• BoringHusband@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Trump, if he gets in again, can no longer do anything to Biden since he just gave the President absolute immunity.

    • vga@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Biden’s security after his presidency is probably not in the top #1000000 of the problems if Trump becomes a president.

      What I don’t get is what would stop Biden from ordering the assassinations of Trump and 1000 of his closest supporters if this gives total presidential immunity?

    • hypnoton@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      That immunity is for every president including Trump. Hell yes Trump can assassinate Bidens and be immune from prosecution.

      If it was immunity for Biden alone, then and only then would Biden be safe.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’m not one of those people who thinks Biden won’t make it through the next presidency, but I think you’re setting yourself up for disappointment hoping that he lives a long time.

  • Th4tGuyII@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Not that I would ever suggest it, but I bet the moment a president even attempted to abuse this official power against these six conservative traitors to democracy, they’d desperately try to walk this decision back - they only care for the potential of abuse when it negatively affects them

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      4 days ago

      They wouldn’t even need to actually abuse power at all.

      Just order the secret service to take over their personal security details, and attach members of the seal teams to each detail…. “As advisors”.

      It would be an implicit threat, sure, but also, a totally legal one, and they could hardly argue that “ensuring their safety and wellbeing” is not an official act,

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Go a step further and detain them in safe houses… claim that because of their decision their have been death threats and its in the interest of natuonal security. Give them basically no freedom of movement or agency of their lives… I bet they would change their tune quickly.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          Trust me. Swapping out security details like that is enough. More than enough.

          You swap out a single driver unexpectedly, and most these paranoid wankers notice. They’d freak out. You remove every one they’re used to?

          Oh they’d be screaming bloody murder before they ever got on the car.

          The point is to retain the prima facie moral high ground while making the point…

    • Eldritch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’m not advocating for violence. But I’ll put it this way. If I ended up on a jury for a murder trial for someone who killed one of the justices that decided for this. I would dedicate my life to nullifying that jury so hard. Not advocating. Just saying.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    Joe Biden should do what he can with these keys. If I were him I’d have them questioning their ruling 1 minute in.

  • suction@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    3 days ago

    So…couldn’t now Biden have Trump killed or maybe just his brain fried and get away with it?

  • Boddhisatva@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    President Trump signed Executive Order 13823 which kept Gitmo open and declared that the USA can detain “persons captured in connection with an armed conflict for the duration of the conflict.” That being stated in Trump’s executive order makes it clear that detaining such a person would be an official act.

    Trump and his MAGA supporters have made unproven claims that the 2020 election was stolen and they intended to overthrow the government and install him as President on Jan-6 despite his election loss. Trump and his supporters have made continuous threats of violence and committed numerous acts of violence since then. It is therefore clear that the violent conflict that started on Jan-6, 2021 has not yet concluded. Trump and members of his MAGA army can legally be detained, without charge, for the duration of this conflict if and when they are captured.

    Now there may be some question about who would capture Trump and his criminal allies and where they would be detained. It’s really quite simple. George W. Bush gave us extraordinary rendition. This program used agreements with about 50 other countries to abduct “terrorists” off the streets of those nations and hold and interrogate them indefinitely in CIA black sites. It is debatable on whether or not the CIA, NSA, or FBI could legally capture Trump or any of his terrorist allies, but that is not a problem. No doubt there are any number of foreign powers that would be happy to do so on our behalf for some diplomatic or financial consideration. Negotiating with other nations and arranging treaties and agreements is unarguably part of the Presidents job and therefore an official act.

    Thanks to this ruling all Biden needs to do to save our democracy is to come to an agreement with one or more nations to capture the terrorist Trump and transport him to some black site in a foreign nation. There he can be held, and interrogated if need be, until such time as the conflict with his MAGA army is ended. If there are any legally questionable actions by Biden here, they in the nature of official acts, and he is therefore immune to prosecution now or in the future. Should anyone else involved be charged with a federal crime during the capture or detention, Biden can simply pardon them.

    Thank you SCOTUS. You’ve given Biden the ability to save our nation with no legal risk to himself or anyone else involved in the process… Except, Biden would never do any of this because he is a decent human being. So what SCOTUS has really done is destroy our nation. This is the dumbest ruling ever made by this or any other SCOTUS in the history of this nation. The next Republican president will almost certainly not be a decent human being and will commit atrocities that he or she will never be prosecuted for and will tear down our democracy and will rebuild our nation as a Christian theocracy.

    • PersnickityPenguin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Well the president is still limited in what powers he has, he just now has absolute immunity from legal repercussions to his actions and decisions.

      • NocturnalEngineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        47
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        3 days ago

        Whilst technically immune now, assassinating them is still extremely polarising and likely to make martyrs, forever. And they won’t be able to justify the consequences of their decisions.

        Re-arresting them constantly however, from the oval office, interfering with their civil liberties… They themselves would have to describe how it’s not an official act, and why the president shouldn’t be immune.

        The moment they make a ruling… destroy their property, seize their assets, etc… Make their lives a living hell.

        It’s still polarising, but makes them feel the consequences of their actions. And they’ll have to justify it in the public court of opinion for everyone to see to why this is a good thing.

        • LordGimp@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          I’ll take dead martyrs over actively corrupt figures of absolute authority any day any how.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 days ago

          Would those who said president can kill anyone after being killed by president be martyrs?

  • EnderMB@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    ·
    3 days ago

    Not American, so excuse the silly question.

    What is stopping the President from dissolving the Supreme Court?

    • banana_lama@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      3 days ago

      It’s not within his powers to do so. But he could have the secret service assassinate them. Pardon the perpetrators and then assign whomever he wants the position with threats against the lives of the senate and congress as a whole for all who would vote against assigning this person. Elimate them and have the vote.

  • btaf45@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 days ago

    The Supreme Court not only made the president a king, they also overturned the Magna Carta.

  • REdOG@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Biden should officially 2/3 of Congress ASAP…or at least someone he will pardon, unlike Hunter.

    • foggy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Well to be fair, it’d be King Biden.

      Just a far less scary king who might even work to unking himself.

      Or something idk.

      This shits scary.

      • Snowclone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        It’s not in human nature to limit your own power. I’m voting for Biden, for his appointments and admin, I have nothing against him, but my experience is that no one relinquishes power. Once the office has the power, no one’s going to let it go.

      • bizarroland@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        4 days ago

        I don’t know. Something tells me that they don’t have the integrity left to hold their own rulings true for the group of people that they don’t personally support.

        I’m getting more of a “rules for thee but not for me” vibe but from the supreme Court

      • xenomor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        40
        ·
        4 days ago

        Exactly this. It’s critically important that we prevent trump and his fascist goons from getting control of this power. But that in itself doesn’t address the really big problem here. Living at the whim of a benevolent king is still living under a king. I honestly think this is it. The constitutional republic is over in every meaningful way beyond window dressing. Given the authority of the Supreme Court, I don’t see a legal fix for this. This is dark AF.

        • dhork@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          This ruling basically covered how ex-Presidents might be prosecuted. The President still has some level of accountability to Congress via impeachment , although we’ve already seen how hard that is.

          Of course, when Trump’s second impeachment didn’t stick, one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts. Now that it is in court, the Supreme Court just said “Sike! Congress needed to act all along”.

          Edited to add: Another legal fix would be simply packing the court. Democrats should pound this during this election. They should make sure voters know that if Democrats are given the White House and both houses of Congress, they will fix the court by adding 4 new seats.

          • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            33
            ·
            4 days ago

            Mueller: “I can’t do it. Congress should handle it.”

            Congress: “We can’t do it. The Court should handle it.”

            Supreme Court: “Nah.”

          • empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            4 days ago

            one of the main reasons Republicans gave for voting against it was that they felt the proper venue for that was in the courts.

            The courts that they knew they had stacked in their favor. That was always an intentional copout.

        • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Watching a panel of news anchors discuss this today, I was struck by the ashen looks on their faces. As if they had today witnessed a mortal wound to the nation.

    • blazeknave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 days ago

      Have you seen the interviews with them? They literally want him to be king. They say yes when asked if he should be dictator.

      • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Great. Let’s put him and Castro in crowns on billboards and stick them in Miami. Let them look at them for awhile.

          • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            First of all, they aren’t monolithic. Young Cubans vote differently than old Cubans. But, Rick Scott has the formula…no matter the subject call your opponent a socialist. They hate socialism…but always want strongman rule.