And they’ve also argued that ordering assassinations of political rivals are official acts.
So now Biden has the best opportunity of all time to clean and prevent the fascist right wing usurpation of the nation.
I mean, that’s what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he’s operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?
I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they’ve opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there’d be nothing a court in this country could do about it.
Please, someone tell me I’m missing something.
“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 exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
The main thing you’re missing is that the words of the court are meaningless. They’ll always be able to use the next ruling to bend the outcome to the conservatives’ whims.
This is a government of men, not laws. Always has been.
“When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal.”
Of course that’s only for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court has already shown that they don’t care about precedent, so if Biden does something, it’ll come back up and they’ll find it was not an official act and can be prosecuted, no matter what it was.
I don’t think assassinations of political rivals would be covered under the president’s constitutional duties.
But national security is. All they would need is a flimsy justification that the person was stealing state secrets (like Trump) or organizing a terrorist attack, which could include any contact with an armed or paramilitary group that’s planning a protest. They could use state influence to coerce that group to take action, and the records of that planning process would be inadmissible per this ruling. It’s not hard to come up with superficial reasons that do align with Constitutional obligations.
Edit to add: Hell, just look at the McCarthy era, or the Iraq war. It’s not hard at all for a sufficiently shameless group of politicians to gin up a moral panic about national security. They don’t even need evidence, they just need motive. We’re real fucking close to the government being able to legally assassinate purported communists for subversion.
Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn’t mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.
Yes it does. That’s exactly what they just ruled.
I mean, they have to sign some paperwork to make it an official act, but otherwise what’s the difference? They don’t have to arrest anyone according to this ruling, if I’m reading this correctly. Sure, us normal citizens probably do, but according to the court, presidents don’t have to follow the law if it’s an official act. That’s kind of the basis of the dissent. It separates the rules we follow and our leaders have to follow.
You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.
Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.
The syllabus only says that SCOTUS can’t decide the line between official and unofficial acts because it’s a court of final review, and they offered a list of guidance to lower courts who they charged with making the distinction. They point to pp 16-32 for more detail on that guidance.
The guidance says:
-
Courts cannot consider motive
-
An act is not unofficial simply because it violates a law
-
Courts cannot consider negotiations with DoJ
-
Courts cannot consider negotiations with or influence of the VP if the VP is serving an executive branch function, but may consider influence of the VP if the VP is serving a legislative branch function (i.e. supervising the Senate)
-
Engagement with private parties is not an official act
-
Public communication of the person serving in the role of President is official, but public communication of the President serving in another role is not
-
Prosecutors cannot use a jury to indirectly infringe on immunity unless a judge has already ruled that immunity does not exist
So again, if a President sends a branch of the military to a) assassinate a terrorist or b) recover national security secrets, none of the allowable court considerations above come into play. Nor do they if the assassinated individual is a SCOTUS justice or a political rival. The executive branch and military are the only entities involved, no public communication happens, murder is OK if it’s done in an official capacity, and planning records are inadmissible. A prosecutor would have no authority to bring a case, and a court would have no precedent to allow consideration of the charge even if they were brought.
That’s a loophole the size of the Hoover Dam.
-
Thanks I’ll take a look a closer look at that section. I’m looking for any hope right now lol.
The ruling says that INTENT cannot be questioned. The President can say whatever he/she wants after the assassination, and it cannot be questioned by courts. The Pres can say that the killing stopped an imminent terror attack. They can say the person was in the middle of committing a crime and had a (totally not planted) gun on them.
I get what you are saying, that extrajudicial execution is not a faculty given to the executive branch. In the US, the judicial system is supposed to have the power over adjudicating crimes. And US citizens have the right to trial by their peers. But the government has shown repeatedly in the past that when it comes to terror that they are more than happy to waive rights. See: Guantanamo, drone kills of US citizens, cops killing people who are only suspected of being a threat, etc.
You ignored a lot of other information in my comment.
They’ve already argued that it is. They’ve literally argued that assassinating a political rival, while president, is an official act.
He didn’t want to pack the court so I’m not holding out hope that he’d empty the court either. Obviously assassinating justices would completely fuck the country up, but one could argue that the current justices are slow playing us into a fascist dictatorship.
Well, they’re doing it faster and faster lately…
One justice put that out there during oral arguments, but I’ve read the majority ruling and it doesn’t mention assassinations. The dissenting opinion does mention the question of what acts fall within official duties, including political assassinations.
Honestly, the quickest way out is to officially order the summary executions of the judges who established this new immunity - then pass a second law ordering that SCOTUS must always evenly represent all major parties, one out, one in.
Then get new judges in that will reverse the immunity ruling. That way this sort of problem won’t come up again.
Sometimes the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood. This is may be one of those times.
No need to pack the court, just a little housekeeping 💅
That’s how you create a martyr. And probably kick off a civil war if he did it openly.
But too bad he won’t, he’s too much of a chicken and Christian.
I posted this in another thread.
I am really confused about this ruling.
“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.”
He’s not being prosecuted for exercising core constitutional powers or official acts. He’s being prosecuted for election fraud, inciting an insurrectionist mob and mishandling classified documents. None of those are core constitutional powers and they clearly can’t be official acts.
Edit: I just love this part-
Without immunity, Trump’s lawyer said, sitting presidents would face “blackmail and extortion” by political rivals due to the threat of future prosecution.
Trump just faces blackmail and extortion from his political allies. Like Vladimir Putin.
They sent it back down to the lower courts because they need to determine if he was acting officially. If he was acting outside of an official constitutional capacity he is criminally responsible. If he was doing his official duties with in the constitution he’s alright.
It’ll probably end up with him hit with some charges and avoiding others.
Why does this need to be determined? He wasn’t. He just wasn’t. Nothing he is being charged with is constitutional, which is the point.
Some of the evidence that Jack Smith has put together involve some form of Trump’s official capacity. for instance, the Times notes that one of the points of the prosecution was that Trump tried to get Jeffrey Clark installed as acting AG in the days before Jan 6, presumably because he would go along with the coup. One of the findings of the Court is that appointments like that are within the President’s direct duties, and can’t be used as evidence against him, even if it can be proven that the appointment was made to directly piss on the Constitution Trump swore to protect.
The Times also notes that Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence is similarly protected now.
The Times also notes that Trump’s pressure campaign on Pence is similarly protected now.
How can that be constitutional?
Because presiding over the counting of the votes is one of the very few duties the Constitution allocates to the VP, so is covered under this new doctrine. He has the absolute right to conduct that how he sees fit, without regard to whether he is upholding his oath to the Constitution or not, and any conversations he had with the President are part of that duty, and similarly protected. If it turns out he is not upholding that oath, the only remedy is impeachment. (And finding 67 Senators to agree to convict.)
Absolute power, just as the Founders intended.
Which, I guess, includes blackmailing the VP if necessary. To protect the president from blackmail.
That’s just due process of law. The lower court can’t just wax seal issues of constitutionality with out looking at them. Doing so would be a fantastic grounds for appeal.
They already looked at them before he appealed to SCOTUS. And SCOTUS didn’t rule that they were wrong as far as I can tell.
In your opinion. It needs to be determined by a court.
It already was determined by a court. Now they’re sending it back to that court to re-determine it.
because they need to determine if he was acting officially.
this was already ruled on, reelection campaign is NOT an official capacity thing PERIOD. This move is nothing but another delay to ensure this shit falls on a date post-election
Constitutionally defined roles have absolute immunity (e.g., pardons). Other “official acts” are presumed to have immunity, but what acts are official is not well defined and as written can be very expansive. Since the Court gets to decide each one on a case by case basis, it will presumably apply more expansively to fascist allies and more narrowly to opponents. All Trump needs to do is present a flimsy excuse for how he was “protecting the election” or “making a political speech as president”. The liberal judges are correctly ringing alarm bells. “Official acts” isn’t a guardrail.
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct. Clinton, 520 U. S., at 694, and n. 19. The separation of powers does not bar a prosecution predicated on the President’s unofficial acts.
Right, and why do the questions “can a president officially commit election fraud” and “can a president officially incite a violent mob” and “can a president officially mishandle classified documents?” need to be determined? The answers have already been determined. They are all no.
After stalling just long enough to make it a problem that won’t be resolved before the election. Wonderful.
And note that they don’t give him his immunity now. They 100% will when it makes it back up to them, but they can do half the ruling now to blow off a little steam and then when they declare insurrection and espionage official acts people will already be resigned to it. Same reason they leaked the Roe ruling. They’re worried about riots and being lynched if they give people enough of a focal point to organize.
2021-01-02 Trump on a call with Georgia election officials asked them “All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state.”
Not an official act on any planet in this solar system, how is this not a loss for Trump?
The court decides which acts are official. They will declare whatever they want official. “He was doing it in his capacity as president to protect the election. He knew he won, so the votes must just be missing.”
Problem is that with this, proving that it fell under one power basically means all other laws, even ones that specifically were meant to restrict that power, are meaningless. What he did could be 100% illegal, but he can’t be prosecuted for it, so he can’t be removed from office or punished after he leaves office.
If he was making that call as the official president of the United States, speaking in an official capacity, then it doesn’t matter if the order he gives is illegal if it was within his power to order the Governor of a state to do anything at all. If it’s not in his power for him to give an order to the Governor, then he just has to say it was an official suggestion as the president of the US. There’s no restriction that says a president can’t suggest that the Governor of a state does something to benefit the president. Doesn’t matter that the thing he asked for was illegal because it can’t be questioned in court at all to determine its legality.
Now it depends on if the Governor were to actually do it. And if as president Trump decides to order the assassination of that Governor once he refused, that would not be prosecutable. The assassin would be the only one who could be punished for the illegal act.
Immunity from prosecution doesn’t mean the thing you’re doing isn’t legal, it means that no one has the right to punish you for that act. It’s still unethical to break the law, but there is no enforceable consequence.
They also included in the ruling that:
“Chief Justice Roberts determines that “official conduct,” which garners presumptive immunity under the Court’s framework, may not be used as evidence of other crimes when prosecuting former presidents.”
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-supreme-court-s-presidential-immunity-decision
My understanding, a president having an “official” meeting with his staff regarding commiting a crime that falls outside of his normal presidential duties is no longer admissible as evidence for the criminal act.
And going forward, who decides what’s an official vs. unofficial Presidential act?
The courts
Which means every case about presidential actions is appealed up to the supreme Court from now on
Why that’s easy. It’s the top elected official, of course.
It’s actually the Court, which is a convenient aspect since it means only Republicans get immunity.
Pretty much everything the president does while in office is official. So the more important question is what is within the president’s powers.
The problem with immunity rather than changing the law is that all he has to do is prove that in some circumstance he has that power and that he believes that circumstance existed at the time and he used that authority to do it.
For example, he has the power to order the military to assassinate, so the specifics of whether it was legal to assassinate a certain person can’t be questioned in court, only whether he has the power to issue that type of order. Because once it’s established that it is within his power and he states that he used his authority as president to issue the order, he is immune to any further prosecution. Also, it doesn’t matter if he ordered the CIA to do it and they don’t have that legal authority to act inside the US. In that case the president is breaking the law, he just can’t be prosecuted for it, only the CIA agents involved could be. It’s not presidential authority that is being violated in that case so it’s off the table for prosecution regardless of how illegal it is.
So, has there been a more monumentally catastrophic series of rulings like we’ve had this week?
Presidents are kings and immune to the law
Kickbacks are now legal
Executive agencies completely destroyed
I know other individual rulings may be worse, but in this case the series of rulings.
And they are all thanks to the fact that trump, not Clinton, got to appoint 3 to justices.
And there are still people who think voting for a third party is a good idea.
So…
Fuck Trump obviously. And everyone who voted for him. (Edit and fuck everyone in the voting doesn’t matter camp)
Also fuck Mitch McConnell
But god damnit, fuck Obama for not fighting Mitch, and fuck Ruth for not retiring when she should have.
I don’t know what Obama could have done, but i absolutely agree that rbg should have stepped down in the middle of her term.
I’m sure he could have done more than he did. Ultimately, they didn’t think Trump would win and didn’t fight back hard enough because they were worried about the backlash that might cause on the upcoming election.
Now, Republicans have shown that they won’t allow votes in the last year, but only if the dems have the presidency. It also set the precedent that they can even do that in the first place.
I guarantee you someone who needs replacing further out than a year will now be denied in the future for some other bullshit reason.
Edit: here’s my worst outcome guess. For all future terms where the dems hold the presidency, but not the senate, all future SC nomination votes will be denied since congress and the presidency is conflicted and we can’t have a vote while it’s in conflict.
isn’t it fun how American politics is all about the action or inaction of 80+ year old fossils? people society at large ignores when they’re family or neighbors but they’re running the whole fucking thing
And there are still people who think voting for a third party is a good idea.
Well it is. Because far to many people are simply voting for the lesser of evils, because our options have been terrible for decades. And the longer we keep perpetuation this broken system, the worse it’s going to get.
Lets say Biden wins… this exact same shit show is coming about in 4 years again. And when that orange clown was in office, people were already trying to set up a Trump dynasty… that for some fucking reason that family should just be in power. This pattern cannot continue. We need to get out of “lets go with what will hopefully do the least damage” and start voting in people that are actually going to represent the people. Sure maybe POTUS might not be the best place to start with that, but it needs to start somewhere.
And if not the Trump family, it’s going to be some other bozo like Elon (somehow) or Bezos because our political system has become that much of a joke.
The rich keep getting away with shit, nothing happens. Corrupting in our government, nothing happens. Corruption in our police, nothing happens. Rights are being taken away from people, nothing happens. In some areas of the country, public schools are now displaying the 10 commandments for some reason. Oh and public taxes are going to help fund private schools. And school shootings… and nothing happens. Our national debt is out of control. And the state on how veterans are taken care of is pathetic. I’m sick and tired of incompetent and inept leadership. So yeah, maybe a 3rd party might be a good idea. Or we can keep this shit show up until it’s too late, which is the most likely outcome.
Well it is.
Even in the outside chance that the third party wins, we still immediately revert to a two party system. It solves nothing as the nature of our voting system is to turn into a two-party system. It’s a vanity vote, that’s it.
This pattern cannot continue.
And voting third party in the presidential election does not stop it from continuing. At best it just switches what “two parties” we are voting for. If you want to stop this from continuing, you work locally to get how we get local candidates elected (like STAR or ranked) and then you work up from there. But you don’t want to. You want to just do the simple thing of casting a vote and believing you’ve “done your part” which is why it’s a vanity vote.
The presidential vote is a strategic one that you use understanding the rules of the game you are actually playing, not the one you (and I) wish you were playing.
Take some responsibility for how shitty the Democrats are. They’re not entitled to people’s votes they have to earn them. If my options are shit salad and shit sandwich I’m not worried about carbs.
I said nothing about entitlement, only pointed out the facts. You can both sides it all you want, but the last 10 days has exposed how absolutely ridiculous that position is. Although it’s long since been obvious.
there are more than two sides, Democrats would do well to realize that instead of making every election about how not Republican they are.
one of these parties will be gone in the next decade
There are a multitude of sides within the population. Unfortunately, our voting reinforces the two-party status quo.
You’re entire comment is a shit sandwich and you’re a fucking moron…eat that.
oh no you got me! enjoy the collapse of your nation
You do realize that if the USA goes to shit, the rest of the world will also go? Not because the USA went to shit, but because the shit-in-chief will be bound and determined to bring said shit to the rest of the world and cram it down y’all’s throats while shaking hands with Putin and Kim? He already talked about withdrawing from NATO and telling Putin he has carte blanche to just roll over Europe, and don’t be surprised if a few lobbyists in the military-industrial complex convince him that taking a second look at colonization of the Global South for their minerals might just be a good idea while he’s at it.
sounds like the American far-right is united behind their preferred candidate, I wonder why Democrats aren’t trying similarly to court the left with a good candidate?
aren’t you tired of bouncing between right and far right?
Of course I am. But given the choice between creeping fascism and immediate fascism, which realistically is the only choice this election, I’ll choose the one that still has options, however few, for at least a few more years, if only so other people have a chance to get out while they can or make preparations.
“My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel,”
This was the moment for the the United States where we all start “ride a camel” again. “The American Republic” Apex is over.
I tell people as often as I can, especially my trans and bipoc friends; now is the time. Get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn some basic first aid, you really just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. The police will not protect us, they’ve proven they’ll happily club senior citizens to the ground and shoot any protesters in the face with rubber bullets while escorting a rightwing murderer to safety.
Iran was a secular, liberal state until almost 1980 when they (mostly legitimately) elected an Islamist theocracy; it could happen here
When are we going to protest. This is insanity.
Here is an excerpt from the dissent:
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. 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. Korematsu 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 assassinate 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.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings 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.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
The Supreme Court does what ever the hell they want so I guess the president should be able to do the same.
This is so much broader than the title is suggesting
When this first dropped, all the news media had kind of cautious titles. It wasn’t until after their legal reporters actually read it that they started getting the point.
I’m kind of scared to listen to the next episode of strict scrutiny, I’m worried for all of their Mental Health.
After mulling this over for these few hours, I realize what this ruling really does is render the President unaccountable to his Oath of Office. Any official act is presumed to be totally legal by the courts, unless he is impeached and removed from office over it. Much of his communications with his staff is now also not subject to review anywhere but Congress, as part of a formal impeachment proceeding.
A President is now officially a king, restrained by no law in what he can use his office to do, as long as he has the support of half of the House, or 1/3 of the Senate.
America just got a MASSIVE step towards a dictator. WTAF is going on? I’m in the wrong timeline…
He could “officially” shoot someone on 5th Ave.
This ruling sounds good on its face, but it’s mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.
-
It doesn’t define what is or isn’t an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it’s up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn’t on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can’t be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I’m sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!
-
It also says it is the government’s burden to prove an act isn’t official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.
-
It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn’t absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn’t clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.
-
Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.
-
It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don’t do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person’s job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.
Read the dissents, they’re very clear in this not being only somewhat bad.
-
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts.
The President enjoys no immunity for his unofficial acts, and not everything the President does is official. The President is not above the law.
