Today, SCOTUS hears arguments on Trump’s claim of absolute immunity. Let’s say they rule in his favor and say that presidents have absolute immunity from the consequences of any illegal acts.
Should Biden take advantage of that? Take out a few rivals, maybe jail some other candidates, shoot someone on Fifth Avenue?
I think he shouldn’t, but isn’t that fighting with one hand tied behind his back, bringing a knife to a gunfight, etc.? How should a normal president handle the idea of having absolute immunity?
The difference is that, in my hypothetical, SCOTUS has said that a president has absolute immunity from any criminal consequences.
I find it almost inconceivable that they rule that way, but if they weren’t considering it, they would have just not taken the case (or overruled the lower court without comment, depending on how the lower court has ruled).
He should immediately ask for a trillion-dollar bribe on national TV. Don’t specify from whom, or for what, just say, “Hey, The Big Guy is Open for Business!”
This gets the message across about how stupid this is, without actually requiring actions that cause real harm. Just the political equivalent of “Nice little shop you’ve got here; be a shame if anything happened to it…”
I’m too lazy to dig up the wording right now, but I don’t think anything tantamount to ‘absolute immunity’ is actually on the table.
I think they’re looking oh-so-slightly more narrowly at ‘official acts.’
If they have to tackle that challenge vis-a-vis the circumstances that bring Trump before them in these cases, I’ve heard quite a few conservative talking heads guess that they’ll rule 9-0 against Trump.
Meaning: wherever one might reasonably draw the line for ‘official acts,’ it’s difficult to view the attempted overthrow of the legitimately elected US government to be among them.
“By signing this executive order, I am officially finding that Donald Trump is a grave threat to American democracy, and I am dispatching a specialized military squad to eliminate him with extreme prejudice in order to protect the country. That’ll be enough of his malarkey!”
Trump is a grave threat to American democracy and has already tried to overthrow it once. He cozies up to our enemies in Russia and North Korea, and has worked to destroy our institutions. If he were an Iranian who gathered up a few thousand people to break into the Capitol to stop the count, he would already be jailed.
All that said, of course I don’t want Biden eliminating him. But, as far as official acts go, Trump really is a threat to the country.
Totally, and I think it’s insane SCOTUS is even considering this. This thread assumes that they find for Trump. Biden eliminating or jailing a clear danger to the US seems like a totally legitimate official act, even more clear than Trump’s claim that sending a mob to attack the Capitol is an official act.
I’m convinced that two, possibly three, of the SCOTUS justices have been doing more homework for this case than they ever have before, searching every text possible for a precedent or philosophy they can write into the record (hopefully as a dissent) that’ll justify their preordained opinion that TFG was 100% in the right and can’t possibly ever face consequences. The fix has been in since day one for Alito and Thomas, with Gorsich as a maybe.
And — per the discussion upthread — are you convinced that they’re working harder than ever before to give the current president a big fine dose of Can’t Possibly Ever Face Consequences as well?
Yeah, that’s quite the pickle they’re in. Luckily, all they do is call balls and strikes, so the political party of the current and previous presidents couldn’t possibly influence them!
If they come up with a Bush v. Gore style “this is our decision but it’s a one-off that can’t be used as a precedent because, you know, crazy times, am I right?” verdict, wow, you could knock me ovah wid a feddah.
I know “fairness” isn’t something SCOTUS considers, but …
Elections are supposed to be fair contests that give voters the opportunity to freely choose their leaders. If the current POTUS can use the cover of “official acts” to do anything he wants to sabotage his opponent (or overturn the results), that gives him a massive and unfair advantage over his opponent, who has no “official acts” cover.
It would be as if the reigning MMA champion could, by virtue of being champion, decide it’s OK to bring a knife into the ring while his opponent had no such option.
I just heard a clip of Trump arguing that immunity is necessary for any future hypothetical president, or else they’d just be a figurehead, unable to take any necessary risks.
The obvious counter-argument is, of course: why has this never been a problem for any of the previous 44 presidents in the last 235 years?
I would not place any blame on Biden if after this ruling upholds the concept, immediately ordered the assassination of Trump, and once done resign from President, or at least from running. I would place it in the same category of assassination of Hitler as he was coming to power. I’m pretty sure Biden would not even be running again if Trump was not running as he has stated that he is running again only because Trump must be defeated. Actually Biden probably would have never gotten elected at all if it were not for Trump being so disliked.
Trump’s lawyer is saying that Trump ordering a coup could be an official act, which would be immune from prosecution unless he’s impeached and convicted. Kagan is obviously not buying it.
So, if SCOTUS finds for Trump and Biden loses, should he order a coup and stay in power? I imagine the Dems would convict a president who did that, but the GOP would not (this is clear, since they didn’t, it’s not a hypothetical when it comes to GOP senators).