Okay, so what is the specific consequence and legal mechanism that could have been wielded against the sitting president that is no longer an option?
(And Sotomayor evidently having this interpretation is the one thing that has me hesitant about my understanding of this whole thing. I’ll have to look up who, if anyone, fully joined in her dissent. I’d assume all three women, but I’m not sure.)
The only mechanism would be prosecuting them after they become a former president.
That’s the only thing this ruling was about.
That was similar to my understanding, but people are pontificating and pundit-ing as if that were completely wrong.
It makes me feel like I’m on crazy pills. Somebody is mistaken and I feel like I still don’t know who.
I think the hangup you and some other people seem to have is that people use a tone as though the President could just do all this stuff because people have been approaching it like a criminal issue where someone is “allowed” to do something if they can’t be personally punished for it. But it’s also easy to interpret this in a political context where someone is “allowed” to do something if a legal challenge to the government action would fail, or if there is no institutional check preventing the action.
The latter is wrong – the case said absolutely nothing about it, but apparently easy to confuse with the former.
Not people, just Trump. To Trump, this means he can do anything he wants without consequence. He does not care about the legal nuances and because of that he can use this power to reinforce itself by holding the Justices at gunpoint if need be. And he defines the need, not them. They might think they do but they have no actual power to stop him while he has unlimited, unquestionable power to stop them.
When the motion was being argued they shouldn’t have had the theoretical SEAL Team 6 coming after a political rival, they should have had the theoretical SEAL Team 6 breaching the chambers of the Supreme Court if and when they issue a decision America’s new God-King doesn’t like. And don’t forget, Trump was mercurial before his dementia really started kicking in. At some point he’s going to declare the Supreme Court to be Public Enemy #1 just because he feels like it. He doesn’t need an actual reason.
It’s probably been said already but seems blatantly obvious that this ruling was intended for one thing only: to help Trump out of his legal jams. Since the charges are many and varied, filed in different jurisdictions and cover many different offenses, the authors had to twist themselves into pretzels to craft a ruling that would, if not wipe out the crimes in their entirety, then drum up appeal issues by throwing doubt as to the admissibility of the evidence. There is no doubt in my mind that if it had been Biden, not Trump, facing legal consequences, they would have ruled differently, or refused to take the case at all.
This, along with the other two rulings this week (Chevon and the “gratuities” opinion, forget the official name) tell me that this court has no credibility. They are the most corrupt we’ve ever had.
Snyder is the gratuities opinion. And you are so right.
Problem is, few Americans yet appreciate just how bad these decisions are or how much adverse impact they are going to have on our lives going forward.
Just as few have heard of or understand the implications of Project 2025.
The fix is in. By the time enough Americans figure it out, it will be far too late.
I have never felt more hopeless.
Oh gosh no, there were some really bad Courts.
But the solution is simple- elect Biden, and likely two RW Justices will died or leave during the next four years- then Biden puts in two more liberal Judges, and it’s 5-4.
Biden should have packed the court in 2021 when we had the chance. Instead he commissioned a “study” that spent a year and a half dicking around before deciding that the solution to the problem with the Supreme Court was to do nothing.
We’re going to wind up in a fascist regime because our leaders were too afraid of “violating norms” to use the tools at their disposal.
Then SEAL Team 6 is thinking too small. What about ordering the Army to arrest all blue state governors and install Republicans? Firebombing Los Angeles, NYC, and Chicago Dresden-style? The summary doorstep execution of all Americans registered to vote as a Democrat?
If the president does it it’s not illegal.
Then we (the royal “we”) need to start implementing and advocating actions that it is against the rules of this message board to advocate.
Well, Trump has already said he wants to send the military into Mexico to battle drug cartels. He’s already asked about using nuclear weapons to stop hurricanes. He has gotten Special Forces soldiers killed in Africa by rushing them into battle (the Tongo Tongo ambush that should be synonymous with Benghazi). He ordered the use of the biggest non-nuclear explosive in Afghanistan just to show off. He has sent a mob to overthrow the government. He has tried to have his own Vice President killed. He has tried to get the National Guard involved against Antifa protests. He has praised literal Nazis as “good people”. He ordered the creation of new branch of the US Military devoted to fighting in space. As weird as some theoretical scenarios may sound, Trump has already done some pretty outlandish stuff and that was when there was some thought that these things might be illegal. Firebombing cities has happened in US history; police who feel threatened will absolutely burn a house/apartment block/neighbourhood down without evacuating civilians first.
Then I repeat my assertion above.
For the benefit of the FBI and/or Secret Service, I will say that while I am certainly not personally advocating anything of the sort, I understand where you are coming from and how that has the potential to be quite a common concern in the coming days.
If that’s one’s current understanding of the situation, then living life as normal is absurd. Drastic measures are the only rational option.
But that’s probably another thread.
It is questionable if he could, and if he did, whats to stop a trump style president from doing the same to a liberal court?
Look, if Biden wins the odds are two RW Justices will leave. Biden then appoints two Liberal Justices, then it is 5-4. They then limit this immunity strictly.
Only if Thomas or Alito dies. They are not going to retire.
There is about a 10-11% chance (2.5-3% per year) of someone their age (76 and 74) will die over a period of 4 years. If I am doing the math right, there is a 19% chance either one of them will die.
I wouldn’t classify that as ‘odds are’.
Whereas if Trump wins, they will both retire and be replaced by young clones of themselves as a certainty.
The only logical choice is to vote for Dems, no matter who they run. It may be a coin flip whether Biden or Harris or whomever will get the opportunity to replace a Justice. But without a Democrat in the White House, it’s for sure they won’t.
I dislike watching videos because they are time-consuming and because you can’t copy-and-paste quotes. But here is one with a provocative headline.
As noted by the legal scholar Akhil Reed Amar, the Justices essentially ruled that U.S. Constitution is itself Unconstitutional.