And they've also argued that ordering assassinations of political rivals are official acts.
So now Biden has the best opportunity of all time to clean and prevent the fascist right wing usurpation of the nation.
I mean, that's what this comes to, right? If he ordered Seal Team Six to storm Mar-A-Lago to recover classified materials with deadly force, then he's operating in order to maintain national security via his authority as Commander in Chief. That would be legal under this ruling, correct?
I get that would lead to an actual civil war, and I get that their argument is important to shield the office from neverending frivolous lawsuits, but in being forced to rule so explicitly on this it seems like they've opened the door to political assassinations. All a President would need is a willing wing of the military and a superficial rationalization and there'd be nothing a court in this country could do about it.
Please, someone tell me I'm missing something.
“When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,” Sotomayor wrote.
You're missing that the Supreme Court is taking the piss and the District Court they're kicking this back to has already done their homework and defined the official acts versus unofficial acts. They're ret-2-go but the Supreme's did their job of punting this until at least October, since that's when they come back from vacation. So when the District Court punts it back up the chain to the Supreme Court, they have to wait for the Supreme Court to reconvene. It's fucking stupid, but it accomplished getting Trump nothing but a legal time-out.
Oh, ALSO:
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
They literally fucked us out of a ton of evidence with this part of the ruling.
The main thing you're missing is that the words of the court are meaningless. They'll always be able to use the next ruling to bend the outcome to the conservatives' whims.
This is a government of men, not laws. Always has been.
"When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."
Of course that's only for Republican presidents. The Supreme Court has already shown that they don't care about precedent, so if Biden does something, it'll come back up and they'll find it was not an official act and can be prosecuted, no matter what it was.
He didn’t want to pack the court so I’m not holding out hope that he’d empty the court either. Obviously assassinating justices would completely fuck the country up, but one could argue that the current justices are slow playing us into a fascist dictatorship.
Well, they're doing it faster and faster lately...
2021-01-02 Trump on a call with Georgia election officials asked them "All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
Not an official act on any planet in this solar system, how is this not a loss for Trump?
The court decides which acts are official. They will declare whatever they want official. "He was doing it in his capacity as president to protect the election. He knew he won, so the votes must just be missing."
Problem is that with this, proving that it fell under one power basically means all other laws, even ones that specifically were meant to restrict that power, are meaningless. What he did could be 100% illegal, but he can't be prosecuted for it, so he can't be removed from office or punished after he leaves office.
If he was making that call as the official president of the United States, speaking in an official capacity, then it doesn't matter if the order he gives is illegal if it was within his power to order the Governor of a state to do anything at all. If it's not in his power for him to give an order to the Governor, then he just has to say it was an official suggestion as the president of the US. There's no restriction that says a president can't suggest that the Governor of a state does something to benefit the president. Doesn't matter that the thing he asked for was illegal because it can't be questioned in court at all to determine its legality.
Now it depends on if the Governor were to actually do it. And if as president Trump decides to order the assassination of that Governor once he refused, that would not be prosecutable. The assassin would be the only one who could be punished for the illegal act.
Immunity from prosecution doesn't mean the thing you're doing isn't legal, it means that no one has the right to punish you for that act. It's still unethical to break the law, but there is no enforceable consequence.
They also included in the ruling that:
"Chief Justice Roberts determines that “official conduct,” which garners presumptive immunity under the Court’s framework, may not be used as evidence of other crimes when prosecuting former presidents."
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/the-supreme-court-s-presidential-immunity-decision
My understanding, a president having an "official" meeting with his staff regarding commiting a crime that falls outside of his normal presidential duties is no longer admissible as evidence for the criminal act.
And going forward, who decides what's an official vs. unofficial Presidential act?
The courts
I posted this in another thread.
I am really confused about this ruling.
“But under our system of separated powers, the President may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for his official acts.”
He's not being prosecuted for exercising core constitutional powers or official acts. He's being prosecuted for election fraud, inciting an insurrectionist mob and mishandling classified documents. None of those are core constitutional powers and they clearly can't be official acts.
Edit: I just love this part-
Without immunity, Trump's lawyer said, sitting presidents would face "blackmail and extortion" by political rivals due to the threat of future prosecution.
Trump just faces blackmail and extortion from his political allies. Like Vladimir Putin.
They sent it back down to the lower courts because they need to determine if he was acting officially. If he was acting outside of an official constitutional capacity he is criminally responsible. If he was doing his official duties with in the constitution he's alright.
It'll probably end up with him hit with some charges and avoiding others.
Why does this need to be determined? He wasn't. He just wasn't. Nothing he is being charged with is constitutional, which is the point.
Devil's Advocate: It's been needing to be determined since fucking Nixon left office, and our entire government has been waffling about it for 70 years, because it's a question they don't actually want answered. It's only convenient to them now as a reason to give Trump a legal time-out so he can make it to the election without more indictments.
The District Court in question has already defined official versus unofficial acts, which is part of why the SC released this so late on fucking purpose. Because even though the DC is ready to go with their findings, they'll have to wait until October to kick it back up the chain to the Supreme Court when Trump inevitably appeals.
because they need to determine if he was acting officially.
this was already ruled on, reelection campaign is NOT an official capacity thing PERIOD. This move is nothing but another delay to ensure this shit falls on a date post-election
So, has there been a more monumentally catastrophic series of rulings like we've had this week?
Presidents are kings and immune to the law
Kickbacks are now legal
Executive agencies completely destroyed
I know other individual rulings may be worse, but in this case the series of rulings.
And they are all thanks to the fact that trump, not Clinton, got to appoint 3 to justices.
And there are still people who think voting for a third party is a good idea.
So..
Fuck Trump obviously. And everyone who voted for him. (Edit and fuck everyone in the voting doesn't matter camp)
Also fuck Mitch McConnell
But god damnit, fuck Obama for not fighting Mitch, and fuck Ruth for not retiring when she should have.
I don't know what Obama could have done, but i absolutely agree that rbg should have stepped down in the middle of her term.
The Supreme Court does what ever the hell they want so I guess the president should be able to do the same.
"My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a camel, I drive a Mercedes, my son drives a Land Rover, his son will drive a Land Rover, but his son will ride a camel,"
This was the moment for the the United States where we all start "ride a camel" again. "The American Republic" Apex is over.
I tell people as often as I can, especially my trans and bipoc friends; now is the time. Get a couple guns (a long one and a short one) and learn how to use them. Learn some basic first aid, you really just need to know how to stabilize someone. Start networking with like-minded people in your communities. The police will not protect us, they’ve proven they’ll happily club senior citizens to the ground and shoot any protesters in the face with rubber bullets while escorting a rightwing murderer to safety.
Iran was a secular, liberal state until almost 1980 when they (mostly legitimately) elected an Islamist theocracy; it could happen here
After stalling just long enough to make it a problem that won't be resolved before the election. Wonderful.
And also making it so that you can't actually use a ton of the gathered evidence:
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
I think this is the part that's going to fuck up the rest of Trump's trials. Everything is going to suddenly be a private record.
(3) Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution. On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32
This is how fucked we are. Right here.
Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.
So nevermind all that evidence you have of them planning it out in the open. Inadmissible in trial!
Get fucked Supreme Cunts.
So then nothing a President ever does can be considered premeditated. This timeline is fucking insane.
When are we going to protest. This is insanity.
Here is an excerpt from the dissent:
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex- change for a pardon Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
This is so much broader than the title is suggesting
When this first dropped, all the news media had kind of cautious titles. It wasn't until after their legal reporters actually read it that they started getting the point.
After mulling this over for these few hours, I realize what this ruling really does is render the President unaccountable to his Oath of Office. Any official act is presumed to be totally legal by the courts, unless he is impeached and removed from office over it. Much of his communications with his staff is now also not subject to review anywhere but Congress, as part of a formal impeachment proceeding.
A President is now officially a king, restrained by no law in what he can use his office to do, as long as he has the support of half of the House, or 1/3 of the Senate.
He could “officially” shoot someone on 5th Ave.
Laws are only for little people.
This ruling sounds good on its face, but it's mixed at best and somewhat bad in the broad view.
It doesn't define what is or isn't an official duty or act. It gives some examples and then says it's up to the lower courts to decide what is or isn't on a case by case basis. It specifically said some of the current allegations are official acts that can't be prosecuted and said some of the others are probably not official acts but the lower courts will have to rule on them. I'm sure that will be a speedy process that gets done before the election!
It also says it is the government's burden to prove an act isn't official, which will slow everything down and bring the cases back to SCOTUS again on a case by case basis. This also opens the possibility of political assassinations as being argued as official acts.
It mentions Presidents having limited immunity from having to make documents available. It does say it isn't absolute, but it definitely leaves the door open to block current court cases from using many documents as evidence and also leaves the door open to claim immunity for the classified docs case. Evidence fights at the current criminal cases are about to be much harder for the prosecution to win. Now, it does say that former Presidents no longer have this immunity but isn't clear whether that is for all docs or only docs for after they are former Presidents.
Maybe the worst is that it rules INTENT cannot be questioned. That is a core concept of criminal cases: intent matters! They are holding that it would bog down a President to be constantly asked about his/her intent when doing official acts, so therefor courts cannot question it. This REALLY opens the possibility of political assassinations, since intent behind the act cannot be questioned (e.g. it presupposes the person who was assassinated was committing treason or planning a terrorist attack and therefor the Presidential act was official). It does not say that former Presidents no longer have the Intent immunity, so this might be rough to clear in courts.
It specifically ruled that it is 100% OK to fire a person if they don't do the illegal thing the President asks them to do, as long as that person's job is something the President can hire/fire. It also ruled that if the illegal thing the President asks them to do falls within their job duties, then the President is immune from prosecution for asking for that illegal thing.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.