Submitted 5 months ago by dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee to [deleted]
If inciting an insurrection towards their own government is an action without legal repercussions, I don’t see how the law would be less lenient about straight up firing a gun at an opponent.
I by no means want any party to resolve to violent tactics. So even though I play with the thought, I really don’t want anything like it to happen. I am just curious if it’s actually the case that a sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.
What am I missing?
Because what they really did was set themselves up as the ones who decide what is and isn’t an official act.
As long as there is a right-wing supreme court, any action by a republican president will be official and immune, but if a democratic president tried to throw their weight around in the same… They’ll get shut down.
Simply replace the SC judges in an official act.
Wait, maybe the justices just gave Biden the authority to do just that.
…
Naw. See, if he did, that’d delegitimize the presidency and cause a constitutional crisis.
But, if a Republican President does it, it’s an exercise in upholding American freedom and the true authority of the office. See the difference?
The SC will seem that an unofficial act… Got to jail
That’s the perfect! That’s why we nominate someone of Bidens age. Not only can he get away with it now as an “official act” but by the time the next court rules on it, he’ll be long gone
That presumes there’s still a SCOTUS Star Chamber to rule on the issue…
Declare a national security emergency. Have the SEALS eliminate Trump for being a traitor. Bing bang boom, America is Great Again.
And replace SCOTUS.
Yeah, I mean if we’re going to the store you might as well get a cart full right?
“In a 1 to 9 decision, Biden opened 6 seats in the Supreme Court today, citing official business.”
don’t be ridiculous; it says official acts, so he can’t bring a gun himself.
he has to use seal team 6 instead. see? democracy isn’t dead!
“As an official act as President, I have issues an Executive Order that I blast Trump in the face.”
Boom, checkmate libruls
For the record, that would be an illegal order and should be refused by everyone involved in the military chain.
(Whether or not it is refused is a different matter.)
They sent back the question of what is an official act. And when the judge comes back with something like “official acts are those in which a president is acting in an official capacity as the president to fulfill obligations and duties of the president.” (IANAL….so there’s probably some anal retentive detail that is super critical in missing)
In any case, when challenging the election, that is not an official act- that was something done by Trump-the-candidate.
Inviting foreign dignitaries, however frequently is. (But probably not when selling out America and other spies to keep compromat from leaking)
Organizing an insurrection in the US never is, however.
I’m alarmed by the alarm in the dissent- they probably know where this is going, but POTUS has enjoyed some immunity anyhow as far as official acts go. And when it’s kept to a reasonable understanding… that’s more or less good.
Their alarm suggests that the majority here is not going to have a reasonable understanding when that gets appealed.
Reasonable
Who’s to say what’s reasonable.
when challenging the election, that is not an official act
Why not? He could make the argument that the election was stolen and ignoring it is in the best interest of the United states.
It’s very clear this will be abused, most notably by letting Trump off the hook for his insurrection. That’s why there’s huge alarm.
He’s the commander in chief, ordering a seal team or the CIA to assassinate someone is an official act and legal now. What you fail to mention in your haste to try to downplay this is that they also made it impossible to present evidence of crimes by the president, so any non-public action by the president is de facto legal. It would be impossible to prosecute because even if you gatheted evidence he ordered the hit, you couldn’t use it in court.
Yes, it’s that bad. No, it’s not that people are over reacting.
Read Sotomayor’s dissent, she says explicitly that this gives the president legal immunity against assassinations.
They did not say that he was immune. They said that the president has immunity for certain acts. What acts? Whatever acts they, the SCOTUS, decide they should be immune from. So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.
So… Biden could target SCOTUS as being treasonous & appoint new justices under immunity with the three remaining liberal justices quickly ruling he has executive privilege to do so?
Yes. I joked about this scenario when I didn’t think the scotus would hand down such a fucked up ruling, but we’re halfway to some really funny shit.
I think that “some bullshit reason” would be murder.
People have gotten fucking ridiculous lately.
They said “some bullshit reason” because the same logic would very clearly not be applied to trump if he were to do the same. Think a bit. It’s ok.
That court also wouldn’t be able to have the president arrested. He would need to be impeached and removed from office before any of that could happen.
So Biden could shoot Trump dead but the court would rule that that was illegal because some bullshit reason.
Ah! But with what evidence? They also ruled that presidential conduct (paraphrasing here) can’t be used as evidence.
True, but they are also the ones who decide what they can and cannot do without recourse from anyone else (because we need 2/3 of Congress to impeach which is a non-starter.) so they can rule one way and then rule another for whatever reason they want.
Our “justices” (/vomit…) don’t have to have any qualifications, we just pay lip service to norms so we (read: the federalist society) choose vaguely “acceptable” people to be justices, but you or I could be one too which really means that they have almost nothing to do with the actual law. We’re a fucking joke.
You’re not missing anything. Based on the ruling, the president may now murder anyone they want - just so long as they claim it’s an official act.
They can also pardon themselves if it isn’t an official act, since their pardon power is an official act.
It’s not that simple; A court must rule that the action in question is an “official act”. As the SCOTUS intentionally declined to elaborate further on who this is defined, it will be up for the courts to decide what is and what is not covered by immunity.
Not that this couldn’t become subject to abuse and partisan rulings, but it’s more complicated than the presidental equivalent of
Misinformation. This does not allow the president to commit a crime and then say it was all in an official capacity. The very act of doing something criminal immediately puts it out of the realm of any official capacity. Obviously.
You’ve clearly been living under a rock the past 8 years if you think this is true.
Why would immunity be necessary if the act is not otherwise a crime?
They will definitely use this ruling to allow a president to do criminal things. Obviously.
Bring his own gun? Unofficial act. Have the DOJ black bag his opponent and rendition him to a CIA camp in Saudi Arabia? Official act and immune.
You just need to pull the “it was in the best interest of the United States” card and it’s an official act.
Well then why hasn’t he done it… I can’t think of something of a more positive interest than to dump trump down a hole.
It’s not currently in the best interest.
IF Trump wins the election then it would be in the best interests of the US. It would be akin to a judge throwing out a juries verdict because the jury clearly made the wrong decision.
I think the Secret Service detail assigned to Trump might have a problem with that. I think Biden killing Trump or canceling the election would be a gift to the Republicans that they don’t need. One can dream though.
Saudi Arabia bad idea, Trump has allies in that nation.
So does Biden. The two parties are much closer than they make it seem.
It has to be an official act within the scope of the executive branch. So he couldn’t just bring a gun and shot him, however he could direct the justice department to focus on domestic terrorism and cite Trump’s threats for political retribution as a terroristic threat and have him and every other Republican who publicly agreed with him disappeared.
Can we book this in for 10:30 tomorrow?
Trump is arguing that his twitter was “official communications”, and thus can’t be used in court. This means that the 34 felony convictions might go away now.
But the truth is that the Supreme Court didn’t say that every “official act” was immune from consequences. The more nuanced reading is that any act that the Court declares official is immune from consequences.
The Conservatives on the Court declared the president King, but only when they feel like it.
Acts done in an official manner are immune. So for example if the president orders assassination of political leader of another country (what Trump did with Iran’s Suleinami (I’m probably butchering name)). Protects president from prosecution for murder or whatever if there is evidence it was done in the interest of the state.
Another example is something Biden / Trump and even Hilary are guilty of. The misuse or mishandling of classified materials. Since they are acting in an official manner, it isn’t a crime like it would be if a normal citizen mishandled the documents.
Acts done in an “unofficial manner” are not immune. So let’s say a Mr President does some insider trading while president to enrich himself personally. That presumably would still be illegal and he could be charged.
So who decides what is official and what isn’t? The courts. Lower courts make a determination and presumably it would go up to the SC if necessary.
It’s an interesting question. For example- Reagan’s Iran-Contra episode. Where his administration was smuggling cocaine in order to get money to covertly supply weapons to Iran. Would that be official or unofficial?
I think people need to realize the president has had broad powers to do a lot of dubious things for decades. This doesn’t necessarily increase or decrease his power, but creates a potential pathway to either prosecute or acquit him. Whereas before, it always stayed in the legal gray zone (in Reagan’s Iran Contra)
Odd, please cite your qualifications.
You know, the ones that makes your opinion more valid than the opinion expressed by the (dissenting) supreme court justices directly involved in the case?
Pt2: had to split in two because of length. See other comment first
_______continued…
my response to this is: if there is immunity, but not for criminal prosecution, what does the immunity apply to?
moving forward, the dissenter discusses the “framework for prosecution of unofficial acts”
Quick on the heels of announcing this astonishingly broad official-acts immunity, the majority assures us that a former President can still be prosecuted for “unofficial acts.” Ante, at 15. Of course he can. No one has questioned the ability to prosecute a former President for unofficial acts Even Trump did not claim immunity for such acts and, as the majority acknowledges, such an immunity would be impossible
essentially saying, yes. unofficial immunity would be absurd.
It says that whenever the President acts in a way that is “‘not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority,’” he is taking official action
they are arguing that the statement is too broad. that it would be effectively impossible to distinguish an item from “official” to “unofficial”
so their problem is not that there doesn’t exist a method to prosecute a president for criminal actions, but that the proposed framework is not going to be effective in doing so
to conclude: i’ve read a couple dissenters and i’ve read a couple of the majority. i personally don’t think this ruling is as important as everyone is making it out to be
why?
the president already has these powers, except it has been in a gray legal area up until now. it is essentially writing down active policy. the president had presumed immunity for official acts before this
it creates a framework to determine whether or not a president is acting in his official capacity. this power gets thrown to the courts.
what this does is it gives the legislative branch a check against the president. i support more checks against the president because i think the executive is too powerful in general
now, i understand the viewpoint that should the courts want to, they could rule everything the president does as “official” and therefore the president is effectively immune should the court politically be aligned with the president.
however, i would repond that is the courts are politically aligned, they would have inevitably ruled in the same manner should this case have come up 10 yearse from now.
this case, while important in the sense that it officially reinforces this precedence, it doesn’t functionally change anything going forward
now that i’ve written out my reasoning, if you disagree with any specific points, feel free. i’m not an expert i’m a layman with a mild interest in constitutional law. i’m more than happy to admit i’m wrong. i’m not a conservative so please believe me i’m not partisanly motivated to see one side or another here. i’m going off of my own independent interpretation
Pt1:appeal to authority means nothing to me, and it shouldn’t to you, because experts and authorities can be wrong just like anyone else. i care about the merits of the argument, as everyone should
and for that, we need to critically think and analyze reasoning on its own merits.
so let’s actually read the court opinion, which you can easily find on the supreme court website if you’re actually curious.
Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts
so essentially - that’s exactly what i said. president has immunity for official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts. what is the court’s reasoning?
Article II of the Constitution vests “executive Power” in “a President of the United States of America.” His authority to act necessarily “stem[s] either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”
It follows that an Act of Congress—either a specific one targeted at the President or a generally applicable one—may not criminalize the President’s actions within his exclusive constitutional power.
So, the court’s opinion is that when a President is within his constitutionally defined powers he cannot be held criminally liable. Otherwise, for example, virtually every president for the last few decades could be held criminally liable for some crime. I brought up the examples of the classified document mishandling previously, but there are many more should you go looking.
Not all of the President’s official acts fall within his “conclusive and preclusive” authority. The reasons that justify the President’s absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for acts within the scope of his exclusive constitutional authority do not extend to conduct in areas where his authority is shared with Congress. To determine the President’s immunity in this context, the Court looks primarily to the Framers’ design of the Presidency within the separation of powers
So, not everything a president does falls within this immunity bubble. How do we decide what is official and what isn’t? Well, first we look at the seperation of powers outlined in the constitution. You know, the stuff you were taught in elementary school. 3 branches of government. What is within the scope of the executive branch, president has authority over.
The Framers designed the Presidency to provide for a “vigorous” and “energetic” Executive. The Federalist No. 70, pp. 471–472 They vested the President with “supervisory and policy responsibilities of utmost discretion and sensitivity.” Appreciating the “unique risks” that arise when the President’s energies are diverted by proceedings that might render him “unduly cautious in the discharge of his official duties,” the Court has recognized Presidential immunities and privileges “rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.”
Essentially, the argument is: the President should not be afraid to act because of fear of criminal prosecution. For example, if something like killing a political leader of an enemy state is deemed critical to national security - he has the ability to choose this course of action without fear of being charged for murder. If we did not allow for this, the president’s office would be weaker. The opinion shares many court cases and items of the constitution that reinforces this authority the president is granted.
At a minimum, the President must be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.”
So he can actually be prosecuted for specific acts if the proseuction can show that it doesn’t impede on the use of his constitutionally appointed powers.
As for a President’s unofficial acts, there is no immunity. Although Presidential immunity is required for official actions to ensure that the President’s decisionmaking is not distorted by the threat of future litigation stemming from those actions, that concern does not support immunity for unofficial conduct.
Again, like my previous comment - unofficial acts do not hold immunity. Items outside of his legal presidential powers are not protected.
The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. It is therefore incumbent upon the Court to be mindful that it is “a court of final review and not first view.”
So, how do we determine what is “official” versus “unofficial”? Well, the courts decide. However, as the Supreme Court is intended by the constitution to be a “final destination” the process must start at the lower courts and work its way up to the Supreme Court.
So essentially, the decision states a) president has immunity for official acts, b) does not have immunity for unofficial acts, and c) it presents a framework and process for determining the difference between the two
the decision was ruled 6-3
so what did the dissenters say? well here’s justice Sotomayor
Relying on little more than its own misguided wisdom about the need for “bold and unhesitating action” by the President
They are saying that the argument that the president neesd to act “bold and unhestitatingly” as specified by the constitution is not enough reason to warrant immunity.
the next couple pages, which i won’t quote here for brevity, outlines the crimes that Trump committed circa Jan 6th. None of this has anything to do with the argument above, but has more to do with how Trump blatantly broke the law during this event and lists several examples
The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution.
self explanatory, we’re going back to the topic at hand
The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.”
i disagree with the statement “completely insulate presidents from criminal liability”. as we showed before, there is a framework for prosecuting presidents should they act in a manner outside of their constitutionally protected powers. the next statement, of course, is just a rehashing of the decision. president has immunity for his “core presidential powers”
a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution.
this is patently false. if they act in an unofficial manner, they do not get immunity. the courts have the power to determine acts “unofficial” and prosecute him
The Constitution’s text contains no provision for immunity from criminal prosecution for former Presidents
well, this is up for debate and interpretation. it’s been widely recognized that presidents have immunity for official acts. this has been the accepted situation for very long time. if you want to read about the history of this precedence: …findlaw.com/…/article-ii--presidential-immunity-…
that article from way before this court case, goes over both the constitutional basis for the precedence as well as supreme court cases that reinforced the precedence
so while the constitution does not explicitly state that the president has immunity, it can be implied that these powers arise from both the powers and responsibilities vested to the office of president
the dissenting judge says as much in the next statement
Of course, “the silence of the Constitution on this score is not dispositive.”
essentially saying - the lack of explicit mention does not by itself necessarily mean the opinion of the court is incorrect.
they then make the argument, which i will summarize for brevity, that a) the framers of the constitution provided for limited immunity for legislators and b) state constitutions at this time period had immunitities
therefore, the framers would have been aware of this and would have explicitly mentioned this if they intended this. therefore, they argue it was not intended by the framers of the constitution
my statement is - this is a valid argument. perhaps the framers not only did not intend for immunity, they left it explicitly unmentioned because they did intend for the president to have immunity.
however i believe this statement alone is not enough to justify a dissent with the opinion. mainly because there’s a lot of things that framers intended or didn’t intend that we have modified since. i don’t think i have to elaborate here.
then the dissenter goes on
Aware of its lack of textual support, the majority points out that this Court has “recognized Presidential immunities and privileges ‘rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.’” Ante, at 10 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 749). That is true, as far as it goes.
essentially saying - yes, the majority points out the established precedence that the Supreme Court has on this topic, and they are correct in using that as an argument
Nothing in our history, however, supports the majority’s entirely novel immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts.
however, nothing in the precedence applies explicitly to criminal prosecution. essentially saying - the precedence holds for presidential immunities but not from criminal prosecution.
The Sotomayor dissent was awful. It’s an absurd argument with no real basis in reality. Whether the president is immune from ordering the assassination of a rival is largely irrelevant, because it wouldn’t get to a criminal trial anyway. It’s already illegal for the seals to carry out that order as well.
The president told me to do it isn’t a valid defense
I can answer for him/her. He/she isn’t a polotician, nor appointed by them. So he/she is more qualified to not exaggerate the truth to make newspaper headlines. And clearly he/she can read.
sitting president has now effectively a licence to kill.
Just think about how many wars they have started: They had this license all the time!
Wars are against foreigners not US citizens. Not against the flag and the constitution it represents.
Domestic case law for will need to test their ruling.
Wars are against foreigners not US citizens.
Always a riddle to me how Usamericans do not respect basic human rights of all other people in the world. For example, the right to live.
Regarding our example here: your distinction seems a bit meaningless because ordering a war means not only ordering the death of other people in the world. War is always against more than one party. It means also ordering the death of Usamerican soldiers and probably civilians.
So, the license to kill is fine, as long it’s non US citizens?
Your definition of democracy and basic human rights is fucking unhinged.
He must say: “This officially ends here” before pulling the trigger.
I. DECLARE. ASSASSINATION!
“Allow me to retort!”
Hammer falls “Overruled.”
His own devotion to ineffectiveness.
The supreme cunts can just change their ruling whenever they feel like it, so as long as it’s their boss tRump it’s fine but anyone they don’t like they’ll just make another decision saying you can’t do that anymore.
The immunity only applies to Republican presidents.
What is stopping BIDEN??? I’d say empathy and a good set of morals. Regardless of if you think he’s fit to be president, I think nobody sane would argue that he’s a good man. He’s a good person. Even if he could do so consequence free, HE wouldn’t.
The question is, what’s stopping the next president with no morals? And that’s a far more chilling scenario.
Answer: they would react differently if it were Biden versus Trump who did it. The SCOTUS would find a way to let Trump off while making Biden pay.
He doesn’t even have to shoot anyone. Whoever interferes with an official act is clearly committing treason and can be sent to Gulag
Grip strength
A lot of discussion on Lemmy forgets that a very large number of people actually support that Piece of Shit Donald Trump. Tens of Millions. Some of them are begging for a civil war. Killing Trump publicly would be a spark to a great flame.
He should start with the supreme court if he has an ounce of worth.
Trump could bring his own gun and shoot him and the Court would still call it official.
That wouldn’t be an official act as president. What would be an official act as president would be nuking mar a lago, calling a special forces strike on trump, or possibly even getting him sent to Guantanamo
You were missing the entire thing because that’s not what the ruling was from SCOTUS. All it did was reiterate the current responsibility of the president that he is immune from some of his actions of his job function when acting within the purview of his official function. He Would not be granted immunity at all if he was doing something that broke the law or was acting on a personal nature
Pardon my ignorance but did the court say that inciting an insurection is an official act?
His son’s borrowing it.
It would make for a great example of everything that’s wrong with it. I want it to happen. It’d halt a lot of the fascist push along with getting them to make their own counterarguments.
Biden has a moral compass, rusty as it may be. Trump has an AMORAL compass, al bright n shiny forever pointing at himself
For official business
fubo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The immunity from criminal prosecution has to do with official acts, not personal acts. It wouldn’t apply to Biden personally shooting Trump.
It would apply to a military proclamation as commander-in-chief that the Trump movement is a domestic insurrectionist movement that carried out an armed attack on the US Congress, and directing the US Army to decapitate the movement by capturing or killing its leaders, taking all enemy combatants as prisoners of war, etc. (Now consider that the Army is only obliged to follow constitutional orders, and would have Significant Questions about the constitutionality of such an order.)
Further, the immunity is only from criminal prosecution and would not protect Biden from impeachment and removal from office by Congress.
dQw4w9WgXcQ@lemm.ee 5 months ago
That sounds both crazy and not actually wildly far fetched. If the tables were turned and Trump was in the position of having the power to declare Biden’s movement as an enemy and carry out violent ways to stop them, I would almost expect it to happen.
Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 5 months ago
It would make for an interesting movie, thatxs hopefully based in fiction.
snooggums@midwest.social 5 months ago
He can just pardon himself if he shoots Trump because he has immunity when issuing the pardon, since that is an official act.
fubo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Better do it in DC. Murder can be charged under state law, and the presidential pardon power only applies to federal charges.
gramathy@lemmy.ml 5 months ago
Not just an official act, it’s explicitly a constitutional power which is given absolute immunity.
damnthefilibuster@lemmy.world 5 months ago
So Biden could officially flood the supreme court with democrat judges, then officially ask them to revoke this stupid ruling?
fubo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Supreme Court judges must be confirmed by a majority of the Senate before being seated.
K1nsey6@lemmy.world 5 months ago
They didn’t change anything other than reiterate what the president is immune from, what he has always been immune from and when he is not immune from prosecution
Squorlple@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Could Biden just say “I officially declare Trump the head of a terrorist organization” before firing the gun?
Anamnesis@lemmy.world 5 months ago
All Biden has to do is claim that it’s an official act, because Trump is a terrorist, a threat to the Constitution, or some other questionable legal pretext. The problem is that there’s no remedy against such a claim. It could be litigated and go to SCOTUS again, who would have to decide whether it’s an official act or not. But this ruling gives no definite rule on what does or does not count as an official act.
RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 5 months ago
The ruling is limited to “official acts”, but the same court is the one who decides if an act is official or not
Stern@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Feel like the next lohical step is to throw the 6 into jail. They obviously can’t rule on their own trial so…
Somethingcheezie@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Well since 2 judges are pro Jan 6 I’d remove them too as part of the conspiracy.
sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 5 months ago
So he just has to order the CIA to do it.
The… the CIA and many other government agencies have a stories history of doing absolutely insane things that are absolutely crimes…
…And many of those things only get brought to light by a whistle lower or leak ot some Watergate level fuckup of being caught in the act, or years or decades of actual investigation later.
There are so many problems with this ruling its mind boggling.
Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Trying to overthrow a court and Congress sanctioned vote of the people to retain power is most certainly a personal act.
BigMacHole@lemm.ee 5 months ago
That’s your OPINION!
Mjpasta710@midwest.social 5 months ago
They can’t impeach if they can’t assemble a quorum.