Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
Trump is “absolutely” immune for “official acts” on Jan 6th, SCOTUS rules
It impacts the future of the election interference case.
Well, fellow Americans. This experiment with democracy was fun while it lasted. Every significant goal of the founding fathers has been systematically thwarted by these Christofascists. We once again have a de-facto monarch.
The consequences of this decision will be dire, and unpredictable. Every law, every right, every freedom can now be undone by an official wave of the president’s hand. Rights to privacy? Gone. Due process? Gone. Bill of Rights? Gone.
No one—democrat or republican—should be happy about this. The right to bear arms is now on the chopping block right along with LGBTQ+ and abortion rights.
Hopefully I’m wrong. Hopefully I’m misreading the situation. But it sure sounds like every right that previously defined us as American people now hinges on the benevolence of our president. Americans can no longer brag about “American freedom.”
Okay.
Biden should officially execute half the Court with no trial.
Wouldn't this mean a president has an obligation to kill his political opponents if they're seen as a threat to the United States, and as an official act, it would be completely legal? Effectively making one man above the law.
Even if it's not seen as an official act, you can't charge the president while they're in the office, and with that power and a loyal justice department, you could eliminate anyone who might try to argue the legality of your actions.
Good luck convincing anyone to bring a case against the guy who keeps making people disappear when they investigate him.
This + project 2025 & a trump presidency is the end of US democracy. I don't even wanna start thinking about the impacts globally..
The thing that bugs me is how any order given to subordinates is a use of executive power, right? So that’s immune. But say the subordinate considered refusing an unlawful order. Why, then would they decide to refuse the order when the president could also choose to pardon them for any crimes they committed during the execution of the unlawful order?
Fucking insanity.
Civil immunity makes sense because anyone can sue anyone for anything at anytime, and allowing people to sue the president for official acts would leave him vulnerable to a nonstop barrage of lawsuits. Crime doesn't work that way. The only way the president should be facing criminal prosecution is if he's breaking the fucking law. That's kind of the opposite of what the president is supposed to be doing. You know, faithfully executing the laws and all that. If a presidential action violates the law, it can't really have the legitimacy that's being presumed for all official acts here, because by definition it violates his official duties under the constitution.
Now, I would never suggest that a sitting president order the unlawful detention or summary execution of political opponents and/or corrupt justices. But I might suggest that, in the interest of national security, that he order intelligence agencies to troll through communications records, financial records, etc. to search for signs of treason and corruption at the hands of foreign powers. And if that search should happen to find evidence of any kind of illegal activity among his political opponents or on the Court, well...
Didn't our founders have something to say along the lines of when the government becomes tyrannical it's a duty to overthrow it?
They don't even need project 2025 now.
The only sane thing to do, full on assassinate, or kidnap in secret and report youve assassinated, all the justices that ruled in favor of presidential immunity. Nominate a new set of justices, with confirmation under threat of further assassinations, bring the case back before the new supreme court to rule against presidential immunity
If anyone ever doubted that the DNC and the GOP weren't on the same team, just watch as the DNC let this opportunity slip right through their fingers. Access to the greatest political, strategical, minds and they will let this opening wash away into a river of fascism.
It's a play, we are watching theatre. Meant to keep you distracted. Meant to keep you oppressed.
Last person out, please turn out the lights.
The big thing everyone is missing here is the ruling says the president cannot be prosecuted for actions that are constitutional. So this does not mean the end of democracy or whatever people are saying. The president can't stay in office after his term expires. The president cannot order his political opponents killed- in fact, the Supreme Court issued a statement on that just this year.
The coup marches on.
You sure do get what you pay for.
The SCOTUS can lick my fucking SCROTUS.
As an official act, dissolve the current supreme court and reverse every terrible decision they made.
I mean... I actually agree with (aspects of) that ruling. A nation's leader is going to have to, by necessity, do some really sketchy stuff. Simply put "war"
The issue is defining what counts as an "official act" and having any kind of checks and balances on that.
For example: Let's look at the purely hypothetical example of an outgoing president engaging in a violent insurrection against the US government in an attempt to prevent losing power. Crazy, right? But, in that example, it is not at all a stretch that said former president is an enemy of the state. There is a lot of legal discussion on whether it is legal to pop them in the head without a series of trials but it is in that range where it is probably better than not to give the elected POTUS immunity in that situation.
But what if that outgoing president insisted that it was an "official act" to lead that violent insurrection? No intelligent person would at all consider that a defense.
Dear Biden, the path forward is now clear. Do what needs to be done.
Four years ago, I voted for President Harris as the lesser of two evils.
This year, I vote for Queen Kamala I, as the lesser of two evils.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Supreme Court ruled that presidents are “absolutely” immune from criminal prosecution when their actions involve allegedly official acts while they were in office.
In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts remanded the case to the lower courts, which now have to determine whether Trump’s conduct was official or unofficial.
A grand jury approved an indictment against Trump in August for charges including conspiracy to defraud the US and obstructing an official proceeding.
Trump faces a series of legal challenges across the country both at the state and federal levels.
Most recently, he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records in New York in a trial over hush money payments, including payments made to porn actor Stormy Daniels to suppress a story about her and Trump having sex.
That means — unlike in the state case — that if Trump were convicted but elected president, he could potentially pardon himself.
The original article contains 298 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 49%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!