Are you trying to ruin my day?
Four of them know they’ll be safe, and the other two think they’re a couple of “the good ones”.
They may not be as safe as they think. Pence thought he was safe…
Presidential immunity is frightening whomever occupies the Oval Office.
It becomes horrifying if it’s the other guy’s guy.
I posted this in another thread but I’ll repost it here because I think it is more important here:
Biden made some pretty strong remarks in his response to this ruling. It does not escape him the danger this presents to the country.
There is a difference between someone being elected whose policies you disagree with and someone who could bring an end to democracy.
None of the first 44 presidents have refused to to accept an election result (correct me if I am wrong), all of them had a respect of the rule of law at least to the point of never being convicted of a felony or presidential immunity being an issue.
It would seem to an outsider that a plurality, if not a majority of 'murkin voters might well be comfortable with that notion.
(The collective) You have got some work to do, and crying to the umpire might not be a winning strategy either.
Agreed, they haven’t thought this through. They just surrendered all of their power to Trump. If there is a disagreement between them and Trump, Trump can settle it in whatever way he wants. He can have them jailed or murdered or tortured or whatever he wants and there is absolutely nothing they can do about it. They might as well all resign right now. There is no purpose to having a Supreme Court anymore. Trump is the law and the only law. Nice knowing you, America. It was good while it lasted.
The Constitution makes the president the commander in chief of the US Armed Forces. If he orders a military unit to take action, he’s exercising his constitutional duties.
Per this kangaroo court, the president is therefore immune from criminal prosecution if he orders them to kill an innocent, albeit troublesome, American citizen.
“When the president does it, that means it is not illegal”
-Richard M. Nixon, 1977…but even he had the wherewithal to bow his head in shame later.
If this is true:
Then they may have increased their power, which would explain the ruling.
I might be stating the obvious but I had the same thought a few hours ago. If what is, or isn’t, an official act can be appealed back to the Supreme Court, doesn’t that mean they’re the final say so of when presidents can be prosecuted?
Well in this particular case everything will be appealed back to the Supreme Court and I am sure they will require several months to think on each and every question.
If Trump wins, everything he does is an official act and there will not be any appeals to any court. In any case where the Supreme Court rules against Trump, Trump will officially act to remove the offending judge and replace them with a lackey. We know this because Trump has already written it down and announced it publicly.
How exactly does the President remove a sitting Supreme Court justice at discretion?
The thought occurs to me, even if Trump loses in November, this is just a time bomb waiting to go off.
By causing the most common condition that leads to a Supreme Court justice to leave office. Commander in Chief of the military, remember? And that particular result isn’t appealable.
Rand Paul, alleged libertarian, seems to agree.
Acknowledging that I’m asking for a second time, did the majority, in all its legal jargon, address the SEAL team / extrajudicial assassinations at a whim arguments? I recall it coming up during oral arguments.
IOW, when Roberts writes that the president is not above the law, what fig leaf are they using?
Edit: actually just found SCOTUSblog’s summary of the ruling, which is actually pretty lay friendly: Justices rule Trump has some immunity from prosecution - SCOTUSblog
Still interested in other perspectives, though.
I think that’s addressed by the principle of…
LOOK, A MONKEY!
The phrase that SCOTUSblog link uses repeatedly is the “core powers”:
granted to them by the Constitution – for example, the power to issue pardons, veto legislation, recognize ambassadors, and make appointments.
Those apparently are absolute. “Other” official acts get examined with the prior presumption of immunity.
What it seems to shake down to is that for disputed actions, a process of deciding whether they count as legitimately official or not gets underway.