That is a DoJ POLICY, not a law, nor is it in the Constitution. It has never really been tested, everybody has just gone along with it all these years. SCOTUS gave the president immunity, but with a loophole: it has to be part of his presidential duties. It could be argued that arresting opponents for doing their Constitutionally-mandated jobs is NOT within the President’s duties, and therefore he would not be immune. Same with doing things like ordering the military to fire on American protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It will be up to SCOTUS to decide, and they’ve already shown that they wont rubber-stamp his nonsense.
If he starts arresting SCOTUS justices, they arent likely to find in his favor for ANYTHING.
Policies inform how the law and system works. The DOJ can change that policy, but since it is essentially under the control of the sitting president, that won’t happen.
I think you misunderstand the power dynamic, the president controls the military and if he starts to arrest SCOTUS justices, I don’t think the SCOTUS rulings will matter any more, they won’t have any way to enforce their rulings that will stand up to the de facto power the president has.
The SCOTUS rulings are already being ignored by this administration on other decisions that were made by them, so you could say we’re already past that.
Supreme Courts around the world have found all sorts of ways of exercising power. They can deputize citizen volunteers to serve as temporary court enforcers. They can outright order the military to stand down and arrest the president. Hell, they could dig into the ancient tradition and declare the president an outlaw - literally outside the protection of the law, making it legal for anyone to straight-up kill the guy.
only Congress has that authority through impeachment, a sitting president is immune to indictment
That is a DoJ POLICY, not a law, nor is it in the Constitution. It has never really been tested, everybody has just gone along with it all these years. SCOTUS gave the president immunity, but with a loophole: it has to be part of his presidential duties. It could be argued that arresting opponents for doing their Constitutionally-mandated jobs is NOT within the President’s duties, and therefore he would not be immune. Same with doing things like ordering the military to fire on American protesters exercising their 1st Amendment rights. It will be up to SCOTUS to decide, and they’ve already shown that they wont rubber-stamp his nonsense.
If he starts arresting SCOTUS justices, they arent likely to find in his favor for ANYTHING.
Policies inform how the law and system works. The DOJ can change that policy, but since it is essentially under the control of the sitting president, that won’t happen.
I think you misunderstand the power dynamic, the president controls the military and if he starts to arrest SCOTUS justices, I don’t think the SCOTUS rulings will matter any more, they won’t have any way to enforce their rulings that will stand up to the de facto power the president has.
The SCOTUS rulings are already being ignored by this administration on other decisions that were made by them, so you could say we’re already past that.
Supreme Courts around the world have found all sorts of ways of exercising power. They can deputize citizen volunteers to serve as temporary court enforcers. They can outright order the military to stand down and arrest the president. Hell, they could dig into the ancient tradition and declare the president an outlaw - literally outside the protection of the law, making it legal for anyone to straight-up kill the guy.