Sadly no. The way they turned it around was very clever.
So they said that only official presidential business is immune, but were ambiguous what that actually means, so inevitably they made it so it would go through them to determine what is the official business.
Second thing is that they picked up from their ass that Constitution also says that no official business can be used in any trial, even if it is unrelated. This not only jeopardizes all the indictments he had, it possibly will negate the New York trial.
trump already submitted request to have it referred based on this SCOTUS ruling.
This election might be the last free election we have. And even if trump loses it will still not be over.
Please vote and make your friends and family vote. And not just for president but also for the Congress.
Edit: I also recommend everyone a book "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century" (there's also reading on YouTube) all the warning signs are present. The more people are aware what it is at stake the higher chance that this can be stopped.
I also recommend everyone a book "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century"
In case it makes a difference to someone, it's a pretty short book.
How does one prove whether or not something is official business if official business can't be used in any trial?
The “unbiased” judge will define what is allowed in the trial or not. And the prosecutor can appeal that decision and hope the higher judge is not also bought and paid for by the criminal president.
Until it eventually hits the Supreme Court and they decide what is and isn't an official act based on what political party the President is affiliated with.
6-3
I wonder how that would work if the act was against them. I mean he could assassinate the entire Supreme Court because of the war or drugs or whatever, and then who stops him?
So officially dissolve the Supreme Court and instate a new pack of judges and let those judges decide if it was an "Official Act" and thus totally legal.
So... he could assassinate Biden and all political opposition, but not Stormy Daniels
Trump could kill anyone and they would determine that it was official business. On the other hand, Biden could have the Republican judges executed and replaced with sycophants who could rule that this also was an official act. It’s a bad ruling.
He can't appoint justices without Senate approval. He only needs 50 Senators to approve though. The rest can be bombed for reasons that apparently don't matter.
He only needs 50 senators if all 100 are present. Start tossing some of the more treasonous ones in Gitmo as an official act and that threshold can be brought down quite a bit.
YES! GITMO! I knew we kept that around for a reason. 🤩
Unless he signs an executive order. It doesn't get much more official than that.
I don’t think this immunity applies to states. So the NY trial was unrelated.
The NY trial was unrelated to his presidential business anyways. It was about private property and fraud relating therein.
But also, other states that have indicted him for Jan 6th activity are unaffected by this, regardless of how Trump could spin this.
We are dealing with an openly partisan court. Normally this wouldn't affect it, but they already broke a lot of rules.
If you want to get a bit more cynical, you could very easily describe the deaths of Fred Hampton and the Freedom Summer murders as presidential assassinations. If you want to take the extra step down the rabbit hole, there's very real reason to suspect MLK was assassinated by the FBI.
Maybe Obama should have been charged, just to set the record straight, but likely this wasn't attempted because (1) Trump was too busy grifting to put any weight behind this, (2) all of those killed were on foreign soil, and (3) they were all working with Al Qaeda. This is getting into the realm of whether or not killing an enemy combatant is murder and what really defines an enemy combatant. I'm sure there was also pressure from both sides to specifically not answer these questions.
Either way I'd rather live in a country where a President gets charged after leaving office as a rule, than live in a country where a President can practically burn everything to the ground and walk away untouched.
Fuck themmm.
Except the extreme court gets to decide who is immune and what actions are okay.
Not if they've been forcibly removed from office.
EXTREME
With a 6-3 vote either way.
Most presidents have done this. Whether it be bombing countries they're not at war with, trafficking drugs to enrich the war machine by arming enemies of the state, or invading foreign countries and committing war crimes based on their own manufactured lies.
bombing countries they’re not at war with
Fun fact. We haven't officially declared war since 1941.
Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and now Ukraine? All NATO led military interventions or AUMF policing actions. No articles of war required.
trafficking drugs to enrich the war machine
One of the craziest "America just be like that" stories I've ever heard was the time Bush Sr set up a drug buy right outside the White House, by having the DEA extort a teenager picked up for selling crack on the opposite side of town to show up on Pennsylvania Avenue the night of a State of the Union Address and do a straw sale to another agent, just so he could talk about it on national TV an hour later like it happened organically.
Bush dangling a bag of crack on national TV and saying in his Father-Knows-Best voice that we need to go full-on Phoenix Program across every major American city, because of his little kabuki crack sale, is one of those "burned into my conscience" factoids that really changed how I saw our country operating.
We're going to find those WMDs any day now. pepper sprays Occupy Wall Street protester
Would this same ruling have happened if Trump wasn’t involved? No, I don’t think so.
Stop the steal overthrow.
So now Biden can do what trump did and not certify the next president using fake electors.
And if he can’t break the law, can’t he illegally introduce a new law that makes all this presidential law breaking illegal?
How would he "illegally introduce a new law"? He could issue a decree but it would be meaningless because nothing gives a president the power to make laws.
The president can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters which have the force of law.
Read more carefully:
The president can issue executive orders pursuant to a grant of discretion from Congress, or under the inherent powers that office holds to deal with certain matters which have the force of law.
Executive orders are limited to exercising powers already granted to the President by Congress or the Constitution. The President cannot just make up new laws. This is basic stuff that should have been explained to you numerous times if you're American.
Correct. There's absolutely nothing stopping Biden from doing exactly what Trump already tried and failed to do. He could put pressure on Governors to "find x number of votes", submit a fake slate of electors to cast doubt on the results, outright threaten people if they don't comply with his wishes. I'm sure this SCOTUS will find a way to interpret any of Biden's would-be illegal actions as actually illegal, but tiptoe around Trump's sedition and fraud.
I can't believe that the prevailing opinion of the times is that the president can literally break the law, even ones specifically meant to bind them and only them such as campaign finance laws, and be immune from consequences under almost any circumstance as long as the court says it's official. Congress effectively can no longer act as a check against the Executive. Only the Judicial can say what is official or unofficial.
This isn't power anyone should have.
I heard a good argument that while these justices are appointed for life to be judges, it doesn’t specify which branch. Reappointment them to a lower court and appoint new justices. They voted for this let them reap the consequences. Outline enforceable ethics standards.
The rules of the Senate, as undermined by McConnell and inexplicably tolerated by Schumer ensure it won't happen.
That co-equal branches thing was nice while we had it.
Just dismiss the senators as official business. What still stands in the way of a total power grab by a US president?
As long as it's official business and they keep it official by officially removing all obstacles, they are legally perfectly in the clear. IANAL obviously, but total power seems just a matter of being audacious enough to grab it.
The president can't dismiss them. That's adding executive power. They took away criminal liability. He'd need to kill/kidnap/imprison them. And who knows if they'd rule that as an official act. They didn't actually outline what counts and what doesn't. So maybe for Biden that wouldn't count and for Trump it would.
Move them to Florida or Alabama.
I think the more viable option is just packing the court but biden would have to get two Republicans to flip and all Democrats to agree. It's embarrassing he didn't do it when the Democrats had Senate in 2020
The President Can Now Legally Assassinate You, Officially if it Supports the SCOTUS Majority's Agenda
Anything Biden did would be determined to be "not official" by them because he's a Democrat.
Sounds like a reason for Biden to set a whole bunch of legal precedent while he's still president.
As I mentioned on another comment, there is no mechanism for the court to enforce that. The DOJ is under the President. Who will arrest the President? The SC may think this empowers them more, but it really does not.
The conservative court acts in tandem with the GOP. Any government organization run by them will provide the support.
Its more like, the president can assassinate you if it is in the interest of the USA and not for the personal interest of the president.
So if ellected, Trump can assassinate all political competition, Putin-style, legally, but not Stormy Daniels
Who's to say that maintaining the dignity of the office of President is not in the interest of the US? She is impugning his reputation therefore making him look weak which could embolden our enemies. She must disappear for the good of all Americans.
It's not hard to justify just about anything as an official act in the interest of the US.
If "maintaining the dignity of the office of President" is a core obligation of president, Trump could be impeached and convicted of that charge.
Not according to the way they define "official act". If it involves presidential power, it's an official act.
Then it is a joke of a decision
It is indeed. From a joke of a court.
Not really. Exercise of a Presidential power, no matter the reason, is immune from prosecution. If it's legal to drop a bomb on ISIS it's legal to drop a bomb on a pornstar.
So letting district courts decide if an action is or is not an official act, is just a joke if anything a president does is official act
A lot of people are reading this wrong. What is likely going to happen is that the district court will say that a grand Jury can decide if something is an official act. That might be challenged again but I'd wager that's the next stop in this saga.
But don’t forget that official government records and any inquiries as to the motives of the president will not be admissible as evidence in any such case.
So Stormy Daniels will have to avenge democracy, Rambo style
It's settled law so not to worry, they can just change their minds later when it doesn't benefit their conservative bosses.
The president can also now legally dissolve the Supreme Court and instate a new supreme Court who can then make the decision if it was an official act or not.
wash; rinse; repeat
Welcome back to another episode of "Where's Humanity Going to Shit Next?", where we tackle the depressing consequences of the actions of the human race to our beloved planet Earth. This episode we visit the US once again, where the president decides he now has the power to kill you himself if he feels like it.
Join us next time to see where humanity is really gonna shit next.
This election will be the final free and fair one. God help us all
To do a "well, actually" I guess we didn't really have an empire until well past the country's founding. We were a mostly irrelevant backwater for some period of time.
ETA: And as someone who freaking loves this country, I realize that saying a comment like the above is one that could probably get you into a fight two days from now, most especially, when all kinds of fetishistic performative military nonsense and uncritical screeds about this country are at peak ridiculousness (and I love July 4th in spite of these flaws). I consider myself a real patriot, but one that is unwilling to whitewash this country.
I don’t think most civilizations start out in their final form. They typically start much smaller and grow.
No, the US has been an empire from the start. Unless you don't count conquering and colonizing the indigenous peoples because they aren't "civilized" or something.
I’d probably be so honored I wouldn’t press charges anyways.
Anything can be defined to suit their needs.
isn't that the definition of, I don't know, a king?
Legal schmegal. A bullet has no politics
All this murder crap is lame; why has nobody been parroting how the president can do other crimes, like tax fraud or lie under oath or buying drugs or literally anything but murder?
Because the point is to scare you. "Breaking news president buys crack" is not as scary as "Breaking news president axe murders cabinet."
The ruling is not good, but it's not Seal Team Six executes its political rival bad. It's more likely to be President sells nuke secrets to Saudi Arabia under the new official "I Get to Sell Nuclear Secrets to Saudi Arabia Act" he just made up right now.
The President can fire employees that refuse to have sex with him. Firing executive branch employees is well within the President's power. If they don't submit to him, he can fire them. Official act.
literal killing if human beings is lame? we already know to white collar criminals are doing tax fraud and use drugs. old news.
Lame like an overbeaten dead horse, I mean. I was just trying to put out there that there's worse ways to try and ruin our country like Madoff did but worse. And plenty of others I didn't even mention.
Couldn't Biden write an executive order that describes what is "official" vs "unofficial"?
Couldn't the next president rip that order up and replace it with their own definition?
I mean, I wouldn't mind the current President exercising this power over their political rivals, in the election, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, purely as a defensive measure to protect America. It sets a shitty precedence, but do we really want He Who Shall Not Be Named to set the precedence first?
"It sets a shitty precedence.." is a gross minimalization to attach to effectively making the US be a dictatorship. And saying you're ok with a dictatorship because you happen to agree with the dictator is the kind of sentiment that cannot be left unchallenged/unexamined
Right?
And it's incredibly short sighted.
So, in 4 years, will the next dictator be just as "good"? What about the next?
Also the whole "To save America" is literally the exact same reasoning used, and even believed, by the other side. It's circular at this point, one is better, but the other thinks THEY need to save America just as much.
The US has already extrajudicialy murdered a US citizen on purpose. The US under Obama sent a drone to murder a citizen without a trial.
Precedent was publicly set then.
The US 3 letter agencies have been doing this in secret for their entire time in power. But those are widely considered outside the law but necessary. Whatever that means.
Agree but I feel like pointing that out is implying this somehow doesn't make things worse which I feel like is missing the point. This removes the implicit threat of prosecution for anything the president does.
Now no matter how much political will exists for the prosecution, the president is fully and unequivocally immune.
any post saying that The President can assassinate anyone or any party opponent is nonsense. They won't do it themselves and if they order it, considering it's illegal the military won't carry it out. We have safeguards in place. The left needs to simmer down.
Like now? The president has always been able to assassinate you, officially, the difference is that before he would have gone to jail and now he won't.
That’s kind of the point
Yes well, I was trying to be a little sarcastic with the headline, but looking at people's votes I think I have failed miserably.
This is a lie.
I really don't understand how people are twisting this so dramatically. The president is still bound by the law of the constitution. No president can just go on a killing spree. They still need to operate in an official capacity as POTUS. I mean, I understand we don't want to give Trump a win under any circumstances but he most certainly can still be held accountable for his actions.
presidents are entitled to “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for official acts,
This is simply not true. There are three levels of actions: core actions defined by the constitution, other official actions as president, and acts outside of being president. It's the first "core" actions that are immune simply because they are defined in the constitution - pardons, appointments, etc. It's like saying putting on your turn signal to make a turn is immune from prosecution. Other actions as president are presumed to be immune but that does not mean they are "absolutely" immune from prosecution.
Presidents are now entitled to “absolute” immunity, which means that no matter what they do, the immunity cannot be lost. They are always and forever immune, no matter what evidence is brought to bear. There is no crime that pierces the veil of absolute immunity.
This is 100% NOT TRUE.
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 as-
sassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex-
change for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
Article II, Section 4: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
I really don't know what she's going on about and I'm a little concerned.
The only reason they separated out official acts is to stall the ruling on trump's case. If it goes back to the SCOTUS they will say all acts are official but rule on the very last day they can. They are doing this to delay it until after the election.
That article states they will be removed if convicted. The new ruling states that for anything considered "official", the president can no longer be convicted. That's the problem.
That is NOT what they have ruled. They have ruled that there is a presumptive immunity. That means it can be challenged upon judicial review.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law. But under our system of
separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts. That immunity applies equally to all occupants of the Oval Office.
Roberts then goes on to explain how all but one of the charges need to go back to the courts to determine if he was acting in an official capacity.
Then you need reading lessons.
For eight years we've been told we're overreacting as we predict all this stuff like Trump stuffing the courts with conservative activists, overturning Roe, killing chevron deference, and generally legislating from the bench. Poorly written law can be interpreted however they like. True or not, the SCOTUS majority has proven that they don't care what's written in the constitution, law books, etc. Whether or not you think the law can be interpreted a certain way, they are now set up to do whatever they like because even though they don't make the laws, they actually, implicitly do.
SCOTUS majority has proven that they don’t care what’s written in the constitution
That's an odd take being that they're heavily relying on Article II to define which of a president's actions are immune and everything outside of that is either open to interpretation or absolutely NOT immune.
I should have said "cherry-pick" what's written in the constitution.
Hey, many actual members of the bar have said it is now legal (in that he is immune from prosecution) for Joe Biden to order the military to kill Donald Trump. You'll forgive me if I trust their analysis over that of oxjox@lemmy.ml.
I'd like to know what has changed. My assumption is that it has always been legal given it was done for reasonable reasons (national security, etc). Are they claiming that now the president can kill anyone they wish with no reason whatsoever? Has this wholly removed the fourth section of Article II?
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
You would think that somebody that called themselves a journalist would actually have journalistic integrity. Nothing the 'journalist' claimed was in the SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled that the president has immunity for many of his presidential actions and none for personal actions such as going on a murder streak
Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole "official" vs "non official" acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
Quoting from Sotomayer's dissent (pp 29-30, paragraphing my own):
This new official-acts immunity now “lies
about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes
to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his
own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Kore-
matsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson,
J., dissenting).
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 as-
sassinate a political rival? Immune.
Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune.
Takes a bribe in ex-
change for a pardon?
Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
They go on with an incisive critique of the majority's reasoning:
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trap-
pings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official
power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one
day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as
bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the
majority’s message today.
Sotomayor is behind the times.
They're not "bribes" anymore, they're "donations" now.
That's not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
The ruling doesn't even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.
As for the "decision made by trials court" that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
“When the president does it, it is not illegal”
This has been a long time coming and the presumption is that he is allowed to until that is somehow challenged.
Again, incorrect. Stop reading headlines and making decisions. Read the ruling. You are spreading misinformation.
Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you're refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you're wrong. You're not arguing in good faith. Go away.
Direct from the decision (page 31):
If official conduct for which the President is immune may
be scrutinized to help secure his conviction, even on charges
that purport to be based only on his unofficial conduct, the
“intended effect” of immunity would be defeated.
What's a criminal act when your highest court gives you a free pass? Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced.
The highest court didn't give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
And the courts bought by Trump and Co. will see to it that every criminal behavior is considered official and constitutional. You are a bit blind if you see this having any positive effect. The president, and anyone else for that matter, should have zero immunity. Immunity only invites abuse. Just look at qualified immunity for a great example of how it is a failed idea.
Never once have I said I'm for this.
True, but your defense of it does give the appearance that you at the least do not mind it. You don't seem to find it problematic, and to others that itself is also problematic. Please feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong, but from what you've said so far you really, as I mentioned, do seem to not see the issues or repercussions this will have.
First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don't want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn't mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That's ridiculous. The ruling even states that.
There is a key difference there I think. That is that one is engaged in saving people that are about to die, the other has power to ruin a large swath of ordinary lives and set orders in place that destroy industries or prop up harmful ones, and remove agencies and regulations that keep people safe. They should be held accountable at all times of their presidency. They should be concerned about what can happen if they make a greviously bad decision. There should be no immunity and they should be held accountable for their actions just as every other person in this country is.
And again, in an ideal world, they would be held accountable by laws. But in this case, if we are talking Trump, he will not be because the highest court in the nation, is corrupt and planted by him as loyalists to him, and will give him a free pass and now will say it was because he had immunity. I and ideal world we wouldn't have to have this conversation, but we are not talking about an ideal world.
The president already had immunity before this ruling. You or I cannot send a missle to Iran to kill people. The president can. It's been like this for 200 years. It was like this when Trump was president. The president didn't gain any magic law dodging powers. They aren't suddenly a genie that can do whatever they want.
Please tell me what capacity any court has to enforce a ruling against a sitting President. I'll wait.
As that bastard Andrew Jackson once (allegedly) said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
SCOTUS ruled that the president has immunity for many of his presidential actions and none for personal actions such as going on a murder streak
Right, that's literally the point. All a malfeasant president would need to do is declare that assassinating political rivals is an official presidential action. If the president argues that it's an official act of their office and not of their own personhood, there's little room to hold them accountable for it.
It may seem like an absolutely ridiculous argument, and that's because it is. What constitutes an "official" presidential action was left intentionally un-defined by the court, so that such ridiculous arguments could be treated as legitimate if the immunity is challenged.
Perhaps Biden could firmly establish precedent for that...two birds, etc.
I would take this at face value except for the fact that the president is the commander in chief of the largest, best equipped, most lethal, official killing organization in the planet.
Killing is, and has always been, a possible official act.
Why should we listen to you and not Sotomayor?
The only remedy the current court's ruling really allows is impeachment. It essentially means that (absent a later ruling specifying exactly what counts as a President's "official acts,") the President can do literally anything he wants and never suffer any consequences. Don't agree that what he was doing was an official act? Impeach him or stfu. He's not going to jail for breaking any law, ever.
Who's going to impeach him? They will file the articles of impeachment then get waxed that night on their way home.
As President my FIRST OFFICIAL ACT is to get a 3 Kill Streak UAV!
Sadly no. The way they turned it around was very clever.
So they said that only official presidential business is immune, but were ambiguous what that actually means, so inevitably they made it so it would go through them to determine what is the official business.
Second thing is that they picked up from their ass that Constitution also says that no official business can be used in any trial, even if it is unrelated. This not only jeopardizes all the indictments he had, it possibly will negate the New York trial.
trump already submitted request to have it referred based on this SCOTUS ruling.
This election might be the last free election we have. And even if trump loses it will still not be over.
Please vote and make your friends and family vote. And not just for president but also for the Congress.
Edit: I also recommend everyone a book "On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons From the Twentieth Century" (there's also reading on YouTube) all the warning signs are present. The more people are aware what it is at stake the higher chance that this can be stopped.
In case it makes a difference to someone, it's a pretty short book.
How does one prove whether or not something is official business if official business can't be used in any trial?
The “unbiased” judge will define what is allowed in the trial or not. And the prosecutor can appeal that decision and hope the higher judge is not also bought and paid for by the criminal president.
Until it eventually hits the Supreme Court and they decide what is and isn't an official act based on what political party the President is affiliated with.
6-3
I wonder how that would work if the act was against them. I mean he could assassinate the entire Supreme Court because of the war or drugs or whatever, and then who stops him?
So officially dissolve the Supreme Court and instate a new pack of judges and let those judges decide if it was an "Official Act" and thus totally legal.
So... he could assassinate Biden and all political opposition, but not Stormy Daniels
Trump could kill anyone and they would determine that it was official business. On the other hand, Biden could have the Republican judges executed and replaced with sycophants who could rule that this also was an official act. It’s a bad ruling.
He can't appoint justices without Senate approval. He only needs 50 Senators to approve though. The rest can be bombed for reasons that apparently don't matter.
He only needs 50 senators if all 100 are present. Start tossing some of the more treasonous ones in Gitmo as an official act and that threshold can be brought down quite a bit.
YES! GITMO! I knew we kept that around for a reason. 🤩
Unless he signs an executive order. It doesn't get much more official than that.
I don’t think this immunity applies to states. So the NY trial was unrelated.
The NY trial was unrelated to his presidential business anyways. It was about private property and fraud relating therein.
But also, other states that have indicted him for Jan 6th activity are unaffected by this, regardless of how Trump could spin this.
We are dealing with an openly partisan court. Normally this wouldn't affect it, but they already broke a lot of rules.
Uhhh, that already happened.
Yeah, but now the Supreme Court said that's perfectly ok and totally legal.
Well, we've already had a president assassinate US citizens, so let's rev up those predators and go looking for whatever billionaire's yacht Coney Barret, Kavanuahh, and Roberts are chilling on
If you want to get a bit more cynical, you could very easily describe the deaths of Fred Hampton and the Freedom Summer murders as presidential assassinations. If you want to take the extra step down the rabbit hole, there's very real reason to suspect MLK was assassinated by the FBI.
Maybe Obama should have been charged, just to set the record straight, but likely this wasn't attempted because (1) Trump was too busy grifting to put any weight behind this, (2) all of those killed were on foreign soil, and (3) they were all working with Al Qaeda. This is getting into the realm of whether or not killing an enemy combatant is murder and what really defines an enemy combatant. I'm sure there was also pressure from both sides to specifically not answer these questions.
Either way I'd rather live in a country where a President gets charged after leaving office as a rule, than live in a country where a President can practically burn everything to the ground and walk away untouched.
Fuck themmm.
Except the extreme court gets to decide who is immune and what actions are okay.
Not if they've been forcibly removed from office.
EXTREME
With a 6-3 vote either way.
Most presidents have done this. Whether it be bombing countries they're not at war with, trafficking drugs to enrich the war machine by arming enemies of the state, or invading foreign countries and committing war crimes based on their own manufactured lies.
Fun fact. We haven't officially declared war since 1941.
Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and now Ukraine? All NATO led military interventions or AUMF policing actions. No articles of war required.
One of the craziest "America just be like that" stories I've ever heard was the time Bush Sr set up a drug buy right outside the White House, by having the DEA extort a teenager picked up for selling crack on the opposite side of town to show up on Pennsylvania Avenue the night of a State of the Union Address and do a straw sale to another agent, just so he could talk about it on national TV an hour later like it happened organically.
Bush dangling a bag of crack on national TV and saying in his Father-Knows-Best voice that we need to go full-on Phoenix Program across every major American city, because of his little kabuki crack sale, is one of those "burned into my conscience" factoids that really changed how I saw our country operating.
We're going to find those WMDs any day now. pepper sprays Occupy Wall Street protester
Except for the whole retiring from public life part. I wish Trump would just retire from life entirely.
Would this same ruling have happened if Trump wasn’t involved? No, I don’t think so.
Stop the
stealoverthrow.So now Biden can do what trump did and not certify the next president using fake electors.
And if he can’t break the law, can’t he illegally introduce a new law that makes all this presidential law breaking illegal?
How would he "illegally introduce a new law"? He could issue a decree but it would be meaningless because nothing gives a president the power to make laws.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders
Read more carefully:
Executive orders are limited to exercising powers already granted to the President by Congress or the Constitution. The President cannot just make up new laws. This is basic stuff that should have been explained to you numerous times if you're American.
Correct. There's absolutely nothing stopping Biden from doing exactly what Trump already tried and failed to do. He could put pressure on Governors to "find x number of votes", submit a fake slate of electors to cast doubt on the results, outright threaten people if they don't comply with his wishes. I'm sure this SCOTUS will find a way to interpret any of Biden's would-be illegal actions as actually illegal, but tiptoe around Trump's sedition and fraud.
I can't believe that the prevailing opinion of the times is that the president can literally break the law, even ones specifically meant to bind them and only them such as campaign finance laws, and be immune from consequences under almost any circumstance as long as the court says it's official. Congress effectively can no longer act as a check against the Executive. Only the Judicial can say what is official or unofficial.
This isn't power anyone should have.
I heard a good argument that while these justices are appointed for life to be judges, it doesn’t specify which branch. Reappointment them to a lower court and appoint new justices. They voted for this let them reap the consequences. Outline enforceable ethics standards.
The rules of the Senate, as undermined by McConnell and inexplicably tolerated by Schumer ensure it won't happen.
That co-equal branches thing was nice while we had it.
Just dismiss the senators as official business. What still stands in the way of a total power grab by a US president?
As long as it's official business and they keep it official by officially removing all obstacles, they are legally perfectly in the clear. IANAL obviously, but total power seems just a matter of being audacious enough to grab it.
The president can't dismiss them. That's adding executive power. They took away criminal liability. He'd need to kill/kidnap/imprison them. And who knows if they'd rule that as an official act. They didn't actually outline what counts and what doesn't. So maybe for Biden that wouldn't count and for Trump it would.
Move them to Florida or Alabama.
I think the more viable option is just packing the court but biden would have to get two Republicans to flip and all Democrats to agree. It's embarrassing he didn't do it when the Democrats had Senate in 2020
The President Can Now Legally Assassinate You, Officially if it Supports the SCOTUS Majority's Agenda
Anything Biden did would be determined to be "not official" by them because he's a Democrat.
Sounds like a reason for Biden to set a whole bunch of legal precedent while he's still president.
As I mentioned on another comment, there is no mechanism for the court to enforce that. The DOJ is under the President. Who will arrest the President? The SC may think this empowers them more, but it really does not.
The conservative court acts in tandem with the GOP. Any government organization run by them will provide the support.
Its more like, the president can assassinate you if it is in the interest of the USA and not for the personal interest of the president.
So if ellected, Trump can assassinate all political competition, Putin-style, legally, but not Stormy Daniels
Who's to say that maintaining the dignity of the office of President is not in the interest of the US? She is impugning his reputation therefore making him look weak which could embolden our enemies. She must disappear for the good of all Americans. It's not hard to justify just about anything as an official act in the interest of the US.
If "maintaining the dignity of the office of President" is a core obligation of president, Trump could be impeached and convicted of that charge.
Not according to the way they define "official act". If it involves presidential power, it's an official act.
Then it is a joke of a decision
It is indeed. From a joke of a court.
Not really. Exercise of a Presidential power, no matter the reason, is immune from prosecution. If it's legal to drop a bomb on ISIS it's legal to drop a bomb on a pornstar.
So letting district courts decide if an action is or is not an official act, is just a joke if anything a president does is official act
A lot of people are reading this wrong. What is likely going to happen is that the district court will say that a grand Jury can decide if something is an official act. That might be challenged again but I'd wager that's the next stop in this saga.
But don’t forget that official government records and any inquiries as to the motives of the president will not be admissible as evidence in any such case.
So Stormy Daniels will have to avenge democracy, Rambo style
I’d re-up Netflix to watch this movie.
It's settled law so not to worry, they can just change their minds later when it doesn't benefit their conservative bosses.
The president can also now legally dissolve the Supreme Court and instate a new supreme Court who can then make the decision if it was an official act or not.
wash; rinse; repeat
Welcome back to another episode of "Where's Humanity Going to Shit Next?", where we tackle the depressing consequences of the actions of the human race to our beloved planet Earth. This episode we visit the US once again, where the president decides he now has the power to kill you himself if he feels like it.
Join us next time to see where humanity is really gonna shit next.
This election will be the final free and fair one. God help us all
To do a "well, actually" I guess we didn't really have an empire until well past the country's founding. We were a mostly irrelevant backwater for some period of time.
ETA: And as someone who freaking loves this country, I realize that saying a comment like the above is one that could probably get you into a fight two days from now, most especially, when all kinds of fetishistic performative military nonsense and uncritical screeds about this country are at peak ridiculousness (and I love July 4th in spite of these flaws). I consider myself a real patriot, but one that is unwilling to whitewash this country.
I don’t think most civilizations start out in their final form. They typically start much smaller and grow.
No, the US has been an empire from the start. Unless you don't count conquering and colonizing the indigenous peoples because they aren't "civilized" or something.
I’d probably be so honored I wouldn’t press charges anyways.
Anything can be defined to suit their needs.
isn't that the definition of, I don't know, a king?
Legal schmegal. A bullet has no politics
All this murder crap is lame; why has nobody been parroting how the president can do other crimes, like tax fraud or lie under oath or buying drugs or literally anything but murder?
Because the point is to scare you. "Breaking news president buys crack" is not as scary as "Breaking news president axe murders cabinet."
The ruling is not good, but it's not Seal Team Six executes its political rival bad. It's more likely to be President sells nuke secrets to Saudi Arabia under the new official "I Get to Sell Nuclear Secrets to Saudi Arabia Act" he just made up right now.
The President can fire employees that refuse to have sex with him. Firing executive branch employees is well within the President's power. If they don't submit to him, he can fire them. Official act.
literal killing if human beings is lame? we already know to white collar criminals are doing tax fraud and use drugs. old news.
Lame like an overbeaten dead horse, I mean. I was just trying to put out there that there's worse ways to try and ruin our country like Madoff did but worse. And plenty of others I didn't even mention.
Biden needs to commit to overturning this, and ideally Citizen's United, if he is re elected
Screw that, he's elected now. Just do it.
Couldn't Biden write an executive order that describes what is "official" vs "unofficial"?
Couldn't the next president rip that order up and replace it with their own definition?
I mean, I wouldn't mind the current President exercising this power over their political rivals, in the election, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, purely as a defensive measure to protect America. It sets a shitty precedence, but do we really want He Who Shall Not Be Named to set the precedence first?
"It sets a shitty precedence.." is a gross minimalization to attach to effectively making the US be a dictatorship. And saying you're ok with a dictatorship because you happen to agree with the dictator is the kind of sentiment that cannot be left unchallenged/unexamined
Right?
And it's incredibly short sighted.
So, in 4 years, will the next dictator be just as "good"? What about the next?
Also the whole "To save America" is literally the exact same reasoning used, and even believed, by the other side. It's circular at this point, one is better, but the other thinks THEY need to save America just as much.
It's a real fucked situation.
Bye, Rachel Maddow.
I thought this was the case since Obama. Another source.
The US has already extrajudicialy murdered a US citizen on purpose. The US under Obama sent a drone to murder a citizen without a trial.
Precedent was publicly set then.
The US 3 letter agencies have been doing this in secret for their entire time in power. But those are widely considered outside the law but necessary. Whatever that means.
Agree but I feel like pointing that out is implying this somehow doesn't make things worse which I feel like is missing the point. This removes the implicit threat of prosecution for anything the president does.
Now no matter how much political will exists for the prosecution, the president is fully and unequivocally immune.
any post saying that The President can assassinate anyone or any party opponent is nonsense. They won't do it themselves and if they order it, considering it's illegal the military won't carry it out. We have safeguards in place. The left needs to simmer down.
More fear mongering
Like now? The president has always been able to assassinate you, officially, the difference is that before he would have gone to jail and now he won't.
That’s kind of the point
Yes well, I was trying to be a little sarcastic with the headline, but looking at people's votes I think I have failed miserably.
This is a lie.
I really don't understand how people are twisting this so dramatically. The president is still bound by the law of the constitution. No president can just go on a killing spree. They still need to operate in an official capacity as POTUS. I mean, I understand we don't want to give Trump a win under any circumstances but he most certainly can still be held accountable for his actions.
This is simply not true. There are three levels of actions: core actions defined by the constitution, other official actions as president, and acts outside of being president. It's the first "core" actions that are immune simply because they are defined in the constitution - pardons, appointments, etc. It's like saying putting on your turn signal to make a turn is immune from prosecution. Other actions as president are presumed to be immune but that does not mean they are "absolutely" immune from prosecution.
This is 100% NOT TRUE.
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor
I really don't know what she's going on about and I'm a little concerned.
The only reason they separated out official acts is to stall the ruling on trump's case. If it goes back to the SCOTUS they will say all acts are official but rule on the very last day they can. They are doing this to delay it until after the election.
That article states they will be removed if convicted. The new ruling states that for anything considered "official", the president can no longer be convicted. That's the problem.
That is NOT what they have ruled. They have ruled that there is a presumptive immunity. That means it can be challenged upon judicial review.
Roberts then goes on to explain how all but one of the charges need to go back to the courts to determine if he was acting in an official capacity.
Then you need reading lessons.
For eight years we've been told we're overreacting as we predict all this stuff like Trump stuffing the courts with conservative activists, overturning Roe, killing chevron deference, and generally legislating from the bench. Poorly written law can be interpreted however they like. True or not, the SCOTUS majority has proven that they don't care what's written in the constitution, law books, etc. Whether or not you think the law can be interpreted a certain way, they are now set up to do whatever they like because even though they don't make the laws, they actually, implicitly do.
That's an odd take being that they're heavily relying on Article II to define which of a president's actions are immune and everything outside of that is either open to interpretation or absolutely NOT immune.
I should have said "cherry-pick" what's written in the constitution.
Hey, many actual members of the bar have said it is now legal (in that he is immune from prosecution) for Joe Biden to order the military to kill Donald Trump. You'll forgive me if I trust their analysis over that of oxjox@lemmy.ml.
I'd like to know what has changed. My assumption is that it has always been legal given it was done for reasonable reasons (national security, etc). Are they claiming that now the president can kill anyone they wish with no reason whatsoever? Has this wholly removed the fourth section of Article II?
You would think that somebody that called themselves a journalist would actually have journalistic integrity. Nothing the 'journalist' claimed was in the SCOTUS ruling. SCOTUS ruled that the president has immunity for many of his presidential actions and none for personal actions such as going on a murder streak
Under this ruling the president has absolute immunity for their use of any powers granted by the constitution, and that includes use of the military, pardon powers, and appointing and firing of executive department officials. Their motivations and purposes for use of those powers cannot be questioned by the courts or by any laws passed by congress.
The whole "official" vs "non official" acts things only comes into play for powers not explicitly granted by the constitution. And even then the president gets presumptive immunity.
Go read the actual ruling and the dissents and stop spreading misinformation. The journalist and the headline are accurate.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Quoting from Sotomayer's dissent (pp 29-30, paragraphing my own):
They go on with an incisive critique of the majority's reasoning:
Sotomayor is behind the times.
They're not "bribes" anymore, they're "donations" now.
That's not true. Criminal acts are not protected, nor can they be made in an official capacity. Furthermore, the ruling says the court that determines official acts is the trails court. Not the supreme Court. Stop spreading misinformation.
The ruling doesn't even allow unrelated trials to use evidence that might be from official presidential business. Trump just requested his conviction in NY to be overburdened based on this ruling. So how it would not protect criminal acts when you can see in your own eyes this being used to get away from criminal acts. The other trials are also in jeopardy.
As for the "decision made by trials court" that is insignificant as SCOTUS can override them.
You cannot commit criminal acts in an official capacity, full stop. It is not possible. The moment your actions are criminal you are no longer upholding the oath you have taken and the action is not official. Obviously.
“When the president does it, it is not illegal”
This has been a long time coming and the presumption is that he is allowed to until that is somehow challenged.
Again, incorrect. Stop reading headlines and making decisions. Read the ruling. You are spreading misinformation.
Oo, nice try turning this around on them. But nah, man, you're refusing to acknowledge the ruling itself explicitly telling you you're wrong. You're not arguing in good faith. Go away.
Direct from the decision (page 31):
What's a criminal act when your highest court gives you a free pass? Laws mean nothing if they are not enforced.
The highest court didn't give any president a free pass. If the president is carrying out a function of the constitution there is immunity. For everything else they enjoy no immunity. Like for instance breaking a law.
And the courts bought by Trump and Co. will see to it that every criminal behavior is considered official and constitutional. You are a bit blind if you see this having any positive effect. The president, and anyone else for that matter, should have zero immunity. Immunity only invites abuse. Just look at qualified immunity for a great example of how it is a failed idea.
Never once have I said I'm for this.
True, but your defense of it does give the appearance that you at the least do not mind it. You don't seem to find it problematic, and to others that itself is also problematic. Please feel free to contradict me if I'm wrong, but from what you've said so far you really, as I mentioned, do seem to not see the issues or repercussions this will have.
First responders have (in some counties had) immunity while doing their job. If grandma needs CPR you don't want a first responder to hesitate to provide that CPR because they might crack a rib and get sued, or worse, thrown in jail.
The president should not be afraid to make decisions in fear of political retaliation, which is exactly what this ruling clarifys.
If the first responder breaks the law they are held accountable. If the president breaks the law they will be held accountable.
This doesn't mean the president can do whatever they want and they are immune from the law. That's ridiculous. The ruling even states that.
There is a key difference there I think. That is that one is engaged in saving people that are about to die, the other has power to ruin a large swath of ordinary lives and set orders in place that destroy industries or prop up harmful ones, and remove agencies and regulations that keep people safe. They should be held accountable at all times of their presidency. They should be concerned about what can happen if they make a greviously bad decision. There should be no immunity and they should be held accountable for their actions just as every other person in this country is.
And again, in an ideal world, they would be held accountable by laws. But in this case, if we are talking Trump, he will not be because the highest court in the nation, is corrupt and planted by him as loyalists to him, and will give him a free pass and now will say it was because he had immunity. I and ideal world we wouldn't have to have this conversation, but we are not talking about an ideal world.
The president already had immunity before this ruling. You or I cannot send a missle to Iran to kill people. The president can. It's been like this for 200 years. It was like this when Trump was president. The president didn't gain any magic law dodging powers. They aren't suddenly a genie that can do whatever they want.
Please tell me what capacity any court has to enforce a ruling against a sitting President. I'll wait.
As that bastard Andrew Jackson once (allegedly) said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."
Right, that's literally the point. All a malfeasant president would need to do is declare that assassinating political rivals is an official presidential action. If the president argues that it's an official act of their office and not of their own personhood, there's little room to hold them accountable for it.
It may seem like an absolutely ridiculous argument, and that's because it is. What constitutes an "official" presidential action was left intentionally un-defined by the court, so that such ridiculous arguments could be treated as legitimate if the immunity is challenged.
Perhaps Biden could firmly establish precedent for that...two birds, etc.
I would take this at face value except for the fact that the president is the commander in chief of the largest, best equipped, most lethal, official killing organization in the planet.
Killing is, and has always been, a possible official act.
Why should we listen to you and not Sotomayor?
The only remedy the current court's ruling really allows is impeachment. It essentially means that (absent a later ruling specifying exactly what counts as a President's "official acts,") the President can do literally anything he wants and never suffer any consequences. Don't agree that what he was doing was an official act? Impeach him or stfu. He's not going to jail for breaking any law, ever.
Who's going to impeach him? They will file the articles of impeachment then get waxed that night on their way home.
As President my FIRST OFFICIAL ACT is to get a 3 Kill Streak UAV!
The article starts with ‘welp.’