I see they have chosen violence. It is regrettable.
Arm phasers.
I’m honestly dumbfounded that there aren’t riots, but then again they knew what they were doing with the timing of this and the Chevron ruling.
Yep, last week on “The Supremos”, corrupt justices legalized bribery in one decision, then declared themselves the ultimate regulators in the next.
I mean, the ruling is just hours old.
Young enough for Trump to try to hit on it!
…ok that was gross. :P
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
The thing that bugs me is how any order given to subordinates is a use of executive power, right? So that’s immune. But say the subordinate considered refusing an unlawful order. Why, then would they decide to refuse the order when the president could also choose to pardon them for any crimes they committed during the execution of the unlawful order?
The fix was in a long time ago. I’ve said it before… America is a shithole.
Happy cakeday.
Thanks!
This is just depressing.
Democracy in the USA ended today. It will be in the history books about the end of democracy.
The rule of law ended today. Democracy will end if the christo-fascists win the election.
for reference this same move of getting immunity from a fixed court was also huge for cementing the Chavez and Putin regimes in Venezuela and Russia.
This is a very important point, yes.
But by then, that history book will be banned, and only the bible will be left in schools (that will all be private)
The only sane thing to do, full on assassinate, or kidnap in secret and report youve assassinated, all the justices that ruled in favor of presidential immunity. Nominate a new set of justices, with confirmation under threat of further assassinations, bring the case back before the new supreme court to rule against presidential immunity
Yes. Remove the conservative justices, institute new ones, undo all the bad SCOTUS decisions of the last 4 years, implement standards/ethics/accountability laws for the justices, put greater limits on their powers, and then remove the president’s “king” status. Also put Trump in jail for life. It is the only way to save this country. Today, democracy in the US is completely gone. It’s over.
deleted by creator
Personally, I don’t care if Trump and conservatives go to jail. It’s not like any of their politics is anything more than imaginary white grievance and 4th Reich. They aren’t a legitimate political party. They’re like one of the few illegitimate political party I can count on my hand and feet.
It doesn’t matter. Democrats. Republicans. Neither would be serving the people anymore they would just be fighting for power.
Can you imagine?
I think democrats, today, do try to govern. Their attempts often feel like they are just going through the motions. It must be hard trying to do your job when you see everything crumbling around you and you have a reality TV show host threatening to tear down everything you’re working on.
If Biden, today, decided he wanted to extra judiciously “save democracy” the democrats would terminate any moral high ground they ever claimed to have. They would see revolt from outside and from within. Their only choice would to be bring everyone to their heel.
We know there is no such thing as a benevolent king. If I had to choose between DNC or GOP dictatorship I’d prob go DNC. Except I’ve watched the DNC pretend their morals are superior. I watch it as they crush us all for the sake of decorum. To the DNC we are just a wall dressing while they enjoy all the privilege power affords them. Given absolute power, they abandon trying to do the right thing and dictate to us how capitalism is the only way.
I think democrats, today, do try and govern.
I don’t.
One of the parties have people like AOC, and Bernie Sanders. Those with you know, history of fighting for people. The other? Can’t name any one.
… Bernie is an independent
Who caucus with the Democratic Party.
Yes. The supreme court just made it legal for the president to destroy the country by doing all that. Do you see the problem?
deleted by creator
No one is going to believe your arguments over the dissenting judges.
It is also very telling you’ve responded to no comments mentioning what the dissenting judges have said.
The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded. The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone and therefore enjoys no immunity for doing so. The dissent is not serious and should be treated as such.
The president enjoys no authority to assassinate anyone
obama thanks you for not remembering that time he assassinated a 16 year old american citizen.
The dissent is in bad faith and should be discarded.
Based upon what?
The bar for internet rando invalidating legal expert is pretty high BTW.
deleted by creator
Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent that basically says that anything can be an official act (with enough creativity i’m sure) and it’s not hyperbole.
Biden, I urge you to, once your cold has passed, begin officially eating treasonous Supreme Court justices. Who’s going to say it’s unconstitutional? Not the Supreme food Court.
Damn, if that’s not what they call the cafeteria in the Supreme Court Building, I’m going to be thoroughly disappointed.
Last person out, please turn out the lights.
Sotomayor’s written dissent explicitly says that this decision makes the US President a king that and can now act with impunity. This is effectively the end of the republic as described by the constitution.
That’s a bingo!
Biden can be the first President since Washington to give back the power to We the People. He needs some official acts that return the power back to We the People. If they’re considered crimes by the right wing fascists, don’t worry. It would take too long to investigate, prosecute, and hold him accountable. His old age is also a super power!
What a power move that could be.
“Currently, any act, no matter how illegal, is available to me without repercussions due to this Supreme Court decision. So I am going to fix that. I would like an amendment to be put forth explicitly stating as much, and also would like to have an amendment put in place to establish ethical rules for the Supreme Court and an enforcement method for it. Keep in mind, currently any action I consider part of my duties, including… removing… legislators who vote against Democracy itself, until I have enough of a majority of whoever is left t9 accomplish the same goal. Before that, though, I would like a voting reform to establish rules across the nation to maximize voter participation and remove gerrymandering and other systems to diminish the voting power of any group.”
This is how the power could be used for good and to restore our democracy. King Joe needs to do this and then give up the power that Chief Justice Roberts and his corrupt cohorts gave him. He needs to move swiftly or even HYPER EXPEDITIOUSLY.
Accountability for these biased, compromised, and corrupt Justices needs to happen now. Special Ops need to deploy and execute ASAP.
Biden definitely needs to make a move here, but I don’t see that working. There’s a difference between “the POTUS is immune from criminal liability”, and “the POTUS has the power to alter the government as they choose”, at least, there is for a President that isn’t going to enforce their changes with violence, which Biden hasn’t shown any sign of being.
Perhaps there’s a way to swing this new legal freedom in a way that does something like that, I’m not smart enough to figure that out. I do at least know that, if this isn’t addressed A fucking SAP, then the US is in some serious trouble.
That all sounds very complicated, there is a much simpler way, in an official act of course, to deal with traitors:
Title 18 §2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, …
I already commented on Biden’s willingness to enact violence on his political rivals.
Everything’s possible through the magic of drone strikes. “Oh, I can’t do that, can I? Well, I’ll just call up the ol’ reaper team and see what they think. You’re going to miss the impeachment hearing, btw, and so will everyone else if they know what’s good for them”
Again, I already addressed the violence approach. Does nobody read the full comment?
Ok, so biden can officially order the assassination of the right wing supreme court justices and Trump, then appoint replacement judges and lobby congress for a constitutional amendment permanently stripping presidents of their absolute immunity. Since his orders would have occurred while he had immunity, he’d be in the clear, he’d have illustrated the flaw in the ruling, removed a dangerous individual, and prevented future abuses. Win.
He won’t. Too honourable.
Summon Genocide Joe where he’s actually needed.
He won’t, but honor has nothing to do with it. He’s a democrat and therefore unwilling to wield power he’s been given.
The Democrats’ achilles heel.
There are some democratic politicians that might be interested into taking the offer up, but it isn’t public, nor they won’t reveal it. Can’t name any, but I can imagine at least 1 is out there. On the other side of aisle, we already know Republicans wants to enact the fourth reich and just about all of them wants to execute their political opponents.
Yep, it’s an “official act”.
When haven’t presidents been able to order assassinations?
He could just dissolve the supreme court, it would be a little easier. I doubt the (current) military would actually carry out any sort of assassination. The military leadership are selected and it is instilled in them to pledge loyalty to the nation, not the president.
The big thing everyone is missing here is the ruling says the president cannot be prosecuted for actions that are constitutional. So this does not mean the end of democracy or whatever people are saying. The president can’t stay in office after his term expires. The president cannot order his political opponents killed- in fact, the Supreme Court issued a statement on that just this year.
Yeah well I guess we’ll see what happens if the orange jackass gets reelected. I’m not holding my breath.
Everyone needs to vote against the draft dodging felon rapist that is Trump.
You say that like it’s a defined thing that will keep a president in check. SCOTUS rules on constitutionality. Are you really that confident that they’ll keep Trump in line if he gets another term and starts really getting to work? The road to fascism isn’t paved with goods intentions, it’s paved with mealy mouthed, two faced decisions like this that give more and more leeway until it’s too late to take back.
deleted by creator
Amici curae aren’t Supreme Court decisions. “Amici curae” means “friend of the court”. It’s an argument from third parties submitted for a pending case. The dissents by the actual Supreme Court justices explicitly reference the assassination potential.
That is true, thank you for explaining that to me. Although I read the dissent and what Sotomayor said was that the president would get their day in court to determine if those actions were constitutional, not that this ruling pre-approves them to do so. Meanwhile Roberts said these concerns are overblown… idk really, I don’t like the ruling, it basically feels like an expansion of qualified immunity to the president, which makes things more difficult for prosecuters but not impossible.
Qualified immunity for someone who single handedly controls the most powerful military in the world. Fabulous idea.
Can’t wait for the gunning down of protestors. Gilead, here we come!
They’re only pre-approved for explicit constitutional duties, but they’re presumed immune for all others and their reasoning can’t be questioned. “I believed they were an imminent national security threat and took the hard choice.” It’s like “I feared for my life” for gun nuts, but you can apply it to nearly anything because the president has expansive emergency responsibilities and the only way to prove he wasn’t actually taking an action “officially” would be using his private communications, but any communications with “advisors” are precluded from being used.
And anything that makes it through that gauntlet to the Supreme Court rather than being dismissed earlier will be decided on ideological grounds.
Yes, and that is very important and I did not know that, so thank you for clarifying.
That said, this supreme court interprets the constitution however they want. The court in its current form (as a whole) is not ethical, lawful, or legitimate. As soon as a republican takes the presidency, there is no stopping them.
They didn’t rule this, that was a “friend of the court” briefing by outside interests.
Did they just make it legal for the president to be officially crooked?
Citizens United was the first step to make it blatantly legal by being able to hide donations in a way that makes make it easy to give money directly to candidates from any source, foreign and domestic.
Then that “it was a gratuity, not a bribe” ruling last week means anyone can just buy off politicians in the open.
So as of this morning it is legal for a foreign country to bribe the president to have someone assassinated.
Yup
Very legal and very cool
Maybe. But Biden still has time for it to not be so cool for Trump.
Yes
Surely if something he does is unconstitutional, it is not within his official capacity or power!?
But somehow I have a feeling I’m being extremely naive just thinking that.The SCOTUS majority just decided that nothing the president does is illegal, at least in a way that can ever be prosecuted.
Wouldn’t this mean a president has an obligation to kill his political opponents if they’re seen as a threat to the United States, and as an official act, it would be completely legal? Effectively making one man above the law.
Even if it’s not seen as an official act, you can’t charge the president while they’re in the office, and with that power and a loyal justice department, you could eliminate anyone who might try to argue the legality of your actions.
Good luck convincing anyone to bring a case against the guy who keeps making people disappear when they investigate him.
This + project 2025 & a trump presidency is the end of US democracy. I don’t even wanna start thinking about the impacts globally…
Yes.
Biden should just pass an official law that SCOTUS must be evenly split between major parties.
This couldn’t be illegal to do anymore, as Biden will be immune, as it’ll be an official act.
Biden can’t pass laws, Congress does that.
No, he can just order members of Congress to be executed until they pass the law he wants.
I would rather he just pack the bench to 50 seats, one for each state, fast track nominations, and force congress to stay in session until a full court is appointed by putting hoteling them in the vicinity and only allowing them movement between hotels and congressional chambers. This would be in his power and immune as official acts after all.
Well that’s true! :)
Are you saying it might be a crime for a President to unilaterally invent a new law and make the federal government enforce it? Well, you see…
No just unconstitutional which is what the scotus exists to make judgments about. They just take it upon themselves to judge everything else too…
You are confusing the United States that existed until this decision with the United States that exists after this decision. As long as it’s an official act, the president can now do whatever it wants. If the supremes court objects, the president and threaten or assassinate the justices as long as it’s an official act. The President is now effectively a king. Read Sotomayor’s dissent in this decision. She explicitly states this.
That’s the thing, for the executive branch, passing laws is not an official act. It’s outside that branch of government. That’s what the Legislative branch does.
It would be like Biden overturning a court ruling. That’s the Judicial branch, not your dance.
I get it. This is how government functions according to the constitution. Please understand however, under this new interpretation there is no effective legal check on the executive doing anything at all. Yes, it’s not official for the president to do that, but there is no enforcement mechanism, and the president now has authority to coerce anyone or any institution. I know it is difficult to grasp the implications of that, but that is in fact what the Supreme Court did today.
That’s the plan right, that’s part of Project 2025, to instantiate Unitary Executive Theory to make everything they do legal regardless of courts and impeachment trials.
The Constitution as we knew it is null and void.
So in your opinion, did they just reaffirm something like the presumption of innocence but it’s tailored for someone who’s job it is to sometimes order the deaths of people? So he has “The presumption of immunity” when making otherwise illegal orders, until it’s otherwise determined by a court case, or impeachment hearing? Is that what’s going on?
It protects any official action.
So, for example, the notorious drone strikes that Obama ordered which killed a bunch of innocent people.
As commander in chief, that’s an official act, he would have immunity.
Bush and Abu Ghraib torture? Same.
Bear in mind that the drone strikes are less attributed to Trump because he revoked or ignored accountability rules and authorized the CIA and defense department to conduct drone strikes without seeking authorization from the White House.
It’s easy to assume that Trump was ‘better’, but nope. He was much, much worse. He just hid the evidence and delegated the crime to others.
Under Donald Trump, drone strikes far exceed Obama’s numbers – Chicago Sun-Times
That’s…not how it works. Like where your heart is, but this makes no sense.
That’s not how it worked. Past tense!
We all know it’s not how it works, but that’s precisely what Trump et al will try to do. This is just malicious compliance.
Presidents can’t pass laws any more then you or I can. Even Trump isn’t insane enough to think he can.
Well now you’re just speaking out your ass
Trump could now argue he, as sitting president, was threatened in his functioning by the new president elect, and it was an official act to block the transfer of power as long as the sitting president has concerns about the validity of the votes. (Ofcourse he always has those concerns)
And now with the coming elections he will claim the same and as a bonus he officially and in the open has the republicans refuse to certify a losing vote because that also threatens his position and impedes his functioning.
If the lower courts now claim his acts were not official he will just appeal that back to the Supreme Court, thereby still delaying any closure of the case well after the elections.
People aren’t reading the article. They did not rule that he is immune because his acts were official.
They ruled that official acts, and not unofficial acts, convey immunity, and remanded to lower courts to determine whether his acts should be considered official or unofficial.
I felt like I must have misread the ruling after seeing all of the articles and comments.
Former presidents also have a “presumption of immunity” for their official acts while in office — but, the court ruled, there is no immunity for “unofficial acts.”
So chutkin is going to decide what acts were official acts and which were unofficial.
But “presumption of immunity” is a weird fucking phrase too because it makes it seem like you can prove they aren’t immune? Like presumption of innocence–you start there and work the other way. So presumably(pardon the pun) you can start there with this and work the other way still?
I’d need actual lawyers to make this make sense.
But either way it didn’t seem as “carte Blanche presidents can do anything” to me when I read it.
We’re waiting at this point for the lower courts to to decide which of Trump’s egregious crimes were “official” or not. In the meantime, all his trials get suspended. In January, if he takes office, they will vanish when he becomes a dictator on day one (his words).
I’d need actual lawyers to make this make sense.
You mean like the dissenting judges?
But either way it didn’t seem as “carte Blanche presidents can do anything” to me when I read it.
Read the dissent. The most qualified people say it is literally carte blanche in the dissent.
They’ve already said Donny is most likely immune for pressuring Pence to overturn the electoral college. Yeah, they’ve remanded it to lower court, but it’s already clear if the lower court doesn’t go the way they want, the Supremos will just flip it.
The problem is that they effectively expanded everything the President does to be an official act, and foreclosed a reasonable inquiry into whether an action is actually official.
They gave it absolute immunity. That means there is no way to appeal, to argue, to halt, stop, or sue any act by a president. Even arguing whether or not the act is official would be a type of qualified immunity. Meaning that, if you are the office holder of president, everything you do has carte blanche, de facto legality. Sure, some future court could devise a test for this official vs unofficial distinction, but it means nothing for the near future. Biden is now a monarch with no legal method of stopping whatever he wishes to do, so long as it doesn’t explicitly fall outside of the extremely broad powers of the executive as defined by SCOTUS and the constitution. Likewise with any future officer holder.
That’s not what they ruled at all. They said there was immunity for official acts, specifically citing constitutional powers like appointing judges, commanding the military and recognizing foreign states. That was honestly never in question. A lot of people are reading this wrong. This was a massive punt, which basically opens up the door for a jury to decide what constitutes an official act.
Hi! I’m a real big dumb dumb, cause I never, ya know, studied law. But I sure do know that with SCOTUS decisions, the dissenting should be read as well, to get the proper context of the decision that the opinion won’t state. Sotomayor sums up the majority decision like this, and she’s a damn sight more knowledgeable than I could ever be:
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence con- cerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical.
You should really read it, it’s such an important read.
PS: Sorry for formatting, it’s copied verbatim from the dissenting pdf
Yeah? And who decides what’s official? Ultimately, that also will end up with the SC
RIOT
deleted by creator
Thats not gonna cut it. I’m down now. I’ll lose my job over losing my democracy.
Where we marching?
DC
We got rally points set up? These jackasses are gonna try to turn us into slaves so they can survive the climate inferno.
You sure do get what you pay for.
