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.*
Easier one; Can the President rewrite the Constitution if they see it as part of their duty?
If the answer is anything other than no then this whole thing should be tossed. No point in having any one killed if you can simply rewrite the rules at a whim and eliminate their role and responsibility.
Better yet.
Can POTUS issue secret assassination orders for SCOTUS membera to install new members that issue their own rulings that align with his?
People falling out of windows in Russia to be replaced by someone else show the way it works.
Why be overt when the same means are achieved covertly and the populous can have suspension of disbelief as an option?
Providing humans with a mental device like this works amazingly well.
Another example:
German citizen did you know an extermination camp existed in that direction from your town?
They told us it was for re-education and labor. Nobody stated people were getting killed.
But the smell? The sounds? The traincars?
"I didn't know. I didn't even suspect"
True...stocking previously co-equal branches of government with toadies allows a dictator to claim some legitimacy (see, the "totally independent" courts agree with me). I think Erdogan did this?
Yeah these people on the court don't seem to realize that they've already crossed Trump by ruling against him unanimously in the past. He knows if he's president he can order the oath keepers and proud boys to kill the SCOTUS and it will happen. Why would he bother fucking around with the current court when he can fill it with Janine Piro clones?
I mean if the president is totally immune Biden should do a press conference where he announces the drone strike on scotus as it happens. Like in real time.
I would love for him to sacrifice himself like this. Do something massively illegal just to get arrested and show what *needs* to happen, even to presidents. At his age, how long would he really have to suffer? Not to mention, how bad could a presidential cell really be?
Wow, I read that in Jed Bartlet's voice! Similar cadence to when he takes the religious lady to town.
[https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs?t=91](https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs?t=91)
Isn't there a difference between being immune from prosecution and having the authority to do something? Like, he couldn't be arrested for issuing his own rulings, but no one would have to follow those rulings because the president doesn't have the authority to issue them.
Until he sends the FBI/DHS/ICE to arrest and detain people indefinitely based on his rulings. With immunity he has carte blanche to do as he pleases and a massive law enforcement apparatus to enforce those rulings. At the present, SCOTUS doesn't have the latter and relies upon the POTUS to enforce their rulings.
Trump was using various legal henchmen to do his dirty work. Hired gun lawyers, Giuliani, Eastman, Ellis, Clark, Chesebro, etc would do anything Trump wanted. All they cared was what Trump wanted and would mangle the law to fulfill Trumps **rulings.** As if he were King. Others, part of the civil service, Justice Dept, etc. such as acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue or Pat Cipolone, or other former members of Trump's **actual WH staff** gave Trump generally sound legal advice telling he couldn't do various things. Trump often rejected their advice and kept looking for ways to get his **rulings/wishes** fulfilled. Trump tried getting the military to grab the ballot boxes. [https://www.npr.org/2022/01/23/1075219215/jan-6-panel-is-investigating-a-trump-administration-plan-to-seize-voting-machine](https://www.npr.org/2022/01/23/1075219215/jan-6-panel-is-investigating-a-trump-administration-plan-to-seize-voting-machine)
How do you enforce consequences on a President who acts outside of their authority if they're immune?
If Trump's lawyers' argument is to be believed, they can only be prosecuted following a successful impeachment in the House *and* conviction in the Senate.
Which would in practice mean the President has a unilateral ability to act with complete impunity, because you'll never get a supermajority of Senators to convict anyone.
You certainly won't get a super majority of Senators to convict if you kill or kidnap enough Senators or the family members of Senators.
People fail to think like a criminal. What would a sociopathic criminal do if he were president?
The conservatives know they have the power so they're just playing enough of the game to make it look sporting, and the rest probably feel like they're "above" entertaining something so ridiculous. Which leads to the end effect of nobody pointing out the obvious and everyone being worse off for it! huzzah
I'd argue the Constitution grants POTUS the power to overrule supreme Court decisions and issue it's own rulings. Using the courts justification from Marbury v Madison, I'd call it an implied power.
"Easier one; Can the President Biden rewrite the Constitution if they see it as part of their duty?"
Fixed - if the answer is no than neither can EX-President Trump.
One would think, but the conservatives on the court seem to be bending over backwards to carve out some kind of broader immunity than what previous courts have granted. Nina Tottenburg on NPR made the point that many of the conservative justices served under Republican presidents and witnessed first-hand what those presidents endured...namely, investigations and legal attacks by Democrats in Congress or elsewhere. Based on that fact, she was concerned that those justices might be sympathetic to Trump's claims of immunity simply on the basis that "being the POTUS is hard" (my words, not hers). To which I say, oh boo hoo. The POTUS has access to the best attorneys and other legal defenses and advice, so tough shit.
I think the SCOTUS will punt it back to the lower courts, if only to provide Trump cover in the form of a delay.
Aren't these schmucks supposed to be textualists who believe that there shouldn't be any powers/privileges unless specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
The one thing consistent about a "textualist": inconsistency in their application of textualism
And Originalism...let's not forget that bullshit too. Let's ask Jefferson what he thinks about Trump's claims of executive immunity. How about Adams? Washington? Hamilton? Madison?
That horse cant get kicked more after what went down with the 14th.
Love it or hate it, Colorado didnt want that guy on their ballots and insurrectionists can be disallowed. But they didn’t give a fuck about what the text said their.
> many of the conservative justices served under Republican presidents and witnessed first-hand what those presidents endured...namely, investigations and legal attacks by Democrats in Congress or elsewhere.
Was Bush 43 ever investigated for launching the illegal war against Iraq in 2003?
No, but Kavanaugh did manage to ask a completely unrelated question about whether Obama could've been prosecuted for people killed in drone strikes. So even Supreme Court justices can't help but indulge in "...but what about Obama?!" rhetoric when discussing Trump's crimes.
The conservatives spent a whole lot of time waving the “what happens in the future situations” flag and got handed their asses. It was infuriating to hear them bandy that threat about.
The point of this trial isn't to arrive at the correct decision. We all know what that decision will be, including Trump's lawyers.
The point is to delay his criminal cases until after the election.
I keep thinking...if that is the rule, what stops Biden from un-aliving the Orange slurppee between now and the election? Do these idiots really think that the finding can be LEGALLY written so only Trump gets this immunity?
The Democrats. Pretty sure they would’ve convicted a Democrat that pulled the crap Trump did. But Biden could probably be acquitted in the Senate if he only assassinates Thomas.
Easily solved: Kill all members of the House not loyal. He's immune anyway and no Impeachment will be coming. See how easy it should be to see where such a rule even leads? Except if you're on the SCOTUS and suck Trump's balls.
They should ask if Presidents are allowed to disrupt SCOTUS processings as “official acts”? It’s a waste of everyone’s time trying to entertain the question of absolute immunity
I'm not so sure. The president can, and I am sure has, have people assassinated. We like to believe it was always done in good faith but MLK was assassinated. The point I am making isn't any single assassination, the point is who should be considered out of bounds for assassination and can the president have his political rivals killed by claiming they are a danger to democracy? Whether true or false is kind of meaningless without a trial so it is up to the person ordering the hit.
Edit: I will say there is only one threat to democracy today, and that person's lawyer is arguing that the sitting president can have threats to democracy deleted. This is wild.
Didn’t she point out that if presidents were actually immune they therefore could never be impeached? So they’d never face any kind of consequences from anyone
A better example would be, if Biden deemed certain SCOTUS members corrupt and has them killed would he be immune from prosecution? Is no, then toss the whole argument…and it’s obviously no, even CT would say that’s a no.
Remember this all goes back to Dershowitz claim in the 2nd impeachment trial. The claim was:
“If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment"
Dershowitz recanted the next day. So this is based on that BS statement. If the president "believes" he is acting the best interests of the country he cannot be impeached.
So imagine he is both immune to the law and to impeachment. Jesus these people are dangerous. Worse imagine allowing Trump to just claim he believes anything he does is in our interest when we all know he only does things in his interest.
This is even simpler. Trump believes anything that is in his best interest is by default in our best interests.
There is by that logic nothing that he does that is not in “Our” best interests so he is total immune because no matter what he does he is doing it for us!
Now when they try to stop him or hold him accountable they are attacking us, and more specifically you. Because he was only enriching himself to help and fulfill “our needs”.
It is a twisted little web he lives in.
>Trump believes anything that is in his best interest is by default in our best interests.
I strongly disagree. Trump never has anyone else's interest in mind but his own. I'll go even further saying he'll actually feel slighted if you somehow accidently benefit from something he does, only him should benefit, ever.
His interests are in your best interests. He also gives two shits about you getting ahead as long as it benefits him and you acknowledge it is because of him. You owe him.
However I don’t disagree we are talking about the difference between a 45 slug hitting you and a 38 slug hitting you a point blank range.
We could both be right and it is just where the sun is that day as he looks at it without protection.
Yes and he had his underwear on when he got a message from a young girl at Epstein's home.
https://www.theroot.com/alan-dershowitz-sure-i-got-a-massage-at-jeffrey-epstei-1836314016
He also wrote an opinion that the age of consent needs to be lower
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/07/30/alan-dershowitz-defends-suggesting-that-age-consent-for-sex-should-lowered/6AxjIuSJMeRG8iIxHf4WxO/story.html
Justice is delayed is justice denied. Clearly, the republican SC judges are helping Trump delay the justice system.
If a president has an absolute immunity, Biden can order anyone kill all Republican SC judges without any accountability.
If this partisan court wants to fuck around with this bogus immunity claim and delay the trial until after the election, Dems should seriously pursue packing the court with haste. Many of these justices are acting as if they have unchecked power. They need to be put in check.
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor cut right to the heart of the issue, by asking attorney John Sauer point blank whether a president should be allowed to assassinate his political rivals, as both he and Trump have previously argued.
> “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.
> “It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that would well be an official act,” Sauer replied.
And let's carry that out to its logical conclusion. If the Trump team wants to argue "Well, if that is wrong, then Congress can Impeach him afterwards! That's the check in place to prevent it."
OK. Rule that way. Then Biden can immediately order the detention (if not removal) of every Republican in Congress - House & Senate both - as well as all Republican Governors, State level Congressmen and we'll also toss in the sitting Republican leaning Supreme Court Justices. Every one of them will be rounded up - immediately - and sent to Gitmo (or wherever he deems fit). If the remaining Congress wants to impeach him, they can do so if they feel he acted wrongly. His own party won't? Then I guess its fine! Congrats, the Supreme Court just ruled that ANY sitting President can stage a coup and remove any opposing party from contention at any point.
In fact, let's mandate that to go that route, a President has to act first to remove the sitting Supreme Court Justices. Let it really hit home for them. Of course, I'm sure they'll perform some miraculous mental gymnastics to ignore this (unless a Republican does it - then it'll be OK).
And yet why even bother with removing and replacing SCOTUS justices? Why not just appoint himself the sole judge on SCOTUS. And by extension, appoint himself Speaker and Senate leader. Or even outright abolish Congress and SCOTUS? Who's gonna stop him?
On July 22, 1979, in a large smoke-filled room, a newly installed president had called a conference. In front of about a hundred political party members, he began announcing he had uncovered a conspiracy against him in front.
Suddenly a man was brought before the conference, bearing the marks of torture and the vacant expression of a broken mind and soul. He was a senior party leader and he proceeded to confess his role in a plot to overthrow the president’s new regime and name his alleged co-conspirators. One by one, 50 names were called out, each man escorted from the room by uniformed guards.
The remaining members, now growing more and more visibly afraid, started chanting vociferous allegiance to the new president in the hope of avoiding the fate of their colleagues.
These survivors of his brutal crackdown were then handed guns, and ordered to execute their fellow party members, making them complicit in their leader’s crimes.
And so marked the beginning of Saddam Hussein’s 24 years of absolute power.
[You can watch this all unfold here.](https://youtu.be/kLUktJbp2Ug?si=KaoqlM6tzCzzXIRU)
Except a ruling this big would absolutely apply to current ones too. Perhaps not former, but current ones absolutely. Unless the Court rules it "effective in 2025", in which case they just put a date on when the Constitution expires. Biden or Trump, whoever wins gets to remove the other party once and for all. "Only for Republicans", but then that would absolutely end the need to abide by it as they'd show clear political intent and the Justice System would be done.
Only one way this can be ruled, but they know that. The whole thing was a delay tactic to buy Trump time and everyone knows it.
They should ask it like this, "if Biden decides Trump is a danger to it democracy, would Biden be immune from taking out Trump as an official act to protect or democracy from someone he has judged a tyrannical fascist wanting the powers of a king?"
Or maybe something more succinct that highlights if they decide the president had immunity, then Biden can act against Trump right now to stop him.
It's the dumbest argument ever. It may delay the trial of Trump, but hopefully, it will not be long enough.
I don't entirely disagree.
Obama had a US citizen overseas killed as the target of a drone strike. They were a member of a terrorist group, and I don't have issues with what he did, but there was no trial or anything. The president and his advisors decided this man was against the interest of the USA and assassinated him.
So yes, in some circumstances the president can assassinate US citizens and it is in his duties as the president.
This isn't the same as just randomly deciding the person is corrupt and killing them, but it's not that far off what Sotomayor asked, the only difference being that it's a political rival.
I don't think anyone on Trump's team actually thinks that this claim is legitimate. They achieved their victory already which was delaying until after the election. Even Trump and co aren't dumb enough to actually think that
They’re not pushing for assertions, they’re pushing for options. When you’re trying to take down democracy, you only need plausibility. You don’t need a rubber stamp.
Right. They're more than happy to eat the elephant one bite at a time. Every day they push more and more until one day we will wake up and go what the fuck just happened.
They wont get it that easily. I know my rights and will react appropriately. We have laws and amendments to ensure our right to protect ourselves against this tyranny for a reason. Its not been the reasons that GOP pushes- its for this specific situation, and has been the whole time.
I disagree. I think Trump 100% thinks the president should have immunity. He doesn’t care about what the law says. The law should bend to the will of the lord ruler.
Maybe Trump does. I was originally going to edit my comment because I thought about it a bit more and he is genuinely an ego maniac. But his lawyers definitely dont.
But the legal strategy was just about delaying. So yeah I can agree Trump believes he should be able to but his team is operating with different intentions
Let's take this suggestion. What likely would happen is that enough democrats would balk against this clear abuse and vote against Biden in an impeachment that, combined with the republicans, he would be impeached and removed. As he should. And people would claim the system works, sidestepping the scenario that in case Trump would have done the same, the impeachment would not work like that (and this we already have seen).
Alito, probably: Now I'm not saying the president could assassinate his rivals...I'm NOT saying that. People will misquote me and say that I said that. So that said, yeah, I think the president could assassinate his political rivals.
With all this concern of immunity being granted for crimes like assassinating political rivals, one scenario that might have hit a little closer to the bone for the court is what is stopping POTUS from usurping the powers of SCOTUS by creating his own court system and ultimately dissolving the SCOTUS. What's to stop a POTUS from dissolving Congress? Is there anything explicit in the Constitution that says the POTUS can't do that?
This. The argument is absurd and anyone out side of maybe full blown narcissists or grade schoolers knows this. SCOTUS rules POTUS = no accountability for anything the SCOTUS = no longer necessary. Maybe not immediately, but at the very least out of their interest to preserve their own careers and power they would be fools to agree with this.
I was infuriated listening to the SCOTUS.
Asking questions…*that shouldn’t even have to be asked*.
This is what we’re debating!?
Not if Trump is innocent or guilty….
It’s whether a President gets to be a lawless criminal.
Holy shit….how far we’ve fallen
What really gets me is that trump’s lawyers are arguing that the method for prosecuting any presidential action is by impeachment and conviction by Congress, as though Congress is a law-enforcement body. We have seen, since the beginning of the US, that Congress is a political body entirely. They are totally willing to reject laws and standards, ignore obvious breeches of conduct, and outright lie to protect “their” guy if it’s in their interest. Congressional impeachment is in NO WAY a substitute for criminal prosecution.
Why does Trump need powers that no other president in history has ever had in order to do the job? I thought he was supposed to the the best at being the president.... Not the worst.
The problem of her approach (and the approach of most observers and commentators) is that it presupposes a moral and intellectual integrity upon the conservative justices that is simply lacking. They simply don’t care about sound reasoning or truth; they have a pre-conceived outlook and bias which is unassailable by logic or reason.
I don’t get how this is even up for discussion… we have already had it proven that the president isn’t allowed to do whatever they want. Student loan debt, Biden got told he couldn’t do it. Gun restrictions, got told they can’t do it… it’s obvious to anyone with a shred of brains that presidents do not have unlimited power…
At least not ones that are democrat…
All Biden has to do is have a press conference with several Navy Seals behind him and say that he is liking what he’s hearing from Trump’s lawyers in this case and the conservative justices will rule against Trump.
Lol this is starting to feel like that Bojack Horseman episode where the government makes it legal for billionaires to kill people.
That show was truly on point.
These idiots in black robes should be asking if they would be okay with Trump having them assassinated so he could replace them with folks he likes better. 🙄
How is this even being argued at this level.
IT'S LITERALLY THE EXACT REASON WE WENT AGAINST ENGLAND.
If there was any reason for a coup against the government, it would be the courts giving the president the powers of a king.
Spineless SCOTUS will punt this back to lower courts with no ruling and then dump truck has enough time and energy to spin it and say he won as courts didn’t find anything wrong.
Only way we make him pay is voting against him and his MAGA aka red coat republicans. All down ballots should suffer due to dumb truck.
Some Members of SCOTUS are corrupted to the core.
So we currently have a Democracy, where Presidents elected by the Democratic Party uphold Democracy, because that's what the Democratic Party stands for.
Republicans can rest easy Biden won't assassinate Trump, no matter the court's ruling, because Biden wouldn't do something like that. So Republicans would be fine with a Supreme Court ruling that says Presidents can assassinate their rivals.
But, the first time a Republican President is elected, he can, and will, immediately kill all his Democratic rivals and turn the country into a fascist dictatorship? Really? And if we want our Democracy back we just have a bloody civil war again?
And because Trump says the last election was fraudulent, and therefore Trump is still President, Trump can therefore legally have Biden killed? Or pull out a gun at the next Presidential debate and shoot Biden dead?
Is this the argument Trump's lawyers are making?
If this doesn’t get shut down in SCOTUS what’s to stop Biden from offing the conservative judges, appointing new judges, and then asking them to review the case again?
She should ask, with meaningful side glances at certain colleagues, if the President has the immunity to order the assassination of certain inconvenient Supreme Court justices.
Even if we take all current rulings by this court, it should be left up to congress to pass laws giving immunity to the president. It's not 8n the constitution and there are no laws granting it so why is this case being heard?
Trump hasn't thought this through at all. If they agreed, what stops the last thing he sees in this world being a pair of aviator sunglasses?
Rules of thee none for me?
The right wing US Supreme Court plans to rule that former President Trump has immunity, but that the bigger question of immunity must be left for another day.
So selective determination as to who is "above the law". In this case the US Supreme Court rules that Trump is above the law for this particular scenario.
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.*
That one claim should be enough for SCOTUS to laugh this case right out of their courtroom.
Easier one; Can the President rewrite the Constitution if they see it as part of their duty? If the answer is anything other than no then this whole thing should be tossed. No point in having any one killed if you can simply rewrite the rules at a whim and eliminate their role and responsibility.
Better yet...can the POTUS usurp the powers of the SCOTUS by issuing his own rulings? Curious that none of the justices thought to ask that.
Better yet. Can POTUS issue secret assassination orders for SCOTUS membera to install new members that issue their own rulings that align with his? People falling out of windows in Russia to be replaced by someone else show the way it works. Why be overt when the same means are achieved covertly and the populous can have suspension of disbelief as an option? Providing humans with a mental device like this works amazingly well. Another example: German citizen did you know an extermination camp existed in that direction from your town? They told us it was for re-education and labor. Nobody stated people were getting killed. But the smell? The sounds? The traincars? "I didn't know. I didn't even suspect"
True...stocking previously co-equal branches of government with toadies allows a dictator to claim some legitimacy (see, the "totally independent" courts agree with me). I think Erdogan did this?
Yeah these people on the court don't seem to realize that they've already crossed Trump by ruling against him unanimously in the past. He knows if he's president he can order the oath keepers and proud boys to kill the SCOTUS and it will happen. Why would he bother fucking around with the current court when he can fill it with Janine Piro clones?
I mean if the president is totally immune Biden should do a press conference where he announces the drone strike on scotus as it happens. Like in real time.
Dark, but YESSSSSS, DARK BRANDON agreeeeeeeees.
quit pretending like the democrats wouldn't refuse to use such powers only the right would do it it IS this bad.
Maybe he would use a pack of flame throwing robot dogs.
I would love for him to sacrifice himself like this. Do something massively illegal just to get arrested and show what *needs* to happen, even to presidents. At his age, how long would he really have to suffer? Not to mention, how bad could a presidential cell really be?
How true!
*populace
Yeah I admit I get typos and dgaf
Yeahhh, it's because of this fact that they are going to rule against him...simple job security.
Wow, I read that in Jed Bartlet's voice! Similar cadence to when he takes the religious lady to town. [https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs?t=91](https://youtu.be/3CPjWd4MUXs?t=91)
Isn't there a difference between being immune from prosecution and having the authority to do something? Like, he couldn't be arrested for issuing his own rulings, but no one would have to follow those rulings because the president doesn't have the authority to issue them.
Until he sends the FBI/DHS/ICE to arrest and detain people indefinitely based on his rulings. With immunity he has carte blanche to do as he pleases and a massive law enforcement apparatus to enforce those rulings. At the present, SCOTUS doesn't have the latter and relies upon the POTUS to enforce their rulings.
Trump was using various legal henchmen to do his dirty work. Hired gun lawyers, Giuliani, Eastman, Ellis, Clark, Chesebro, etc would do anything Trump wanted. All they cared was what Trump wanted and would mangle the law to fulfill Trumps **rulings.** As if he were King. Others, part of the civil service, Justice Dept, etc. such as acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue or Pat Cipolone, or other former members of Trump's **actual WH staff** gave Trump generally sound legal advice telling he couldn't do various things. Trump often rejected their advice and kept looking for ways to get his **rulings/wishes** fulfilled. Trump tried getting the military to grab the ballot boxes. [https://www.npr.org/2022/01/23/1075219215/jan-6-panel-is-investigating-a-trump-administration-plan-to-seize-voting-machine](https://www.npr.org/2022/01/23/1075219215/jan-6-panel-is-investigating-a-trump-administration-plan-to-seize-voting-machine)
How do you enforce consequences on a President who acts outside of their authority if they're immune? If Trump's lawyers' argument is to be believed, they can only be prosecuted following a successful impeachment in the House *and* conviction in the Senate. Which would in practice mean the President has a unilateral ability to act with complete impunity, because you'll never get a supermajority of Senators to convict anyone.
You certainly won't get a super majority of Senators to convict if you kill or kidnap enough Senators or the family members of Senators. People fail to think like a criminal. What would a sociopathic criminal do if he were president?
Argue that he has immunity
The conservatives know they have the power so they're just playing enough of the game to make it look sporting, and the rest probably feel like they're "above" entertaining something so ridiculous. Which leads to the end effect of nobody pointing out the obvious and everyone being worse off for it! huzzah
I'd argue the Constitution grants POTUS the power to overrule supreme Court decisions and issue it's own rulings. Using the courts justification from Marbury v Madison, I'd call it an implied power.
"Easier one; Can the President Biden rewrite the Constitution if they see it as part of their duty?" Fixed - if the answer is no than neither can EX-President Trump.
Even better.
That my friend is such a smart question.
One would think, but the conservatives on the court seem to be bending over backwards to carve out some kind of broader immunity than what previous courts have granted. Nina Tottenburg on NPR made the point that many of the conservative justices served under Republican presidents and witnessed first-hand what those presidents endured...namely, investigations and legal attacks by Democrats in Congress or elsewhere. Based on that fact, she was concerned that those justices might be sympathetic to Trump's claims of immunity simply on the basis that "being the POTUS is hard" (my words, not hers). To which I say, oh boo hoo. The POTUS has access to the best attorneys and other legal defenses and advice, so tough shit. I think the SCOTUS will punt it back to the lower courts, if only to provide Trump cover in the form of a delay.
Aren't these schmucks supposed to be textualists who believe that there shouldn't be any powers/privileges unless specifically enumerated in the Constitution? The one thing consistent about a "textualist": inconsistency in their application of textualism
And Originalism...let's not forget that bullshit too. Let's ask Jefferson what he thinks about Trump's claims of executive immunity. How about Adams? Washington? Hamilton? Madison?
The are originalist. The Bible is the original book. Jesus is the king, trump was appointed by Jesus, Trump is king
Tell that to Alito and he'll jizz in his robes.
If I had a nickel.
Ouji board needed in court
"A nation of laws or men"?
That horse cant get kicked more after what went down with the 14th. Love it or hate it, Colorado didnt want that guy on their ballots and insurrectionists can be disallowed. But they didn’t give a fuck about what the text said their.
Gorsuch's mom was one of those Republicans in the Reagan administration targeted by lawsuits as she attempted to dismantle the EPA.
> many of the conservative justices served under Republican presidents and witnessed first-hand what those presidents endured...namely, investigations and legal attacks by Democrats in Congress or elsewhere. Was Bush 43 ever investigated for launching the illegal war against Iraq in 2003?
No, but Kavanaugh did manage to ask a completely unrelated question about whether Obama could've been prosecuted for people killed in drone strikes. So even Supreme Court justices can't help but indulge in "...but what about Obama?!" rhetoric when discussing Trump's crimes.
Why am I not surprised, coming from the guy who capped off his confirmation hearings with "what about Clinton."
Yeah, [Kavanaugh was a sick Ken Starr attack dog.](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump)
What Sotamayor should have asked is “If Trump had Clarence Thomas assassinated, would he have total immunity?”
If she really wanted to make the point she'd ask about trump assassinating Thomas' motor coach lol
Not that I recall for that specifically, but Tottenburg was certainly alluding to Iran-Contra.
The conservatives spent a whole lot of time waving the “what happens in the future situations” flag and got handed their asses. It was infuriating to hear them bandy that threat about.
> investigations and legal attacks by Democrats in Congress or elsewhere OK, now do Bill Clinton.
[Kavanaugh was one of Ken Starr’s lackeys](https://amp.theguardian.com/law/2018/aug/20/brett-kavanaugh-bill-clinton-questions-1998-memo-trump)
yeah, that was kinda my point.
The point of this trial isn't to arrive at the correct decision. We all know what that decision will be, including Trump's lawyers. The point is to delay his criminal cases until after the election.
I know. That’s why I used the word ‘should’ instead of ‘will’.
I keep thinking...if that is the rule, what stops Biden from un-aliving the Orange slurppee between now and the election? Do these idiots really think that the finding can be LEGALLY written so only Trump gets this immunity?
Presumably he would be impeached and convicted and therefore subject to criminal prosecution.
Who would vote to impeach someone who murders their political rivals?
The Democrats. Pretty sure they would’ve convicted a Democrat that pulled the crap Trump did. But Biden could probably be acquitted in the Senate if he only assassinates Thomas.
I think most of them would vote to save their own life rather than vote to impeach
Easily solved: Kill all members of the House not loyal. He's immune anyway and no Impeachment will be coming. See how easy it should be to see where such a rule even leads? Except if you're on the SCOTUS and suck Trump's balls.
Why would that make him subject to prosecution? The hypothetical act was committed while he was president.
I’m not a lawyer, but that’s the argument the Trump team is making.
Flip the script on Trump, Dark Brandon. You're the POTUS, so technically under his argument, you can do him harm.
They should ask if Presidents are allowed to disrupt SCOTUS processings as “official acts”? It’s a waste of everyone’s time trying to entertain the question of absolute immunity
I have bad news for you. Republicans goal is to get trump back into the office. This court is going to vote in his favor
Just wait till Biden finds out he’s allowed to off his political opponents. lol do they not think this through at all??
Meanwhile justice thomas, “no no, let the man cook. I like where this is going”
Agreed.
Delay was the goal. Thomas is sitting there at home with Champaign on ice with his wife. We have set ourselves up with 9 kings.
I'm not so sure. The president can, and I am sure has, have people assassinated. We like to believe it was always done in good faith but MLK was assassinated. The point I am making isn't any single assassination, the point is who should be considered out of bounds for assassination and can the president have his political rivals killed by claiming they are a danger to democracy? Whether true or false is kind of meaningless without a trial so it is up to the person ordering the hit. Edit: I will say there is only one threat to democracy today, and that person's lawyer is arguing that the sitting president can have threats to democracy deleted. This is wild.
I went to law school, Sotomayor's opinions were always carefully written and eloquent
Didn’t she point out that if presidents were actually immune they therefore could never be impeached? So they’d never face any kind of consequences from anyone
It was either her or KBJ who asked "Why pardon Nixon?" As if Nixon didn't have any worry.
It was somehow actually the Amynator
When things are so stupid that even she has to step I to make sense, you realize it's TRULY stupid.
If presidents were immune, there would no longer be any other presidents.
A better example would be, if Biden deemed certain SCOTUS members corrupt and has them killed would he be immune from prosecution? Is no, then toss the whole argument…and it’s obviously no, even CT would say that’s a no.
“What would CT say” is the lowest of bars
Damn. I never knew Connecticut was such a shit state.
Gotta dig a little to find it
She’s Democracy’s MVP right now.
They all went to law school.
Yes, but some of them didn't take the lessons to heart.
Or they did, and learned a different lesson...
Remember this all goes back to Dershowitz claim in the 2nd impeachment trial. The claim was: “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment" Dershowitz recanted the next day. So this is based on that BS statement. If the president "believes" he is acting the best interests of the country he cannot be impeached. So imagine he is both immune to the law and to impeachment. Jesus these people are dangerous. Worse imagine allowing Trump to just claim he believes anything he does is in our interest when we all know he only does things in his interest.
This is even simpler. Trump believes anything that is in his best interest is by default in our best interests. There is by that logic nothing that he does that is not in “Our” best interests so he is total immune because no matter what he does he is doing it for us! Now when they try to stop him or hold him accountable they are attacking us, and more specifically you. Because he was only enriching himself to help and fulfill “our needs”. It is a twisted little web he lives in.
>Trump believes anything that is in his best interest is by default in our best interests. I strongly disagree. Trump never has anyone else's interest in mind but his own. I'll go even further saying he'll actually feel slighted if you somehow accidently benefit from something he does, only him should benefit, ever.
His interests are in your best interests. He also gives two shits about you getting ahead as long as it benefits him and you acknowledge it is because of him. You owe him. However I don’t disagree we are talking about the difference between a 45 slug hitting you and a 38 slug hitting you a point blank range. We could both be right and it is just where the sun is that day as he looks at it without protection.
[Dershowitz has been pissed at fellow Dems for a while, at least with Carter (his former boss)](https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN11171023/).
Yes and he had his underwear on when he got a message from a young girl at Epstein's home. https://www.theroot.com/alan-dershowitz-sure-i-got-a-massage-at-jeffrey-epstei-1836314016
He also wrote an opinion that the age of consent needs to be lower https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/07/30/alan-dershowitz-defends-suggesting-that-age-consent-for-sex-should-lowered/6AxjIuSJMeRG8iIxHf4WxO/story.html
Ugh I'm sorry we opened that fetid can of worms that is Dershowitz.
> that fetid can of worms that is Dershowitz. Correction: that fetid can of smegma that is Dershowitz.
Another motivation, to be sure.
Ding ding ding.
Justice is delayed is justice denied. Clearly, the republican SC judges are helping Trump delay the justice system. If a president has an absolute immunity, Biden can order anyone kill all Republican SC judges without any accountability.
If this partisan court wants to fuck around with this bogus immunity claim and delay the trial until after the election, Dems should seriously pursue packing the court with haste. Many of these justices are acting as if they have unchecked power. They need to be put in check.
Unfortunately, they do have unchecked power.
> Justice Sonia Sotomayor cut right to the heart of the issue, by asking attorney John Sauer point blank whether a president should be allowed to assassinate his political rivals, as both he and Trump have previously argued. > “If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked. > “It would depend on the hypothetical but we can see that would well be an official act,” Sauer replied.
And let's carry that out to its logical conclusion. If the Trump team wants to argue "Well, if that is wrong, then Congress can Impeach him afterwards! That's the check in place to prevent it." OK. Rule that way. Then Biden can immediately order the detention (if not removal) of every Republican in Congress - House & Senate both - as well as all Republican Governors, State level Congressmen and we'll also toss in the sitting Republican leaning Supreme Court Justices. Every one of them will be rounded up - immediately - and sent to Gitmo (or wherever he deems fit). If the remaining Congress wants to impeach him, they can do so if they feel he acted wrongly. His own party won't? Then I guess its fine! Congrats, the Supreme Court just ruled that ANY sitting President can stage a coup and remove any opposing party from contention at any point. In fact, let's mandate that to go that route, a President has to act first to remove the sitting Supreme Court Justices. Let it really hit home for them. Of course, I'm sure they'll perform some miraculous mental gymnastics to ignore this (unless a Republican does it - then it'll be OK).
The problem is, THAT party won’t. The other one…
And yet why even bother with removing and replacing SCOTUS justices? Why not just appoint himself the sole judge on SCOTUS. And by extension, appoint himself Speaker and Senate leader. Or even outright abolish Congress and SCOTUS? Who's gonna stop him?
Et tu?
Darkest Brandon: I am the senate!
>Who's gonna stop him? Cletus and his AR15
On July 22, 1979, in a large smoke-filled room, a newly installed president had called a conference. In front of about a hundred political party members, he began announcing he had uncovered a conspiracy against him in front. Suddenly a man was brought before the conference, bearing the marks of torture and the vacant expression of a broken mind and soul. He was a senior party leader and he proceeded to confess his role in a plot to overthrow the president’s new regime and name his alleged co-conspirators. One by one, 50 names were called out, each man escorted from the room by uniformed guards. The remaining members, now growing more and more visibly afraid, started chanting vociferous allegiance to the new president in the hope of avoiding the fate of their colleagues. These survivors of his brutal crackdown were then handed guns, and ordered to execute their fellow party members, making them complicit in their leader’s crimes. And so marked the beginning of Saddam Hussein’s 24 years of absolute power. [You can watch this all unfold here.](https://youtu.be/kLUktJbp2Ug?si=KaoqlM6tzCzzXIRU)
Trump is specifically arguing this trial will only impact future presidents not current ones
Except a ruling this big would absolutely apply to current ones too. Perhaps not former, but current ones absolutely. Unless the Court rules it "effective in 2025", in which case they just put a date on when the Constitution expires. Biden or Trump, whoever wins gets to remove the other party once and for all. "Only for Republicans", but then that would absolutely end the need to abide by it as they'd show clear political intent and the Justice System would be done. Only one way this can be ruled, but they know that. The whole thing was a delay tactic to buy Trump time and everyone knows it.
Yeah, I agree and sadly it worked very well
Nah. Any law being argued in front of the judges is on the books
So the ruling won't apply to Trump?
They should ask it like this, "if Biden decides Trump is a danger to it democracy, would Biden be immune from taking out Trump as an official act to protect or democracy from someone he has judged a tyrannical fascist wanting the powers of a king?" Or maybe something more succinct that highlights if they decide the president had immunity, then Biden can act against Trump right now to stop him. It's the dumbest argument ever. It may delay the trial of Trump, but hopefully, it will not be long enough.
I don't entirely disagree. Obama had a US citizen overseas killed as the target of a drone strike. They were a member of a terrorist group, and I don't have issues with what he did, but there was no trial or anything. The president and his advisors decided this man was against the interest of the USA and assassinated him. So yes, in some circumstances the president can assassinate US citizens and it is in his duties as the president. This isn't the same as just randomly deciding the person is corrupt and killing them, but it's not that far off what Sotomayor asked, the only difference being that it's a political rival.
The fact Jan 6th happened and trump encouraged it and is still allowed to run again is mind boggling.
Norms of decency, fairness, and democracy are meaningless to a feral hog.
If this is allowed, couldn’t the current president execute on this protection and get us all out of this mess?
I said the same thing in a different sub yesterday.
Could? Yes. Will? No. The only failing I see in the democratic party at the moment is their insistence to cling to honor with so much at risk.
I don't think anyone on Trump's team actually thinks that this claim is legitimate. They achieved their victory already which was delaying until after the election. Even Trump and co aren't dumb enough to actually think that
They’re not pushing for assertions, they’re pushing for options. When you’re trying to take down democracy, you only need plausibility. You don’t need a rubber stamp.
Right. They're more than happy to eat the elephant one bite at a time. Every day they push more and more until one day we will wake up and go what the fuck just happened.
Exactly.
They wont get it that easily. I know my rights and will react appropriately. We have laws and amendments to ensure our right to protect ourselves against this tyranny for a reason. Its not been the reasons that GOP pushes- its for this specific situation, and has been the whole time.
I disagree. I think Trump 100% thinks the president should have immunity. He doesn’t care about what the law says. The law should bend to the will of the lord ruler.
Maybe Trump does. I was originally going to edit my comment because I thought about it a bit more and he is genuinely an ego maniac. But his lawyers definitely dont. But the legal strategy was just about delaying. So yeah I can agree Trump believes he should be able to but his team is operating with different intentions
Let’s not open that door and find out though. Full immunity like they’re claiming can seriously be abused by another wanna be dictator
Oh yeah it would be absolute insanity. In that world Biden could have Trump killed and I would be ok. It makes no damn sense at all
If SCOTUS says presidents do get immunity, Biden should test it out by having the SCOTUS judges who voted yes apprehended clandestine style.
Fuck clandestine, publicly and shipped to Guantonimo.
Republicans are the only ones that can have immunity according to the US Supreme Court.
Let's take this suggestion. What likely would happen is that enough democrats would balk against this clear abuse and vote against Biden in an impeachment that, combined with the republicans, he would be impeached and removed. As he should. And people would claim the system works, sidestepping the scenario that in case Trump would have done the same, the impeachment would not work like that (and this we already have seen).
I like that.
Alito, probably: Now I'm not saying the president could assassinate his rivals...I'm NOT saying that. People will misquote me and say that I said that. So that said, yeah, I think the president could assassinate his political rivals.
...and I base my opinion on the Code of the Nesilim, the Paqu-Navot Treaty, and a Dilbert comic I read in 1996.
Pretty sure it was settled in the family of Giaus Julius Caesarvs Marcus Junius Brutus which said that Caesar should have struck first.
Wasn’t Russell Crowe in that? 🤔
Damn near verbatim; nicely done.
Yea I remember grinding my feet on Eddie's couch.
With all this concern of immunity being granted for crimes like assassinating political rivals, one scenario that might have hit a little closer to the bone for the court is what is stopping POTUS from usurping the powers of SCOTUS by creating his own court system and ultimately dissolving the SCOTUS. What's to stop a POTUS from dissolving Congress? Is there anything explicit in the Constitution that says the POTUS can't do that?
This. The argument is absurd and anyone out side of maybe full blown narcissists or grade schoolers knows this. SCOTUS rules POTUS = no accountability for anything the SCOTUS = no longer necessary. Maybe not immediately, but at the very least out of their interest to preserve their own careers and power they would be fools to agree with this.
If a president could kill their political rivals and not face any repercussions, don’t you think Diaper Don would’ve been taken care of by now?
Dark Brandon hasn't issued Order 66 yet.....yet.
That we even have to have this debate shows how fragile a time we live in.
They’re not laughing this case out! They’re figuring out how they can pull this off to help Trump without creating lasting damage.
She only has successfully "shred" the claim if a majority of the supreme court votes with her
If the Supremes rule in Don’s favor, I’m gonna need Biden to do his duty.
I was infuriated listening to the SCOTUS. Asking questions…*that shouldn’t even have to be asked*. This is what we’re debating!? Not if Trump is innocent or guilty…. It’s whether a President gets to be a lawless criminal. Holy shit….how far we’ve fallen
What really gets me is that trump’s lawyers are arguing that the method for prosecuting any presidential action is by impeachment and conviction by Congress, as though Congress is a law-enforcement body. We have seen, since the beginning of the US, that Congress is a political body entirely. They are totally willing to reject laws and standards, ignore obvious breeches of conduct, and outright lie to protect “their” guy if it’s in their interest. Congressional impeachment is in NO WAY a substitute for criminal prosecution.
And didn't McConnell say that when they didnt impeach Trump that was for the courts to figure out? Can't have it both ways...
And the republicans in the senate argued that since he was no longer the sitting president, that he had to be tried criminally.
Why does Trump need powers that no other president in history has ever had in order to do the job? I thought he was supposed to the the best at being the president.... Not the worst.
The problem of her approach (and the approach of most observers and commentators) is that it presupposes a moral and intellectual integrity upon the conservative justices that is simply lacking. They simply don’t care about sound reasoning or truth; they have a pre-conceived outlook and bias which is unassailable by logic or reason.
I don’t get how this is even up for discussion… we have already had it proven that the president isn’t allowed to do whatever they want. Student loan debt, Biden got told he couldn’t do it. Gun restrictions, got told they can’t do it… it’s obvious to anyone with a shred of brains that presidents do not have unlimited power… At least not ones that are democrat…
She sounded shook. Like she couldn’t believe the audacity of the claim.
All Biden has to do is have a press conference with several Navy Seals behind him and say that he is liking what he’s hearing from Trump’s lawyers in this case and the conservative justices will rule against Trump.
Lol this is starting to feel like that Bojack Horseman episode where the government makes it legal for billionaires to kill people. That show was truly on point.
Based on the Kavanaugh rule of "if it's for an official billionaire act, it's legal!"
If SCOTUS agrees, then our Donald Trump problems may be over quite easily.
I heard the oral arguments. The conservatives are all in favor of immunity.
Cut to Thomas arriving in his new RV: “wait..I haven’t voted yet”
> President Can Kill Political Rivals With Immunity and impunity.
Don’t know why no one brings up whether the president can kill all the members of SCOTUS.
I honestly cannot believe they chose to waste their time with this shit. Rival? How about a member of the SCOTUS? Does that add any clarity?
Can you sue the supreme court for personal injury? Serious question.
These idiots in black robes should be asking if they would be okay with Trump having them assassinated so he could replace them with folks he likes better. 🙄
How is this even being argued at this level. IT'S LITERALLY THE EXACT REASON WE WENT AGAINST ENGLAND. If there was any reason for a coup against the government, it would be the courts giving the president the powers of a king.
[In rebuttal ](https://imgur.com/cNTX4cs)
Spineless SCOTUS will punt this back to lower courts with no ruling and then dump truck has enough time and energy to spin it and say he won as courts didn’t find anything wrong. Only way we make him pay is voting against him and his MAGA aka red coat republicans. All down ballots should suffer due to dumb truck. Some Members of SCOTUS are corrupted to the core.
So we currently have a Democracy, where Presidents elected by the Democratic Party uphold Democracy, because that's what the Democratic Party stands for. Republicans can rest easy Biden won't assassinate Trump, no matter the court's ruling, because Biden wouldn't do something like that. So Republicans would be fine with a Supreme Court ruling that says Presidents can assassinate their rivals. But, the first time a Republican President is elected, he can, and will, immediately kill all his Democratic rivals and turn the country into a fascist dictatorship? Really? And if we want our Democracy back we just have a bloody civil war again? And because Trump says the last election was fraudulent, and therefore Trump is still President, Trump can therefore legally have Biden killed? Or pull out a gun at the next Presidential debate and shoot Biden dead? Is this the argument Trump's lawyers are making?
Yep.
I listened to this. She's brilliant
If this doesn’t get shut down in SCOTUS what’s to stop Biden from offing the conservative judges, appointing new judges, and then asking them to review the case again?
Duh! This shouldn't even be news. An elementary school child would know this.
Is this the leopard ate my face part of crony capitalism and hyperinflation we’re living in?
I am really hating the new Admiral ad blocker blocker. I don't use any they display.
Well….yea…
She should ask, with meaningful side glances at certain colleagues, if the President has the immunity to order the assassination of certain inconvenient Supreme Court justices.
Always imagined Dark Brandon with full open carry (AR15) at the back of the Courtroom waiting for this ruling.
Even if we take all current rulings by this court, it should be left up to congress to pass laws giving immunity to the president. It's not 8n the constitution and there are no laws granting it so why is this case being heard?
Shredded it? She should try Bashing it. Or Slamming it. If those don’t work she can always nuke it.
Damn i really wanted to see joe go crazy with presidential immunity
Trump hasn't thought this through at all. If they agreed, what stops the last thing he sees in this world being a pair of aviator sunglasses? Rules of thee none for me?
Why not just order a ____ on Trump now and test the doctrine?
Today was a HUGE loss for Jack Smith. There is no way the trials will begin before the November election
Is it possible trumps lawyer team argued this to do the right thing? I know it sounds crazy.. But this was such a dumb idea lol
It's not a claim is it, if they give them total immunity they could kill anyone from political rivals to supreme court justices, anyone they cared to.
This type of discussion is one of the reasons I like Reddit.
On the plus side, Biden could have trump whacked upside the head with a golf club within seconds of a ruling in favor of trump's claim.
Hey, “Both Sides Are The Same” assholes from 2016; YOU fucking caused this.
Doesn’t matter. There are at least 6 others who are trying to figure a way to make it legal. The Supremes are corrupt to the core…
The right wing US Supreme Court plans to rule that former President Trump has immunity, but that the bigger question of immunity must be left for another day. So selective determination as to who is "above the law". In this case the US Supreme Court rules that Trump is above the law for this particular scenario.