Folks, the blueprint for a American dictatorship has been created and you'll be a fool and a idiot to think otherwise.
[flagged]
Read this and get back to me: https://www.vox.com/scotus/358292/supreme-court-trump-immuni...
Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
201–210 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#202Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth reading the actual ruling rather than the reporting on it, which is downright awful.
Here's a sample of Sotomayor's dissent: > The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exc…
A president who is willing to do those things, and has a military willing to carry those orders out, isn't likely to be stopped by the court telling them it's illegal.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The President shouldn't have the legal authority to conduct any drone strikes without a declaration of war from Congress. We've been ignoring the Constitution for a very long time. What part of the Constitution are we ignoring? According to the Constitution, the President is the Commander in Chief of the armed forces. The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. Thus, ord…
> The Constitution does not say that war must be declared for the armed forces to operate. It does. Armed forces killing people is a state of war. If not, it's policing then it's under the judiciary authority, not the president.
Congress has the power to declare war. But Congress has also passed the War Powers Act which states the President can use the military for short periods of time. Are you claiming the War Powers Act is unconstitutional?
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#204>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…
It's extreme to the point of silliness. If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed.
Official acts are still official regardless of the underlying reason and according to this case courts aren't even allowed to examine those reasons.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#205Immunity for things they do as part of their official duties. I suppose it’s reasonable but the question will now turn to what is actually an official duty. The opposite holding, where they are liable for everything, would be untenable. Could Obama be prosecuted for ordering drone strikes that unintentionally killed two Americans? It seems like that world would hamstring the president far too much. I don’t know if th…
Obama ordered Bin Laden killed. Should he be prosecuted for that?
Remember that the President can still be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#206>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…
It's extreme to the point of silliness. If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed.
> If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed.
Everyone thinks lines don't get crossed, until they do.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#207>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…
My naive assumption is that ordering Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival is not an official nor constitutionally authorized power, and thus would be prosecutable.
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#208Curious how an ostensibly "conservative" court can ignore the concept of enumerated powers, the constitution clearly does not grant immunity to the President, so the conservative court invents immunity when none is explicitly granted. Indeed, the concept of immunity is recognized in the American constitution for legislators in a limited way, so this isn't an oversight by the framers corrected by Robert's conservative…
Unfortunately presidents on both sides have used executive order as a way to bypass the process. Combined with Chevron doctrine precedent, agencies could enact what the executive branch wanted if the standard quo process failed
Good thing the the courts just reigned in the powers that federal agencies claimed via the chevron doctrine. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-dow...
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#209>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…
[deleted]
Re: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have immunity for official acts
#210>The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. I would consider this an extreme knee jerk take, but it's Sotomayor saying it. https://x.com/mikedebonis/status/180…
It's extreme to the point of silliness. If a court decides that would fall under "official acts", we are already doomed.
You know the majority can read the dissent right? If they felt it so silly they could have addressed it. Rather than contesting the claim they dismiss it because they feel its not as likely as other (seemingly non-mutually exclusive) concerns:
> The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” [...] The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself...
Also important to note is that the hypothetical didn't sprout from thin air, Trump's lawyers (whose arguments SCOTUS in large part accepted) acknowledged that extrajudicial assassinations would fall under official acts.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4398223-trump-t...