Sorry if this is not the proper community for this question. Please let me know if I should post this question elsewhere.
So like, I’m not trying to be hyperbolic or jump on some conspiracy theory crap, but this seems like very troubling news to me. My entire life, I’ve been under the impression that no one is technically/officially above the law in the US, especially the president. I thought that was a hard consensus among Americans regardless of party. Now, SCOTUS just made the POTUS immune to criminal liability.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences. They also already have the ability to pardon anyone else for federal violations. The POTUS can literally threaten anyone now. They can assassinate anyone. They can order anyone to assassinate anyone, then pardon them. It may even grant complete immunity from state laws because if anyone tries to hold the POTUS accountable, then they can be assassinated too. This is some Putin-level dictator stuff.
I feel like this is unbelievable and acknowledge that I may be wayyy off. Am I misunderstanding something?? Do I need to calm down?
Disclaimer: someone calm me and op down.
I couldn’t believe that every post wasn’t about this ruling all day
No, you shouldn’t calm down, this decision is absolutely cataclysmic for the US should a dangerous person be elected or the ruling not overturned.
I’ve been saying the states are okay despite all SCOTUS’ stripping of civil rights and everything else wrong with that country because as long as there were checks and balances, voting had relevance.
With this ruling,I can’t see that it will continue to.
A president can order their political opponents murdered.
They can order that all civil rights be suspended indefinitely.
They can order a suspension or abolition of term limits.
They can abolish voting altogether in a hundred different ways and nothing can be legally done to halt that president from continuing to abolish voting until it sticks.
If anyone does manage to legally stop the president, the president can kill them or cut off their fingers and remove their voice box.
Literally anything is now legal, fair game.
Biden has spoken out against that kind of power and he has it right now, so VOTE for BIDEN to buy yourselves some time.
Whoever comes after this term or the next likely won’t have the same scruples.
This is far and away the most dangerous and harmful decision SCOTUS has ever made, which is saying a LOT.
It is the antithesis of the line in the Constitution explicitly stating that no elected official (like the president) has legal immunity.
The decision to grant an entire branch of the government absolute(it is absolute, anything can become “official”) legal immunity could very rapidly destroy the country as it is and turn it into a true authoritarian state within a week.
It takes some time to write, print and sign the executive orders or I’d say a day.
I have to read up on it more because I haven’t read or heard enough yet to convince me that this decision is not utterly catastrophic.
I’m shocked the dollar hasn’t collapsed, any further international faith in US stability is misplaced.
Antiquated.
Article II, Section 3 - the president must take care to execute the laws faithfully. No president meeting the requirements of the office could issue an illegal official order. If the president orders something illegal, it’s necessarily against the oath of office and should not be considered official.
My feeling is that this ruling means any cases brought against the president would need to establish that an act was unofficial before criminal proceedings could proceed. Thay seems fine to me to adjudicate in each case.
Unfortunately I think you’re missing something here. The court ruled that the president has immunity. Like the kind of immunity diplomats get in foreign countries that enables them to run over people in their cars. Immunity as a concept only makes sense if the action performed is actually illegal. Nobody can be prosecuted for legal actions. The president is now unprosecutable for both legal AND illegal actions.
It’s a nonsensical and horrifying ruling. The fact that the president would be violating his oath of office doesn’t cancel out the immunity, it just makes the crime that much more disgusting, and the impossibility of justice that much more galling.
Please back this up with some quotes from the ruling or something because this is not how I read it.
The reason the president is immune for official acts is to protect people like Obama who ordered extrajudicial killings of American citizens. That is a very grey offical act - these were US citizens in a war zone fighting for the other side. I may not fully agree that that should be protected, but I understand the reasoning around a president feeling free to act (legally) in the best interests of the nation without fear that their actions would lead to legal jeopardy after they leave office.
(To be clear: I would be ok with a trial to decide if Obama’s actions were official, for instance. And if they were deemed not, then he could be tried for those assassinations. Also, to be clear: I am a progressive who would vote for Obama over Trump in a heartbeat.)
It’s all over the Syllabus section, but here’s a specific quote:
Personally I am ok with courts not being able to deem something unofficial based on allegations rather than on a decision.
So how do they prosecute then? If the president commits a crime, let’s say he accepts a bribe for a pardon, you aren’t allowed to bring a prosecution unless a court deems the act unofficial. And the court isn’t permitted to find that the act was unofficial because the bribery is merely an allegation and hasn’t been proved. And you can’t prove the allegation because you can’t prosecute a president for official acts.
The trial court is supposed to determine if there is sufficient evidence such that is not a mere allegation?
The US President now has legal immunity from executing those laws faithfully.
Incorrect. Breaking the law is never an official act of the office, and therefore, cannot be protected.
I appreciate this response. It makes me feel a little better. I still think we should be concerned about SCOTUS probably getting to make some of these decisions of what’s official or not. Seems more corrupt on the judicial branch side of things rather than executive. Overall not great.
I mean, it’s definitely not great. This court is a sham that never should have had this makeup.
And this absolutely makes it harder to bring Trump to trial before the election.
This is not great.
But it is not “the president can assasinate people!!!”
At least, not to this layman. I would hope supreme court justices know better, but even the dissent seems a little unhinged to me, a progressive who thinks the rule of law should AND STILL DOES apply to everyone. (I am also not willing to just give up and say “yeah, guess assassination is legal now” - I think that junk is counterproductive and maybe being propagandized against us by unfriendly foreign governments.)
The president absolutely can assassinate people according to this. They can have someone picked up on any charge (execution of laws and giving orders to the military are part of their “official acts”), taken to a federal facility, and executed (espionage, national defense, exigent circumstances, whatever), then pardon everyone involved, and no evidence could even be brought up because it is all tied to an official act and investigating it would be impossible because any evidence tied to the official act is prohibited (giving orders to the military, directing federal law enforcement) and the investigation would burden the president’s ability to execute their core responsibilities.
I’m not reading this. Your first sentence is incorrect.
Bull. The president giving orders to the military is a core responsibility, and he has full immunity in that regard. That plus a pardon for the military members involved means he can have anyone assassinated and nobody would face consequences. Period.
Legal orders. The president is bound by Article II, Section 3.
You are not considering the part where we can’t use relevant testimony or documents to prove that what the President does is illegal in the first place. The President can just say whatever illegal things they did were official acts, and all the evidence that might prove otherwise is off-limits. It relies on other people in the administration to not follow the illegal order, but of course that is a weak protection and the President can fire them or do something illegal to them without consequence too.
If you follow an illegal order, guess what you just did: broke the law.
Please, fhis strident unreality being pushed is JUST LIKE the fear mongering on the right.
This decision is by no means great, it may totally delay trials for Trump until after the election, that’s horeshit in my opinion. But I also don’t beleive this bullshit about this ruling making the president a king. Stop FUDing for them. Trump STILL HAS TO FOLLOW THE LAW IF HE IS ELECTED. Please STOP REINFORCING THE IDEA THAT HE DOES NOT.
How can you have immunity from following the law? The only immunity is from breaking it; any law broken in a president’s effort to execute their core official acts cannot be prosecuted or even investigated, according to this decision.
Did you even read Sotomayor’ dissent? I did.
Yes, and I sadly had to agree with John Roberts, not a good place to be.
The doomerism is just ridiculous to me.
Disclaimer: someone calm me and op down.
Nope. Too busy losing my goddamn shit over this insane, dictator-making, Enabling Act 2.0 garbage.
Yes, it scares the shit out of me. Even if we manage to never elect Trump before he dies, the next time any Republican makes it to the presidency, the American Experiment is over.
I think it’s silly to assume that this can’t and won’t be abused by Democrats as well, given time. The worst thing we could do in this situation is make it partisan.
No president should have this power.
It could be abused by Democrats as well. If we get to that point, all hope is lost anyway.
Not to defend the democrats too much but even if they do it, the SCOTUS is heavily biased against them which means that they would get heavily punished.
Also at the least the liberal wing of the SCOTUS voted against this, unlike the republican appointed judges.
So there’s clearly one side pushing for this and one trying to prevent it.
Any concern about it had by anyone not in an authoritative position is impotent.
Yep. I’m so over American politics and I think the nation is headed in the wrong direction. I feel that the people are powerless against changing our trajectory. I had been considering doing a PhD abroad and this is really pushing that decision now.
Do it. Do it now. You know what kind of person lived a life knowing they made the right decision?
Everyone that left Germany in 1932.
Let’s say the best possible thing happens. Biden crushes Trump, the Republicans lose so many seats Team Not Fascists can push through Constitutional Amendments.
What would Democrats actually change for the better?
Do you think that is likely?
Or will you be spending the rest of your life wondering if this is the election year that starts a civil war in one of the the most militarised nations on the planet? Do you want to be in a major nuclear power where one side specifically hates cities when it has a civil war?
Even if things go relatively well, this bullshit isn’t ending without one. As a best outcome! The other is no one even doing that! Every two fucking years you’re going to be watching which Congressional seats fall to fascism because one team has just chosen to abandon reality and democracy.
What would Democrats actually change for the better?
-
See Canada
-
See Norway
-
Do like them.
That’s about 20 years of reform.
- GO TO 1
The democrats are not even left enough to be a centrist party in Canada. They will not reform.
While you might be generally correct, some of the legislation passed during Biden’s term is genuinely better than what even Europe could come up with.
More likely they’ll have a party and slap each other on the back for not needing to court the union vote anymore.
You’re right that they could.
Now look at their past legislation. Will they?
-
Just know that you’re not the only one that sees it this way. There are a lot of us, but not nearly enough.
Nope. Nobody is concerned. Did you know that a new episode of One Piece is coming out this week?
ಠ_ಠ
Removed by mod
I’m pissed that Biden isn’t calling their bluff and breaking a ton of laws right now.
Actually I think it is far worse than you may…
They ruled that the president is immune from prosecution for official acts they would get to rule on what that means.
So if Biden does X; they could rule it not official; but if Trump were to do that same thing, I’ve no doubt they would rule the other waySays right in the ruling it’s up to the trails court to determine what is official.
That’s only a delay tactic since it’ll eventually come back to SCROTUS
The fact that Clarence Thomas has his name on this ruling really helps illustrate how easy and often cheap it is to simply buy rulings.
I wonder, what do you think the ruling changed? What can the president do now that the president wasn’t able to do before?
Did you read the dissenting judges statements on the ruling? Sitting Supreme Court Justices have publicly given their legal opinion on what the ruling means.
Did you read it?
I have not read the ruling but if this is how it goes then it feels like a slow burn coup by the SCOTUS. The fate of every decision of the president is in the hands of these justices. They now control what is ‘official’ and what is not. They now control the president in some way.
or maybe (hopefully) I’m wrong.
Very similar to Nazis path to power, a lot of provocative action, violence, and people stop giving a shit that they are constantly doing this, an attempt at a violent coup, it dosen’t work, then the people in power create legal pretexts to allow a seemingly legal way to dictatorship.
SCOTUS
POTUS
FLOTUSCan’t Biden just have a reaper drone fire a hellfire missile at Trump? Or am I missing something?
You are right to be concerned. If this is not reversed soon and with a bang, the USA would either be in a civil war or start WWIII in the next 5 years
All this shit is literally straight out of the Putin playbook. Take control of the courts, take control of what is legal, take control of elections. Republicans were always too dumb and incompetent to be anything but pawns of a better organized evil.
Fascism isn’t some genius-brained thing, it’s just how authoritarians operate, and Putin didn’t invent it.
US politics has always been deeply corrupt, and now it is losing even more of its veneer of legitimacy, which means it’s crumbled that much more.
The Russians aren’t the cause of your woes. Actually if you look at what happened with the neoliberal shock doctrine and the fall of the USSR, the US is way more responsible for Putin than the other way around.
That’s correct, and it doesn’t discount that authoritarianism is authoritarianism. Notwithstanding, people are so indoctrinated with American exceptionalism and USA most free country in the world, we don’t even bother to learn about what Greg Palast termed vulture capitalism and tactics used. Operation Paperclip is heavily whitewashed as “the best and brightest,” leaving out the noun being described, Nazis.
We’re in real trouble and the only ones who can save us from ourselves is ourselves. It will be interesting to see if it will be done before the climate extinction.
As with the lowest posts in this thread, this will not be popular, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’m not concerned. Not because I think everything is fine. It’s because it’s not been fine for a long long time. Now the curtain is being pulled back and everyone can see the reality that’s always been there. Privilege just means private law, and the president is the most privileged person in the US. As time moves forward the window dressing is removed and we can see reality for what it really is. It reminds me of This Vicious Cabaret:
But the backdrop’s peel and the sets give way and the cast gets eaten by the play / There’s a murderer at the Matinee, there are dead men in the aisles / And the patrons and actors too are uncertain if the show is through / And with side-long looks await their cue but the frozen mask just smiles.
This ruling is only possible and accepted because the current political climate allows for that, true. Things haven’t been fine for a while. But this is a sign that they keep getting worse.
I vehemently disagree with the idea that it’s a good thing to have “the curtain pulled back”. Realpolitik is and has been true forever - but public perception and acceptance matters a huge amount. These popular illusions and ideals are a part of the calculation of realpolitik.
Society should be idealistic, it should expect better - because those expectations shape the actions of politicians. Our society losing its ideals shouldn’t be applauded, it should be mourned.
Well, that’s one way to look at it, but too, keep in mind Hemingway’s famous description of how somebody goes broke: Slowly, then all at once.
A president can’t claim immunity. The president has always had immunity for acts that the constitution provides the office.
The president has inferred immunity for powers shared with Congress.
The president enjoys no immunity for acts as a private citizen.
These are important distinctions.
You or I cannot bomb another country. The president can.
You or I cannot kill a maid. The president cannot.
Only acts used with the power of the office are immune. You can’t use presidential authority to sexually harass your staff. That’s against the law.
The ruling didn’t change anything, nor was anything given. SCOTUS doesn’t create the law. We don’t have a magical genie godking president all of a sudden.
Isn’t the point that SCOTUS could decide that killing a maid was within the responsibilities of office.
No. The president could not personally kill their maid.
The maid was cleaning the presidents office. This was clearly presidential. Business. SCOTUS rules not guilty.
Do you believe that scenario is totally impossible?
Yes, because it doesn’t fall within the powers granted to the president via the constitution. He cannot sexually harass her. He cannot kill her. He cannot take bribes from her. So on and so forth.
What if SCOTUS decide he can do all those things?
The Constitution bestows the power upon the presidential office onto the president. Not SCOTUS.
SCOTUS decides the limit (if it exists) of that power.
The president can personally violate any law without legal consequences.
This isn’t true.
They ruled that the President has criminal immunity for official acts in line with the constitutional rights and duties of the POTUS.
They also ruled that non-official acts, or acts taken in a personal capacity as a private citizen, are not immune to criminal prosecution, and that there’s a large gray area in between the two where it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
