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 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.
He won’t. Too honourable.
Summon Genocide Joe where he’s actually needed.
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.
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.
Yep, it’s an “official act”.
When haven’t presidents been able to order assassinations?
Dear Biden, the path forward is now clear. Do what needs to be done.
removed by mod
I’m clairvoyant and I can see the future: They won’t. It’s always been all bark and no bite when it comes to armed revolution here in the states.
Well I suppose not always. We did have a revolutionary war and a civil war.
But anybody alive today? Less bite than a newborn.
Also the Whiskey rebellion and Union/county wars, but nobody remembers them because they were relatively small. Also a lot of Rednecks especially Boomers and Gen X ended up being fucken bootlickers, sure there are some of us within Gen Z who are trying to revers the damage but well culture rarely moves fast.
Hey now, don’t besmirch the name Redneck with those sad sods. The Rednecks fought the good fight at the Battle of Blair Mountain, only to be put down by the US military backing robber barons.
Oh no I agree, I was moreso opining the damage done to Redneck culture as a whole. I may be of the Southern Californian variety and have little to no relations to those fine sons of bitches in the Appalachians but I have nothing but respect for mine distant kin. No I was simply stating that the bootlickers in who were taken advantage of through several points of cultural weakness did a shit tonne of damage. I have had the pleasure of talking to Rednecks of the Greatest generation and Silent generation, theyre no shits given savagery is something I wish I could muster but given the fact at least one of them car bombed one of his bosses and smuggled guns to the IRA I can say that I will never match up. But im still doing better than the Boomers.
2A has been toothless for awhile. What good is stock modded AR15 supposed to do against tanks and fighters jets.
And that’s why they didn’t bother with guns in Iraq. Defeating the Americans was hopeless; mission accomplished.
This response is so weird I can’t quite tell what your point is. Are you suggesting that the Iraqis resisted with small arms fire? Because that’s not the case.
More US citizens die each year in the US from guns than US soldiers died in the entirety of the Iraq war. And it’s not a small difference either - each year 4-5x as many citizens die from gun violence. Not including suicides (which would more than double the number)
So was your post trying to say the small arms resistance in Iraq was effective?
cough Vietnam cough
When a group of American freedom fighters go to take over a U.S.A. military base and hesitant soldiers aren’t sure if they should follow a traitorous president or their oath to the Constitution, the American freedom fighters being well-armed will make the difference.
We could probably mount a pretty decent resistance with what we have available. look what happened in iraq during the occupation. insurgency would be the way to go in a rebellion against the us govt.
Exactly why I think americans who say the 2A needs to stay to overthrow a fascist government is full of shit. I would love to be proven wrong though
To be fair, the fighting would be guerilla warfare which the us hasn’t been that great at dealing with.
might have a tough time as a guerilla when your maga neighbors are informing on you
remember what we used to do with collaborators during the french resistance?
I’m a pacifist and don’t want to glorify violence at all but, the 'RA also was very effective at dealing with collaborators and informers. Minority rule cannot sustain itself in the long-term.
I used to be a pacifist too. But apparently, peaceful protests can be too easily ignored.
Takes all kinds.
20 years of war, 2,459 US lives, plus about 3 months.
It’s still good enough to shoot people who accidentally step on your lawn, or the teachers and co-students you had a disagreement with.
Unfortunately the ones who say that about 2A are on the side of the nationalists.
Lol yeah right.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents are “absolutely” immune from criminal prosecution when their actions involve allegedly official acts while they were in office.
In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts remanded the case to the lower courts, which now have to determine whether Trump’s conduct was official or unofficial.
A grand jury approved an indictment against Trump in August for charges including conspiracy to defraud the US and obstructing an official proceeding.
Trump faces a series of legal challenges across the country both at the state and federal levels.
Most recently, he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York in a trial over hush money payments, including payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels to suppress a story about her and Trump having sex.
That means — unlike in the state case — that if Trump were convicted but elected president, he could potentially pardon himself.
The original article contains 298 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 49%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
You sure do get what you pay for.
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.
Did they just make it legal for the president to be officially crooked?
Yup
Yes
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.
Very legal and very cool
Maybe. But Biden still has time for it to not be so cool for Trump.
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.
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.
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.
That’s…not how it works. Like where your heart is, but this makes no sense.
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
That’s not how it worked. Past tense!
Biden can’t pass laws, Congress does that.
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…
No, he can just order members of Congress to be executed until they pass the law he wants.
Well that’s true! :)
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.
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.
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
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.
9 people decide to allow presidents to act as dictators
Six.
All 9 were part of the decision making. For me it is amazing that so important decisions are left to so few
Someone must always make decisions, a world where no decisions are made would devolve into a Mad Max type thing, where the fact that we are members of the animal kingdom would become very readily apparent. We used to decide these things with trial by combat, where the most skilled warrior (or who chose the most skilled as their champion) was right because God apparently said so, by making him so good at fighting. Still a person making a decision. Not far off from a world where you decide if someone was a witch by trying to build a bridge out of them.
The modern trick is dividing up the decision-making power so much that nobody can assemble it all into their personal toolkit and fully embrace corruption with no consequences.
The vote was 6 to 3, dividing along partisan lines.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/01/us/trump-immunity-supreme-court
9 people had the influence to decide.
Trump’s appointments tipped the balance. They didn’t “decide” as much as been taken over. It’s a part of the judicial system gone rogue and Congress is supposed to reign it back in.
So 9 people.
Edit: Funny how people refuse to recognize the body still consist of 9 people, and the key is that it needs to be a majority of those 9.
The level of corruption of the court is another matter.6
Unless you think similarly in presidential elections.
Unless you think similarly in presidential elections.
When a majority elects a representative, it’s called the will of the people. So yes it is perfectly normal to consider the group collectively.
It’s similar to saying a team played badly, because collectively they did, even if a couple of players didn’t.
So you can say 6 or 9 both are correct, meaning the “correction” was unnecessary.
It’s similar to saying a team played badly
Yes, but the comment didn’t say that the SCOTUS decided, it said 9 people did. Would you say that 53 people played badly? That’s how many are on the team, after all.
OK I can see your point. I suppose I stand corrected.
Do you not understand the words you used or the word dissent.
I see from your own argument that you were a Trump supporter in 2016. Not someone I’d listen about anything.
I was never was and never will be a Trump supporter, or even Republican so you see wrong.
But I can see from your comment that you are one to jump to conclusions without reason, so “Not someone I’d listen about anything”.The person you’re arguing with made the point that if you hold the ones who voted against the bad thing happening as partly responsible, by the same logic, you should hold people who voted for Clinton in 2016 partly responsible for the election of Trump.
I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either the entire USA including you is responsible for Trump becoming president and the entire SCOTUS is responsible for today’s ruling, or you’re not responsible for Trump winning and the three dissenters are also not responsible for today’s ruling.
I get that you’re angry, and it’s a good day to be angry, the day that they ended democracy, but maybe be more selective about who you’re angry with and sometimes try to check if maybe there are some valid things people can disagree with you about.
at which point 3 people’s views were ignored which is why they dissented to the majority opinion. Joe Biden in 2020 had 51.5% of the vote, under your same logic 155 million people as a group decided to elect Joe Biden. Which, while technically true, you’re pushing semantics at that point that minimizes the differences in views and opinions.
at which point 3 people’s views were ignored
They are still part of a body of 9.
Right, so six.
Funny how people refuse to recognize the body still consist of 9 people
funny how you are proud of your kindergarten logic
and the key is that it needs to be a majority of those 9.
and the majority in this case was… wait for it… SIX PEOPLE 😂
so “the court decided to…” or “6 members decided to…” is true, but “9 members decided to…” is not true, because 3 members decided not to.
similarly you can say “51% of people voted for biden” or “people voted for biden”, but not “100% of people voted for biden” - because that would simply not be true.
if you have any other difficult question, like why is water wet, don’t hesitate to ask 😂
Joe Biden is ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE if he decides to Assassinate a Supreme Court Justice according to the Supreme Court Justices!
You know as well as I do that this ruling will only apply to Trump. They’ll have some other bullshit to come up with if Biden wants to do literally anything, but Trump will have absolute immunity.
Trump IS going to win and with this ruling we just created a king…
Who’s gonna apply it?
60% of the house and 51% of Congress
He doesn’t even have to assassinate 1 or 2. Thomas committed tax fraud on his RV deal and Alito probably did on his bribes. Joe Biden apparently has dictatorial powers over the IRS and DOJ. Start arresting people and when Trump supporters act up, use emergency powers to drone strike Mar-a-Lago. Those are all official acts.
Biden doesn’t have the balls to do this. It would be cool as heck if he did.
Maybe not. But Dark Brandon does…
If there were ever a time for Dark Brandon to emerge, this would be it!
No. No, it would not. The cooler thing would be to deny SCOTUS in this. Their interpretation of this is far and away the wrong decision. Playing by the new rule only legitimizes it. Pull an Andrew Jackson, deny SCOTUS their ruling and continue as though nothing happened. Same with the end of Chevron deference and Roe.
Make it nice and official though!
Ah, right, certainly the next President will also behave the same way…
This feels terribly naive. It would be one thing if we could cement into the Constitution that the President does not have immunity, but Congress can barely pass a funding bill, let alone an amendment. But failing to use the power granted to try and set the country on a better path just ensures that a dictator will rise who does not care about keeping the status quo. And Trump will have a rubber-stamp SC that will say any act he seems to be official is.
Wild response
The idea od suggesting following any prior tactics of Andrew Jackson is revolting, as cool as your response is
Andrew Jackson was a racist pursuing genocide, but he was right that the court doesn’t have any inherent power to enforce its edicts. That was explicitly outlined in the Federalist Papers as a reason giving court “ultimate decider” powers wasn’t a problem.
I admire your intelligence.
But he won’t, and neither will any Dem presidents, which is what the right wing SCOTUS is counting on.
Lord Trump the first won’t have such qualms…
I mean… I actually agree with (aspects of) that ruling. A nation’s leader is going to have to, by necessity, do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”
The issue is defining what counts as an “official act” and having any kind of checks and balances on that.
For example: Let’s look at the purely hypothetical example of an outgoing president engaging in a violent insurrection against the US government in an attempt to prevent losing power. Crazy, right? But, in that example, it is not at all a stretch that said former president is an enemy of the state. There is a lot of legal discussion on whether it is legal to pop them in the head without a series of trials but it is in that range where it is probably better than not to give the elected POTUS immunity in that situation.
But what if that outgoing president insisted that it was an “official act” to lead that violent insurrection? No intelligent person would at all consider that a defense.
do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put “war”
Note that as bad as that is and as evil as it has sometimes been, it is “legal”, and thus not subject to criminal prosecution. It is specifically legal for the president to do that sketchy stuff.
For an “official” act to be illegal, but not subject to prosecution just makes no sense. It shouldn’t be possible for an illegal act to be “official”.
Extra bonkers is the 5/4 opinion that you can’t even mention official acts, like if you accept a bribe in exchange for an appointment, you can’t mention the appointment while trying to prosecute the bribe.
Prior presidents have done all kinds of shady shit without worrying about prosecution. Even the angry orange didn’t get charged until he tried to overthrow an election.
There was zero reason to even decide this case except to give immunity to someone who blatantly abuses their authority.
From the dissent:
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
When the foremost observers of the fascist cabal say their ruling is “just as bad as it sounds”, I will take their word for it.
The coup marches on.
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.
I mean, the ruling is just hours old.
Young enough for Trump to try to hit on it!
…ok that was gross. :P
Yep, last week on “The Supremos”, corrupt justices legalized bribery in one decision, then declared themselves the ultimate regulators in the next.
I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Are the Dems gonna do anything or is America as we know it just going to die, “get out and vote” isn’t going to cut it when they can just say it doesn’t count
If we get enough Dems to be able to pack the court then the “they” changes.
Why bother, the president can just make an official act to suspend the elections as the country is being “invaded” by the southern border, and call it treason for anyone to oppose it. A lower court would do what? Say it is wrong and commit treason? Can arrest them faster than judges can have required cases.
At this point I’ll take what I can get.
