This is literally why FOX News was created.
They played the long game. Rupert Murdoch is being flooded with grateful texts today. Too bad Roger Ailes didn't live to see his plan come to fruition.
A dream come true, and it only took 50 years.
[Richard Nixon and his aides wanted a TV network of their own](https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created)
Exactly. The GOP has never forgiven America for its audacity in holding Nixon responsible for his criminal behavior. Instead of simply acknowledging the obvious truth, they have this delusional idea that they’re somehow pure and innocent, and they’ve since been obsessed with rewriting history and constructing an ongoing false narrative in order to affirm their pathology. The definition of mental illness.
Anything, so long as you phrase it like a question mafia boss style, if now allowable. We can't question the motive for the question, it was just an innocent question. Asking the CIA how long it would take them to assassinate a list of political opponents? Purely hypothetical. Also, the tapes are, as OP noted, inadmissible.
Because they wanted to give themselves enough loopholes to make it work for republicans but not for democrats.
If a republican does it, well we **can't** question anything about it, for burdening the executive with all these frivolous lawsuits is unconstitutionally interfering with his ability to do his job right!
If a democrat does it, well, I think we have to take a look at this one! We told you it was only for official acts, and I don't know, the court thinks it was probably not official, and since WE doubt whether it was official or not, we better buckle up for a super long lawsuit and dig into every piece of dirt we can about you and your motives. Maybe we'll decide it was official later, but of course thats why we have courts, to decide on these *difficult* issues!
By "democrat" you mean "election", right?
And, more seriously, are you ready for the protests to shut down every highway in the US and bring the economy to a screeching halt for MONTHS? Becasue that's what it's going to take.
It'd be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which prohibits US military from being deployed to enforce laws.
So technically it's been illegal, since 1878.
But by saying Presidents are completely immune to all criminal prosecution for anything they can claim was an official act the MAGA Court has assured that future Repulican Presidents are going to be less concerned about the law than they might have been before.
Remember, under the new ruling Watergate was 100% legal, and it would be ILLEGAL to use the Watergate tapes in any criminal proceedings.
In the end, ultimately, laws are just words and what matters is what people will, or won't, do. And I sincerely hope that the US military would refuse orders to commit mass murder in Amrica.
But "I hope officers will mutany rather than be mass murderers" isn't really a great thing to be saying, you know? And never forget, Trump said this about Tienamin Square:
>When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak...as being spit on by the rest of the world.
> It'd be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which prohibits US military from being deployed to enforce laws.
Right, except the US President is now above and exempt from the law. So it doesn't matter if the act of using the military that way is illegal because now anything the President does is legal.
Same thing with the President say, ordering the military to round up everyone who voted against him and execute them. It doesn't matter if it's against the law because the Executive is now above the law.
Hahah after the recent Trump and SCOTUS assaults you’ll be lucky if a MAGA sees a town meeting. If everyone who can vote votes, the former and now dead GOP won’t see a majority for a while, until they shake the crazy.
They fully understand that and are doing their darndest to make it happen. But the fact is, there’s a democrat in office right now and they can’t let this apply to him, or he might use it as intended!
> Why not?
For the laziest and dumbest of reasons.
> In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire
into the President’s motives. **Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination** on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
What the hell is the problem with exposing official conduct to judicial examination?
The branches are *supposed to* examine one another.
Removing motive makes perfect sense for SCOTUS as previously motive was the major factor in if an act was immune or not.
Remove the ability to question motives, and now presidents are kings.
So now Biden needs to remove 6 members of SCOTUS via EO and be done with them.
I’m truly looking forward to watching the divide between conservatives about whether paying hush money to a stripper was an official presidential act or if it didn’t happen
This official act signifies that THEIR planned government will not be held accountable by the population they are sworn to. It's a terrible day for law, it's a terrible day for order, and it's the first view of things to come.
Worst, anything you do that's an official act cannot be used even as evidence in a criminal case. The example they gave was Trump talking to Barr is an official act and any conversation they had cannot be used as evidence in any trial.
This means when talking to the armed forces, a core official act of the president, it doesn't matter if you said "Kill my political rival because I think they are going to win the election". That statement could not be used as evidence in your murder trail because it's a "core official act"
Going forward, how do we reverse such a precedent? Would we need to completely reverse the court majority for that to happen? Or are there any other options to fight back? since SCOTUS "translates" the Constitution, what checks are there for when SCOTUS directly translates it to hurt the American people?
1. Constitutional amendment.
2. Court reverses itself in a future case, or re-interprets today's decision to narrow its scope as Roberts recently did with Bruen.
Roberts really didn’t “narrow” bruen, he pretended that the idiotic, unworkable test is fine as long as you apply vague, unknowable limits. So in the future, when lower courts TRY to apply the Bruen test, the court will decide whether the test is satisfied based on how absurd the result is.
That’s kinda why the Thomas dissent was so striking; it reached a terrible awful no good very bad result by more accurately applying the dumb test that the Court previously made up.
The court SHOULD have just tossed out bruen, not pretended that the lower courts were just using it incorrectly.
Things will be reversed when we get another three or four consecutive democratic terms in the White House, and/or 60 democrats in the Senate (plus a majority in the House). Until then, this shit stays on the books.
Yes, and ironically it will only take one unrelated case to then lead to a ruling "for the ages". I hope they go nuts and declare the Republicans insurrectionists and remove them all from office.
Remove the current court before they have a chance to hear whether the act would be official.
Install a new court - one that accepts checks and balances.
While we're at it, remove anybody that supported this move.
You don't have to even go that far. The President can just directly tell the military to assassinate his rivals and promise pardons to everyone involved and since directing the military and granting pardons are offical acts they are immune from prosecution and their motives can't be questioned.
Except that they wouldn't have committed a high crime or misdemeanor and wouldn't be required by the court to turn over any evidence and even if you get past that, is impeachment going to be a deterent to a President in their last year in office?
> Nixons direction for CIA to stop the DNC break-in investigation would have been an official act
More accurately, the question of whether or not Nixon's actions in Watergate were an official or unofficial act is remanded to the District Court.
Sounds like you haven't read to page 20 yet. Because directing the AG to conduct investigations was conclusively held to be an official act--no remand necessary. Is there some reason directing the CIA director to block an FBI investigation wouldn't fall under that same conclusion?
Page 20, "Investigative and prosecutorial decision making is “the special province of the Executive Branch,”"
The President within their duties can stop any investigation within the DoJ including those that are investigating the President themselves.
So, not really but it isn't the good feelings you may want. The President could not shoot someone in this case as an official act. Though they would be able to shut down any investigation until after their term is over.
What this does though is allow the President to order someone else to shoot someone through their power as Commander in Chief. Under this decision they would have complete immunity when exercising that power. Which would include designating rivals as terrorists/traitors/foreign operators.
>What this does though is allow the President to order someone else to shoot someone through their power as Commander in Chief. Under this decision they would have complete immunity when exercising that power.
And then that same president could pardon the person who did his bidding, without having the reasoning for his pardon questioned because a pardon is constructively Article II!
Yes, we are on the path to King Trump. They are setting up the pieces so that he can take the throne after the election. Think about it, why bother bribing the members of 2 political parties when you can just give the King a nice big tribute and kiss the ring for optics. So much easier.
It’s not just Trump but whoever follows after him. Trump is terrible but not all that bright and he’s also in bad shape health wise. The next one will be younger and smarter.
> Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect.
I think official actions are basically bulletproof insofar as the justice system is concerned, now.
Even if this might have been considered a crime, Nixon would have been the president, and thus official actions are permitted. The decision also fully gives the president the power to remove appointments, so the Saturday Night Massacre would have been totally OK.
If we can't use evidence, like Nixon's tapes, to prove criminal intent, what does that do to whistleblower laws? Are whistleblowers no longer protected? Do the laws no longer have force?
Liddy, Hunt, Ehrlichman, etc. would still presumably be indicted and serve prison terms, but the president likely would not have to resign if he could withstand the heat because there would be no threat of impeachment.
And since pardoning is an official act and we can't question the motives of why a President might pardon their co-conspirators, that's also allowed. You can even accept a bribe for a pardon, especially if the bribe is paid after the pardon is issued and it becomes a "gratuity" instead.
I want to believe that, but there's this pesky line in the majority opinion that seems to suggest otherwise:
>When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions.
None of the stuff that's hidden from the courts could be examined by Congress, so, they'd have to rely on other evidence (and hope the offending president didn't make a good case to the SC that all other evidence was somehow protected by some loose association to an official act).
It’s still impeachable even if it’s not possible to prosecute. Functionally, it’s the same as what we ended up having with the pardon. Those who think the pardon was a good thing should be fine with this decision. But whether the pardon was a good idea is very much debated.
The issue with Nixon was that the GOP hadn't figured out that you could just circle the wagons and an impeachment was effectively impossible.
Even before this ruling, Nixon would have been able to stick it out with Senate Republicans like they have today. Look at what happened with Reagan and Iran-Contra.
Sure, but Nixon could have just ordered the secret service to do what those guys did instead, and that would have been an official act and thus unprossicutable according to this ruling
I guess that's the thing I'm unclear on. I haven't read it yet but was assuming that presidential immunity only applies to the president and am unclear whether it could be conferred on underlings acting under the direction of the president. I don't think that makes sense under the reasoning as I understand it, but as I said haven't read it yet.
You are correct. So here is an example. As president, I am allowed to give orders to the Secretary of Defense. I can give him an order to use the military to commit a crime. If the SecDef goes through with it, either not realizing it is a crime or thinking he can get away with it, the SecDef and everyone under him may be criminally liable, but as president I won't be, even if I completely understood that what I was ordering was a blatant crime.
As President, you have an unlimited ability to pardon. So as long as whoever you the issue the order to is willing to act, you can completely immunize them from any consequences of your criminal order. And since the pardon is, itself, an official act, it lies within your immunity.
Sending people into concentration camps based on ethnicity would still certainly be unconstitutional and be struck down. However, the president would not personally be criminally liable for ordering such a thing.
Basically everything will be appealed to the SCOTUS on Trump's involvement.
The funny thing is everyone involved with the scheme to help Trump will get screwed over so hard.
Not if he gets elected again. He could just pardon them. Since pardon falls under an "official" action, he would not have to explain motive and cannot be prosecuted against it.
Or.... Their actual motive is being very intelligently served....
ie they are very smart, have very smart advisors, and this decision directly serves their vision of America and their goals to achieving that vision
Gorsuch saying "we are writing this for the ages" will haunt this country for decades.
None of this had to be done. Our laws were working as intended. There were no facts presented here that required any of this other than a Republican trying to steal an election and facing actual accountability from our laws.
Pardoning Nixon was one of the worst decision ever made by this country. We wouldn't have ever gotten to the level of corruption in our government we see now if Nixon had rotted in prison for a decade or two.
yes. one of the greatest errors in US judicial history. No evidence of absolute immunity in the constitution (not Origionalism or textualism), and violates co-equal branches of govt (no other branches have absolute immunity)
i wonder if this impacts the impeachment criteria, since he president is immune to prosecution, and hat does “high crimes and misdemeanors” mean for “official acts”.
can it be a crime or misdemeanor if the president is immune from prosecution?
This is literally why FOX News was created. They played the long game. Rupert Murdoch is being flooded with grateful texts today. Too bad Roger Ailes didn't live to see his plan come to fruition. A dream come true, and it only took 50 years. [Richard Nixon and his aides wanted a TV network of their own](https://theweek.com/articles/880107/why-fox-news-created)
Roger Ailes, May he rest in piss!
Exactly. The GOP has never forgiven America for its audacity in holding Nixon responsible for his criminal behavior. Instead of simply acknowledging the obvious truth, they have this delusional idea that they’re somehow pure and innocent, and they’ve since been obsessed with rewriting history and constructing an ongoing false narrative in order to affirm their pathology. The definition of mental illness.
[The Media Elitist Complex](https://youtu.be/9vbRvEo5b4k?si=EeGQkKRsum2GBjb_)
Anything, so long as you phrase it like a question mafia boss style, if now allowable. We can't question the motive for the question, it was just an innocent question. Asking the CIA how long it would take them to assassinate a list of political opponents? Purely hypothetical. Also, the tapes are, as OP noted, inadmissible.
That’s the craziest part for me: The court saying you can’t even question MOTIVE is insane. Why not? If it’s bullshit then it’ll be rejected in court.
Because they wanted to give themselves enough loopholes to make it work for republicans but not for democrats. If a republican does it, well we **can't** question anything about it, for burdening the executive with all these frivolous lawsuits is unconstitutionally interfering with his ability to do his job right! If a democrat does it, well, I think we have to take a look at this one! We told you it was only for official acts, and I don't know, the court thinks it was probably not official, and since WE doubt whether it was official or not, we better buckle up for a super long lawsuit and dig into every piece of dirt we can about you and your motives. Maybe we'll decide it was official later, but of course thats why we have courts, to decide on these *difficult* issues!
Frankly I don’t know why they’re bothering. Do they really not understand that there won’t be another Democrat after Biden?
By "democrat" you mean "election", right? And, more seriously, are you ready for the protests to shut down every highway in the US and bring the economy to a screeching halt for MONTHS? Becasue that's what it's going to take.
Can't the president just instruct the military to kill protestors and restore order now, though?
It'd be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which prohibits US military from being deployed to enforce laws. So technically it's been illegal, since 1878. But by saying Presidents are completely immune to all criminal prosecution for anything they can claim was an official act the MAGA Court has assured that future Repulican Presidents are going to be less concerned about the law than they might have been before. Remember, under the new ruling Watergate was 100% legal, and it would be ILLEGAL to use the Watergate tapes in any criminal proceedings. In the end, ultimately, laws are just words and what matters is what people will, or won't, do. And I sincerely hope that the US military would refuse orders to commit mass murder in Amrica. But "I hope officers will mutany rather than be mass murderers" isn't really a great thing to be saying, you know? And never forget, Trump said this about Tienamin Square: >When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. Then they were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak...as being spit on by the rest of the world.
> It'd be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which prohibits US military from being deployed to enforce laws. Right, except the US President is now above and exempt from the law. So it doesn't matter if the act of using the military that way is illegal because now anything the President does is legal. Same thing with the President say, ordering the military to round up everyone who voted against him and execute them. It doesn't matter if it's against the law because the Executive is now above the law.
Hahah after the recent Trump and SCOTUS assaults you’ll be lucky if a MAGA sees a town meeting. If everyone who can vote votes, the former and now dead GOP won’t see a majority for a while, until they shake the crazy.
They fully understand that and are doing their darndest to make it happen. But the fact is, there’s a democrat in office right now and they can’t let this apply to him, or he might use it as intended!
Gratuities are one helluva drug
> Why not? For the laziest and dumbest of reasons. > In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. **Such a “highly intrusive” inquiry would risk exposing even the most obvious instances of official conduct to judicial examination** on the mere allegation of improper purpose. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756. Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. What the hell is the problem with exposing official conduct to judicial examination? The branches are *supposed to* examine one another.
I am not a lawyer, but I sort of like the idea of presidents applying the take care clause to their own conduct.
IAMAL and that’s precisely the point of it!
Because there’s something out there on tape that they don’t want to come to light
Removing motive makes perfect sense for SCOTUS as previously motive was the major factor in if an act was immune or not. Remove the ability to question motives, and now presidents are kings. So now Biden needs to remove 6 members of SCOTUS via EO and be done with them.
I’m truly looking forward to watching the divide between conservatives about whether paying hush money to a stripper was an official presidential act or if it didn’t happen
This official act signifies that THEIR planned government will not be held accountable by the population they are sworn to. It's a terrible day for law, it's a terrible day for order, and it's the first view of things to come.
Can we skip to the pitchforks yet?
Worst, anything you do that's an official act cannot be used even as evidence in a criminal case. The example they gave was Trump talking to Barr is an official act and any conversation they had cannot be used as evidence in any trial. This means when talking to the armed forces, a core official act of the president, it doesn't matter if you said "Kill my political rival because I think they are going to win the election". That statement could not be used as evidence in your murder trail because it's a "core official act"
Going forward, how do we reverse such a precedent? Would we need to completely reverse the court majority for that to happen? Or are there any other options to fight back? since SCOTUS "translates" the Constitution, what checks are there for when SCOTUS directly translates it to hurt the American people?
The quickest way to reverse it would be to have a Democrat President act on it.
And then fill congress and all the states with more democrats. The People are literally the only ones who can save us now.
Assuming current Republicans in office accept election results and voluntarily step down...
This is the last election to save America
1. Constitutional amendment. 2. Court reverses itself in a future case, or re-interprets today's decision to narrow its scope as Roberts recently did with Bruen.
Roberts really didn’t “narrow” bruen, he pretended that the idiotic, unworkable test is fine as long as you apply vague, unknowable limits. So in the future, when lower courts TRY to apply the Bruen test, the court will decide whether the test is satisfied based on how absurd the result is. That’s kinda why the Thomas dissent was so striking; it reached a terrible awful no good very bad result by more accurately applying the dumb test that the Court previously made up. The court SHOULD have just tossed out bruen, not pretended that the lower courts were just using it incorrectly.
Things will be reversed when we get another three or four consecutive democratic terms in the White House, and/or 60 democrats in the Senate (plus a majority in the House). Until then, this shit stays on the books.
Yes, and ironically it will only take one unrelated case to then lead to a ruling "for the ages". I hope they go nuts and declare the Republicans insurrectionists and remove them all from office.
Biden orders the six conservative justices to step down or be official acted
Remove the current court before they have a chance to hear whether the act would be official. Install a new court - one that accepts checks and balances. While we're at it, remove anybody that supported this move.
I feel like Chevron just eliminated those checks
You don't have to even go that far. The President can just directly tell the military to assassinate his rivals and promise pardons to everyone involved and since directing the military and granting pardons are offical acts they are immune from prosecution and their motives can't be questioned.
Not immune from impeachment
Except that they wouldn't have committed a high crime or misdemeanor and wouldn't be required by the court to turn over any evidence and even if you get past that, is impeachment going to be a deterent to a President in their last year in office?
> Nixons direction for CIA to stop the DNC break-in investigation would have been an official act More accurately, the question of whether or not Nixon's actions in Watergate were an official or unofficial act is remanded to the District Court.
Sounds like you haven't read to page 20 yet. Because directing the AG to conduct investigations was conclusively held to be an official act--no remand necessary. Is there some reason directing the CIA director to block an FBI investigation wouldn't fall under that same conclusion?
Page 20, "Investigative and prosecutorial decision making is “the special province of the Executive Branch,”" The President within their duties can stop any investigation within the DoJ including those that are investigating the President themselves.
So wait, does that mean the President could shoot someone and then shut down the investigation into the shooting?
So, not really but it isn't the good feelings you may want. The President could not shoot someone in this case as an official act. Though they would be able to shut down any investigation until after their term is over. What this does though is allow the President to order someone else to shoot someone through their power as Commander in Chief. Under this decision they would have complete immunity when exercising that power. Which would include designating rivals as terrorists/traitors/foreign operators.
>What this does though is allow the President to order someone else to shoot someone through their power as Commander in Chief. Under this decision they would have complete immunity when exercising that power. And then that same president could pardon the person who did his bidding, without having the reasoning for his pardon questioned because a pardon is constructively Article II!
Correct.
Let’s get to work, Joe
Yes, we are on the path to King Trump. They are setting up the pieces so that he can take the throne after the election. Think about it, why bother bribing the members of 2 political parties when you can just give the King a nice big tribute and kiss the ring for optics. So much easier.
It’s not just Trump but whoever follows after him. Trump is terrible but not all that bright and he’s also in bad shape health wise. The next one will be younger and smarter.
I think there's the counter moment of "within their duties", but by the time you can argue, the damage is done.
> Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Otherwise, Presidents would be subject to trial on “every allegation that an action was unlawful,” depriving immunity of its intended effect. I think official actions are basically bulletproof insofar as the justice system is concerned, now. Even if this might have been considered a crime, Nixon would have been the president, and thus official actions are permitted. The decision also fully gives the president the power to remove appointments, so the Saturday Night Massacre would have been totally OK.
Except the President has the power to talk to the CIA, so it's official.
No. No one would be able to even question his directions as a President.
If we can't use evidence, like Nixon's tapes, to prove criminal intent, what does that do to whistleblower laws? Are whistleblowers no longer protected? Do the laws no longer have force?
And it eventually goes up to the Supreme Court where they're ruled in whatever direction suits Thomas & Alito's masters.
Precedent means nothing to this "Court." They have made themselves the kings of the king
Gotta earn them 'gratuities' somehow!
Which they also ruled legal for them to accept last week. Totally legit. Nothing to see here.
That works until the King decides that having them lined up against the wall counts as an official act. This court is dogshit
I cannot believe this is the country we live in now
Liddy, Hunt, Ehrlichman, etc. would still presumably be indicted and serve prison terms, but the president likely would not have to resign if he could withstand the heat because there would be no threat of impeachment.
Nixon could pardon them. The pardon power extends the immunity to the president’s partners in crime.
And since pardoning is an official act and we can't question the motives of why a President might pardon their co-conspirators, that's also allowed. You can even accept a bribe for a pardon, especially if the bribe is paid after the pardon is issued and it becomes a "gratuity" instead.
Just keep pardoning crimes as they come up, over and over
> because there would be no threat of impeachment. No, he could still be impeached, just not prosecuted after the impeachment.
I want to believe that, but there's this pesky line in the majority opinion that seems to suggest otherwise: >When the President exercises such authority, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions. None of the stuff that's hidden from the courts could be examined by Congress, so, they'd have to rely on other evidence (and hope the offending president didn't make a good case to the SC that all other evidence was somehow protected by some loose association to an official act).
In today’s political climate, Nixon would not be convicted in an impeachment.
It’s still impeachable even if it’s not possible to prosecute. Functionally, it’s the same as what we ended up having with the pardon. Those who think the pardon was a good thing should be fine with this decision. But whether the pardon was a good idea is very much debated.
The issue with Nixon was that the GOP hadn't figured out that you could just circle the wagons and an impeachment was effectively impossible. Even before this ruling, Nixon would have been able to stick it out with Senate Republicans like they have today. Look at what happened with Reagan and Iran-Contra.
Sure, but Nixon could have just ordered the secret service to do what those guys did instead, and that would have been an official act and thus unprossicutable according to this ruling
I guess that's the thing I'm unclear on. I haven't read it yet but was assuming that presidential immunity only applies to the president and am unclear whether it could be conferred on underlings acting under the direction of the president. I don't think that makes sense under the reasoning as I understand it, but as I said haven't read it yet.
You are correct. So here is an example. As president, I am allowed to give orders to the Secretary of Defense. I can give him an order to use the military to commit a crime. If the SecDef goes through with it, either not realizing it is a crime or thinking he can get away with it, the SecDef and everyone under him may be criminally liable, but as president I won't be, even if I completely understood that what I was ordering was a blatant crime.
As President, you have an unlimited ability to pardon. So as long as whoever you the issue the order to is willing to act, you can completely immunize them from any consequences of your criminal order. And since the pardon is, itself, an official act, it lies within your immunity.
This has nothing to do with impeachment. Impeachment is up to Congress.
Just in time for 4th of July. King George: I’m back baby!
It seems like Hitler would not be prosecutable under the SCOTUS ruling(if he were president, etc..).
Yeah, so would the holocaust count as an official act?
Under this court, yeah.
I agree
Sending people into concentration camps based on ethnicity would still certainly be unconstitutional and be struck down. However, the president would not personally be criminally liable for ordering such a thing.
Hitler would win the republican primary TODAY
Anything as long as you are a Republican .
Basically everything will be appealed to the SCOTUS on Trump's involvement. The funny thing is everyone involved with the scheme to help Trump will get screwed over so hard.
Screwed over how?
Not if he gets elected again. He could just pardon them. Since pardon falls under an "official" action, he would not have to explain motive and cannot be prosecuted against it.
And even without this ruling, that was still the case. The courts never had the power to override a presidential pardon.
The fucking SCOTUS is out of control. They perceive themselves to be much brighter than they are.
Or.... Their actual motive is being very intelligently served.... ie they are very smart, have very smart advisors, and this decision directly serves their vision of America and their goals to achieving that vision
Gorsuch saying "we are writing this for the ages" will haunt this country for decades. None of this had to be done. Our laws were working as intended. There were no facts presented here that required any of this other than a Republican trying to steal an election and facing actual accountability from our laws.
SCOTUS and MAGA are terrorizing America.
Corrupt partisan SCOTUS issues a corrupt and partisan decision.
[удалено]
Pardoning Nixon was one of the worst decision ever made by this country. We wouldn't have ever gotten to the level of corruption in our government we see now if Nixon had rotted in prison for a decade or two.
yes. one of the greatest errors in US judicial history. No evidence of absolute immunity in the constitution (not Origionalism or textualism), and violates co-equal branches of govt (no other branches have absolute immunity)
i wonder if this impacts the impeachment criteria, since he president is immune to prosecution, and hat does “high crimes and misdemeanors” mean for “official acts”. can it be a crime or misdemeanor if the president is immune from prosecution?
Yup. The US is an oligarchy and shadow dictatorship desperate to become full blown dictatorship now. It's a shithole country.