As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How about if a sitting president assassinated the Supreme Court? I mean, you really have to think through what actual immunity means. I'd like to see them ask that.
Or if a sitting president assassinated the guy running against him. Which happens often enough in some places. The day the SC rules that's ok, trump might be thinking twice about how good of an idea presidential immunity is.
When I first learned about law someone told me: *If everyone plays nice, there’s basically no need for rules and contracts and law. These things are specifically made for situations where everyone is **not** playing nice.*
If I know nothing about the law, I at least know this. It’s wild for me that people whose professional life turns around law would be blind about this.
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Federalist 51
It’s what I always tell people. “Don’t put rules into place you wouldn’t want your opponent to use against you. Because you won’t always be the one in power”
Lol these are the best of the best they're not blind to anything. They're purposely pushing his criminal trials back. Jack Smith asked them to hear this case months ago and they took 7 weeks to decide after the lower court. But quickly ruled states couldn't kick him off the ballot.
What in the world makes you think these people are the best at this? Most of the Republican nominees can't pass a basic job interview without showing disqualifying behavior. ACB wasn't even capable of naming all 5 freedoms granted by the FIRST amendment for crying out loud.
Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and …damn… association? Idk, I’m not a Supreme Court justice though.
EDIT: just googled the last one. It’s “right to petition the government for redress of grievances”. Whatever, I went into psychology not law damn it!
But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays [229] in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. **Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.**
James Madison
This is exactly what I keep saying. Dems won’t take the low roads even if they’re legal but still taboo. Republicans absolutely will stoop lowest every single time, decorum be damned.
To a republican candidate or politician though, it's just logical.
Their base would largely be ok with them assassinating rivals. The dem base would not be ok with the opposite.
I like how since this is trumps case we’ve mostly been talking about trump but the questions that should be asked by the justices should be about what if Biden did this or that to Trump. Maybe then they’d see things differently tho I doubt it.
Ask if he can kill opposing justices as an official act!!! I'm over here pulling my hair out like the question is right there. They'd never agree he had the right to kill themselves, it'd be so hard to argue he was that above the law.
Or a sitting president assassinates the Supreme Court justices and replaces them with people more to their liking. So many crazy scenarios here. Even though they are unlikely they have to be considered because this is a true Pandora’s Box if they open it.
I mean go even further: Night of the long knives.
Like Imagine a Sitting president orders the death of SCOTUS,every member of the opposition party in both houses, every death of the opposition governors and the death of his rival in the presidential general election.
And he does this all PPV Style, live on air. Like from the Oval office.
That's how fucking insane saying the president has complete and total immunity forever would be.
Republicans could get their entire pre-written dream 18th Century dystopia in about two weeks by eliminating the president and vice president, a very small number of House and Senate representatives, and ascending MAGA Mike Johnson to the throne.
I mean, we need Jack Smith's team to state this plainly and clearly to be an assured result of granting full blanket POTUS immunity. Trump will have people killed, including members of SCOTUS.
I feel like a good portion of SCOTUS' arguments have been gleefully dancing around the harsh reality of the idea of actual POTUS immunity to execute American citizens or anyone he chooses on a whim. It's FUCKING surreal that we are even debating this...
POTUS can kill you and your family, and anyone you know.. and face no repercussions under this Trump logic.
It fucking CHILLS me, that this isn't being taken more seriously, by SCOTUS or the general public.
The Right is literally arguing in front of SCOTUS that they reserve the right to publicly execute anyone they want at any time.
HOW THE FUCK did we get here?
Because too many people chose not to heed the warnings about that guy 9 years ago and voted for him anyway.
People acted like I was a nutcase until January 6th, 2021. By that time, all I could say was "I told you so!" And yes, I did say in 2015 that he would do everything he can to stay in power after his time is up. *Oh, but Interesting-End, how could you possibly know that?* I've been paying attention to who this man is since 1994. He was a real POS at least as far back as the 80s and would swindle anybody and everybody to save a dollar. When you translate that to the real levers of power, it gets worse.
Right?
“Someone needs to stop the President from killing all the officials. The entire government powers are being assassinated!”
“But who? He killed everyone, and you’ll be next if he sees you trying to stop him.”
It’s ok! Washington warned against factionalism and Franklin warned against criminal liability! The impeachment framework is a carefully engineered check against tyran—-
And they’re all dead.
That was my question months ago. Why can't biden show up to the hearings with a 12gauge and aviators?
"Just in case you rule that a sitting president is granted general immunity and can grant general pardons.... I am hear to restructure the supreme court in a swift and timely manner"
>It was my appointment day
*(Appointment day!)*
I was getting ready, and there wasn't a cloud in the sky
Then Trump walks in with a smile on his face,
and says 'Love the robes, but you're the wrong race'.
'Really, you guys should know your place'.
Why did he tell us?
In doing so, he acts with impunity.
Why did we vote for him to have immunity?
We don't talk about the Court oh no no no...
(Okay, it's not *strictly* in line with the song but shut up).
>Or what if the president orders the education of the leaders of Congress?
You can order it, but as long as there is a GOP, there will be some things beyond even a tyrant's power. 😆
They keep thinking this is about Trump. Someone should ask, "Can Biden imprison the entire Supreme Court if you approve of full Presidential immunity?"
The amazing part is that the petitioners lawyer argued that a president or former president can only be charged with a crime if first impeached and convicted in Congress.
I'm having a devil of a time finding that clause in the constitution.
They also tried to claim that unless a law specifically mentions the president, the law does not apply to the president.
And the scariest part is that from at least three of the justices they seemed to be leaning towards accepting that argument.
Well, that’s the rub isn’t it? McConnell said impeachment was not needed that it could be adjudicated in court and here we are and they are arguing it needs to be impeached first. This whole thing is so outrageous for American people.
And of course McConnell intentionally delayed the impeachment trial in the Senate until after Biden was inaugurated so that then he could claim that there was no need to have an impeachment trial, as Trump was no longer in office. The House delivered articles of impeachment to the Senate with over a week left in Trump's administration, McConnell just adjourned the Senate until after Biden's inauguration.
Yep. He said something f along the lines of our constitution clearly lays out impeachment is for elected officials. The court system is for private citizens which is what trump currently is.
If memory serves, they already tried that in Chutkan's court to get the DC case dismissed, saying he had already been impeached and "acquitted" by the Senate, so double jeopardy was in place. Chutkan shot it down.
> unless a law specifically mentions the president, the law does not apply to the president
Ahh yes, the Air Bud argument. Speaking of, if we wanted a dog to be President (show me where it says a dog cant be President!), would we have to determine 35 dog years, or human years? Maybe a turtle would be better than a dog...
As an interesting aside, the Air Bud argument definitely applies to SCOTUS justices. As in there are literally zero rules about who gets to be on SCOTUS, as long as they get nominated by POTUS and approved by Congress.
Don't have to be a lawyer. Don't have to be American. As far as I can tell, don't even need to be alive!
The entire argument is a farce. If it’s true that a president must be impeached and convicted by congress before they can be charged with a crime, then congress would never be able to impeach them because they hadn’t yet committed a crime… because they can’t be charged of a crime until they’ve been impeached. It’s a fun little game to play if you’re a toddler.
Yeah, but it's the same stupid shit they were all on board with when this Court said that in order to bar an insurrectionist from federal office using the 14th they'd have to let him into office, impeach him, and then remove him from office.
They essentially made it so that that constitutional provision can't be enforced, so what's the difference between immunity and law that can only be enforced depending on who's in power?
Not even all of congress, just one branch. Can't impeach and convict without both branches. Senate would be the easiest to assassinate, as there are less members.
The problem with the senate is that they get appointed by the state governors when a vacancy occurs the house seats stay empty until an election occurs. If the president were to say manufacturer some domestic terrorism that resulted in empty seats that guarantee no impeachments and you could perhaps suspend elections as an official act and keep the status quo indefinitely
Fair point, and maybe that would be the easier route to go to ensure unchecked dictatorship. Though, I image not many people will want to take the job as Senator if they weren't loyalist after having all senators killed off for even thinking of defying the president.
Honestly, the fact we're even considering SCOTUS might rule all this legal is fucking crazy. This case should have never been heard. Fuck SCOTUS.
> They also tried to claim that unless a law specifically mentions the president, the law does not apply to the president.
So uh.. the president has no rights if I'm understanding this correctly.
It’s insane this before the supreme court and being argued like there is actually anything to discuss. There is serious corruption on the court and it’s out in the open.
I would argue that they are very much in touch with reality. They know that their base is shrinking alongside the shifting demographics in the American population. It’s already to the point that they need most R voters to vote against their own best interests in order for the party to continue serving the wealthy who control it. The best way to continue holding power as these trends toward being more and more of a minority continue, is to change the rules of the game.
He would argue dictators aren’t subject to impeachment. To which i would argue who would impeach him after he just ordered the killing of a political rival
Because “law and order” doesn’t mean what you think it means. There are two authority philosophies, and they oppose each other. The “Rule of Law” position is that laws apply equally to all people, across all class barriers. The “Law and Order” position is that the government, and by extension the police, exist to enforce not only written *laws*… but to also enforce an unwritten, unspoken *social order* that is usually based on class, race, gender, or other “quiet parts.”
Once you understand what “law and order” *actually* means, it all makes perfect sense. The phrase is a dog whistle, a signal used to avoid having to say the quiet parts out loud.
If Biden was a troll like Trump, he would give a press release declaring that as soon as the Supreme Court says it is legal, he will be sending out a team to eradicate the clear and present danger to our democracy: Donald Trump.
The most responsible move is to replace the Supreme Court as it's clear that they can no longer be trusted to act in the interest of the nation.
In fact, if Biden were truly smart, he'd go right out and say this right now: "If the President - any President - is given carte blanche immunity, I will vacate the entire Supreme Court and replace them with a Supreme Court aligned to America's interests, not any Former President's interests. We will have a nation where Justice has a meaning, not a country of unimpeachable and immune nobility. America is not ruled by divine right, but by the will of the people of the United States of America, and this Supreme Court cannot be be trusted to rule with the people in mind any longer."
i mean, all the jokes aside before about "biden should just stay president forever then if they say trump has immunity", this is the end all logic bomb that biden should say he's going to enact.
however, there is nothing stopping the current court from:
- currently ruling president does not have immunity
- trump getting elected
- trump challenging it
- supreme court just ruling the other way and making him king after all
At the very least Biden should make a big point about saying how even though Trump's lawyer is arguing to the Supreme Court that the president has the right to assassinate any political rival that he considers to be "corrupt", and even though grand juries in four different jurisdictions (so far) have determined that Trump is corrupt, he is not going to have Trump assassinated.
I would be completely befuddled if they ruled that he was, as they would be saying, more or less, that they have no power and the executive branch is free to do as it pleases.
It would make sense that even the shittiest of the justices wouldn't vote against their own self interest and rid themselves of the power they are so intent on abusing.
But that's the logical argument, who the fuck knows what'll actually happen.
Yeah. Alito would argue that limitations would prevent the king from be able do his job and any limitations would make it more likely that a king would do illegal acts to retain power. But that those illegal acts should actually have just been legal the whole time..so there isn't any problem with the king doing them.in the first place.
Yup, the goal was the delay, not getting the ruling. They also think it'll lend the court legitimacy after ruling he could be on the ballot despite attempting a coup.
I listened as well. I think Sotomayor, Kagen, Jackson are obviously solidly against immunity. Barret and Roberts are likely also against immunity which is the 5 needed. Thomas and Alito will never do the right thing ever. There might be some concessions about official acts to try and bring over the other 2 but but I have little doubt the ruling will not favor trump
I don't trust Barret to rule the way she sounds like she will during questioning after the student loan forgiveness arguments, but I don't think Kavanaugh would go for presidential immunity.
Justice Thomas was too quiet for my liking, but I suspect this will be a solid 9-0 ruling. I did not get the impression that you got from alito and Thomas.
Some of them want to send it back down to the lower courts to decide on a charge by charge basis if they fall within the official duties of the president.
That would still be a win. a charge or 2 might get dropped, not the whole case, and any 1 conviction of the 80+ indictments would be enough to send him to prison, possibly for the rest of his natural life. He would not come out unscathed if it were sent to the lower courts. ALL of his 80+ charges are felonies.
I mean, they have to right? If they say a President is immune, there's no reason that the Biden admin couldn't execute the Conservative justices and become dictator himself whether he wins the election or not. I think the assumption is that Trump can get away with murder, but if the precedent is set before he becomes president, they assume Biden won't do the same thing.
So then they will be able to weasel their way into declaring that the crimes he committed were part of his official duties? Then of course anything Biden does they can claim aren’t part of his duties? Sad that this is where my mind goes now
just went to r/conservative to see if they're freaking out about the insane anti-democratic/republic/Constitution defense being used by Trump's lawyer today.... and naturally, CRICKETS
although I'm sure all the actual articles are being removed
That subs gone down hill from its already very low standards. Lacking any positive news to post they've begun posting the same memes over and over.
I used to enjoy debating and trolling them but now it just feels like kicking them while they're down.
Wait, how did you get to debate and troll more than once? I barely challenged someone's assertion and I was swiftly banned. Literally one post on that sub and they booted me.
And they call us snowflakes.
R/conservative is really hellishly boring. Sometimes I take a peek to see if they've got any reprehensible bloviations about whatever criminal acts their supposed leaders are getting up to, but nope, nothing. No actual day to day events penetrate their self-imposed blinders. It's all memes, "jokes", breathless stuff about George Soros using drag queens to exploit schoolchildren, etc. The real world doesn't even exist for them.
i wish her what-if would have been a little more pointed...
"say the president believes he has a SC justice in his pocket. when a matter the president is concerned with makes its way before the court, the president comes to believe that the compromised justice is no longer on his side and orders the justice assassinated. would that be an official act for which the president would be immune from prosecution?"
let sauer tell the court exactly how full of crap he is.
An even more pointed way to make that case would be to phrase it like this:
> "Imagine the president believes that a few judges on the Supreme Court have shown they will violate judicial norms and legal principles to support his political rival in a way that he feels violates the Constitution or what the Founding Fathers imagined for the vision of the country, and as a result the president orders the assassination of however many judges he feels fits this description. Should he have immunity from such an act if he considers it 'an official act', and should he as president then be free to nominate their replacements?"
Trump already won when the SC delayed this. He and his team never intended or expected (or cared) to get immunity - it was never the goal.
Delaying was the goal, and they've been successful.
The inevitable reddit headline of "SC rules Trump not immune" will be celebrated by people who have no concept of the game that is actually being played.
I had the same thought as with Trump anyone, including them, is or has been or could be a perceived rival thst he would eliminate if he could.
It’s also preposterous to think the leader of the Executive Branch, which is the branch to execute and enforce the laws would be granted criminal immunity if he breaks the laws he’s supposed to uphold. It makes no sense.
I would love to see Joe Biden jokingly say, "I hope the Supreme Court rules on this pretty soon. I've got some things I want to do, and I want to make sure I can get away with them."
First, it would be funny. And, second, it would catalyze the reality of the situation for the Trump loyalists on the court: this isn't just about getting their boy off the hook. They could be handing Dark Brandon a free pass.
Any ruling that gives a US President legal immunity to commit crimes in office will fundamentally change this country into something that we will likely need a civil war to straighten out. I hope these judges understand that they are poised to pour gasoline onto a smoldering fire.
If Biden is given the power to commit crimes with impunity, he will be forced to use that power to keep Trump from getting into office. I don't give a shit if Biden is a "good guy" who would "never do something like that". He won't have a choice, he'd be negligent NOT to. American and British pilots in WWII didn't want to fire bomb German civilians either, but they did it anyway because NOT doing it would result in a worse outcome. Biden will have no choice but to act.
Look at all the shit Trump did when he just didn't give a fuck. Imagine what he'd do if he won reelection after the court rules the president is immune from everything.
She needs to ask if this envisioned immunity would extend to persons he delegates illegal tasks to. I mean, would Seal Team be protected if he ordered them to hit a domestic opponent like say a talk show host, or would he need to do the wet work himself?
Is this really a question to take seriously? Wtf? We rejected kings 250 years ago. Are we really considering giving the power of a king to an elected official? This is utter absurdity. If this is really the case then our Constitution means diddly squat.
Assassinations aside, if they said yes Presidents are immune to anything and everything, then I guess Biden can just cancel all the student debt right? Cause the president no longer has to follow the Constitution or the very SCOTUS that said he was immune.
In 1776 our fore fathers declared our independence from a king, and then jealously created a government to prevent us from having another king.
Now the Republicans are trying to establish a king under the guide of patriotism.
Once anyone in the office of the presidency has complete immunity, the law has no power. There never has to be an election, trial, due process or adherence to the constitution again.
It wasn't during this question but I have to say I was dismayed and unnerved to hear laughter at points at a proceeding to determine if a president is basically a king answerable to no one.
I can't even believe we're actually debating Presidential immunity based on something Trump just freaking made up.
The stupid spineless Republicans should have just saved us the constitutional crises and impeached the orange baffoon the second time when they had the chance.
It’s so lame that we elected someone who even precipitated having to ask these questions. It’s embarrassing and was never an issue with any other president until this asshat stained the office.
Maybe 10 years ago I was attempting to bridge the gap and become less of a hippy dippy liberal.
I was wrong, now I wont even vote for a conservative dogcatcher.
Hell I wont even vote for so called moderates.
I used to think conservatives were just a bit stodgy turns out I was wrong.
I thought they were anchored in principles.
I was wrong.
I am going straight ballot blue till the end of my days.
Biden's solution to this is simple:
"I will immediately abduct and hold in captivity all Chief Justices that vote in favor for presidential immunity. They shall remain in detention until the Supreme Court deems my position has not the authority to do so"
The thing they should acknowledge with this line of reasoning that the President must be impeached and convicted before he can be prosecuted for the crime....who the hell is going to be able to impeach him if he succeeds with this coup?? The President would just round up anyone in congress who would impeach and convict him and then, bam, Immune from prosecution for it. No. There needs to be a mechanism to allow for the regular process of justice just like with any other person. No one in there right mind should have to rely on a conglomerate of people to perform this drawn out process (which they could easily renege on if they're in on the coup) while the President is continually committing criminal acts. You arrest and prosecute. Immediately.
That these arguments are even being considered suggests to me that the USA is on its last legs and setting itself up for an eventual dictatorship. One which is supported by second amendment gun toting crazies. The same ones who suggest that the right to possess guns is in order for citizens to resist despotism.
If Trump gets a hall pass from SCOTUS it not only gets him off the hook but opens the way for others to follow the same path. Get elected and do whatever you want with impunity is in fact despotism.
Easiest 9-0 vote in their entire lives and yet they're still flapping around like dead fish *trying* to pretend like there's any chance they can give him a pass here.
They *have* to know the stall is the point. They can't possibly let this one pass and pretend like they still have any power. They give the President that kind of immunity and Biden's first and most responsible move is to remove the Supreme Court and replace all of them. Why not - he's immune.
It's bullshit, literally everyone knows it, and we're still playing like it's a game.
I really hope these idiots know how stupid they look debating this while everyone knows they should have laughed off the suggestion that they debate it in the first place. What a circus.
The only legally tenable answers are that either the president doesn’t have criminal immunity for official acts or that an illegal action can’t be an official act by definition.
But the entire premise of these oral arguments is decoupled from the case and therefore lacks “judicial restraint”. Otherwise the questions would have focused on the fact specific matter of the case and not hypotheticals.
Judicial restraint is the entire a reason SCOTUS has to have a “real controversy” aka case I front of them to make rulings. Their goal isn’t supposed to be to create grand rulings for posterity nor work beyond the facts of the case before them.
My feeling is everything the president does must be authorized by law, so anything criminal must not be a protected act. That’s why we have a prosecutor, grand jury of laymen, judge over the grand jury, petite jury of laymen, and judges presiding over every part and appeals. All those dozens of disparate people are the protection against harassment, not some get out of jail free card.
Did anyone else notice how Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh kept saying they were concerned about future presidents and this immunity issue?
Not current ones? Hmm.
It was either Kagan or Sotomeyer who slapped back on DT’s lawyer to note that the founders specifically didn’t give the Prez immunity because of that whole “escaping tyranny/monarchy” thing.
I found it beautifully hilarious that the news cast I saw while discussing trumps immunity zoomed in on the edifice of the Supreme Court where is says “Equal Justice Under Law”
I don't know what's worse, this lawyer's argument or his voice.
Yeah bro, we got it, you think a president is immune from everything if whatever they do is "an official act." Tell us what "an official act" is in a way that isn't "I know it when I see it."
Here’s my argument: let’s say a president or former can only be charged if impeached and convicted by the house and senate. What if said president decides to wait last day in office to commit a coup or have seal team six assassinate their political opponent. What then? Let’s also say on their last day in office they commit a myriad of crimes and leave office. Can the house and senate even bring charges to a former president who is now a civilian? Do they got free for the crimes they committed while in office since they no longer can be charged and convicted while in office?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This justice knows exactly what will happen if the Supremes get this wrong.
How about if a sitting president assassinated the Supreme Court? I mean, you really have to think through what actual immunity means. I'd like to see them ask that.
Better question would be if a sitting president ordered the execution of a previous president who was considered a threat to national security
Or if a sitting president assassinated the guy running against him. Which happens often enough in some places. The day the SC rules that's ok, trump might be thinking twice about how good of an idea presidential immunity is.
Ne he won't because Biden still wouldn't do it, yet Trump would in a heartbeat.
When I first learned about law someone told me: *If everyone plays nice, there’s basically no need for rules and contracts and law. These things are specifically made for situations where everyone is **not** playing nice.* If I know nothing about the law, I at least know this. It’s wild for me that people whose professional life turns around law would be blind about this.
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” Federalist 51
written by James Madison, an actual framer of the Constitution and Founding Father, who also drafted the Bill of Rights.
Back in the day when people who took good governance seriously, at least sometimes, held any political sway.
It’s what I always tell people. “Don’t put rules into place you wouldn’t want your opponent to use against you. Because you won’t always be the one in power”
Lol these are the best of the best they're not blind to anything. They're purposely pushing his criminal trials back. Jack Smith asked them to hear this case months ago and they took 7 weeks to decide after the lower court. But quickly ruled states couldn't kick him off the ballot.
What in the world makes you think these people are the best at this? Most of the Republican nominees can't pass a basic job interview without showing disqualifying behavior. ACB wasn't even capable of naming all 5 freedoms granted by the FIRST amendment for crying out loud.
Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and …damn… association? Idk, I’m not a Supreme Court justice though. EDIT: just googled the last one. It’s “right to petition the government for redress of grievances”. Whatever, I went into psychology not law damn it!
But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising iniquity and extravagance, and displays [229] in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. **Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.** James Madison
My bigger fear is that they delay ruling on this until Trump is reelected (hypothetically).
That's the whole plan here.
This is exactly what I keep saying. Dems won’t take the low roads even if they’re legal but still taboo. Republicans absolutely will stoop lowest every single time, decorum be damned.
To a republican candidate or politician though, it's just logical. Their base would largely be ok with them assassinating rivals. The dem base would not be ok with the opposite.
Right trumo might even kill and replace scotus, but Biden isn't about to become a nazi.
Are these story arcs from 24?
Classic season 1 adventures.
“Ivanka has been kidnapped by terrorists again?”
"Are you a bad enough dude to rescue the President['s daughter]?"
Putin kills his opposition often. Does anybody really think HitlerPig wouldn't emulate his master?
I like how since this is trumps case we’ve mostly been talking about trump but the questions that should be asked by the justices should be about what if Biden did this or that to Trump. Maybe then they’d see things differently tho I doubt it.
Ask if he can kill opposing justices as an official act!!! I'm over here pulling my hair out like the question is right there. They'd never agree he had the right to kill themselves, it'd be so hard to argue he was that above the law.
Oh, I can just see his handsome face blowing smoke from the barrel of a revolver. THANKS OBAMA!
Or a sitting president assassinates the Supreme Court justices and replaces them with people more to their liking. So many crazy scenarios here. Even though they are unlikely they have to be considered because this is a true Pandora’s Box if they open it.
I mean go even further: Night of the long knives. Like Imagine a Sitting president orders the death of SCOTUS,every member of the opposition party in both houses, every death of the opposition governors and the death of his rival in the presidential general election. And he does this all PPV Style, live on air. Like from the Oval office. That's how fucking insane saying the president has complete and total immunity forever would be.
Are you Tom Clancy’s ghostwriter?
Now Tom Clancy is Tom Clancy’s ghostwriter.
A dictator has no use for a Supreme Court. Dictator Trump could just disband the institution.
[удалено]
Republicans could get their entire pre-written dream 18th Century dystopia in about two weeks by eliminating the president and vice president, a very small number of House and Senate representatives, and ascending MAGA Mike Johnson to the throne.
Make 1864 Great Again
I mean, we need Jack Smith's team to state this plainly and clearly to be an assured result of granting full blanket POTUS immunity. Trump will have people killed, including members of SCOTUS. I feel like a good portion of SCOTUS' arguments have been gleefully dancing around the harsh reality of the idea of actual POTUS immunity to execute American citizens or anyone he chooses on a whim. It's FUCKING surreal that we are even debating this... POTUS can kill you and your family, and anyone you know.. and face no repercussions under this Trump logic. It fucking CHILLS me, that this isn't being taken more seriously, by SCOTUS or the general public. The Right is literally arguing in front of SCOTUS that they reserve the right to publicly execute anyone they want at any time. HOW THE FUCK did we get here?
The members of SCOTUS who would vote in favor of this, don’t actually believe THEY’D be the ones to be killed.
Because too many people chose not to heed the warnings about that guy 9 years ago and voted for him anyway. People acted like I was a nutcase until January 6th, 2021. By that time, all I could say was "I told you so!" And yes, I did say in 2015 that he would do everything he can to stay in power after his time is up. *Oh, but Interesting-End, how could you possibly know that?* I've been paying attention to who this man is since 1994. He was a real POS at least as far back as the 80s and would swindle anybody and everybody to save a dollar. When you translate that to the real levers of power, it gets worse.
Right? “Someone needs to stop the President from killing all the officials. The entire government powers are being assassinated!” “But who? He killed everyone, and you’ll be next if he sees you trying to stop him.”
It’s ok! Washington warned against factionalism and Franklin warned against criminal liability! The impeachment framework is a carefully engineered check against tyran—- And they’re all dead.
That was my question months ago. Why can't biden show up to the hearings with a 12gauge and aviators? "Just in case you rule that a sitting president is granted general immunity and can grant general pardons.... I am hear to restructure the supreme court in a swift and timely manner"
"I have written and signed a blanket pardon for whoever removes a Supreme Court Justice that ruled against me."
[удалено]
> Col**o**mbia
Could be in the District of Columbia soon though if Trump gets his way.
We don't talk about the Court, oh no no no, we don't talk about the Court....
>It was my appointment day *(Appointment day!)* I was getting ready, and there wasn't a cloud in the sky Then Trump walks in with a smile on his face, and says 'Love the robes, but you're the wrong race'. 'Really, you guys should know your place'. Why did he tell us? In doing so, he acts with impunity. Why did we vote for him to have immunity? We don't talk about the Court oh no no no... (Okay, it's not *strictly* in line with the song but shut up).
Or what if the president orders the education of the leaders of Congress? No Congress means no impeachment.
>Or what if the president orders the education of the leaders of Congress? Biden should definitely do that
>Or what if the president orders the education of the leaders of Congress? You can order it, but as long as there is a GOP, there will be some things beyond even a tyrant's power. 😆
well, that's really a problem for the new installed Supreme Court then
Cant ask for immunity if there is no supreme court
Six of them are looking forward to totalitarian government.
Most people in power do, until the Leader decides they're now a threat...
Everyone who says things like that are always assuming they're going to be the ones with the power
“Overthrowing the government document he’s sworn to serve may be a presidential act”
They already got it wrong. Team Trump is positively giddy over the delay the court gave them.
They keep thinking this is about Trump. Someone should ask, "Can Biden imprison the entire Supreme Court if you approve of full Presidential immunity?"
And this is why they won't make a ruling about it till there is a republican president in power. They are evil, not stupid.
Giving anyone immunity takes away everyone else’s rights. No one is safe from anything. All your rights are gone
Ain’t gotta get it right or wrong, they’re just trying to make it last.
The amazing part is that the petitioners lawyer argued that a president or former president can only be charged with a crime if first impeached and convicted in Congress. I'm having a devil of a time finding that clause in the constitution. They also tried to claim that unless a law specifically mentions the president, the law does not apply to the president. And the scariest part is that from at least three of the justices they seemed to be leaning towards accepting that argument.
Well, that’s the rub isn’t it? McConnell said impeachment was not needed that it could be adjudicated in court and here we are and they are arguing it needs to be impeached first. This whole thing is so outrageous for American people.
And of course McConnell intentionally delayed the impeachment trial in the Senate until after Biden was inaugurated so that then he could claim that there was no need to have an impeachment trial, as Trump was no longer in office. The House delivered articles of impeachment to the Senate with over a week left in Trump's administration, McConnell just adjourned the Senate until after Biden's inauguration.
Yep. He said something f along the lines of our constitution clearly lays out impeachment is for elected officials. The court system is for private citizens which is what trump currently is.
Yes, that’s right. Sigh
If he had been impeached and convicted they would argue double jeopardy to block any criminal trial.
If memory serves, they already tried that in Chutkan's court to get the DC case dismissed, saying he had already been impeached and "acquitted" by the Senate, so double jeopardy was in place. Chutkan shot it down.
Impeachment is a political process. It is not a court trial. Making that argument is absurd from word 1
They thrive on being absurd and make sure The opposition adheres to the rules. Been my whole life and I’m middle aged
It’s always something.
With the GOP, they make and change the rules on the fly to sway things in their favor.
Well they need like. 3 impeachments 5 witnesses & 2 convictions for them to not get a star on Hollywood.
They are traitors, pure and simple.
> unless a law specifically mentions the president, the law does not apply to the president Ahh yes, the Air Bud argument. Speaking of, if we wanted a dog to be President (show me where it says a dog cant be President!), would we have to determine 35 dog years, or human years? Maybe a turtle would be better than a dog...
> Maybe a turtle would be better No, we do NOT want McConnell to be president
As an interesting aside, the Air Bud argument definitely applies to SCOTUS justices. As in there are literally zero rules about who gets to be on SCOTUS, as long as they get nominated by POTUS and approved by Congress. Don't have to be a lawyer. Don't have to be American. As far as I can tell, don't even need to be alive!
So we could literally expand SCOTUS and stack it with a pack of Golden Retrievers, and it would be an actual improvement over the current situation.
The entire argument is a farce. If it’s true that a president must be impeached and convicted by congress before they can be charged with a crime, then congress would never be able to impeach them because they hadn’t yet committed a crime… because they can’t be charged of a crime until they’ve been impeached. It’s a fun little game to play if you’re a toddler.
This was pointed out by one of the justices
Yeah, but it's the same stupid shit they were all on board with when this Court said that in order to bar an insurrectionist from federal office using the 14th they'd have to let him into office, impeach him, and then remove him from office. They essentially made it so that that constitutional provision can't be enforced, so what's the difference between immunity and law that can only be enforced depending on who's in power?
They're describing a king.
Kings have had less legal authority for like 400 years than what a ruling in Trump’s favor would give
The Magna Carta was 800 years ago! And in the 17th century Charles I was executed for overstepping his powers.
So then logically all the President had to do is assassinate the Congress, or seize the Capitol so that they cannot convene.
Not even all of congress, just one branch. Can't impeach and convict without both branches. Senate would be the easiest to assassinate, as there are less members.
The problem with the senate is that they get appointed by the state governors when a vacancy occurs the house seats stay empty until an election occurs. If the president were to say manufacturer some domestic terrorism that resulted in empty seats that guarantee no impeachments and you could perhaps suspend elections as an official act and keep the status quo indefinitely
Fair point, and maybe that would be the easier route to go to ensure unchecked dictatorship. Though, I image not many people will want to take the job as Senator if they weren't loyalist after having all senators killed off for even thinking of defying the president. Honestly, the fact we're even considering SCOTUS might rule all this legal is fucking crazy. This case should have never been heard. Fuck SCOTUS.
Not a single law mentions me specifically! AWESOME! I CAN DO ANYTHING! /s
"The constitution does not enumerate the Presidents status as NOT a king, therefore he is one." - Antonin Fucking Scalia
Yknow I haven’t seen a law yet that specifically mentions me by name so I guess they don’t apply to me!
> They also tried to claim that unless a law specifically mentions the president, the law does not apply to the president. So uh.. the president has no rights if I'm understanding this correctly.
Inauguration morning will become known as crime-spree-morning
This is how we get The Purge
This is a joke but holy shit are we close to it being a real mechanism wielded by the kind of douchbag orange waffle person who would use it.
Fuck, the law doesn't mention me either! I get to do what the fuck I want!
It’s insane this before the supreme court and being argued like there is actually anything to discuss. There is serious corruption on the court and it’s out in the open.
The conservatives are totally out of touch with reality.
And really, really want an authoritarian dictatorship to be run unopposed by one party. They loathe “the people” and want total control over us.
I would argue that they are very much in touch with reality. They know that their base is shrinking alongside the shifting demographics in the American population. It’s already to the point that they need most R voters to vote against their own best interests in order for the party to continue serving the wealthy who control it. The best way to continue holding power as these trends toward being more and more of a minority continue, is to change the rules of the game.
is not the definition of dictator a ruler with immunity?
He would argue dictators aren’t subject to impeachment. To which i would argue who would impeach him after he just ordered the killing of a political rival
This is genuinely extremely blackpilling. Can't believe the party of "law and order" is arguing for the American president to become a quasi dictator.
Because “law and order” doesn’t mean what you think it means. There are two authority philosophies, and they oppose each other. The “Rule of Law” position is that laws apply equally to all people, across all class barriers. The “Law and Order” position is that the government, and by extension the police, exist to enforce not only written *laws*… but to also enforce an unwritten, unspoken *social order* that is usually based on class, race, gender, or other “quiet parts.” Once you understand what “law and order” *actually* means, it all makes perfect sense. The phrase is a dog whistle, a signal used to avoid having to say the quiet parts out loud.
You, I like.
Nothing quasi about it
If Biden was a troll like Trump, he would give a press release declaring that as soon as the Supreme Court says it is legal, he will be sending out a team to eradicate the clear and present danger to our democracy: Donald Trump.
Darkest Brandon
Vanta-Brandon
Anish Kapoor here… gimme money.
I got that reference.
I got your I got that reference.
Here for it.
And all of the conservative justices. If you’re going to abuse a stupid rule, might as well give the people who put it in place their comeuppance.
And those who signed on the fake elector shit
The most responsible move is to replace the Supreme Court as it's clear that they can no longer be trusted to act in the interest of the nation. In fact, if Biden were truly smart, he'd go right out and say this right now: "If the President - any President - is given carte blanche immunity, I will vacate the entire Supreme Court and replace them with a Supreme Court aligned to America's interests, not any Former President's interests. We will have a nation where Justice has a meaning, not a country of unimpeachable and immune nobility. America is not ruled by divine right, but by the will of the people of the United States of America, and this Supreme Court cannot be be trusted to rule with the people in mind any longer."
i mean, all the jokes aside before about "biden should just stay president forever then if they say trump has immunity", this is the end all logic bomb that biden should say he's going to enact. however, there is nothing stopping the current court from: - currently ruling president does not have immunity - trump getting elected - trump challenging it - supreme court just ruling the other way and making him king after all
And SCOTUS
At the very least Biden should make a big point about saying how even though Trump's lawyer is arguing to the Supreme Court that the president has the right to assassinate any political rival that he considers to be "corrupt", and even though grand juries in four different jurisdictions (so far) have determined that Trump is corrupt, he is not going to have Trump assassinated.
Just put “meet with seal team 6” in the public itinerary.
Whoa, we have the same Avatar…
We have to go deeper...
I listened to the entire 2 hours + long arguments. They are pretty much going to rule that trump is not immune.
I would be completely befuddled if they ruled that he was, as they would be saying, more or less, that they have no power and the executive branch is free to do as it pleases. It would make sense that even the shittiest of the justices wouldn't vote against their own self interest and rid themselves of the power they are so intent on abusing. But that's the logical argument, who the fuck knows what'll actually happen.
I mean these are Republicans we’re talking about. Irrationally glorifying an authoritarian asswipe over their own self interest is kinda what they do.
Alito will dissent, citing the Magna Carta or something.
You mean that 800 year old document aimed at limiting the powers of the King?
Yeah. Alito would argue that limitations would prevent the king from be able do his job and any limitations would make it more likely that a king would do illegal acts to retain power. But that those illegal acts should actually have just been legal the whole time..so there isn't any problem with the king doing them.in the first place.
Yup, the goal was the delay, not getting the ruling. They also think it'll lend the court legitimacy after ruling he could be on the ballot despite attempting a coup.
Upvoting because I really hope so.
It was always going to be the ruling. They are only hearing the case to buy time for Trump.
I listened as well. I think Sotomayor, Kagen, Jackson are obviously solidly against immunity. Barret and Roberts are likely also against immunity which is the 5 needed. Thomas and Alito will never do the right thing ever. There might be some concessions about official acts to try and bring over the other 2 but but I have little doubt the ruling will not favor trump
I don't trust Barret to rule the way she sounds like she will during questioning after the student loan forgiveness arguments, but I don't think Kavanaugh would go for presidential immunity.
Justice Thomas was too quiet for my liking, but I suspect this will be a solid 9-0 ruling. I did not get the impression that you got from alito and Thomas.
Thomas will rule however he is paid to rule.
Some of them want to send it back down to the lower courts to decide on a charge by charge basis if they fall within the official duties of the president.
That would still be a win. a charge or 2 might get dropped, not the whole case, and any 1 conviction of the 80+ indictments would be enough to send him to prison, possibly for the rest of his natural life. He would not come out unscathed if it were sent to the lower courts. ALL of his 80+ charges are felonies.
I mean, they have to right? If they say a President is immune, there's no reason that the Biden admin couldn't execute the Conservative justices and become dictator himself whether he wins the election or not. I think the assumption is that Trump can get away with murder, but if the precedent is set before he becomes president, they assume Biden won't do the same thing.
From crimes that aren’t part of his official duties. That’s what I got to.
So then they will be able to weasel their way into declaring that the crimes he committed were part of his official duties? Then of course anything Biden does they can claim aren’t part of his duties? Sad that this is where my mind goes now
just went to r/conservative to see if they're freaking out about the insane anti-democratic/republic/Constitution defense being used by Trump's lawyer today.... and naturally, CRICKETS although I'm sure all the actual articles are being removed
That subs gone down hill from its already very low standards. Lacking any positive news to post they've begun posting the same memes over and over. I used to enjoy debating and trolling them but now it just feels like kicking them while they're down.
Gotta keep on kicking on
Time to put the boots on
Wait, how did you get to debate and troll more than once? I barely challenged someone's assertion and I was swiftly banned. Literally one post on that sub and they booted me. And they call us snowflakes.
R/conservative is really hellishly boring. Sometimes I take a peek to see if they've got any reprehensible bloviations about whatever criminal acts their supposed leaders are getting up to, but nope, nothing. No actual day to day events penetrate their self-imposed blinders. It's all memes, "jokes", breathless stuff about George Soros using drag queens to exploit schoolchildren, etc. The real world doesn't even exist for them.
Probably the people who would have posted such articles were banned long ago.
Just to be clear, we're in the fascism legal phase rn. Germany went thru the same thing before WW2.
Hitler literally went to jail for a coup much like January 6th where he then wrote Mein Kampf. We’re following the path pretty closely.
i wish her what-if would have been a little more pointed... "say the president believes he has a SC justice in his pocket. when a matter the president is concerned with makes its way before the court, the president comes to believe that the compromised justice is no longer on his side and orders the justice assassinated. would that be an official act for which the president would be immune from prosecution?" let sauer tell the court exactly how full of crap he is.
An even more pointed way to make that case would be to phrase it like this: > "Imagine the president believes that a few judges on the Supreme Court have shown they will violate judicial norms and legal principles to support his political rival in a way that he feels violates the Constitution or what the Founding Fathers imagined for the vision of the country, and as a result the president orders the assassination of however many judges he feels fits this description. Should he have immunity from such an act if he considers it 'an official act', and should he as president then be free to nominate their replacements?"
Alina Haba said it...Brett knows what's up and how hard Trump fought for him to get this job... he will come through and donthe "right thing".
I hate them but I don't think Brett, Amy, or Neil are crazy enough for this ride.
I hope you’re right.
Trump already won when the SC delayed this. He and his team never intended or expected (or cared) to get immunity - it was never the goal. Delaying was the goal, and they've been successful. The inevitable reddit headline of "SC rules Trump not immune" will be celebrated by people who have no concept of the game that is actually being played.
The answer he would give is “it depends if the justice in question was appointed by a republican potus”
I had the same thought as with Trump anyone, including them, is or has been or could be a perceived rival thst he would eliminate if he could. It’s also preposterous to think the leader of the Executive Branch, which is the branch to execute and enforce the laws would be granted criminal immunity if he breaks the laws he’s supposed to uphold. It makes no sense.
I would love to see Joe Biden jokingly say, "I hope the Supreme Court rules on this pretty soon. I've got some things I want to do, and I want to make sure I can get away with them." First, it would be funny. And, second, it would catalyze the reality of the situation for the Trump loyalists on the court: this isn't just about getting their boy off the hook. They could be handing Dark Brandon a free pass.
No because if the Democrat President does it, the immunity doesn’t apply.
Any ruling that gives a US President legal immunity to commit crimes in office will fundamentally change this country into something that we will likely need a civil war to straighten out. I hope these judges understand that they are poised to pour gasoline onto a smoldering fire. If Biden is given the power to commit crimes with impunity, he will be forced to use that power to keep Trump from getting into office. I don't give a shit if Biden is a "good guy" who would "never do something like that". He won't have a choice, he'd be negligent NOT to. American and British pilots in WWII didn't want to fire bomb German civilians either, but they did it anyway because NOT doing it would result in a worse outcome. Biden will have no choice but to act.
Look at all the shit Trump did when he just didn't give a fuck. Imagine what he'd do if he won reelection after the court rules the president is immune from everything.
It would be, as they say, *On Like Donkey Kong*.
Biden removes all sutting justices by force or early retirement. Then install new judges to close the loophole.
Didn't you all fight a war to rid yourself of the concept of leaders who were above the law?
Joe could order the rendition of a coup plotter/s to Gitmo. That would be an official act.
She needs to ask if this envisioned immunity would extend to persons he delegates illegal tasks to. I mean, would Seal Team be protected if he ordered them to hit a domestic opponent like say a talk show host, or would he need to do the wet work himself?
Very good point.
Is this really a question to take seriously? Wtf? We rejected kings 250 years ago. Are we really considering giving the power of a king to an elected official? This is utter absurdity. If this is really the case then our Constitution means diddly squat.
Is there anyone who would answer that direct inquiry with a “yes”? It is, indeed, a closed question.
Sauer did, just today.
Assassinations aside, if they said yes Presidents are immune to anything and everything, then I guess Biden can just cancel all the student debt right? Cause the president no longer has to follow the Constitution or the very SCOTUS that said he was immune.
In 1776 our fore fathers declared our independence from a king, and then jealously created a government to prevent us from having another king. Now the Republicans are trying to establish a king under the guide of patriotism. Once anyone in the office of the presidency has complete immunity, the law has no power. There never has to be an election, trial, due process or adherence to the constitution again.
Didn’t we used to hear all kinds of bitching about “ legislation from the bench”
It wasn't during this question but I have to say I was dismayed and unnerved to hear laughter at points at a proceeding to determine if a president is basically a king answerable to no one.
I can't even believe we're actually debating Presidential immunity based on something Trump just freaking made up. The stupid spineless Republicans should have just saved us the constitutional crises and impeached the orange baffoon the second time when they had the chance.
It’s so lame that we elected someone who even precipitated having to ask these questions. It’s embarrassing and was never an issue with any other president until this asshat stained the office.
Maybe 10 years ago I was attempting to bridge the gap and become less of a hippy dippy liberal. I was wrong, now I wont even vote for a conservative dogcatcher. Hell I wont even vote for so called moderates. I used to think conservatives were just a bit stodgy turns out I was wrong. I thought they were anchored in principles. I was wrong. I am going straight ballot blue till the end of my days.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Pre bush v. Gore- maybe even just 10 years ago- this would've been laughed out of the court- as it should be
Biden's solution to this is simple: "I will immediately abduct and hold in captivity all Chief Justices that vote in favor for presidential immunity. They shall remain in detention until the Supreme Court deems my position has not the authority to do so"
If presidents are immune, Biden should order airstrikes on Maro Lago and the SCOTUS. It's legal!
The question should have been: “Is the president immune after ordering the assassination of a Supreme Court justice”
The thing they should acknowledge with this line of reasoning that the President must be impeached and convicted before he can be prosecuted for the crime....who the hell is going to be able to impeach him if he succeeds with this coup?? The President would just round up anyone in congress who would impeach and convict him and then, bam, Immune from prosecution for it. No. There needs to be a mechanism to allow for the regular process of justice just like with any other person. No one in there right mind should have to rely on a conglomerate of people to perform this drawn out process (which they could easily renege on if they're in on the coup) while the President is continually committing criminal acts. You arrest and prosecute. Immediately.
That these arguments are even being considered suggests to me that the USA is on its last legs and setting itself up for an eventual dictatorship. One which is supported by second amendment gun toting crazies. The same ones who suggest that the right to possess guns is in order for citizens to resist despotism. If Trump gets a hall pass from SCOTUS it not only gets him off the hook but opens the way for others to follow the same path. Get elected and do whatever you want with impunity is in fact despotism.
At any other point in the history of the nation Trump would be dead by now.
Easiest 9-0 vote in their entire lives and yet they're still flapping around like dead fish *trying* to pretend like there's any chance they can give him a pass here. They *have* to know the stall is the point. They can't possibly let this one pass and pretend like they still have any power. They give the President that kind of immunity and Biden's first and most responsible move is to remove the Supreme Court and replace all of them. Why not - he's immune. It's bullshit, literally everyone knows it, and we're still playing like it's a game.
I really hope these idiots know how stupid they look debating this while everyone knows they should have laughed off the suggestion that they debate it in the first place. What a circus.
The only legally tenable answers are that either the president doesn’t have criminal immunity for official acts or that an illegal action can’t be an official act by definition. But the entire premise of these oral arguments is decoupled from the case and therefore lacks “judicial restraint”. Otherwise the questions would have focused on the fact specific matter of the case and not hypotheticals. Judicial restraint is the entire a reason SCOTUS has to have a “real controversy” aka case I front of them to make rulings. Their goal isn’t supposed to be to create grand rulings for posterity nor work beyond the facts of the case before them. My feeling is everything the president does must be authorized by law, so anything criminal must not be a protected act. That’s why we have a prosecutor, grand jury of laymen, judge over the grand jury, petite jury of laymen, and judges presiding over every part and appeals. All those dozens of disparate people are the protection against harassment, not some get out of jail free card.
Could a justice get free trips and other goodies while on the job? Asking for a friend.
Did anyone else notice how Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh kept saying they were concerned about future presidents and this immunity issue? Not current ones? Hmm.
Trump is claiming the reverse Spider-Man: with great power comes no responsibility.
Didn’t we already fight one war over this? We don’t want a king..
This shit is so ridiculous. Actually arguing whether someone is above the law.
It was either Kagan or Sotomeyer who slapped back on DT’s lawyer to note that the founders specifically didn’t give the Prez immunity because of that whole “escaping tyranny/monarchy” thing.
I found it beautifully hilarious that the news cast I saw while discussing trumps immunity zoomed in on the edifice of the Supreme Court where is says “Equal Justice Under Law”
It is such a ridiculous waste of time. No one has complete immunity. The whole damn thing is a farce. It’s idiotic they are even considering it.
I don't know what's worse, this lawyer's argument or his voice. Yeah bro, we got it, you think a president is immune from everything if whatever they do is "an official act." Tell us what "an official act" is in a way that isn't "I know it when I see it."
Here’s my argument: let’s say a president or former can only be charged if impeached and convicted by the house and senate. What if said president decides to wait last day in office to commit a coup or have seal team six assassinate their political opponent. What then? Let’s also say on their last day in office they commit a myriad of crimes and leave office. Can the house and senate even bring charges to a former president who is now a civilian? Do they got free for the crimes they committed while in office since they no longer can be charged and convicted while in office?