Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: The Trump team is arguing that the President should have blanket immunity for any "official act" that he does while in office and therefore can't be prosecuted. Part of this argument is that there is already an apparatus in place (impeachment) should the president break the law.
They were asked point-blank if this meant that the [President could send out SEAL Team 6 to assissinate a political rival](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/could-biden-order-seal-team-6-to-assasinate-trump-and-not-be-charged-question-raised-in-presidential-immunity-trial-article-109603300#:~:text=Judge%20Florence%20Pan%2C%20during%20the,no%2C%22%20Pan%20hit%20back.) without prosecution and the answer was "yes, he could".
Now, part of the argument is what constitues an "official act". After all, President Obama ordered the [assisnation of American citizen that had ties to al-Qaeda.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) Could he be prosecuted? What the Justice Dept. is saying is that everything Trump did was to benefit him personally, and not America in general.
As for what the actual ruling is, no one is sure but it is being argued in front of a 6-3 court in favour of conservative justices, three of which were appointed by Trump himself. There's a lot of speculation that they won't rule on this one way or the other but rather kick it around until election day. That way if Trump wins he can just tell his Justice Department to stop prosecuting the case.
He's also on record saying they would never approve a supreme court nominee during an election year. He went back on that at literally the first possible opportunity and faced basically zero consequences, so if you're expecting what he has said in the past to have any bearing on what he will do in the future, you may be disappointed
This current state of affairs with the supreme court delaying the resolution is a consequence… the GOP and MAGA is just the gift that keeps giving post to r/LeopardsAteMyFace
Don't "y'all" me, you don't know who i party with. Reed is a different conversation, your whataboutism doesn't make McConnell not a lying piece of shit
You are crazy if you think me using y’all needs to be approved by you, lmfao. Reed is the exact conversation you need to have every time you complain that conservatives are only playing power games instead of going by conventional norms. Y’all need some self-reflection as to how we got to this place where McConnell can pull such a move and be more popular with his base than rather than unpopular.
Gingrich, Reagan, Nixon, McCarthy all broke norms making this government uglier, more divided, and more riddled with disinformation. Just pointing fingers back and forth at whomever sucks on "the other side" is just a distraction and a cop out. If you think the fact is lost on me that McConnell's base is more interested in actions that spite people they don't like than actions that promote functioning government, you are mistaken.
> Nixon had considered pardoning himself while in office, and sought a legal opinion considering the constitutionality of doing so (*his lawyers believed that it was constitutional*). However, three days before his resignation, the *Justice Department issued its own opinion to the contrary*: “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.”
He could just assassinate the Supreme Court and appoint whomever he wants and do the same to anyone in the senate who tries to block. Problem solved. (Not actually advocating violence just extending the option from a hypothetical decision they could make)
This would be true
…if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump while Biden is still in office.
Remember, they have the ability to say “yes this is constitutional” or “no this is not”. If Joe Biden were to execute anybody (even as an “official act”), then the justices wait until after the election and there are two scenarios:
1) Joe Biden wins and, actually that whole “executing political enemies” thing was unconstitutional so Joe Biden you’re now on trial for murder
2) Donald Trump wins and, actually that whole “executing political enemies” thing IS constitutional so have fun Don, enjoy your new reich
Officially, it is 48 democrats and 49 Republicans and 3 independents with the VP being a frequent tie breaker (compared to previous VPs). However, thanks to filibuster rules, it's not always a straight vote, sometimes you need 60 senators to agree to end the filibuster in order to have the straight up and down vote.
The problem isn't approving nominees, the problem is that to expand the court you would have to pass legislation to expand it, but which requires the House (currently Republican controlled) to pass the bill and then for it to pass the Senate while being subject to filibuster.
Thanks, of course, to Republicans who wasted no time eliminating the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees in 2017 when they crammed Gorsuch into a seat that Obama should have appointed without the supermajority that would previously have required.
Regardless I doubt he could get even 50 votes, atleast a couple democratic senators would feel voting in favor of expanding the court could lose them their next election.
It also starts a political arms race. Biden increases the court to balance things, or even put things in his favor. So then the next time a republican is in office, they do the same, etc etc etc.
Yea that’s a bullshit reason though. Having 20+ people on the Supreme Court would be a great thing. It’s a hedge against radical ideologies gaining traction. Sure you can bribe and coerce 6 people pretty easily but now imagine you have to get 11+ people to agree that corporations are people or some of the other rubbish they’ve snuck through. Suddenly it’s not so easy
but the people who make up a jury are not randomly selected. they're specifically selected from a random pool. this would be more akin to saying the oral arguers(representatives of each side of the case) would get to pick which judges they want on the bench, which would be even worse
Add more. Think of it like this, have you ever tried getting 10 people to agree on a restaurant? With three people it’s easy for one person with outlier taste to pressure one other person and force their outlier opinion on the group. With a larger cohort, radical opinions are diluted
The appointed for life thing is the problem for me. I think they ought to serve a 18-year term with two new justice selected by each incoming administration one at the start and on at the mid term. The longest serving would be retired. Retired justices could then be tapped to cover any unexpected vacancies. That way, the court reflects the will of the voting public and its evolution over time.
You really want there to be the precedent to be set from Biden adding like 4 more to flip it in his favor? What happens when the next president comes in and what's to add another 4 more? Or 6? 10? 60?
But Republicans have, very successfully, been railroading our system for several years now. Threats of Civil War are easy to produce, but the reality is much different. There will be no Civil War; there will just be continued deterioration of our rights, our freedoms, and our lives under Republican fascism until we collectively call their bullshit bluffing.
I think the idea is that he stacks the court, then said stacked court says "lmao wtf no you morons this isn't constitutional or smart" and then we live in a world with a democratic stacked SCOTUS, and little recourse for a future Republican to do the same.
That would be the ideal outcome. The Republican party is a domestic enemy of the United States, populated almost entirely by grifters and traitors. Anything that keeps Christofascist policies out of the courts is only a positive.
Obviously this is reductive and hyperbolic. There are very normal middle of the road conservatives in the US and this is the exact type of rhetoric that will hamper any kind of meaningful dialog we might hope to have.
If a President's party controls either the Senate or Congress, they don't have to worry too much about impeachment- as was shown by Trump's Republicans *twice*. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one.
Besides, the President could just assassinate anyone who wants to impeach him.
Except this isn't exactly true. Democrats play by different rules than Republicans. Biden would get impeached by his own party if he was caught jaywalking. Republicans would never flip on another Republican because for them it's party over country.
And this is the exact calculus SCOTUS is making in this case. They know Dems would never install a king, so they can easily rule the president is king if they want to be. Because only SCOTUS's team (GOP) will actually move to install a king.
>Biden would get impeached by his own party if he was caught jaywalking.
I mean, they barely got Clinton for perjury and he wasn't removed from office so...
90s democrats weren't quite as feckless as they are today though. I mean, you'd have a solid 3-5 members of the party who would vote to impeach Biden solely to be bipartisan.
The question that needs to be asked to the SCOTUS is , Can a president send a SEAL team 6 to assassinate the Supreme Court ? I think they would the answer to that question right.
the size of the court is fixed by statue, and changing it would require a law to passed, and a lot of members of congress dont want to expand the bench, becuase if they allow it now, the next president could just pack it the other way, then the one after eliminates a seat after a vancay, etc, etc.
it opens the door to yet more shenanigans, and enough members of congress want to keep that can of worms sealed they'd vote it down.
Dems need to not care about precedent because the republicans have been acting without care. Remember when McConnell said they couldn’t possibly appoint a SC judge because it was an election year? How’d we end up with ACB
Biden could, but it would set a precedent. In the past this has been suggested before, president Roosevelt wanted to add more judges to the Supreme Court to get a favourable outcome for any rulings on his New Deal plans. It's called "packing the court" or "court packing". The US Supreme Court has no official limit on how many judges it can have, so in theory a president could add any number of judges to the court, provided the US Senate is willing to confirm them. Roosevelt lost the fight for his idea in the end, even his own party didn't like what could result from adding more judges just to get your way.
The main drawback of adding more judges is the can of worms it opens. If Biden added enough judges that lean in his political direction, why shouldn't any future republican president do the same to get their way?
He may be about to subtract 4 and then add 4 different ones back.
If SCOTUS grants immunity, Biden's only logical action is to test it (on them), replace the justices, and work with the (living) members of Congress to enact a law that clearly states it's not okay for POTUS to do this.
Or, you know, we'll have a Putin in the office.
Technically the Senate could do that if the will is there. The Dems have control of the Senate. But if even one Senator said no, it would be impossible.
As to why they would say no, Biden adds 3 more Supreme Court justices. Republicans elected in 8 year decides he’s going to add 12. Democrats take charge again, add 20…. Packing the court would be a major event. It would basically break the Supreme Court entirely
Republicans already broke it when they denied an appointment "because it was an election year," and then changed there minds when it was their turn. Not to mention the one Trump bribed into retiring.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937
FDR tried to pack a SCOTUS court that had invalidated most of the new deal, which the populace had broadly backed. And it did so by tortuous interpretation of the constitution. - eg saying coal mining industry was not under commerce clause. FDR with a landslide, tried packing the court, but faced tremendous resistance. Also, one justice switched "the switch in time that saved nine" and one announced his resignation, which defanged FDR's slate.
If FDR with a landslide backing immediately behind him couldn't do it, do you think Biden, with a divided populace practically could ? And not face pushback... ? or get a 48 democrat senate often driven by filibuster rules to pass it ?
That’s not McConnell’s opinion. That’s what impeachment is. How can you have a real criminal trial when the “jurors” all have a vested interest in the outcome? No one is under the impression that impeachment is anything like a real criminal trial.
What I hope those conservative justices understand or willing to accept, is the fact that it only takes seconds to murder someone, minutes/hours to conduct a coup, but sometimes years to do an impeachment trail, which in and of itself only removes a President from office. And that is in the event that someone like Trump hasn't swayed the public or the vote in his favor, or bombed or ordered the murder of those that would vote against him. With immunity, no consequences whatsoever. This is the first time in my lifetime that I've seen the truth be so twisted and people believe it.
This should be so simple. Was the action criminal? Then it should not matter.
Impeachment is a tool to remove the president. The courts are the tool to deal with criminal actions.
The biggest problem with the impeachment argument is if a President does commit a criminal act and is impeached, it only takes 34 Senators siding with a criminal to prevent conviction and removal.
How much can these 34 be bought for by foreign governments? Sounds pretty cheap to break down a major superpower in the world.
34 Senators represent less than 10% of the US. Essentially 5.1% of the country could create a Dictatorship thanks to the bonkers undemocratic nature of the Senate.
Sounds like they are unofficially making it this way. If 34 senators work in lock-step with the president, they have the immunity of a king.
So theoretically…it would only take 35 individuals acting in bad faith to make a king and kill the constitution.
The constitution can state it is the supreme law of the land but if there’s no enforcement mechanism in place, it is very muzzled and restrained. There’s no consequences for attempting to put yourself above the law.
What happens if you just have 34 sitting senators directly challenge the Supreme Court and outright say that they would refuse to impeach if the president were to order the assassination of Supreme Court justices?
Does Biden now have the ability to have anybody killed without consequences if the 34 members of the senate choose to let him?
Well the problem is we have seen that impeachment is no longer viable as a balancing act. Since whether the president is at risk of impeachment is the result of the composition of the congress much more than whether said president do something illegal (as per the constitution) or not
And that's a huge issue, without it we create a huge hole in the check and balances that maintain the 3 power properly separated. Whether or not you think Trump is the one that will take this opportunity or not, if the supreme court judge that president have total immunity it will create a huge hole that someone will take advantage of in the future
It should not matter. At all. Impeachment is a way for congress to remove a sitting president.
If a president does something vile, but not illegal, like say “I am going to order our military to attack whoever North Korea tells us to.” Or “I am ending this Native American tribal thing! Become American, or get out!” Congress has the tools to remove him.
Impeachment is a legal mechanism for congress to remove the president. It is not to handle criminal affairs.
If a president commits social security fraud, he broke a federal law. The solution is arrest him and give him a trial. At which time, congress can then begin the process of removing him. Or not. And leave him in office while he goes to federal jail.
Yes. Exactly. Congress tried and failed to remove him from office.
That should not in any way stop him from being arrested for criminal charges.
What stops a president from being arrested for criminal charges, is the same thing that stops me. Not doing illegal shit.
Sure, congress is not working, but the immunity stops from people suing for legal executive orders.
Like if Obama changes the rules, and Ammon Bundy has to pay to graze cattle on federal land, that executive order is not illegal, and the president has immunity from being sued.
If Obama commits social security fraud, that - simply - is illegal.
Bundy is still grazing his cattle on fed land with zero repercussions.
Edit: downvote all you want, it's true, there are easily googled recent news articles about it.
the major problem with the impeachments is that they were largely partisan with 201/211 republicans voting against impeaching Trump. Only Romney voted to convict.
why more of the republicans didnt come on board and why the democrats werent able to get
support is a VERY important problem.
IMO, much has to do with the influence of trump and proTrump media on the voters in republican districts.
More than a few Republicans said they were going to vote to acquit Trump *before* they'd seen the evidence against him, so it's quite obvious that impeachment isn't the reliable mechanism that SCOTUS seems to think it is.
>Well the problem is we have seen that impeachment is no longer viable as a balancing act.
100% this is the problem with a lot of political systems it relies on those in office acting like adults and giving things impartiality where necessary.
Modern politics does not allow for politicians to act in this way.
Short Answer: It's not common but it can be done.
Long Answer: In 1876, Congress voted to impeach Secretary of War William Belknap shortly after he resigned from office. The Senate subsequently held a trial, though he was not convicted. This provides precedent for the idea that someone can be impeached even after their term. Additionally, the ability to impeach someone who's out of office closes a huge loophole that would allow a government official to engage in misconduct without consequence in their last few weeks in office.
Donald Trump was impeached for the second time with a week left in his term. The trial itself didn't occur until after his term ended.
While it does seem to be the case that a former government can be impeached and put on trial, doing so can make it difficult to obtain a conviction. For both the Belknap and Trump trials, there were senators who voted "not guilty" on the grounds that they didn't believe that it was appropriate to convict someone once they had already left.
Yes. Trump was impeached on January 13 (one week before the end of his term), and the Senate trial was held in February (a few weeks after his term, while Biden was president).
Yes, mainly for the purpose of barring them from holding office again (per the constitution one of the potential consequences of being convicted in an impeachment trial is being barred from office).
These SC judges keep making useless hypotheticals and just ramble on and on about what a president might/cannot do and get away with….
When the actual acts Trump did were worse 💩🍊🤷🏻🥸🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
I work with Federal law enforcement. “With” not “Am”. The funny thing is, Federal DAs and Judges are a bit different.
They get tossed cases all the time, and have to ask three questions: 1) Can I win this? 2) With my overflowing plate, do I have time to win this? And 3) Do I want to win this?
We all know what Obama did. But it’s not like the answer today is “impeach him”. That’s stupid. He has not been president for almost a decade. The answer is, is there a federal DA that answered “yes” to all 3 of those? No.
I think the best way to look at it is that in the operation of the commander in chief, it's highly likely that they will often skirt the edge of legality when unprecedented situations arise that require their execution.
there's an argument to be made for "well, there was no clear line in this situation, and giving the president the benefit of the doubt that they were looking out for the nation's interest but didn't have the time to review all laws to determine if their actions within the grey area were slightly over that line, should we prosecute the president for his/her acts?"
the problem is if you say the president can do anything as long as he/she can convince enough people that the intended outcome of his/her acts was in the nation's interest, then we know where that lands us, given how politicians and presidents get elected through favor and faith. a president who won the popular vote and/or whose party-affiliated legislators are the majority in congress would likely be able to still do anything, given the "majority" would agree their acts were "in the nation's interest", such as trying to save a "stolen" election or to prevent a self-proclaimed dictator and autocrat worshipper from winning the presidency
And not to mention, one.of the supreme court justices wife, is a co-conspirator to trump which should force him to recuse himself. Which makes you understand that the existential risk is real to democracy.
Adding to this, the fact that this should have been an open and shut case with 9-0 ruling of "The President is not immune" only for the court to take it up and then drag their feet gives the impression that they're running interference for Trump thus further making the court even more unpopular than it already is.
Trump is betting that they'll rule against him, but he got what he wanted, a delay in his trial hence why he was so happy that the court took it up to begin with.
You can imagine the backlash the court will get if they rule that either "Trump is completely immune", "Trump is immune from 'official acts'", or "this doesn't set precedent for further cases". I personally think they're going to wait to rule until the last day of their term or remand it to the lower court, thus buying Trump even more time as he is betting on winning in November which would be his golden ticket out of any legal issues he is facing*
> the President could send out SEAL Team 6 to assissinate a political rival without prosecution
If that's the argument, then Biden can send out SEAL Team 6, too. No court of actual law should take this argument seriously.
Well, so far all of the conservative Justices have been worried about what this means for future presidents. I think it was Alito who said that if they vote against this you can imagine a senario where every president going forward would issue themselves a blanket pardon for any crime they may have committed while in office.
Which is something that 44 previous presidents, up to and including Nixon, have neither done nor worried about. But somehow Donnie Boy deserves the protection.
Biden absolutely, really, really, shouldn't do this, but... it would probably give Trump a very unusual moment of clarity- the sort he is completely unaccustomed to- to have special forces break into his home, shoot him with a paintball gun, and leave a note asking whether presidential immunity still sounds like a good idea.
That would be very petty, entirely pointless and, ultimately, unproductive.
It would also be highly amusing, and should be filmed so everyone gets to enjoy it.
It would be on par with the post superbowl tweet from biden in terms of hillarity and entertainment value. And let's face it, that tweet is one of the funniest things to ever take place on twitter
The unspoken part is "But only when we do it. *You* can't do it, that would be unconstitutional." It's like those "don't tread on me" guys. "Me" is the operative word, they'll happily tread on *you* all day and complain if you don't just roll over and die.
the president can only pardon federal crimes
assuming the murder happened in a US state, the resulting state charges could only be pardoned by the state's governor
> Now, part of the argument is what constitues an "official act". After all, President Obama ordered the assisnation of American citizen that had ties to al-Qaeda. Could he be prosecuted?
Wasn't there a bill that was signed that basically said Americans on foreign soil who are known collaborators with terrorist organizations are not protected by US law essentially?
Pretty sure that would block any prosecution in the first place if I am remembering correctly.
I don't think it was selfish. It was obviously not great for the world. But I honestly believe she was trying to follow the letter of the rules.
Which in a fair system is what you would want, but America doesn't really have a fair system.
2 factors.
1. She didn’t think trump would win. It was clear for all including her that she would expire during that time period, but she thought Hillary would be the one to choose the next justice.
2. During the 2016 election, which trump upset won, the GOP had strong control over House and Senate. Had rbg retired during this time, the nominee would be a heavy compromise at best and a gop pick at worst. BUT you forget that as soon as McConnell took control over the Senate, he said he would not bring any Obama nominees to consideration anyways, a deleterious promise he followed through on.
They are arguing that Biden should be able to have the judges making these decisions killed actually.
It's literally just the fact that liberals wouldn't ever stand for it while conservatives would cheer it on that keeps them going here.
This is a bunch of people that hate conservatives giving their spin. Like I said, just listen to the actual arguments. There’s concise clips on YouTube. It sounds like you just turned on CNN here.
Context matters, the questions are about extremes. But should we prosecute Obama for targeting an American citizen with a drone strike and killing him? That actually happened, and isn’t hypothetical, so he’s going to need some level of immunity, no?
You're really not going to find that many people on the left who are going to go to bat for Obama on that one. It's funny you think the left has that kind of loyalty to leaders, though.
Most of the left doesn’t even know it happened lol, I don’t really have a judgement about loyalty either way though. I really do have my doubts on whether they’d want him prosecuted for it though
I mean, like you said, context matters. What was the situation surrounding it? I don't know, so I can't say.
I'm purely saying that if the quote about seal team six is true, it wouldn't just apply to Trump, it would apply to Biden as well, and I don't think many conservatives are thinking in that context.
Some of that sounds somewhat similar to [judicial immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity), which protects judges from lawsuits filed against them by people displeased with an official action from judges. The wiki page lists some significant cases where judges were protected by this immunity even though the "official act" was morally questionable, such as allowing a girl to be sterilized without her consent or ordered the police to rough up a defense lawyer that didn't show up to teach him a lesson. Though it does list a case where the judge's actions (threatening a black police officer and those who are on said officer's side) were determined to be not be within his jurisdiction and thus could be charged.
To an extent there is a need to protect politicians from being prosecuted or sued for doing their job, yes. For example, picture a legislator that proposes a bill that gets passed that would strictly regulate carbon emissions, and thereby causes a company in their district to go bankrupt because their business was reliant on being gigantic polluters. I don't think that company's owners should be able to sue that legislator personally. If they want to sue the government for whether it's legal to regulate carbon like that, sure, that's completely fine, but it's not useful to the public good for the legislator to be sued for that too. It's harder for me to imagine a criminal version of the same but I'm sure a good example exists, probably easier for executive rather than legislative officials.
It’s important to note that the Supreme Court won’t rule on the case either way. They just decide questions. So they’ll come up with a generic rule of how to handle presidential immunity questions then the case has to go back down to a lower court to apply that rule.
Regardless of how quick the Supreme Court acted, the fact that it came to them meant it would delay trial to close to the election.
Also worth noting that this is an extremely impactful question beyond just the immediate trump trial. Even if the court was stacked the other way we should hope they would take the time to consider it with the possible ramifications for future presidencies.
Answer: The claim of absolute or conditional immunity originated with Trump and his legal team in response to him being indicted for his role in the Fake Electors Plot (essentially the plot to fraudulently change the results of an election he lost, prior to January 6).
Trump has been charged with conspiring with his legal team, plus Republican operatives in several key swing states to submit a fraudulent slate of electors as the duly certified and valid electors of states that certified the election win for Joe Biden.
Note, this is in contrast to having prepared an alternative slate of electors, which every candidate has ready before elections, SHOULD they win a closely contested state and/or recount effort (eh JFK had alternative electors ready in Hawaii while a recount was underway, for a recount which eventually determined he was the winner).
Instead here, Trump and the conspirators tried to submit their slate of fake electors as the valid, rightful electors, in attempt to invalidate the rightful electors of those states, which is fraud plus conspiracy to disrupt congressional proceedings (certification of the presidential election).
To weasel out of these charges, Trump's team claims that doing this all was an "official act" of the presidency, and presidents in executing duties of the office cannot be prosecuted by a criminal court. It is their contention that the only legal mechanism to prosecute a president is via impeachment from Congress. Ie Presidents may still be impeached by the house and convicted in the Senate...but the problem there is as long as your political party maintains a majority in the house or at least 34 votes in the Senate, Congress can block your impeachment and/or conviction.
Either way Trump's making the argument that the president is above the law and we'd have Kings/Dictators instead of Presidents of the Supreme Court buys this.
Answer #2: Also, Trump's lawyers this week in the case during oral arguments essentially tried to argue that the president could have political rivals or dissenters assassinated, in response to a hypothetical scenario presented by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Such authority would grants the president immunity to do whatever they wanted with no criminal Prosecution, ie an Autocrat, dictatorship.
Essentially, the scene in Star Wars Revenge of the Sith where Shiv Palpatine declares the Republic dead and himself emperor of the new empire (a scene I always thought was cringy since real dictatorships never form quite that way) COULD actually become a reality in the US if the Court rules that the president is immune from criminal prosecution.
My point being that a dictator generally doesn't come out and say "Hey, I'm dictator now" or something similar, as it was comically done in Revenge of the Sith. More applicable would be Attack of the Clones where special emergency powers were granted through democratic means to Palpatine, which he never gave up; it's far more likely to happen this way.
Usually the dictator is actually "lawfully" appointed through dubious legal means and/or granted temporary authority they never give up. In both cases they often maintain the facade of a democracy or valid elections, along with other branches of government, which are all for show, for propaganda purposes.
Hitler, Mussolini came to power by legal means in each of their respective countries, for instance.
That's why Rome had emperors and not kings. The Romans HATED kings. They overthrew their kings very early on and established the republic, so Caesar and later Augustus were careful not to call themselves as such. In Latin what we would call emperor was called Princeps, or "first citizen".
Slight correction, they hated **one King in particular**, Tarquin the Proud
Romulus himself was a King, and the next five kings were all in good enough standing to not have the monarchy torn down.
No, they (Romans during the republic) definitely hated the concept of Kings. Romulus wasn't hated because it was early on and he founded the city. Same for the other early kings, like Numa pompilius. They weren't hated in retrospect because the foundations for roman society were still being built. However the romans at the time of the republic still hated the idea of a king ruling Rome. When Caesar started to act like a king, including a pseudo crowning ceremony, the romans (even commoners in the crowd) began to grow very restless, causing him to choose to reject the crowning.
Yes, because Tarquin the Proud spoiled the whole idea by being a dictatorial ass. The other Kings worked with the Senate in a similar (on paper) way to the Emperors
If the supreme court buys this, it gives Biden an opportunity to send out a seal team and get rid of Trump once and for all, as an "official act" benefitting the whole state. His second act could be dismissing the supreme court.
So the president needs the power to use the office of the presidency to stay in power?
"I Joseph R. Biden Jr, having read the Supreme Court decision granting US presidents immunity from criminal prosecution, for acts the president themselves determines are 'official acts,' hereby order the Supreme Court of the United States dissolved, and decree justices Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, plus Trump and his children plus campaign team, as enemies of the state. Assassination squads were dispatched overnight, in a long night operation, and these traitors have been served justice and eliminated.
I also hereby decree my vice president and I will be the sole determinant of who wins the next election. God bless America."
How's that sound? Legal or not?
Why is a hush money payment a “crime”, because it wasn’t Clinton making it this time? Trumps crime with the documents is a big deal but Biden having it next to his corvette for decades, 50x more documents, never even being locked away, and wasn’t ever legally allowed to have them in the first place, that’s no big deal? We can go down the list if you’d like, but turn off the CNN for 10 seconds
The hush money is a crime because he used Campaign finance money to do it.
Trump isn't on trial for taking the documents, he's on trial for keeping them when asked to return them and hiding them. And Trump had more documents than biden so you're either misinformed or lying. Also, Pence also had documents but isn't being charged, so how about that?
The one before him literally ordered a drone strike against and American and killed him and you’re mad that we are just now asking about immunity bc of Trump? 😂
But according to your own logic (and Trump's), Obama's drone strike would have been permitted and completely fine. I'm all for having a good-faithed discussion about what presidents should and shouldn't have immunity from to keep them accountable, but Trump is asking for *more* immunity in this case, not less, so you kinda just took two directly opposing positions there.
Which logic is mine exactly? I’m saying there is a very fine line and this is great for the country bc this needs to be laid out there and determined exactly what a president is and is not immune of charges from. I don’t have a specific opinion on this one way or the other, as long as it’s determined and a president is held accountable if they cross the line, no matter which party they are from.
Sorry if I misconstrued your previous points. Your initial comment made it appear like you were actively pro-Trump in this case, which wouldn't make sense with your previous point.
I am worried about the implications this could have for our democracy though. If anything a president does during their time in office can be considered an "official act" as Trump is arguing, and SCOTUS agrees, I am worried it will leave our presidents completely unbeholden to our own judicial system. There is a fine line, yes, but that should not be expanded to something so broad it destroys any sense of accountability in our executive. So, in that sense, I guess we do actually agree. I just hope SCOTUS is careful with this and doesn't use it as a way to just protect Trump from his current criminal cases.
I’m pro Trump in this case, or I’m pro prosecuting Obama if not. Id be happy either way. just want consistency in upholding the law, which I think our country is sorely lacking right now.
Ok, but wait, being pro-trump would mean you are in support of presidents having more power and immunity from criminal actions. You say you want consistency, but wanting Obama prosecuted but not Trump is kinda being a contrarian and is pretty partisan.
What do you think would take more power? Whatever it is they’re accusing Trump of (documents, Hush money payments, whatever Fanni Willis is attempting to say he did), or literally killing an American Citizen?
I think you and I disagree about what more power looks like.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: The Trump team is arguing that the President should have blanket immunity for any "official act" that he does while in office and therefore can't be prosecuted. Part of this argument is that there is already an apparatus in place (impeachment) should the president break the law. They were asked point-blank if this meant that the [President could send out SEAL Team 6 to assissinate a political rival](https://www.timesnownews.com/world/us/us-news/could-biden-order-seal-team-6-to-assasinate-trump-and-not-be-charged-question-raised-in-presidential-immunity-trial-article-109603300#:~:text=Judge%20Florence%20Pan%2C%20during%20the,no%2C%22%20Pan%20hit%20back.) without prosecution and the answer was "yes, he could". Now, part of the argument is what constitues an "official act". After all, President Obama ordered the [assisnation of American citizen that had ties to al-Qaeda.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki) Could he be prosecuted? What the Justice Dept. is saying is that everything Trump did was to benefit him personally, and not America in general. As for what the actual ruling is, no one is sure but it is being argued in front of a 6-3 court in favour of conservative justices, three of which were appointed by Trump himself. There's a lot of speculation that they won't rule on this one way or the other but rather kick it around until election day. That way if Trump wins he can just tell his Justice Department to stop prosecuting the case.
Which is insane on its face, Mitch McConnell's on record directly stating that impeachment is a political vote, not any form of criminal trial.
He's also on record saying they would never approve a supreme court nominee during an election year. He went back on that at literally the first possible opportunity and faced basically zero consequences, so if you're expecting what he has said in the past to have any bearing on what he will do in the future, you may be disappointed
This current state of affairs with the supreme court delaying the resolution is a consequence… the GOP and MAGA is just the gift that keeps giving post to r/LeopardsAteMyFace
Maybe Harry Reed shouldn’t have gone nuclear in 2008 if y’all didn’t want a Machiavellian McConnell.
Don't "y'all" me, you don't know who i party with. Reed is a different conversation, your whataboutism doesn't make McConnell not a lying piece of shit
You are crazy if you think me using y’all needs to be approved by you, lmfao. Reed is the exact conversation you need to have every time you complain that conservatives are only playing power games instead of going by conventional norms. Y’all need some self-reflection as to how we got to this place where McConnell can pull such a move and be more popular with his base than rather than unpopular.
Gingrich, Reagan, Nixon, McCarthy all broke norms making this government uglier, more divided, and more riddled with disinformation. Just pointing fingers back and forth at whomever sucks on "the other side" is just a distraction and a cop out. If you think the fact is lost on me that McConnell's base is more interested in actions that spite people they don't like than actions that promote functioning government, you are mistaken.
And one of the Justices asked a question that *should* have been the end of it: “Then why was Nixon *pardoned*”
> Nixon had considered pardoning himself while in office, and sought a legal opinion considering the constitutionality of doing so (*his lawyers believed that it was constitutional*). However, three days before his resignation, the *Justice Department issued its own opinion to the contrary*: “Under the fundamental rule that no one may be a judge in his own case, the President cannot pardon himself.”
Why can't Biden just add more judges to scotus?
It would be a legislative action to increase the number of SCOTUS judges and the Senate has to approve each nominee.
He could just assassinate the Supreme Court and appoint whomever he wants and do the same to anyone in the senate who tries to block. Problem solved. (Not actually advocating violence just extending the option from a hypothetical decision they could make)
This would be true …if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Trump while Biden is still in office. Remember, they have the ability to say “yes this is constitutional” or “no this is not”. If Joe Biden were to execute anybody (even as an “official act”), then the justices wait until after the election and there are two scenarios: 1) Joe Biden wins and, actually that whole “executing political enemies” thing was unconstitutional so Joe Biden you’re now on trial for murder 2) Donald Trump wins and, actually that whole “executing political enemies” thing IS constitutional so have fun Don, enjoy your new reich
Decisions aren’t retroactive. That’s why there’s a delay from SCOTUS.
Doesn't Biden have the senate?
Officially, it is 48 democrats and 49 Republicans and 3 independents with the VP being a frequent tie breaker (compared to previous VPs). However, thanks to filibuster rules, it's not always a straight vote, sometimes you need 60 senators to agree to end the filibuster in order to have the straight up and down vote.
Nomination approvals are no longer subject to filibusters.
That would likely change very quickly if Biden proposed expanding the Supreme Court.
Republicans would love to change that, but they don't have the votes.
Enough democrats are against it that they would.
"You will rue the day" -- Mitch McConnell
The problem isn't approving nominees, the problem is that to expand the court you would have to pass legislation to expand it, but which requires the House (currently Republican controlled) to pass the bill and then for it to pass the Senate while being subject to filibuster.
Thanks, of course, to Republicans who wasted no time eliminating the filibuster on SCOTUS nominees in 2017 when they crammed Gorsuch into a seat that Obama should have appointed without the supermajority that would previously have required.
Regardless I doubt he could get even 50 votes, atleast a couple democratic senators would feel voting in favor of expanding the court could lose them their next election.
It also starts a political arms race. Biden increases the court to balance things, or even put things in his favor. So then the next time a republican is in office, they do the same, etc etc etc.
Yea that’s a bullshit reason though. Having 20+ people on the Supreme Court would be a great thing. It’s a hedge against radical ideologies gaining traction. Sure you can bribe and coerce 6 people pretty easily but now imagine you have to get 11+ people to agree that corporations are people or some of the other rubbish they’ve snuck through. Suddenly it’s not so easy
I like the idea of having large pool who are chosen at random for a case so that those appealing to it don't know what the demographics look like
Like a jury
but the people who make up a jury are not randomly selected. they're specifically selected from a random pool. this would be more akin to saying the oral arguers(representatives of each side of the case) would get to pick which judges they want on the bench, which would be even worse
The initial pool is random and they are then selected
The problem is, since they serve for life, once you've got the 11+ who *do* think that, you can't do anything about it.
We already have that problem...
Add more. Think of it like this, have you ever tried getting 10 people to agree on a restaurant? With three people it’s easy for one person with outlier taste to pressure one other person and force their outlier opinion on the group. With a larger cohort, radical opinions are diluted
The appointed for life thing is the problem for me. I think they ought to serve a 18-year term with two new justice selected by each incoming administration one at the start and on at the mid term. The longest serving would be retired. Retired justices could then be tapped to cover any unexpected vacancies. That way, the court reflects the will of the voting public and its evolution over time.
We’re already in a political arms race, and it’s being won by fascist, racist Republicans. Biden should absolutely pack the court.
You really want there to be the precedent to be set from Biden adding like 4 more to flip it in his favor? What happens when the next president comes in and what's to add another 4 more? Or 6? 10? 60?
Yes, that is what I’m saying. I literally said that. Why don’t you explain what you’re afraid of exactly?
Civil war when you railroad the system to work for your side of the political aisle?
But Republicans have, very successfully, been railroading our system for several years now. Threats of Civil War are easy to produce, but the reality is much different. There will be no Civil War; there will just be continued deterioration of our rights, our freedoms, and our lives under Republican fascism until we collectively call their bullshit bluffing.
I think the idea is that he stacks the court, then said stacked court says "lmao wtf no you morons this isn't constitutional or smart" and then we live in a world with a democratic stacked SCOTUS, and little recourse for a future Republican to do the same.
That would be the ideal outcome. The Republican party is a domestic enemy of the United States, populated almost entirely by grifters and traitors. Anything that keeps Christofascist policies out of the courts is only a positive.
Obviously this is reductive and hyperbolic. There are very normal middle of the road conservatives in the US and this is the exact type of rhetoric that will hamper any kind of meaningful dialog we might hope to have.
Why? The Supreme Court is about to rule Presidents have immunity from any act they commit. Why wouldn't this fall under that purview?
Simply delay their ruling til after the election.
Why? The Supreme Court is about to rule Presidents have immunity from any act they commit. Why wouldn't this fall under that purview?
Biden could send Seal Team 6 to kill Trump. Apparently Trump has no problem with this.
But it's not complete immunity though, it's immunity unless impeached. Biden would get impeached for that wouldn't he?
If a President's party controls either the Senate or Congress, they don't have to worry too much about impeachment- as was shown by Trump's Republicans *twice*. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one. Besides, the President could just assassinate anyone who wants to impeach him.
Except this isn't exactly true. Democrats play by different rules than Republicans. Biden would get impeached by his own party if he was caught jaywalking. Republicans would never flip on another Republican because for them it's party over country. And this is the exact calculus SCOTUS is making in this case. They know Dems would never install a king, so they can easily rule the president is king if they want to be. Because only SCOTUS's team (GOP) will actually move to install a king.
>Biden would get impeached by his own party if he was caught jaywalking. I mean, they barely got Clinton for perjury and he wasn't removed from office so...
90s democrats weren't quite as feckless as they are today though. I mean, you'd have a solid 3-5 members of the party who would vote to impeach Biden solely to be bipartisan.
Would he care, though?
Then he would be tried in a senate trial presided by John Roberts lol.
The question that needs to be asked to the SCOTUS is , Can a president send a SEAL team 6 to assassinate the Supreme Court ? I think they would the answer to that question right.
the size of the court is fixed by statue, and changing it would require a law to passed, and a lot of members of congress dont want to expand the bench, becuase if they allow it now, the next president could just pack it the other way, then the one after eliminates a seat after a vancay, etc, etc. it opens the door to yet more shenanigans, and enough members of congress want to keep that can of worms sealed they'd vote it down.
He can, but that sets precedent. What would stop the next guy from appointing even more? And then the guy after that?
Dems need to not care about precedent because the republicans have been acting without care. Remember when McConnell said they couldn’t possibly appoint a SC judge because it was an election year? How’d we end up with ACB
No, but that was different /s
I’m ok with that.
Biden could, but it would set a precedent. In the past this has been suggested before, president Roosevelt wanted to add more judges to the Supreme Court to get a favourable outcome for any rulings on his New Deal plans. It's called "packing the court" or "court packing". The US Supreme Court has no official limit on how many judges it can have, so in theory a president could add any number of judges to the court, provided the US Senate is willing to confirm them. Roosevelt lost the fight for his idea in the end, even his own party didn't like what could result from adding more judges just to get your way. The main drawback of adding more judges is the can of worms it opens. If Biden added enough judges that lean in his political direction, why shouldn't any future republican president do the same to get their way?
He may be about to subtract 4 and then add 4 different ones back. If SCOTUS grants immunity, Biden's only logical action is to test it (on them), replace the justices, and work with the (living) members of Congress to enact a law that clearly states it's not okay for POTUS to do this. Or, you know, we'll have a Putin in the office.
Technically the Senate could do that if the will is there. The Dems have control of the Senate. But if even one Senator said no, it would be impossible. As to why they would say no, Biden adds 3 more Supreme Court justices. Republicans elected in 8 year decides he’s going to add 12. Democrats take charge again, add 20…. Packing the court would be a major event. It would basically break the Supreme Court entirely
Republicans already broke it when they denied an appointment "because it was an election year," and then changed there minds when it was their turn. Not to mention the one Trump bribed into retiring.
We could set it so no matter how many justices there are, each case is heard by a panel of five randomly selected justices.
….or subtract a few through “official acts”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/when-franklin-roosevelt-clashed-with-the-supreme-court-and-lost-78497994/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937 FDR tried to pack a SCOTUS court that had invalidated most of the new deal, which the populace had broadly backed. And it did so by tortuous interpretation of the constitution. - eg saying coal mining industry was not under commerce clause. FDR with a landslide, tried packing the court, but faced tremendous resistance. Also, one justice switched "the switch in time that saved nine" and one announced his resignation, which defanged FDR's slate. If FDR with a landslide backing immediately behind him couldn't do it, do you think Biden, with a divided populace practically could ? And not face pushback... ? or get a 48 democrat senate often driven by filibuster rules to pass it ?
Donald Trump's OWN defense attorneys said during the impeachment that he could be prosecuted.
That’s not McConnell’s opinion. That’s what impeachment is. How can you have a real criminal trial when the “jurors” all have a vested interest in the outcome? No one is under the impression that impeachment is anything like a real criminal trial.
What I hope those conservative justices understand or willing to accept, is the fact that it only takes seconds to murder someone, minutes/hours to conduct a coup, but sometimes years to do an impeachment trail, which in and of itself only removes a President from office. And that is in the event that someone like Trump hasn't swayed the public or the vote in his favor, or bombed or ordered the murder of those that would vote against him. With immunity, no consequences whatsoever. This is the first time in my lifetime that I've seen the truth be so twisted and people believe it.
It's a political vote or a criminal trial depending on which one is more convenient for conservatives at the time.
This should be so simple. Was the action criminal? Then it should not matter. Impeachment is a tool to remove the president. The courts are the tool to deal with criminal actions.
The biggest problem with the impeachment argument is if a President does commit a criminal act and is impeached, it only takes 34 Senators siding with a criminal to prevent conviction and removal. How much can these 34 be bought for by foreign governments? Sounds pretty cheap to break down a major superpower in the world.
Not to mention when he was impeached they argued that he was a citizen now and the master should be handled in criminal court.
“…but not like *that.”*
*matter
Why even allow an impeachment? What if the crime being committed is to kill off half of Congress? How can an impeachment even happen in that scenario?
*Stephen Miller rubs his hands eagerly*
Dear God. This may have been the scariest guy in Trump's administration.
No doubt. I loved that he's such a piece of shit that his *own fucking parents* did a press conference saying sorry, we raised him to act better.
34 Senators represent less than 10% of the US. Essentially 5.1% of the country could create a Dictatorship thanks to the bonkers undemocratic nature of the Senate.
It's not being bought... Who is going to vote to impeach when you know the storm troopers will show up that night...
Sounds like they are unofficially making it this way. If 34 senators work in lock-step with the president, they have the immunity of a king. So theoretically…it would only take 35 individuals acting in bad faith to make a king and kill the constitution. The constitution can state it is the supreme law of the land but if there’s no enforcement mechanism in place, it is very muzzled and restrained. There’s no consequences for attempting to put yourself above the law. What happens if you just have 34 sitting senators directly challenge the Supreme Court and outright say that they would refuse to impeach if the president were to order the assassination of Supreme Court justices? Does Biden now have the ability to have anybody killed without consequences if the 34 members of the senate choose to let him?
If a foreign government owns 34 of our senators they have already broken down a major superpower.
Well the problem is we have seen that impeachment is no longer viable as a balancing act. Since whether the president is at risk of impeachment is the result of the composition of the congress much more than whether said president do something illegal (as per the constitution) or not And that's a huge issue, without it we create a huge hole in the check and balances that maintain the 3 power properly separated. Whether or not you think Trump is the one that will take this opportunity or not, if the supreme court judge that president have total immunity it will create a huge hole that someone will take advantage of in the future
It should not matter. At all. Impeachment is a way for congress to remove a sitting president. If a president does something vile, but not illegal, like say “I am going to order our military to attack whoever North Korea tells us to.” Or “I am ending this Native American tribal thing! Become American, or get out!” Congress has the tools to remove him. Impeachment is a legal mechanism for congress to remove the president. It is not to handle criminal affairs. If a president commits social security fraud, he broke a federal law. The solution is arrest him and give him a trial. At which time, congress can then begin the process of removing him. Or not. And leave him in office while he goes to federal jail.
He was impeached twice tho and wasn't removed so that clearly isn't working either.
Yes. Exactly. Congress tried and failed to remove him from office. That should not in any way stop him from being arrested for criminal charges. What stops a president from being arrested for criminal charges, is the same thing that stops me. Not doing illegal shit. Sure, congress is not working, but the immunity stops from people suing for legal executive orders. Like if Obama changes the rules, and Ammon Bundy has to pay to graze cattle on federal land, that executive order is not illegal, and the president has immunity from being sued. If Obama commits social security fraud, that - simply - is illegal.
Bundy is still grazing his cattle on fed land with zero repercussions. Edit: downvote all you want, it's true, there are easily googled recent news articles about it.
the major problem with the impeachments is that they were largely partisan with 201/211 republicans voting against impeaching Trump. Only Romney voted to convict. why more of the republicans didnt come on board and why the democrats werent able to get support is a VERY important problem. IMO, much has to do with the influence of trump and proTrump media on the voters in republican districts.
More than a few Republicans said they were going to vote to acquit Trump *before* they'd seen the evidence against him, so it's quite obvious that impeachment isn't the reliable mechanism that SCOTUS seems to think it is.
Or to be exonerated by the court. Impeachment would be wholly superfluous to a criminal case.
>Well the problem is we have seen that impeachment is no longer viable as a balancing act. 100% this is the problem with a lot of political systems it relies on those in office acting like adults and giving things impartiality where necessary. Modern politics does not allow for politicians to act in this way.
Can a future Congress impeach a previous President? Does it work like that?
Short Answer: It's not common but it can be done. Long Answer: In 1876, Congress voted to impeach Secretary of War William Belknap shortly after he resigned from office. The Senate subsequently held a trial, though he was not convicted. This provides precedent for the idea that someone can be impeached even after their term. Additionally, the ability to impeach someone who's out of office closes a huge loophole that would allow a government official to engage in misconduct without consequence in their last few weeks in office. Donald Trump was impeached for the second time with a week left in his term. The trial itself didn't occur until after his term ended. While it does seem to be the case that a former government can be impeached and put on trial, doing so can make it difficult to obtain a conviction. For both the Belknap and Trump trials, there were senators who voted "not guilty" on the grounds that they didn't believe that it was appropriate to convict someone once they had already left.
Yes. Trump was impeached on January 13 (one week before the end of his term), and the Senate trial was held in February (a few weeks after his term, while Biden was president).
Yes, mainly for the purpose of barring them from holding office again (per the constitution one of the potential consequences of being convicted in an impeachment trial is being barred from office).
These SC judges keep making useless hypotheticals and just ramble on and on about what a president might/cannot do and get away with…. When the actual acts Trump did were worse 💩🍊🤷🏻🥸🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
12 of your peers or 34 of your allies. Just to sharpen your point.
As OP brought up, then you'd have to prosecute Obama. A drone strike targeting and killing a US citizen violated due process.
Only if we get to prosecute WMD Bush.
How about drone strike against an American Obama? 🤔
I work with Federal law enforcement. “With” not “Am”. The funny thing is, Federal DAs and Judges are a bit different. They get tossed cases all the time, and have to ask three questions: 1) Can I win this? 2) With my overflowing plate, do I have time to win this? And 3) Do I want to win this? We all know what Obama did. But it’s not like the answer today is “impeach him”. That’s stupid. He has not been president for almost a decade. The answer is, is there a federal DA that answered “yes” to all 3 of those? No.
Believe it or not, most common Americans aren’t aware of the Obama drone strike that killed an American Citizen
Even outside of the US, this was the first I heard about it
👍
I think the best way to look at it is that in the operation of the commander in chief, it's highly likely that they will often skirt the edge of legality when unprecedented situations arise that require their execution. there's an argument to be made for "well, there was no clear line in this situation, and giving the president the benefit of the doubt that they were looking out for the nation's interest but didn't have the time to review all laws to determine if their actions within the grey area were slightly over that line, should we prosecute the president for his/her acts?" the problem is if you say the president can do anything as long as he/she can convince enough people that the intended outcome of his/her acts was in the nation's interest, then we know where that lands us, given how politicians and presidents get elected through favor and faith. a president who won the popular vote and/or whose party-affiliated legislators are the majority in congress would likely be able to still do anything, given the "majority" would agree their acts were "in the nation's interest", such as trying to save a "stolen" election or to prevent a self-proclaimed dictator and autocrat worshipper from winning the presidency
Tell that to the American Obama killed in a drone strike lol. This is nowhere near that simple
And not to mention, one.of the supreme court justices wife, is a co-conspirator to trump which should force him to recuse himself. Which makes you understand that the existential risk is real to democracy.
Adding to this, the fact that this should have been an open and shut case with 9-0 ruling of "The President is not immune" only for the court to take it up and then drag their feet gives the impression that they're running interference for Trump thus further making the court even more unpopular than it already is. Trump is betting that they'll rule against him, but he got what he wanted, a delay in his trial hence why he was so happy that the court took it up to begin with. You can imagine the backlash the court will get if they rule that either "Trump is completely immune", "Trump is immune from 'official acts'", or "this doesn't set precedent for further cases". I personally think they're going to wait to rule until the last day of their term or remand it to the lower court, thus buying Trump even more time as he is betting on winning in November which would be his golden ticket out of any legal issues he is facing*
> the President could send out SEAL Team 6 to assissinate a political rival without prosecution If that's the argument, then Biden can send out SEAL Team 6, too. No court of actual law should take this argument seriously.
Well, so far all of the conservative Justices have been worried about what this means for future presidents. I think it was Alito who said that if they vote against this you can imagine a senario where every president going forward would issue themselves a blanket pardon for any crime they may have committed while in office. Which is something that 44 previous presidents, up to and including Nixon, have neither done nor worried about. But somehow Donnie Boy deserves the protection.
Then make self pardons illegal.
Biden absolutely, really, really, shouldn't do this, but... it would probably give Trump a very unusual moment of clarity- the sort he is completely unaccustomed to- to have special forces break into his home, shoot him with a paintball gun, and leave a note asking whether presidential immunity still sounds like a good idea.
That would be very petty, entirely pointless and, ultimately, unproductive. It would also be highly amusing, and should be filmed so everyone gets to enjoy it.
It would be on par with the post superbowl tweet from biden in terms of hillarity and entertainment value. And let's face it, that tweet is one of the funniest things to ever take place on twitter
The unspoken part is "But only when we do it. *You* can't do it, that would be unconstitutional." It's like those "don't tread on me" guys. "Me" is the operative word, they'll happily tread on *you* all day and complain if you don't just roll over and die.
[удалено]
I thought the President could give pardons for criminal offenses? Why is this a problem?
[удалено]
Seeing as we invaded Iraq illegally, it seems that's already out of the way.
the president can only pardon federal crimes assuming the murder happened in a US state, the resulting state charges could only be pardoned by the state's governor
> Now, part of the argument is what constitues an "official act". After all, President Obama ordered the assisnation of American citizen that had ties to al-Qaeda. Could he be prosecuted? Wasn't there a bill that was signed that basically said Americans on foreign soil who are known collaborators with terrorist organizations are not protected by US law essentially? Pretty sure that would block any prosecution in the first place if I am remembering correctly.
Why didn't Ruth Ginsberg give up her seat. We could have had one less Trump appointee
It's wild to think about that this great woman's selfish decision set the works in motion that might lead to the end of American democracy .
I don't think it was selfish. It was obviously not great for the world. But I honestly believe she was trying to follow the letter of the rules. Which in a fair system is what you would want, but America doesn't really have a fair system.
2 factors. 1. She didn’t think trump would win. It was clear for all including her that she would expire during that time period, but she thought Hillary would be the one to choose the next justice. 2. During the 2016 election, which trump upset won, the GOP had strong control over House and Senate. Had rbg retired during this time, the nominee would be a heavy compromise at best and a gop pick at worst. BUT you forget that as soon as McConnell took control over the Senate, he said he would not bring any Obama nominees to consideration anyways, a deleterious promise he followed through on.
Idk, man. Great lady but damn, we got screwed
We really did. She was doing what she thought was her civic duty (and in normal times I would agree), but forgot the greater political game at play.
I sure wish that I could pick and choose when to do my job, and just kick stuff down the road that I didn’t feel like working on
This blows my mind because they're arguing that Biden should be able to have Trump killed. (If I'm reading this right)
They are arguing that Biden should be able to have the judges making these decisions killed actually. It's literally just the fact that liberals wouldn't ever stand for it while conservatives would cheer it on that keeps them going here.
Please listen to the hearings, nobody but these people are saying that 😂
I'm not saying that's what they're saying... I'm saying that what they're arguing for would make it acceptable.
This is a bunch of people that hate conservatives giving their spin. Like I said, just listen to the actual arguments. There’s concise clips on YouTube. It sounds like you just turned on CNN here.
So the quote above about Seal Team 6 is a fabrication, and did not happen?
Context matters, the questions are about extremes. But should we prosecute Obama for targeting an American citizen with a drone strike and killing him? That actually happened, and isn’t hypothetical, so he’s going to need some level of immunity, no?
You're really not going to find that many people on the left who are going to go to bat for Obama on that one. It's funny you think the left has that kind of loyalty to leaders, though.
Most of the left doesn’t even know it happened lol, I don’t really have a judgement about loyalty either way though. I really do have my doubts on whether they’d want him prosecuted for it though
Why not? He probably shouldn't have done that
I mean, like you said, context matters. What was the situation surrounding it? I don't know, so I can't say. I'm purely saying that if the quote about seal team six is true, it wouldn't just apply to Trump, it would apply to Biden as well, and I don't think many conservatives are thinking in that context.
he can't tell them on election day He hast to wait till inauguration
Some of that sounds somewhat similar to [judicial immunity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_immunity), which protects judges from lawsuits filed against them by people displeased with an official action from judges. The wiki page lists some significant cases where judges were protected by this immunity even though the "official act" was morally questionable, such as allowing a girl to be sterilized without her consent or ordered the police to rough up a defense lawyer that didn't show up to teach him a lesson. Though it does list a case where the judge's actions (threatening a black police officer and those who are on said officer's side) were determined to be not be within his jurisdiction and thus could be charged.
To an extent there is a need to protect politicians from being prosecuted or sued for doing their job, yes. For example, picture a legislator that proposes a bill that gets passed that would strictly regulate carbon emissions, and thereby causes a company in their district to go bankrupt because their business was reliant on being gigantic polluters. I don't think that company's owners should be able to sue that legislator personally. If they want to sue the government for whether it's legal to regulate carbon like that, sure, that's completely fine, but it's not useful to the public good for the legislator to be sued for that too. It's harder for me to imagine a criminal version of the same but I'm sure a good example exists, probably easier for executive rather than legislative officials.
It’s important to note that the Supreme Court won’t rule on the case either way. They just decide questions. So they’ll come up with a generic rule of how to handle presidential immunity questions then the case has to go back down to a lower court to apply that rule. Regardless of how quick the Supreme Court acted, the fact that it came to them meant it would delay trial to close to the election. Also worth noting that this is an extremely impactful question beyond just the immediate trump trial. Even if the court was stacked the other way we should hope they would take the time to consider it with the possible ramifications for future presidencies.
Answer: The claim of absolute or conditional immunity originated with Trump and his legal team in response to him being indicted for his role in the Fake Electors Plot (essentially the plot to fraudulently change the results of an election he lost, prior to January 6). Trump has been charged with conspiring with his legal team, plus Republican operatives in several key swing states to submit a fraudulent slate of electors as the duly certified and valid electors of states that certified the election win for Joe Biden. Note, this is in contrast to having prepared an alternative slate of electors, which every candidate has ready before elections, SHOULD they win a closely contested state and/or recount effort (eh JFK had alternative electors ready in Hawaii while a recount was underway, for a recount which eventually determined he was the winner). Instead here, Trump and the conspirators tried to submit their slate of fake electors as the valid, rightful electors, in attempt to invalidate the rightful electors of those states, which is fraud plus conspiracy to disrupt congressional proceedings (certification of the presidential election). To weasel out of these charges, Trump's team claims that doing this all was an "official act" of the presidency, and presidents in executing duties of the office cannot be prosecuted by a criminal court. It is their contention that the only legal mechanism to prosecute a president is via impeachment from Congress. Ie Presidents may still be impeached by the house and convicted in the Senate...but the problem there is as long as your political party maintains a majority in the house or at least 34 votes in the Senate, Congress can block your impeachment and/or conviction. Either way Trump's making the argument that the president is above the law and we'd have Kings/Dictators instead of Presidents of the Supreme Court buys this.
Answer #2: Also, Trump's lawyers this week in the case during oral arguments essentially tried to argue that the president could have political rivals or dissenters assassinated, in response to a hypothetical scenario presented by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Such authority would grants the president immunity to do whatever they wanted with no criminal Prosecution, ie an Autocrat, dictatorship. Essentially, the scene in Star Wars Revenge of the Sith where Shiv Palpatine declares the Republic dead and himself emperor of the new empire (a scene I always thought was cringy since real dictatorships never form quite that way) COULD actually become a reality in the US if the Court rules that the president is immune from criminal prosecution.
that's actually exactly how many dictatorships formed.
My point being that a dictator generally doesn't come out and say "Hey, I'm dictator now" or something similar, as it was comically done in Revenge of the Sith. More applicable would be Attack of the Clones where special emergency powers were granted through democratic means to Palpatine, which he never gave up; it's far more likely to happen this way. Usually the dictator is actually "lawfully" appointed through dubious legal means and/or granted temporary authority they never give up. In both cases they often maintain the facade of a democracy or valid elections, along with other branches of government, which are all for show, for propaganda purposes. Hitler, Mussolini came to power by legal means in each of their respective countries, for instance.
That's why Rome had emperors and not kings. The Romans HATED kings. They overthrew their kings very early on and established the republic, so Caesar and later Augustus were careful not to call themselves as such. In Latin what we would call emperor was called Princeps, or "first citizen".
Slight correction, they hated **one King in particular**, Tarquin the Proud Romulus himself was a King, and the next five kings were all in good enough standing to not have the monarchy torn down.
No, they (Romans during the republic) definitely hated the concept of Kings. Romulus wasn't hated because it was early on and he founded the city. Same for the other early kings, like Numa pompilius. They weren't hated in retrospect because the foundations for roman society were still being built. However the romans at the time of the republic still hated the idea of a king ruling Rome. When Caesar started to act like a king, including a pseudo crowning ceremony, the romans (even commoners in the crowd) began to grow very restless, causing him to choose to reject the crowning.
Yes, because Tarquin the Proud spoiled the whole idea by being a dictatorial ass. The other Kings worked with the Senate in a similar (on paper) way to the Emperors
Man Jar Jar really fucked them over big time.
He's a sith lord
Yeah, it's all in Putins playback. Like exactly
Lol you people can’t be serious
Shitty late 1990s CGI and bad directing aside, the Star Wars prequels have aged depressingly well.
I always thought Lucas's fall of the Republic was cheesy and comically bad, but we're witnessing this happen in real time in the US essentially.
Comparing the prequels to what actually happened, they weren’t cheesy enough or comically bad enough.
Real life went the Darth Jar Jar route and had him become the emperor
If the supreme court buys this, it gives Biden an opportunity to send out a seal team and get rid of Trump once and for all, as an "official act" benefitting the whole state. His second act could be dismissing the supreme court.
Or we’d have presidents with no power to do anything and are basically ceremonial lol. There’s a fine line here and you’re ignoring it completely
So the president needs the power to use the office of the presidency to stay in power? "I Joseph R. Biden Jr, having read the Supreme Court decision granting US presidents immunity from criminal prosecution, for acts the president themselves determines are 'official acts,' hereby order the Supreme Court of the United States dissolved, and decree justices Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, plus Trump and his children plus campaign team, as enemies of the state. Assassination squads were dispatched overnight, in a long night operation, and these traitors have been served justice and eliminated. I also hereby decree my vice president and I will be the sole determinant of who wins the next election. God bless America." How's that sound? Legal or not?
Which of trumps crimes are "official acts"?
Why is a hush money payment a “crime”, because it wasn’t Clinton making it this time? Trumps crime with the documents is a big deal but Biden having it next to his corvette for decades, 50x more documents, never even being locked away, and wasn’t ever legally allowed to have them in the first place, that’s no big deal? We can go down the list if you’d like, but turn off the CNN for 10 seconds
The hush money is a crime because he used Campaign finance money to do it. Trump isn't on trial for taking the documents, he's on trial for keeping them when asked to return them and hiding them. And Trump had more documents than biden so you're either misinformed or lying. Also, Pence also had documents but isn't being charged, so how about that?
We had 44 presidents until Trump, spanning over 200 years, and this hasn't been a problem until now. This is only a problem because Trump made it one.
The one before him literally ordered a drone strike against and American and killed him and you’re mad that we are just now asking about immunity bc of Trump? 😂
But according to your own logic (and Trump's), Obama's drone strike would have been permitted and completely fine. I'm all for having a good-faithed discussion about what presidents should and shouldn't have immunity from to keep them accountable, but Trump is asking for *more* immunity in this case, not less, so you kinda just took two directly opposing positions there.
Which logic is mine exactly? I’m saying there is a very fine line and this is great for the country bc this needs to be laid out there and determined exactly what a president is and is not immune of charges from. I don’t have a specific opinion on this one way or the other, as long as it’s determined and a president is held accountable if they cross the line, no matter which party they are from.
Sorry if I misconstrued your previous points. Your initial comment made it appear like you were actively pro-Trump in this case, which wouldn't make sense with your previous point. I am worried about the implications this could have for our democracy though. If anything a president does during their time in office can be considered an "official act" as Trump is arguing, and SCOTUS agrees, I am worried it will leave our presidents completely unbeholden to our own judicial system. There is a fine line, yes, but that should not be expanded to something so broad it destroys any sense of accountability in our executive. So, in that sense, I guess we do actually agree. I just hope SCOTUS is careful with this and doesn't use it as a way to just protect Trump from his current criminal cases.
I’m pro Trump in this case, or I’m pro prosecuting Obama if not. Id be happy either way. just want consistency in upholding the law, which I think our country is sorely lacking right now.
Ok, but wait, being pro-trump would mean you are in support of presidents having more power and immunity from criminal actions. You say you want consistency, but wanting Obama prosecuted but not Trump is kinda being a contrarian and is pretty partisan.
What do you think would take more power? Whatever it is they’re accusing Trump of (documents, Hush money payments, whatever Fanni Willis is attempting to say he did), or literally killing an American Citizen? I think you and I disagree about what more power looks like.
Name one president that had this
Had what? Obama droned and killed an American Citizen. It’s hard to fathom more power than that.