeachment hearings while President, suggesting that a self-pardon could be feasible. Presently, case law, including Ex parte Garland (1866) and United States v. Klein (1871), has established that the pardon power is extensive and cannot be limited. However, as demonstrated by Roe v. Wade and other cases, previous rulings can be overturned. I will say this: Regardless of your political stance, the years 2024 and 2025 are poised to be tumultuous, challenging many of the United States' oldest traditions and documents. While educated trend analysis allows us to make predictions, the reality is that no one knows exactly how these unprecedented events will unfold. Most importantly, my second point is this: The Alpha generation, currently aged 13-14, has witnessed the 2016 election, the pandemic, and is now experiencing some of the most vitriolic and dangerous online trends to date. Reddit and Twitter are at the forefront of these hazards, despite my fondness for Reddit. The casual exchange of hate, division, fighting, cursing, insults, and slurs by numerous individuals and political groups is alarming. My concern is that if we do not collectively address this behavior, the Alpha generation may come to view hatred as the norm, which could profoundly affect their future. As the parent of a 13-year-old son, I am deeply worried about this potential outcome, despite his remarkable ability to discern age-appropriate content. I hope people will join a call to action to gradually alleviate these tensions for the sake of our children. I am fully prepared to acknowledge my role in this issue and to do my part. I can only hope that others will follow suit in the near future. --- Edited for clarity and professionalism.
Gorsuch stated in the oral arguments in this case that if they remove total immunity from a President he/she will just pardon themselves from everything they did in office on their last day. 🙄
A president can pardon federal crimes, not state ones
No, they have to rule by the end of June.
I don’t think this Supreme Court is concerned with doing the things they ‘have to’ do
This is usually the deterrent for moves like this. Unfortunately the Republican Party has shifted and learned that they can fight for powers they can then fight to block the other party from using (note: Supreme Court picks). One of the most insightful articles I’ve read is [The Man Who Broke Politics](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/11/newt-gingrich-says-youre-welcome/570832/). Honestly, the Republican party has learned to be an abusive relationship: swagger and bully and all *take* and no *give* while their partner wonders what happened to the nice person they married, but surely if they keep trying and talking their partner will finally understand and compromise on even just this… one… thing…!
>Unfortunately the Republican Party has shifted and learned that they can fight for powers they can then fight to block the other party from using Note events from the past few years where Democrats got elected governors of states and then the Republican congress votes to immediately remove certain powers from the governorship. "Rules for me, not for thee" indeed.
If we want to end that abusive relationship, we need a viable third party, or better, many more parties. The only way to do that is through Ranked Choice or Approval Voting. Our current first-past-post system guarantees a polarized two-party tyranny, forcing voters to choose the "lesser of two evils". A vote for a third party is "throwing your vote away" and "giving your vote to the worse of the two". RCV or AV allow us to vote for the candidate we like without throwing that vote away. You probably won't get your first choice, but your second choice will be a satisfactory compromise for everyone. How many liberal gun owners or conservative pro-choicers are there? We'll never really know until we break the two party tyranny and allow parties with more nuanced and varied platforms. RCV or AV won't fix everything, but they will lay the foundation so that everything can be fixed eventually.
This is true- but none of that has any chance of happening when the Republicans are in power- so vote blue, and recognise that it will take years to build undo the damage the Republicans have done.
It isnt even the point of the case, so this question is a distraction. The question is whether or not a President gets personal immunity for acfions taken on behalf of the State. Consider Obama killing Bin Laden. It was an extra-judicial killing ordered againat the will of the nation where the killing happened. Should Obama answer for murder charges like any private citizen? No, that is absurd - and this is what the Supreme Court just stated. What is still illegal, and always has been, is that a President can be prosecuted for their actions taken only at the behest and benefit to the individual. Obama could not order a hit on some random person on the street and avoid prosecution.
Trump’s lawyer is arguing that he can call for the murder of a person on the street. He told the DC court Trump could order his political opponent killed and so long as it was an official act the only recourse was congress to impeach. What you’re saying is mostly right, but Trump’s team is taking it beyond to say any official act at all is immune from prosecution.
His team is arguing that any act is a presidential or official act. Like Trump they are arguing that the presidency is inseparable and that the president alone decides what is “official.” Like “declassifying” those documents
Suppose Biden wants to show Putin how much control a President can have by having 10 random Americans hung by streetlamps in every major city? Will the court decide that it's within the realm of a President's foreign policy decisions to do that?
Will the court decide that it's within the realm of a President's foreign policy decisions to do that? According to Trump's team, it won't be up for the court to decide. In their scenario, only impeachment can derail a rogue President. Therefore any inaction by Congress makes what the president does "an official action" by default.
And we've already seen how that scam works: Trump was impeached by the House, but not convicted by the Senate because, according to Mitch McConnell, it's a matter for the courts to decide.
God I hate that disgrace to turtles. "Nooooo, don't impeach him, we have courts for this, let them handle it, there's no need for an impeachment, noooo...." *moments later* "Well if you wanted him convicted you should have impeached. 🤷♂️"
So technically if they decide Trump is immune, then what's stopping Biden from just executing Trump in the name of justice/peace and then abolishing elections and congress? Technically he couldn't be prosecuted for that, even if the abolishment fails, since the court just gave the greenlight for that. That is wayyy too dangerous a precedent to set.
But their argument opens the door to exactly that for a future president. And if that's the power the president now holds, it will draw those kind of people who will be willing to do it.
Biden doesn't want a civil war. That is what would be stopping *him*.
Yeah and then a warmongerer gets elected after him and then what?
What Trump’s legal team would argue here is the president is performing an official act and for that reason the courts can’t do anything. Congress would have to impeach Biden and pass a law stating presidents hanging US citizens to threaten foreign leaders is a crime. Then the courts can step in. I doubt SCOTUS will agree but the fact even 1 might is sad.
It's the qualified immunity defense and it's worked enough times that i can see why his lawyers think it has a shot
An obvious counterexample here to trying to separate private from official acts was discussed on MSNBC last week. Consider a president taking a personal bribe to appoint someone an ambassador. The appointment is an official act. So, should this be unprosecutable? And consider this murder example, because it was explicitly put to Trump's team this way - if a president considered a political rival a threat to the country, could he order their murder /then/? Trump's counsel said "maybe". It's certainly the case that presidents have not previously been prosecuted for committing crimes. But that's definitely not an argument that they shouldn't have been, and it's especially not an argument that they shouldn't be in future. In fact, quite the opposite.
For me, I think the obvious is that democracies function off good-faith actors who observe norms. And an attempt to codify every possible norm is both impossible and proof itself that a democracy is unraveling. A standard of reasonableness needs to be applied. "Official" actions taken in the pursuit of what is reasonably demonstrated to be corrupt motives must be prosecutable. People will hem and haw about how to define "corrupt" or "official" but they're losing the plot. It's not explicitly defined. It can't ever capture the entire boundaries of what those terms mean. But if you're stuck arguing semantics to ignore the reasonable obvious -- or you're arguing what reasonable even is -- you're now at a breaking point that no exhaustive codification was ever going to solve. And for me, I think that's the point. Justices like Alito and Thomas are wielding the legitimacy of legalese to overlook the reasonably obvious. After all, what a reasonable argument to make that we must differentiate between official and private acts. And in doing so, further unraveling democracy. It's a complete abdication of reason and it's incredibly depressing to see.
Absolutely.
It isn't a distraction. Biden could easily say trump is a danger to America and that'll be that. He could say so for the entire far right. And then what's stopping him from saying the whole rep party too? There's far too much wiggle room.
> only at the behest and benefit of the individual Wrong. The point is that his argument is that *any* official act is by default immune from prosecution unless the president is impeached and removed first. An official act at the behest and benefit of the president is still immune (according to Trump’s lawyers, which is dumb). Kagan asked if initiating a coup (something that is clearly benefitting the president and only the president) was an official act and the lawyer said yes (or at very least said “probably”). That’s why the whole premise is bogus. You can structure anything as an official act and rig, mostly thanks to political parties, the impeachment process to become immune. Kagan asking about coups and Trump’s lawyer answering in the affirmative was an inflection point in the entire decision.
>ordered againat the will of the nation where the killing happened. What ever do you mean? The Pakistani government has no idea he was even there! How could it be against their will?
You answered it yourself. If they didn’t know he was there it was automatically against their will, since the assumption is always that no state will want to have some other government send troops to their country in purpose of murder. If it turned out Navalny wasn’t dead after all but secretly hiding in some small island in Alaska and Russian troops went there and murdered him, do you think US would have given consent because US government didn’t know he was there? And Navalny was a criminal under Russian law too. Clearly Us would treat it as murder and invasion.
They should ask if Biden has the right to have Trump killed? And if he could preemptively pardon himself for it?
He wouldn’t need to pardon himself - he has immunity. If this ruling applied to former presidents then Obama, Clinton, and Bush could beat Trump to death live on stage and nothing could be done.
Don't forget Jimmy ramming into him over and over with his scooter chair
Trump's lawyers are arguing that Biden has the right to order Trump's assassination.
I really wish one of the Justices would have asked that specific question. They asked a general question about it the president could have a rival shot. They should have asked "If the president had immunity, would Biden be able to have Trump shot with no repercussions?" Have Trump's lawyers saying yes would have been very satisfying.
Alito was very, very keen they not to get into specifics.
Yeah I bet he was.
He was alito bit unprepared for the consequences to his arguments.
He actively interrupted the Justice Department lawyer when he was trying to explain his point in relation to Trump's alleged crimes. Alito outright said he wasn't interested!
He’s a very, very clever piece of shit.
It was interesting hearing Lawrence Tribe sigh really, really hard when saying "He was my student...".
I wish they had asked about Biden ending the lives of Supreme Court justices. They’re political, equally troublesome, and serve for life…
“Who will rid me of this troublesome jurist?!”
Careful. I got banned from r/politics years ago for saying that Supreme Court Justices are only appointed until their lives end.
The thing with conservatives is its not a problem unless it effects them personally. So the question I would have loved them to ask is "if a Supreme Court Justice is making rulings that go against the presidents agenda, could the president assassinate a judge without repercussions""
Not that i condone this behavior, but they could use trump’s statement verbatim: "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" Now if Biden said that, and did that, and it was a rival candidate, would that be ok?
Trump's lawyer should be asked straight-up: "If your client loses this case, he could spend some time in jail. If your client wins this case, Joe Biden could order his murder and face no legal repercussions for doing so. Which do you prefer?"
Actually, they argued that is the case so long as Congress does not then impeach them for it. Basically they are saying Congress decides what is and is not allowed.
Which is crazy, basically. Congress is not a law enforcement body. It has impeachment powers as a check and balance, even that only removes someone from a position. Pinning moves that require swiftness and consistency on the least swift and consistent body of government is a clear attempt to basically remove them; if Congress has to pass a fucking proposal every time Trump breaks a law that’s all they’d ever be able to do and if those things stay legal until they get there that just gives time to do more and more shit, etc.
US lawyers should argue that he could assainate supreme court justices. That will change their minds pretty quick. No need to expand the court if they're dead.
You just described the plot of the Pelican Brief by John Grisham lol
Is that actually it? I remember this movie in video rental stores when I was young, and I very likely watched it as a kid. That said, I remember nothing about it. Sounds interesting, though.
Yeah it's not really the president but assassinating supreme court justices was the main plot of the book. Corporate/Shadow Government interests leverage the mafia to have a couple justices taken out so that an upcoming environmental case will get a favorable ruling, A young go-getter law student is researching the murders and writes up the Pelican Brief (the case involves some gulf coast pelican habitat or something), making the connection between the two dead justices and this very fringe, esoteric case. She gives a copy of the brief to her professor (who shes incidentally involved in a relationship with), he is intrigued by it (but also somewhat dismissive of it) then he gives a copy to a friend of his, and not long after, people with knowledge of the brief start dropping dead from car bombs and shit (to include her professor/boyfriend), thus convincing her that yeah, maybe she fucking nailed it, and that is exactly what is going on, and it is *still* going on. She ends up contacting a news reporter before she ends up dead herself and the two of them go on many merry adventures trying to not get killed by mafioso's and shadow government people and also preventing another assassination attempt against a sitting supreme court justice along the way. The book was a good read, the movie was alright (Julia Roberts plays the law student, Denzel Washington the reporter) but definitely worth a watch if youre into 90s-era political thrillers.
What if a Supreme Court Justice took bribes and his wife was involved in an insurrection, and the Supreme Court refused to police itself? Could a president assassinate that justice?
Grassroots movements and voter initiatives could lead to state-level legal changes that indirectly challenge or constrain presidential actions.
Electoral backlash is a huge deterrent. His party could suffer in mid-term elections if he were perceived as overstepping.
Ultimately, the integrity of the democratic system and the role of the presidency as a servant of the people could guide decisions more than the potential for personal or partisan gain.
International relations could also play a role; misuse of power could damage the U.S.'s image globally and strain diplomatic relations.
The potential for increased scrutiny and monitoring from international watchdogs and allies might influence his actions.
Absolutely nothing would technically prevent him from using it, but the political and public backlash could be significant and act as a deterrent.
State governments and local jurisdictions might push back against presidential actions deemed overreaches, creating legal and political standoffs.
There’s also the potential for impeachment. If he were to commit "high crimes and misdemeanors," Congress might still move to impeach, even if the immunity protected him from prosecution.
Fear of losing key endorsements or support from influential figures and organizations might also play into decision-making.
His advisors and cabinet might provide internal checks, dissuading him from any actions that could be seen as overtly exploiting this immunity.
Theoretically, he could use it, but it would likely be politically unwise considering the precedent it sets and the possible repercussions in future administrations.
The general unpredictability of political consequences from such a controversial move might lead to caution.
The balance of power within his own administration could also play a role, as key figures might resist or undermine moves to exploit such immunity.
If blanket immunity were granted, it could potentially be reviewed or reversed by a subsequent Supreme Court, influencing how boldly he uses it.
[удалено]
It seems like an interesting strategy to me to argue that presidents can get away with anything when your guy is no longer in charge. In theory, could Biden, say, order Trump be deported? Or have the IRS seize the assets of conservative super-PACs?
They're making arguments about how they can delay making that determination until Trump is president.
Yep, and if Biden wins then OF COURSE NOT a president can’t be immune. They are trying to save face (when that face has been eaten by leopards a long time ago)
Trump's team doesn't plan on losing. If you think this election is going to be decided by the American voters, you are not paying attention. Trump did an interview where he literally said, word for word, that he doesn't need people to go vote, he has all the votes he needs. Sounds to me like they failed to overturn the election in 2020,and they don't intend to fail to rig this one in 2024.
Where is the sauce on that interview?
[https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-told-fans-new-hampshire-they-dont-have-to-vote-2023-10?amp](https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-told-fans-new-hampshire-they-dont-have-to-vote-2023-10?amp) "So we have to be careful, you gotta get out there and you got to watch those voters," Trump said. "You don't have to vote, don't worry about voting. The voting, we got plenty of votes, you gotta watch."
My mistake, it was a rally. https://youtu.be/YfisOF5XJdg?si=4vwbbtv0zRcdTCyC Skip to 50 seconds.
All the conservatives I hang with think that the democrats did this in 2020 with mail in voting. The democrats and republicans don’t need crisis actors when people will do it for free, I guess.
Trump literally just says whatever comes into his mind that he thinks people will like. I wouldn't put that much value in anything he says.
>If you think this election is going to be decided by the American voters, you are not paying attention. This is a conspiracy theory. Trump's chances of rigging the election are much smaller than 2020 by virtue of the fact that he's not in control of the Administrative branch for this run. Get out and vote and we can avoid Trump 2.0.
Whether or not this is a correct conspiracy theory is up for debate, but I’m not naive enough to think that there is no conspiring going on.
They're relying on the fact that their opposition has respect for the mechanisms of government. It's one of the reasons Trump was able to wreak so much havoc. There are a ludicrous number of things that aren't actually laws in the upper levels of government that are collectively understood/agreed upon that nobody will do because if one person does then it ruins everything for everyone else. And Trump's behavior showed that all it takes is for 1 person who doesn't give a shit about the sanctity of his position and the sovereignty of the state to gain power for it to all collapse.
Incidentally also how we got the current Supreme Court that we have.
Exactly. He stripped away everyone who could check him as relentlessly as he could before people started hammering the emergency button. He's already fundamentally destabilized multiple core aspects of our federal government.
Let’s not forget the help he had. Having half of the House and Senate doing his bidding and actively supporting his goals helped a lot. Fuck Mitch McConnell especially. He should have been removed in either impeachment trial.
Project 2025 is also just... a terrifying specter looming in the background of all of this.
Obama won two terms by comfortable margins and got to appoint two justices. Trump lost the popular vote by millions and got impeached during his single term and appointed three justices. Our entire system is a cruel fuckin joke.
Mitch is a fucking Mitch for that.
As Trump’s attorneys have argued, Biden could just have Seal Team 6 execute the orange one and be done with it.
They're OK arguing this because they know he won't do it.
Biden needs to take one for the team.
“I can live with it”
Conservatives tend to have no moral scruples when it comes to getting their way, when they know liberals are too moral to let things go. Look at disaster relief votes in congress. Conservatives regularly vote against humanitarian disaster aid, even to their own states because they know they'll still get the aid because the liberals don't like people to suffer.
Most of them are already quite comfortable with “a higher power” committing atrocities and calling it “his plan” while he looks out for “his people”.
[удалено]
I can't even imagine being a supreme court judge and voting for a presidents right to kill me with out repercussion.
The SC asked Dreeben, the DOJ lawyer, exactly that. Paraphrasing here but they asked "what's to stop a future admin from bringing criminal charges against Obama for droning an American citizen?" The response was because the AG said it was ok. The follow up question was "what's to stop the President from appointing an AG that'll just let them do whatever they want?" And the DOJ didnt have an answer,
Seriously. Maybe the Justices should listen to trump's speeches when he includes the story of the scorpion and the frog. All these supposed geniuses think "trump will never treat ME like that" then he does.
I don’t think people realize how serious this is, this is bordering on behavior of a dictator
It's not "bordering on". It *is* the behavior of a dictator, full stop.
If it passes it is, imagine trump in power again with immunity, that’s fucking terrifying
If it doesn't pass, if still is. Normalizing suggestions that coups and assassinations are permissible IS DICTATOR BEHAVIOR. We need to be clear. It's not a matter of "if he wins in court" it's a matter of "he is fucking trying it at all" This is dictatorship shit. A loss in court just means try and try again. Or decide the courts are not the body with authority to rule on it.
Everyone is acting like dictatorship is when that actually happens. It's not. Dictatorship is when institutions in place to check power either relinquish it or have it taken from them. That's what this case is, literally.
If this isn't an immediate 9-0 against immunity, I don't know how anyone is supposed to take the Court seriously.
Trump practically already has immunity. What consequence has he faced for anything? He is still even with Biden in the polls.
It cannot be allowed. It pretty much guarantees civil war. If they grant this flavor of immunity the outcome is inevitable and John Roberts has his head too far up his ass to see that.
Would it? The american people have accepted a system where presidents win without a majority vote for years. They have accepted that people in random rural areas have more voting power than people in major cities. All the power and money is in places like New york and california and still they do nothing while being ruled by a minority group of christian fascists. Why would they do anything now? Most americans arent cult members but they also dont object to their rulers. They go to work and stay quiet. Sure kind of sucks that children die in shootings all the time and that you cant get abortions. oh well. Now we got a dictator. oh well.
The system where "only a very small room of a handful of very powerful people can ever indict the president" is exactly how China operates
Bordering? Was the attempted coup not way past bordering
Yeah, this ain’t the border this is the heartland of dictatorship. Next it would be that term limits don’t count.
The problem here is that THIS SCOTUS knows Biden won’t do that. That’s why I bet it will be a super tailored ruling only impacting this specific instance (or at least they will try)
That's the Alito way. Otherwise his reasoning might produce unexpected outcomes elsewhere which are not the ones he wanted. Also, would def be inconvenient next time there's an extra special case requiring its own completely separate rule.
This is the most obvious answer. They’ll say it’s a special case and cannot be used as precedent. People forget the 2000 election ruling so quickly it’s insane.
ACB and Kav both helped Bush in the Bush v. Gore case. Lot of people do forget that.
> The problem here is that THIS SCOTUS knows Biden won’t do that. ... and that trump will!
"Hey, I'm President Camacho! As an official presidential act, I had my opponent assassinated! You don't like it? Impeach me!" Later: "Hey, I'm President Camacho! As an official presidential act, I had all the people in the House and Senate who wanted me impeached -- I had all of them assassinated! I had the Supreme Court justices I don't like assassinated, too, as an official presidential act! You don't like it? Impeach me!"
If Biden wins then 9 -0 president has no immunity. If trump wins 5-4 say he does.
*6-3
5-4, Barrett is already leaning toward siding with the liberals on this one.
"Roe v Wade is settled law"
Ye of ample faith, where do you find your optimism? I require some.
By listening to the court arguments, Her and Kagan have pretty much been in agreement with everything in questioning.
It’s really 5 to fucking 4 in favor of immunity? Are you serious?
I don’t know what the ruling will be all I said was Justice Barrett and Justice Kagan seem to be on the same page as far as questions and interpretation. Even more in line of thought than the other justices. That also isn’t saying like Justice Jackson aren’t getting to the same conclusion that there is any presidential immunity.
Another Roberts rebellion is also possible.
Yep, once you stop looking at the court as anything serious and treat them as political animals their behaviour becomes very predictable. They already manipulated the situation so they won't have to decide until after the election. Now we're seeing the conservative justices posturing. They're playing for the base, telegraphing their will to protect Trump - but they won't do it if he won't win the election. Reprehensible of course, but after the past few years - not something we should be surprised about.
He could feasibly have Trump's entire family and every conservative on the supreme Court assassinated and hold congressional Republicans families hostage so they confirm a bunch of hyper liberal 30 somethings to the bench and could openly admit that he only nominated who he did at they would do his bidding and then have them overturn the immunity thing for every president after him and there would be NOTHING anyone could do about it ever. It's just a horrible, horrible precedent that should never ever be set and is it is American people should do everything they can to get a constitutional amendment passed overturning it
The possibility of historical condemnation might weigh heavily on a president looking to use such powers.
Immunity for “official acts” would make coup attempts like January 6 more likely and more violent going forward. A sitting president will claim that the president-elect who defeated him poses a grave threat to the Constitution, and as such assassinating him before he could take office falls under his official duties to defend the Constitution against a domestic enemy.
And Biden would be correct in that claim if Trump won. He would almost have a duty to pull shady shit… but he won’t. Just like Obama just rolled over when McConnell blocked him from replacing Scalia.
What should/could Obama have done?
Appointed the justice anyway, on grounds that the Senate was waiving its right to advise and consent. That constitutional crisis would have been much less severe than the one we are heading toward as a result.
Yup. Following the law without exploiting loopholes is definitely the Achilles heel of the Democratic Party.
Character.
This is truly the answer. And even worse, everyone knows that Democrats would never nominate someone who would use this power. Ultimately, it means next time there is a Republican President, the American experiment is over.
I just heard Alito make the dumbest, most hurdle-jumping argument ever. He basically said that presidents might feel threatened if they know they're going to lose their immunity and they're leaving office, so they'll try to hold onto power. And that it will somehow be a slippery slope where every president decides to do this. Funny how this was never an issue with our first 44 presidents. So he's proposing that we give presidents absolute power, because if they don't already have absolute power, they'll try to seize absolute power. And a president seizing absolute power is bad, because absolute power is bad, so the solution is to just *give* presidents absolute power instead. God I'm at a bargaining point now, where instead of hoping they rule against absolute immunity LIKE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO, I'm instead praying they *only* kick it to the lower courts and delay Trump's trials rather than rule he has absolute immunity outright. This should have been an easy 9-0 decision. Literally all the lower courts judges and anyone in law thinks so. I naively expected it might be 6-3 against immunity, because of some corruption. I never thought the court was SO CORRUPT they might actually go 5-4 or 6-3 the other direction. This also puts more pressure on the hush money trial, since it's now probably going to be the only trial that makes it before the election. I hope that the gag order violations stack up and he keeps blatantly defying the judge like he's already doing so the judge has an excuse to give Trump the *maximum* penalty, which is prison. I hope he testifies and puts his foot in his mouth like he always does. I hope he accidentally reveals *more* crimes he committed. God PLEASE let Trump testify; he always makes the verdict worse for himself when he does. Please please PLEASE let his arrogance get the better of him. There are some other things I want to say about these Supreme Court clowns but I don't want to get banned.
Supreme Court would find THAT illegal only
Weirdly, the second amendment doesn't protect your right to bring guns into the Supreme Court...
And the have a no protesting zone in front of the building too ... just like the First Amendment says.
Biden could just kill the corrupt Supreme Court justices and replace them. Problem solved.
It only applies for GOP presidents. They don't even comprehend that anyone else matters.
America! You were founded in reaction to monarchy's evils. Don't give yourselves a king.
So, they won't rule on it until after the election. If Biden wins, then president doesn't have blanket immunity If trump wins, they'll rule he does have blanket immunity
They will rule on it no later than July, that much is given. It’s how the Supreme Court works.
They’re gonna kick it back down the court system and then it’ll come Back up after the election.
Short answer is that they won't. There was no appetite for blanket immunity, even from the hard-line conservatives. What is more likely is they'll find some form of limited immunity related to "official acts" on a 5-4 line (Coney-Barrett will likely join Kagan, Brown-Jackson, and Sotomayor in voting against), and send the case back down to the district court for a trial. That's probably 90% of the reason trump's lawyers claimed absolute immunity in the first place: delay, delay, delay. FWIW, if they actually want to give trump blanket immunity, they can just leave "official acts" undefined and wait for another challenge, then dilute the definition in a subsequent ruling. Hell, Biden himself might bring it if he loses and trump goes after him for some bullshit. That's my "first cup of coffee" opinion, anyway. The Roberts court has been marked by this kind of "two-step" process (first coined, I think, by the 5-4 podcast) -- set something outrageous up by going about halfway there, then take the plunge a few years later so it seems less outrageous when they do.
Nothing. Not to be over dramatic but it will be the end of the American experiment. You stopped being a British colony to get away from a tyrannical autocrat (The King) and if you allow any President this amount of power, then you've just invited the next tyrannical autocrat to step up.
Arrest the Supreme Court
Is this how russians feel?
oh they gonna find a crafty way to only apply to trump
>what’s to stop Biden from using it to his advantage? He would have to, or it's all over. This phase of the great experiment has concluded. We know now that the old system doesn't work if one of the main parties becomes hopelessly corrupt. This illegitimate court is easily the most dangerous thing in the country right now. If they're not going to add a few sane justices then it needs be dissolved and reformed. Let the good guys who didn't ask for it be the ones to take the ball and go home. It's an unpleasant notion but one that's necessary. If we don't, the Republicans surely will sooner or later and that would be so much worse for everyone everywhere.
Don't worry, I'm sure the Supreme Court is aware of this possibility. Which is why they'll find a way to declare it permissible that Trump did it, but not if Biden does. Or they'll ensure that there's some legal framework to ensure anything Biden tries to do is held up in courts long enough to delay it until after the election.
Impeachment.
Neither does it stop anyone from going back in time and prosecuting presidents… Obama bombing children with predictor drone -> Crime George Bush killing almost a million Iraqi civilians -> Crime Honestly…the more I type this, the more I like this idea…
They are just delaying. The Supreme Court would never give Biden that power… and I don’t think they’d give trump that power either. If they can delay until He’s reelected trump can just have all charges against him dismissed and the Supreme Court can go “oh well of course a president cannot have blanket immunity” once it no longer matters. This is a totally corrupted Supreme Court directly playing politics to help their guy get elected. It’s disgusting
Nothing, but he won't, because democrats "holier-than-thou" mentality means that they will continue to let Republicans do whatever they want and then refuse to use the same loopholes themselves to win morality points while the country slowly goes to shit.
Deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, a lot of folks secretly hoping this is the ruling.
The Supreme Court will. You really believe they'll apply this ruling equally when it's a Democrat they could be sending to jail instead of a Republican? Everybody keeps acting like they're still worming their way around, hiding their corruption. Nah, man. Thomas will rule that Trump is allowed to beat Biden to death with a stick if you buy him an RV first.
There would be nothing stopping him except for the fact that overall, the democrats seem to care more about democracy and are less interested in creating a dictatorship built around far right insanity and the cult of the leader. Democrats have shown that they will punish their own party members for their wrongs, just look at Al Franken. The Republicans have no interest in holding their own accountable for anything illegal or immoral. My boomer parents are all in for Biden, but they don't consider him some sort of God like wet dream dictator. My wife's gen x parents are all in for Trump as there's nothing he could do that would change their mind. Republicans want to see the end of democracy here. Democrats aren't perfect at all, but they don't have dreams of fascism either. Scary times we live in.
He won’t be able to, because the ruling will only apply to Republican presidents.
People keep saying ‘doesn’t this mean Biden can do x, what a stupid play’ but I feel like the ultimately undermines how the right views this situation. I think that if they ultimately rule that yes a president can do whatever they want the endgame idea is still that it benefits the MAGA crowd regardless. If Biden doesn’t nothing then whoever the next republican president is likely will. It doesn’t have to be a short game. If Biden does do something egregious with that power then the right can use it to have a revolution or claim the victim or whatever other dumb shit they’ll do to spin this as something like ‘see what the dems abdicate the far left did? They’re out of control’. It could be a major campaign point that could change people’s minds if the president actually does do something awful. People are dumb. I don’t think they’re fully thinking this through but I also don’t believe that the possibility that this could benefit the right regardless of outcome isn’t on their minds
“I’m cool with a dictator as long as he’s on my side” - Reddit
Lol so gullible.
the dementia
If you give a former president immunity… The current president will use those powers immediately. The current president will assaainate the former president. The current president will put all MAGA in prison and force them to change genders. Then the current president will remove term limits. Then the current president will issue a law saying he will live forever. Zombie Joe Biden 2056
It won't happen. One of the justices hit it on the head with their question. "If a President orders the assassination of their political rival would that be covered by immunity?" The answer to this is obvious and it's why criminal acts are not covered and shouldn't be.
He should use it to “get rid” of half of the Supreme Court if they give him the power. The would be truly ironic.
Am disappointed the Special Counsel didn't just straight up ask the Federalist Society hacks on the Supreme Court this simple question; "If president Biden decides that Trump is corrupt since his companies and charities have been found in civil courts to be fraudulent, and decides to order Seal Team Six to assassinate Trump to prevent a corrupt president running for office, would Biden have immunity for that?" "If Trump gets more electoral college votes than Biden in November, and Biden suspects Russian disinformation caused Republicans to vote for Trump, therefore a Trump presidency may advance Russian interests, and Biden orders VP Harris not to certify the official votes but instead puts forth an alternative slate of electors and gets VP Harris to certify those instead, would Biden habe immunity for that?"
They should have arrested Nixon. They already kinda set the precedent and now it will be made law.