Didn’t the federal appeals court which ruled unanimously against Trump take that stance? The president is immune from some things and this ain’t that. He needs to stand trial.
I dunno, I can’t help but think that I and a lot of those panicking are missing or misinterpreting something here. I FULLY ACKNOWLEDGE that I could be wrong, or that I could be right but it doesn’t matter when Trump believes wrongly, but it just feels like it isn’t what it looks like in the popular eye, even though I KNOW that Trump and conservatives have a history of doing the previously unthinkable. It’s just this weird strange background feeling.
Maybe Biden should do something so outrageous against Trump or the Republicans that it sparks enough bilateral support for a constitutional amendment to address and correct this situation.
“Bilateral”–hah! You’re funny.
I mean, shit, man. Biden merely spoke out against the ruling, and Mike Johnson had the fucking nerve to chastise him for attacking the judiciary.
The chance of any bilateral action, as long as these jawdropping hypocrites are in power, is nil.
I agree. It doesn’t have to be world-shattering, necessarily. Just use eminent domain to turn Mar-a-Lago into a windmill farm.
I’d like to see Dark Brandon poke Trump with a stick with this ruling. 'So, the Supreme Court just said that the President could order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political opponent. Your lawyers said it too. Do you still agree with that? Because… I’m still the President, political opponent. 
’
Similar to when SCOTUS overturned Roe vs Wade and it fired up the Democratic base and women to get out and vote in a handful of those “special elections”, hopefully this energizes enough of the right people to hit the polls (or mail in their ballots) in November.
The greatest schadenfreude would be the tangerine ballbag dying in prison as an indirect result of this and the Roe ruling getting Democrats out to the polls.
Or surround Supreme Court members with guards that won’t let them travel. For their own protection. This cannot be questioned, it’s an official duty. Go for it, Joe.
I was thinking that earlier today. If Trump can unleash Seal Team Six on Biden on Day One, then Biden can unleash Seal Team Six on Donald Trump right now. That seems to be the case, as per SCOTUS’ ruling. If so, then why does Biden not do it now? Shut Trump up, put him away, have a show trial, and let the chips fall where they may.
I know that Biden has too many ethics to do that, but could he do that?
No, because the SCOTUS has appointed itself the final arbiter of what constitutes an “official act.” I suspect there will be one standard for any Republican president and another for any Democratic one.
Thanks, @Aspenglow. That’s a bit of comfort. Not much, but a bit. I agree with the two standard remark. Cripes, this could mean the end of rule of law in the United States.
Not “could.” It does mean that, I’m afraid.
The only chance we have to stop it is for Dems to prevail in November – and they have to win big, because I think Republicans have a few more tricks up their sleeve to wrest the election away from Democrats in a close election.
Unfortunately, we know for a fact that open and violent rebellion on their part is on the table, by their public attempt to transform insurrectionists into heroes and martyrs.
Maybe I’m being Pollyannish about this, but I’m going to give Americans the benefit of the doubt. When they see Rule of Law disappearing, they’re not going to like it. I don’t want to think about what happens next.
Note that I’m always defining "“rule of law” as it was defined by my Constitutional Law prof back in law school: “Yanno what ‘rule of law’ is? It means that those in power don’t make shit up to achieve their ends.”
Exact quote; I’ve never forgotten it. And that’s not something I want to see in the United States: Those in power making shit up to achieve their ends.
I’m far less worried about the open and violent rebellion parts than I am about the “legal” mechanisms they’ll use this time to throw the election to state legislatures. Dems need to understand that Republicans are playing for keeps in November. And I do mean keeps.
I’m not so sure. I think SCOTUS has undervalued that the executive branch is the one with all the guns. I generally despise slippery slope arguments, but this feels like a potential for abuse those smug assholes did not anticipate. The leopards will be emboldened.
“That is not an official act!”
“That so? Let’s see what a new set of Justices think.”
“We’re not going anywhere!”
“That so? Let’s just see…”
Okay, after some reading and thinking, I’m confused again.
Most of the discussion so far seems predicated on the ruling saying that the president has automatic, assumed immunity for acts committed during a presidency, either while in office or afterwards. Is this correct?
Either way, what exactly could a sitting president be charged criminally for during their presidency before this ruling?
As soon as you have two standards, you’ve lost the rule of law. The whole point of the rule of law is that, if I read the law with a mind willing to understand it, I should be able to make a reasonable conclusion about whether or not I’m about to break that law with any given action.
But now, there’s no way to make that reasonable conclusion, because the determination of whether or not it is illegal is entirely up to how the courts decide to read the law.
The question is what a president has to worry about being charged for once they’re out of office.
Right, but that’s where I’m now confused with the SEAL team argument. How does taking away the threat of prosecution after his term dissuade him from sending that SEAL team? Why would a president morally capable of ordering such a thing care about consequences after office? In what way would the prospect of prosecution then dissuade him from taking power now? Wouldn’t the threat of prosecution have to be immediate to have a preventative effect when it comes to an office as powerful as the president?