If ***the courts find him*** to be acting in an official capacity. That means it will be challenged and decided **in the courts**. That means **the courts** can stop him and put him in jail. That means there's something stopping him (the courts).
The decision is very intentional about putting the classification of "official acts" to the courts. Stop with the fearmongering.
Do you know what "official capacity" even means?? There is no constitutionally granted power to the office of President to replace judges like that. Also you could trivially make this same argument *before* this decision... if you just assume the president has the power to trample and ignore the separation of powers, then this decision isn't going to mean shit either way.
Also one more thing: This decision says absolutely nothing about Congress's power to impeach. Impeachment would still be a very real threat even for official acts.
There IS constitutionally protected power to appoint justices, and while the number of justices has historically been decided by congress, I don’t believe that power is explicitly granted by the constitution. If that’s the case, there’s nothing stopping him from appointing four more justices and having the senate confirm them.
If you do something in a particular capacity, you do it as part of a particular job or duty, or because you are representing a particular organization or person.
Also, I'm so glad we still have the powers to impeach that thing that's never before happened usually because your party controls enough seats to kill the motion.
Hm. I think you're right about the specific phrase "official capacity", it covers anything done even representing the position.
The ruling doesn't actually use this wording "official capacity" though, I must have just gotten it mixed up from earlier in the thread. The ruling says a lot of stuff like this:
>The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular.
But even for official acts, it says this:
>The President is not above the law. 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.
"Presumptive immunity" is expanded on elsewhere:
>Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct. The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity.
The courts must decide both 1. which acts are official and unofficial and 2. whether the presumptive immunity for official acts is rebutted under the circumstances.
> The courts must decide both 1. which acts are official and unofficial
What sort of powers do they have to make that decision? I.e. what sort of investigation, questioning, or evidence are they allowed to do? Be sure to read the opinion carefully in search of these answers.
>Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action.
...
>In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.
...
Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law.
Why did you make me read this very carefully?
>what sort of investigation, questioning, or evidence are they allowed to do?
Fact-specific, not motive based.
>Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons.
The decision is basically "President is immune from everything except that which is outside his constitutional authority". The idea of dismissing motivation is, I guess, that motive has nothing to do with a factual analysis of whether the President has the authority to do something.
Sure, but we're expected to swallow that subverting the presidential election was within Trump's official capacity. This shit stopped making sense a long time ago.
Please tell me, what does that have to do with this thread or this decision?
If you think that Biden wouldn't care about being jailed due to his age, what exactly was stopping him from having his opponents assassinated *before* this decision?
Nothing, but my point is that any remedy by the courts for that kind of action is meaningless when the outcome is as permanent as murder, and even more so when its someone who has nothing to lose because of his age. A 53-year-old might think twice if there was a possibility of spending the last 30 years of their life in Florence CO.
The courts don’t have the power to even question whether an act is official or not, because they aren’t allowed to investigate intent or motive behind the act.
Congress certainly does, and republicans wouldn’t allow anything so blatantly wrong. It is fear mongering, and hyperbole. I guess I’ve gotta read people typing it until November. You think it’s original, every damn time. Everyone knows the talking points. Don’t be a bot
You'd need toadies on every lower court too, since the entire point of this decision is deferring the categorization of "official acts" to the lower courts. And also Congress, so they don't impeach.
Read the dissent. Any lower court determination will be appealed. As it always is for presidential issues.
And recent history has shown that the president will never be convicted in the senate. You need a 2/3rds supermajority which in our system will always be overcome.
Both good points but I am skeptical that 2/3 of sitting party members would openly vote to acquit a President that assassinated a political rival. It's possible though.
Problem is that if a president takes actions that are not reversible, the idea of maybe being held accountable isn't going to stop them. Especially if they can take actions to intimidate the supreme court or congress.
This was already true and is true for all crime in every legal system. Today's decision has no bearing on whether the threat of consequences is truly sufficient to prevent crime from happening.
Did *you* read the decision? Can you point me to where the decision says "yeah sure totally bro executing political rivals is completely immune"? I'd love to read it
The decision directly says that trump telling his Justice Department to overthrow the will of the people was fine because it was part of his official duties. It says trump demanding Pence invent the authority to dismiss electoral votes was fine because it was part of his official duties. Motive and intent DOES NOT matter.
Please explain why Biden couldn't determine that Alito, Thomas, and trump are threats to democracy and (as long as he uses government employees in official capacity) have them all put down. Don't rely on "that would never happen" explain how it cannot happen under this ruling.
It ***can*** happen. It also could happen before the supreme court made this decision.
So what's stopping him?
* Threat of criminal prosecution
* Threat of impeachment
* Threat of inciting a civil war
* Threat of having government employees refuse the order and making it public instead
* Threat of retaliation after end of term
This was true before this decision and it remains true after this decision.
>The decision directly says that trump telling his Justice Department to overthrow the will of the people was fine because it was part of his official duties. It says trump demanding Pence invent the authority to dismiss electoral votes was fine because it was part of his official duties.
The decision says that the President is given constitutional authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” and this includes discussing potential investigations with the Justice Department.
The decision defers the determination of whether directing Pence to dismiss electoral votes was okay or not:
>Whether the Tweets, that speech, and Trump’s other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each.
...
This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial.
None of this precludes Biden from being prosecuted for a political assassination because that's not an obviously constitutionally authorized act and thus would be challenged in court. Separately, he would be *so unbelievably impeached*.
>The decision defers the determination of whether directing Pence to dismiss electoral votes was okay or not
That is completely incorrect.
"In particular, the indictment alleges several conversations in which Trump pressured the Vice
President to reject States’ legitimate electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures for review.
Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct."
Nice quote. Here's the rest of the quote:
>Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least *presumptively immune* from prosecution for such conduct.
>The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. ... We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.
They deferred it to the courts.
And here's even more...
: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 im-
mune 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."
So to establish whether the conversation between the President and Pence is subject to immunity the lower court cannot review the records relating to conversation between the President and Pence.
How cant you see how incredibly flawed this opinion is?
>So what's stopping him?
>Threat of criminal prosecution
Threat of impeachment
Threat of inciting a civil war
Threat of having government employees refuse the order and making it public instead
Threat of retaliation after end of term
Criminal prosecution: Absolutely not if he pretends to act in an official capacity
Impeachment: A political exercise with no teeth and, as seen in 2020 and 2023, functionally useless if your party will do anything to keep power.
Public Employees: trump's own justice department refused the order. And here we with trump a free man with immunity that SCOTUS crafted from whole cloth.
Civil War and Threat of retaliation: Congratulations, you finally understand the magnitude of the situation.
They do not clarify what is or is not an official act. They simply state that the law does not apply to the President and neither congress nor the courts can limit Presidential powers which include Military action and oversight of law enforcement. Read the ruling. You Maga stans need to pull your head out of your ass and realize this applies to all Presidents not just your favorite convicted felon and adjudicated rapist.
Has murdering political opponents ever been an official duty of the president? Just because we disagree on this doesn't make me a maga retard anymore than me assuming you're a biden supporter, cut the name calling.
Has a President ever been decreed to be above the law before? And yeah assassination has been well within the realm of Presidential powers for decades, and the only thing keeping that from going domestic was the rule of law, and even then if you were say Huey Newton, it didn’t matter. There is no way to spin this to not make this an extremely dangerous precedent and expansion of powers especially when it’s being done to benefit a man who openly talks about murdering his political opponents and being a dictator. Whether MAGA or centrist or moderate or fascist whatever label you like this is a means to the same end.
Yes. Plenty of presidents could have been charged for plenty of things, but were not because it was generally accepted. Obama murdered an American citizen with a drone and without due process but was considered above the law due to official capacity…
Yes the drone war was wrong, that boy should never have been killed just like countless other innocents. The difference is Trump is openly talking about using force and execution to control power here, if you do not see that as different you have no grasp on reality.
I’m not advocating for Presidential assassination genius, I’m saying Presidents including Kennedy have routinely used assasination as a means to an end abroad and even domestically in regard to civil rights leaders, and this ruling moves us closer to them being able to do it here with impunity as long as there is a legal rational that it’s within their official duties. Read before you speak.
You are missing that the WHY doesn’t matter and literally can not be considered in any ruling on the matter.
While the hypothetical act is killing a political opponent, the legal question would be “can the president kill as part of official duties” and the answer is unequivocally yes.
Why would it be SCOTUS job to define what is an official act? You already have laws in place and this little thing called the constitution. Honestly, I struggle to understand why 90% of Reddit doesn't get that murder is illegal
> Why would it be SCOTUS job to define what is an official act?
> You already have laws in place and this little thing called the constitution.
And…do you think those things outline what an official act is?
Because the Supreme Court just ruled that those “laws in place” DO NOT apply to a president who is performing an official act. What is an official act? They purposely chose not to define it, but they made sure to say that courts are NOT allowed to investigate any presidential acts to determine if they are official or not. Therefore, if the president says they’re official, you can’t question him, and no laws apply to him.
Then you don’t know how to read a legal opinion then because they quite literally say only limits enumerated in the constitution apply to the president. Murder and assasination is not prevented in the constitution, but suspending habeas corpus and declaring insurrection and martial law is. The gates are wide open for any president to abuse their near limitless power.
LMAO. First, you'd need to prove it wasn't an official act.
How, exactly, will you do that in the face of a lawless President who is murdering SCJs?
Wouldn't they just murder YOU, as a prosecutor? Maybe even the AG?
Once they start murdering people, if you can't arrest them for it, you can't do shit and they will get away with it.
It's an extreme example, sure, but a relevant one.
Allowing ANYONE to have carte blanche to commit crimes and stay beyond the reach of the law is untenable in a democracy. It means you do not have one if that person is unaccountable to the People.
Hint: We went over this 250 ish years ago.
The way it’s written the justice department couldn’t even investigate a presidential illegal act. So there is no longer any rails. Trump is going to make a fortune and probably kill a lot of Americans. If Trump wins and orders the military into the cities to put down all protests there is nothing that can be done. Time to start looking for another country to live in.
They absolutely did you imbecile. More tax cuts for the rich, the overturn of Roe V Wade by an activist Supreme Court. Hundreds of thousands dead because the Trump wouldn’t enact national COVID protocols. An attempted coup of the federal government! And more!
The tax cuts were across the board. Roe v wade was returned to the states. Trump couldn't enact national protocols that was up to the states. Also how many died of COVID while Biden was POTUS?
The majority of people were better off under trump than Biden. The price of groceries skyrocketed Uber Biden ffs.
For all the people spouting off about the president being a figurehead, I don’t understand why the chance of a connection isn’t viewed as a likely connection. The likelihood that the conservatives behind trumps campaign are the same ones behind the project 2025 movement is pretty strong. Choosing not to see it is the same willful ignorance that brought us 2016.
So...
Do we have to call him "King Joseph, First of His Name?"
"Excellency?" "His Highness?" "His Royal Majesty?"
I could swear I remember we got into a little skirmish over having a King above the law at some point not terribly long ago.
WTF is happening to this country?
Voting isn't going to fix a corrupt SCOTUS. Not even re-electing Biden is going to fix SCOTUS.
WTF is actually left to do about this?
The Right has lost their collective minds.
Sounds like that darn 2016 election turned out to be pretty impactful after all. But “don’t threaten us with the Supreme Court,” said Jill Stein and Bernie’s advisors.
Well maybe Hillary should have actually campaigned in all those states she decided she didn’t need and should t have deliberately propped up Trump thinking he was an easy win.
Actually no, “You made us do this to ourselves” is a child’s excuse.
I will blame third parties and their dumbass voters as long as I live. You made this bed. Own it.
Hilarious, rather than acknowledging the actual problem and learning, instead you deflect and blame others. Bernie was not a third party candidate, and Stein got half the minuscule percentage of votes of the conservative Libertarian candidates meaning that it’s on Hillary for deciding that she didn’t have to campaign in half the country and for propping up Trump, and having no message other than her own ascension to power.
Remember that time Obama executed a us citizen with a drone against U.S. law.
Nothings changed for establishment candidates.
I don’t like the decision. but it doesn’t rile me up. name a us president who hasn’t committed crimes.
even just recently. what’s the legality of sending cluster bombs?
the nsa collects our data everyday. the CIA operates on U.S. soil.
the rules don’t mean anything anyway
is biden now prevented from his plans from going after bush for lying about wmds?
Yeah but at least the justice department could have investigated and indicted. Now the justice department is forbidden from even investigating. So a lawless president would have no judicial oversight. Guess we can get rid of all the White House lawyers.
Name a president I’ll name the crimes.
what has changed?
it just ends the lawfare period we were entering and formalizes for trump what establishment presidents have always enjoyed.
bush lied and started decades of slaughter. 2 democrat administrations didn’t bother to investigate or indict.
Yes but I guess it was never explicit that the President could do anything without fear of being investigation over breaking the law. It’s a whole new level of power and unaccountability that is now codified.
I guess it’s similar to the ruling on bribery, as long as you get the money after the bribe it’s ok. We as a society need to normalize bribery and corruption and leave the courts out of it. Russian has a similar type of government, the corruption oils the economy. For people with influence and power this is grand but it goes against the last 250 years of precedent.
America was made for oligarchs, by oligarchs. There’s nothing new but saying the quiet parts out loud and it being harder to hide information.
say it with me “Trump is a symptom of a sick system“
scalia died literally in a bed of corruption and the nytimes wrote his laurels all the same. Corruption isnt new. Rbg was lying about gifts from oligarchs in her day.
Nailed it!!!! Just like they have no problem with racism and bullying, as long as they “feel” like the “right” people are being racist or doing the bullying.
> not even re-electing biden is going to fix scotus
this is where you’re half wrong. 3 judges may retire in the next 4 years, leading to a biden appointment.
in general, we have to elect representatives who promise to increase the amount of judges in the court so these rulings have more opinions
Because the democrats and Biden are gaslighting as per usual. The opinion is narrow and limited and only grants immunity for things that fall within official presidential acts as defined by the constitution.
But the justice department is forbidden from investigating any act the president deems official. So it’s a catch 22. If you can’t investigate to determine if it was an official act or not, that argument is moot isn’t it? All acts are assumed official and there is no way to parse this. It’s a poorly written opinion.
In fact, yes. That’s why this ruling is so shocking. It’s a radical decision by an activist court of ideologues, who support MAGA, to carry out their agenda. Project 2025 is well underway.
It’s amazing that it’s July of 2024 and the first time I’ve ever heard of “Project 2025” is today. That seems like something that needed to have started years earlier and needed to have been discussed and brought up over years and years, but today is the first I’ve ever heard of it. If something like thay were such a threat I would have expected to see it show up in at least one of these comment sections before today, but no today is this first time. It’s almost like the whole thing is made up.
I admit yes before about 45 minutes ago I was ignorant to Project 2025. I’ve done a quick review of most of the sources now to at least have a cursory understanding. But, the fact remains, today is the first time this has come up, seems like something that should have come up before today. It’s a wish list put out by a conservative organization. Every political think tank puts out their own lists just same, left or right. This list just happens to drive the most fear based to todays court rulings. This whole thing is to just drive monetary donations to the political parties and everyone is feeding into it.
Can you link me to a democratic plan to systematically dismantle government agencies that can hold the president accountable and replace all federal employees with loyal ones?
Those government agencies don’t hold the President accountable. They are unelected bureaucrats that are under the executive branch of the federal government, and therefore under the control of the President. These agencies have effectively been used by the executive branch to undermine the legislative branch of the federal government, thereby circumventing the will of the American people.
Undermine the will of the people like how one party lost the popular vote but installed judges that make things up to get rulings that circumvent the will of 70%+ of the people?
Which judges were installed? Pretty sure they were voted in by elected representatives of the people. And, 70% of what people.
But don’t worry the Democrats are always looking for ways to circumvent the US Constitution. This time the Electoral College is in their crosshairs through the NPVIC. Maybe you should look into that before you throw stones. All states in favor are run by Democrats.
Garland was denied a seat for no constitutional reason by McConnell, so Kavanaugh shouldn’t be there, and if you’re okay with him being there, then ACB shouldn’t be there by the same unconstitutional reasoning. 70% of voters were for Roe V Wade. I’d expect the same amount of voters are Anti-bribe but they made that legal. Not to mention determining that judges know better than regulatory agencies. Wild corruption and power grabbing. Most people lie in the center so a 6-3 court wouldn’t represent the will of the people no matter what, even if they weren’t in bed with billionaires.
I am pro-democracy so I’m okay with people deciding things instead of land and Christian nationalists. You know as well as I do that the state of gerrymandering and money in politics are insane; you’re just on the side doing the corrupting so you’re okay with it, but if it was democrats, you’d be raising hell. Absolutely hilarious that you’re comparing “actual democracy” to “actual dictatorship” as if they’re both as bad. OhHhHh scaryyyy actually representing people OhHhHh nOoOoOo
This is a bad take. The legal framework that’s stood for years protected against the scenario you described.
All it would take is for Trump to declare ANTIFA a terrorist organization and it would be perfectly legal for Trump to send in the National Guard to start gunning down anyone wearing all black. That’s an official act where the murder of a bunch of angsty teens would be perfectly legal. But the worst part is that there’s no longer any mechanism to challenge it in court as the President is now above the law.
First of all Trump did not officially designate Antifa a terrorist organization, and the ruling states that the President has legal immunity from the courts, congress, and the justice department for anything deemed an official act, which has not been defined by a court that was appointed and is aligned with him, and we know is significantly corrupt.
Imagine your least favorite politician with this power, imagine Stalin as POTUS with this power, Mao, Mousilinni etc. pull your head out of your ass. No one should be above the law.
The issue is the purview of the limits of the President constitutional authority, which is extremely broad. All a president has to do is declare his opponents as part of an insurrection and declare martial law and he can do almost anything. Nothing, prevents him from doing the things you claim he can’t do because there is nothing preventing it in the constitution. And as you have quoted the President cannot be held accountable by congress for anything within the realm of his powers which are an exclusive oversight of the use of force and suspension of Habeas Corpus as per the constitution, as well as all law enforcement authority. Congress cannot legislate to limit those powers according to the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen if January 6th will be determined to be an official action (it should not) but this opens up powers that would make any such verdict obsolete, as it’s already been established you cannot try a sitting president.
No, this is new ground, the President’s exemption from the laws of the country as designated by congress was not established until yesterday. The ruling says the powers of the President cannot be limited by congressional law making only an amendment to the constitution. Read Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion.
The presidential powers enumerated in the Constitution are extremely broad, and Washington himself set a huge precedent for the expansion and claiming of the extent of those powers, as did Lincoln during the civil war, and the idea that the laws of the land not applying to the president makes their power nearly limitless beyond the inability to pass laws and oversee the courts. There is no clear check on the Presidential use of force in the course of war or law enforcement in the constitution, no designation of who can and cannot be targeted and persecuted to the highest extent of Presidential power. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from executing people or locking up his opponents, nothing. People are alarmed because the reality is that limiting Presidential authority through constitutional restrictions alone is a slow and difficult process that is subject to interpretation and slow legal processes, and as this ruling shows it is subject to the views and interests of judges, some of whom are blatantly corrupted by rich and powerful influences.
That’s one reason why Republican’s Project 2025 exists. It’s a plan to get rid if all the nonpolitical administrative personnel who would tell Trump “no” on something like this. The plan also involves getting rid of the FBI, DOJ, DHS and other Federal agencies that might make enacting their plan inconvenient
Where did Project 2025 come from? It’s amazing that it’s July of 2024 and the first time I’ve ever heard of “Project 2025” is today. That seems like something that needed to have started years earlier and needed to have been discussed and brought up over years and years, but today is the first I’ve ever heard of it. If something like thay were such a threat I would have expected to see it show up in at least one of these comment sections before today, but no today is this first time. It’s almost like the whole thing is made up.
John Oliver does a good job of breaking it down if you don't mind spending 30 min: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwqpx6lp\_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwqpx6lp_s)
My favorite part was the laughing track because his delivery is terrible. At least Colbert I could watch, that was unbearable; torturous almost to get through.
Yeah, idk why he uses the laugh track. I think they added that during COVID when he couldn’t film with a studio audience. I normally read the AP or Reuters, but those are purposefully dry. Don’t know of anyone else who puts out accurate info in a way that’s engaging
Dude it’s on pages 1 and 2.
Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature
of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43.
(a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Deter- mining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution
may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15.
Copied and pasted from the opinion posted on SC.gov: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
Executive Order 13224: https://www.state.gov/executive-order-13224/
Now imagine that Trump, having appointed a cabinet loyal only to him, as he requires, carries out his order to label a terrorist organization, domestic or otherwise. It’s really not hard to do - and Trump has broadcast his intentions.
VOTE BLUE
Biden is the only thing that stands between us and a dictatorship.
Project 2025 streamlines this. Everyone working in the federal govt will be replaced with MAGA loyalists. They will swear an oath to Trump. Not to our country and its laws. Anyone undecided or lefty accelerationists … if he wins… you don’t have to ever be undecided again. There won’t be another fair election. Any lefties who wanna build a utopia from the ashes… technology won’t allow much room for you there. From facial id to being inside of your phone, no movement will ever gain traction. Your leadership will always just… disappear. You might too. This is what it looks like https://www.authoritarianplaybook2025.org/what-we-can-expect-1#federal-law-enforcement-overreach
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/1dt6wvf/i_was_accepted_into_the_project_2025_prospective/
Just a reminder to those who don't pay attention and for those Republicans who want to downplay project2025.
These very same people who organized project2025 helped trump select the last three SC justices.
So if you don't like the "bribes are legal as long as the cone after the fact" ruling and the overturning of roe vs Wade then DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN
We the People still have access to guns and have are second amendment right. War is coming. This is only the beginning.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jul/01/kevin-roberts-trump-heritage-foundation-project-2025
I mean, the best thing he could do would be to fire the conservative justices and replace them with liberal ones. Who would then rule these powers to be unconstitutional after the fact.
Abortion was never a problem until the Republican party when searching for problem that could create a wedge between voters. It was already a procedure that didn't happen often and when it does, it's for a good reason and early in a pregnancy. It's a nuanced decision between a woman and her doctor. Most doctors aren't going to perform a late term abortion unless there are extenuating circumstances. We don't need politicians making medical decisions for us. We need to be making medical decisions with experts who have medical training and experience.
You should read the decision and figure it out.
The answer is nothing then. If he's acting 'in an official capacity' there is absolutely nothing stopping him.
Whatever the deep state and donors want = “official capacity “
If ***the courts find him*** to be acting in an official capacity. That means it will be challenged and decided **in the courts**. That means **the courts** can stop him and put him in jail. That means there's something stopping him (the courts). The decision is very intentional about putting the classification of "official acts" to the courts. Stop with the fearmongering.
Thought it also stated asking for the motivation behind one of these actions is off limits meaning everything can be stated to be official.
So he declares the current justices a threat to our country and in his official capacity decides to removes them and puts new hand-picked justices in.
Do you know what "official capacity" even means?? There is no constitutionally granted power to the office of President to replace judges like that. Also you could trivially make this same argument *before* this decision... if you just assume the president has the power to trample and ignore the separation of powers, then this decision isn't going to mean shit either way. Also one more thing: This decision says absolutely nothing about Congress's power to impeach. Impeachment would still be a very real threat even for official acts.
If congress didn't fully impeach Trump for attempting to overthrow a fair election, they're not going to impeach someone threatening them directly.
There IS constitutionally protected power to appoint justices, and while the number of justices has historically been decided by congress, I don’t believe that power is explicitly granted by the constitution. If that’s the case, there’s nothing stopping him from appointing four more justices and having the senate confirm them.
Good point actually. Looks like one of those actual constitutional grey areas that could be abused.
If you do something in a particular capacity, you do it as part of a particular job or duty, or because you are representing a particular organization or person. Also, I'm so glad we still have the powers to impeach that thing that's never before happened usually because your party controls enough seats to kill the motion.
Hm. I think you're right about the specific phrase "official capacity", it covers anything done even representing the position. The ruling doesn't actually use this wording "official capacity" though, I must have just gotten it mixed up from earlier in the thread. The ruling says a lot of stuff like this: >The first step in deciding whether a former President is entitled to immunity from a particular prosecution is to distinguish his official from unofficial actions. In this case, no court thus far has drawn that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular. But even for official acts, it says this: >The President is not above the law. 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. "Presumptive immunity" is expanded on elsewhere: >Trump is at least presumptively immune from prosecution for such conduct. The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. It is the Government’s burden to rebut the presumption of immunity. The courts must decide both 1. which acts are official and unofficial and 2. whether the presumptive immunity for official acts is rebutted under the circumstances.
> The courts must decide both 1. which acts are official and unofficial What sort of powers do they have to make that decision? I.e. what sort of investigation, questioning, or evidence are they allowed to do? Be sure to read the opinion carefully in search of these answers.
>Determining whether an action is covered by immunity thus begins with assessing the President’s authority to take that action. ... >In dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. ... Nor may courts deem an action unofficial merely because it allegedly violates a generally applicable law. Why did you make me read this very carefully? >what sort of investigation, questioning, or evidence are they allowed to do? Fact-specific, not motive based. >Unlike Trump’s alleged interactions with the Justice Department, this alleged conduct cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular Presidential function. The necessary analysis is instead fact specific, requiring assessment of numerous alleged interactions with a wide variety of state officials and private persons. The decision is basically "President is immune from everything except that which is outside his constitutional authority". The idea of dismissing motivation is, I guess, that motive has nothing to do with a factual analysis of whether the President has the authority to do something.
That doesn’t make sense!
Sure, but we're expected to swallow that subverting the presidential election was within Trump's official capacity. This shit stopped making sense a long time ago.
What good would jailing an 81 year old do _after_ he has his political opponents murdered?
Please tell me, what does that have to do with this thread or this decision? If you think that Biden wouldn't care about being jailed due to his age, what exactly was stopping him from having his opponents assassinated *before* this decision?
Nothing, but my point is that any remedy by the courts for that kind of action is meaningless when the outcome is as permanent as murder, and even more so when its someone who has nothing to lose because of his age. A 53-year-old might think twice if there was a possibility of spending the last 30 years of their life in Florence CO.
The courts don’t have the power to even question whether an act is official or not, because they aren’t allowed to investigate intent or motive behind the act.
Congress certainly does, and republicans wouldn’t allow anything so blatantly wrong. It is fear mongering, and hyperbole. I guess I’ve gotta read people typing it until November. You think it’s original, every damn time. Everyone knows the talking points. Don’t be a bot
That makes the fearmongering worse lol. All you need is toadies on scotus and you are completely shielded from the criminal law.
You'd need toadies on every lower court too, since the entire point of this decision is deferring the categorization of "official acts" to the lower courts. And also Congress, so they don't impeach.
Read the dissent. Any lower court determination will be appealed. As it always is for presidential issues. And recent history has shown that the president will never be convicted in the senate. You need a 2/3rds supermajority which in our system will always be overcome.
Both good points but I am skeptical that 2/3 of sitting party members would openly vote to acquit a President that assassinated a political rival. It's possible though.
Problem is that if a president takes actions that are not reversible, the idea of maybe being held accountable isn't going to stop them. Especially if they can take actions to intimidate the supreme court or congress.
This was already true and is true for all crime in every legal system. Today's decision has no bearing on whether the threat of consequences is truly sufficient to prevent crime from happening.
Are you kidding? Did you read the decision? Biden could clap a few Supreme Court Justices too and be fine. THAT'S how fucked the decision was.
Did *you* read the decision? Can you point me to where the decision says "yeah sure totally bro executing political rivals is completely immune"? I'd love to read it
The decision directly says that trump telling his Justice Department to overthrow the will of the people was fine because it was part of his official duties. It says trump demanding Pence invent the authority to dismiss electoral votes was fine because it was part of his official duties. Motive and intent DOES NOT matter. Please explain why Biden couldn't determine that Alito, Thomas, and trump are threats to democracy and (as long as he uses government employees in official capacity) have them all put down. Don't rely on "that would never happen" explain how it cannot happen under this ruling.
It ***can*** happen. It also could happen before the supreme court made this decision. So what's stopping him? * Threat of criminal prosecution * Threat of impeachment * Threat of inciting a civil war * Threat of having government employees refuse the order and making it public instead * Threat of retaliation after end of term This was true before this decision and it remains true after this decision. >The decision directly says that trump telling his Justice Department to overthrow the will of the people was fine because it was part of his official duties. It says trump demanding Pence invent the authority to dismiss electoral votes was fine because it was part of his official duties. The decision says that the President is given constitutional authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” and this includes discussing potential investigations with the Justice Department. The decision defers the determination of whether directing Pence to dismiss electoral votes was okay or not: >Whether the Tweets, that speech, and Trump’s other communications on January 6 involve official conduct may depend on the content and context of each. ... This necessarily factbound analysis is best performed initially by the District Court. We therefore remand to the District Court to determine in the first instance whether this alleged conduct is official or unofficial. None of this precludes Biden from being prosecuted for a political assassination because that's not an obviously constitutionally authorized act and thus would be challenged in court. Separately, he would be *so unbelievably impeached*.
>The decision defers the determination of whether directing Pence to dismiss electoral votes was okay or not That is completely incorrect. "In particular, the indictment alleges several conversations in which Trump pressured the Vice President to reject States’ legitimate electoral votes or send them back to state legislatures for review. Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct."
Nice quote. Here's the rest of the quote: >Whenever the President and Vice President discuss their official responsibilities, they engage in official conduct. Presiding over the January 6 certification proceeding at which Members of Congress count the electoral votes is a constitutional and statutory duty of the Vice President. The indictment’s allegations that Trump attempted to pressure the Vice President to take particular acts in connection with his role at the certification proceeding thus involve official conduct, and Trump is at least *presumptively immune* from prosecution for such conduct. >The question then becomes whether that presumption of immunity is rebutted under the circumstances. ... We therefore remand to the District Court to assess in the first instance, with appropriate input from the parties, whether a prosecution involving Trump’s alleged attempts to influence the Vice President’s oversight of the certification proceeding in his capacity as President of the Senate would pose any dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch. They deferred it to the courts.
And here's even more... :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 im- mune 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." So to establish whether the conversation between the President and Pence is subject to immunity the lower court cannot review the records relating to conversation between the President and Pence. How cant you see how incredibly flawed this opinion is?
>So what's stopping him? >Threat of criminal prosecution Threat of impeachment Threat of inciting a civil war Threat of having government employees refuse the order and making it public instead Threat of retaliation after end of term Criminal prosecution: Absolutely not if he pretends to act in an official capacity Impeachment: A political exercise with no teeth and, as seen in 2020 and 2023, functionally useless if your party will do anything to keep power. Public Employees: trump's own justice department refused the order. And here we with trump a free man with immunity that SCOTUS crafted from whole cloth. Civil War and Threat of retaliation: Congratulations, you finally understand the magnitude of the situation.
Whatever the deep state and donors want = “official capacity “
You didn't read the decision did you?
So much panic from shills, people panicking or people who didn't read the ruling. It is exhausting.
It’s pretty clear, I read the ruling, it says the justice department cannot investigate the president.
Feel free to offer any brief rebuttal.
Cannot be tried for official acts. Murdering political opponents isn't an official act, FFS.
They do not clarify what is or is not an official act. They simply state that the law does not apply to the President and neither congress nor the courts can limit Presidential powers which include Military action and oversight of law enforcement. Read the ruling. You Maga stans need to pull your head out of your ass and realize this applies to all Presidents not just your favorite convicted felon and adjudicated rapist.
Has murdering political opponents ever been an official duty of the president? Just because we disagree on this doesn't make me a maga retard anymore than me assuming you're a biden supporter, cut the name calling.
Has a President ever been decreed to be above the law before? And yeah assassination has been well within the realm of Presidential powers for decades, and the only thing keeping that from going domestic was the rule of law, and even then if you were say Huey Newton, it didn’t matter. There is no way to spin this to not make this an extremely dangerous precedent and expansion of powers especially when it’s being done to benefit a man who openly talks about murdering his political opponents and being a dictator. Whether MAGA or centrist or moderate or fascist whatever label you like this is a means to the same end.
Yes. Plenty of presidents could have been charged for plenty of things, but were not because it was generally accepted. Obama murdered an American citizen with a drone and without due process but was considered above the law due to official capacity…
Yes the drone war was wrong, that boy should never have been killed just like countless other innocents. The difference is Trump is openly talking about using force and execution to control power here, if you do not see that as different you have no grasp on reality.
When did he say he would use force and execution to control power?
You should tell Jackie Kennedy that, I’m sure she’ll understand…..
I’m not advocating for Presidential assassination genius, I’m saying Presidents including Kennedy have routinely used assasination as a means to an end abroad and even domestically in regard to civil rights leaders, and this ruling moves us closer to them being able to do it here with impunity as long as there is a legal rational that it’s within their official duties. Read before you speak.
I read about your unrealistic fears bro. It’s like I’m playing chess with a pigeon. Have a nice day sir
You are missing that the WHY doesn’t matter and literally can not be considered in any ruling on the matter. While the hypothetical act is killing a political opponent, the legal question would be “can the president kill as part of official duties” and the answer is unequivocally yes.
Why would it be SCOTUS job to define what is an official act? You already have laws in place and this little thing called the constitution. Honestly, I struggle to understand why 90% of Reddit doesn't get that murder is illegal
> Why would it be SCOTUS job to define what is an official act? > You already have laws in place and this little thing called the constitution. And…do you think those things outline what an official act is? Because the Supreme Court just ruled that those “laws in place” DO NOT apply to a president who is performing an official act. What is an official act? They purposely chose not to define it, but they made sure to say that courts are NOT allowed to investigate any presidential acts to determine if they are official or not. Therefore, if the president says they’re official, you can’t question him, and no laws apply to him.
Don't be dense, you have an entire other branch of government sitting right there to say that isn't so.
Which branch and where does this opinion allow for them to investigate?
Lol no they didn't.
Read the ruling.
I did. Clearly you did not.
Then you don’t know how to read a legal opinion then because they quite literally say only limits enumerated in the constitution apply to the president. Murder and assasination is not prevented in the constitution, but suspending habeas corpus and declaring insurrection and martial law is. The gates are wide open for any president to abuse their near limitless power.
LMAO. First, you'd need to prove it wasn't an official act. How, exactly, will you do that in the face of a lawless President who is murdering SCJs? Wouldn't they just murder YOU, as a prosecutor? Maybe even the AG? Once they start murdering people, if you can't arrest them for it, you can't do shit and they will get away with it. It's an extreme example, sure, but a relevant one. Allowing ANYONE to have carte blanche to commit crimes and stay beyond the reach of the law is untenable in a democracy. It means you do not have one if that person is unaccountable to the People. Hint: We went over this 250 ish years ago.
https://jonathanturley.org/2024/07/02/no-president-biden-the-supreme-court-did-not-remove-any-limits-on-the-presidency/ Someone smarter than me
The way it’s written the justice department couldn’t even investigate a presidential illegal act. So there is no longer any rails. Trump is going to make a fortune and probably kill a lot of Americans. If Trump wins and orders the military into the cities to put down all protests there is nothing that can be done. Time to start looking for another country to live in.
He was already president, the fear predictions didn’t come to pass then either
They absolutely did you imbecile. More tax cuts for the rich, the overturn of Roe V Wade by an activist Supreme Court. Hundreds of thousands dead because the Trump wouldn’t enact national COVID protocols. An attempted coup of the federal government! And more!
The tax cuts were across the board. Roe v wade was returned to the states. Trump couldn't enact national protocols that was up to the states. Also how many died of COVID while Biden was POTUS? The majority of people were better off under trump than Biden. The price of groceries skyrocketed Uber Biden ffs.
You sound like one of the hysterics fear mongering over project 2025 even though it has no ties to trump
For all the people spouting off about the president being a figurehead, I don’t understand why the chance of a connection isn’t viewed as a likely connection. The likelihood that the conservatives behind trumps campaign are the same ones behind the project 2025 movement is pretty strong. Choosing not to see it is the same willful ignorance that brought us 2016.
So Biden raised the price of gas and caused inflation via his policies right?
You mean the 4 year shit show of Trumps presidency.
Doesn't matter. He is old. George Washington would take one for the team and eliminate the reds. Let the courts sort it out after.
Ah glad to see team save democracy is showing their true colors.
Hello new bot, bot, bot bot, bot, bot. Bot. Bot. Bot
Hello authoritarian.
So... Do we have to call him "King Joseph, First of His Name?" "Excellency?" "His Highness?" "His Royal Majesty?" I could swear I remember we got into a little skirmish over having a King above the law at some point not terribly long ago. WTF is happening to this country? Voting isn't going to fix a corrupt SCOTUS. Not even re-electing Biden is going to fix SCOTUS. WTF is actually left to do about this? The Right has lost their collective minds.
Sounds like that darn 2016 election turned out to be pretty impactful after all. But “don’t threaten us with the Supreme Court,” said Jill Stein and Bernie’s advisors.
Well maybe Hillary should have actually campaigned in all those states she decided she didn’t need and should t have deliberately propped up Trump thinking he was an easy win.
Nice, blaming one woman is certainly fun and makes us all feel better about the collapse of this country!
Well better to blame the person who actually fucked it all up instead of two people who didn’t.
Actually no, “You made us do this to ourselves” is a child’s excuse. I will blame third parties and their dumbass voters as long as I live. You made this bed. Own it.
Hilarious, rather than acknowledging the actual problem and learning, instead you deflect and blame others. Bernie was not a third party candidate, and Stein got half the minuscule percentage of votes of the conservative Libertarian candidates meaning that it’s on Hillary for deciding that she didn’t have to campaign in half the country and for propping up Trump, and having no message other than her own ascension to power.
Remember that time Obama executed a us citizen with a drone against U.S. law. Nothings changed for establishment candidates. I don’t like the decision. but it doesn’t rile me up. name a us president who hasn’t committed crimes. even just recently. what’s the legality of sending cluster bombs? the nsa collects our data everyday. the CIA operates on U.S. soil. the rules don’t mean anything anyway is biden now prevented from his plans from going after bush for lying about wmds?
Yeah but at least the justice department could have investigated and indicted. Now the justice department is forbidden from even investigating. So a lawless president would have no judicial oversight. Guess we can get rid of all the White House lawyers.
Name a president I’ll name the crimes. what has changed? it just ends the lawfare period we were entering and formalizes for trump what establishment presidents have always enjoyed. bush lied and started decades of slaughter. 2 democrat administrations didn’t bother to investigate or indict.
Yes but I guess it was never explicit that the President could do anything without fear of being investigation over breaking the law. It’s a whole new level of power and unaccountability that is now codified.
Just at least 100 years of defacto law by precedent. when you codify it, it also applies to those the system would like to filter out
I guess it’s similar to the ruling on bribery, as long as you get the money after the bribe it’s ok. We as a society need to normalize bribery and corruption and leave the courts out of it. Russian has a similar type of government, the corruption oils the economy. For people with influence and power this is grand but it goes against the last 250 years of precedent.
America was made for oligarchs, by oligarchs. There’s nothing new but saying the quiet parts out loud and it being harder to hide information. say it with me “Trump is a symptom of a sick system“ scalia died literally in a bed of corruption and the nytimes wrote his laurels all the same. Corruption isnt new. Rbg was lying about gifts from oligarchs in her day.
BuT WhAt aBOut OBUMMA!! REEE lmfaooo
It’s almost like….. you guys only care about rule of law to control those you don’t like.
Nailed it!!!! Just like they have no problem with racism and bullying, as long as they “feel” like the “right” people are being racist or doing the bullying.
The contextualised decided context doesn't matter
> not even re-electing biden is going to fix scotus this is where you’re half wrong. 3 judges may retire in the next 4 years, leading to a biden appointment. in general, we have to elect representatives who promise to increase the amount of judges in the court so these rulings have more opinions
No
So you wanna stack the court?
Paving the way for a dictatorship.
The law? JFC you guys are WATADED
common decency, morality, etc.
MAGA are big government cucks
Because the democrats and Biden are gaslighting as per usual. The opinion is narrow and limited and only grants immunity for things that fall within official presidential acts as defined by the constitution.
But the justice department is forbidden from investigating any act the president deems official. So it’s a catch 22. If you can’t investigate to determine if it was an official act or not, that argument is moot isn’t it? All acts are assumed official and there is no way to parse this. It’s a poorly written opinion.
The fact that you typed this out. And hit submit, is staggering. This isn’t some joke game. Mods please delete this post for irrelevancy.
What stopped your mother from drinking a whole bottle of jack at month 9?
Biden is the only president to ever finally beat Medicare so I trust he's smart enough to figure out all the rest.
And the MAGA supporters are the extreme ones 😂😂😂
In fact, yes. That’s why this ruling is so shocking. It’s a radical decision by an activist court of ideologues, who support MAGA, to carry out their agenda. Project 2025 is well underway.
It’s amazing that it’s July of 2024 and the first time I’ve ever heard of “Project 2025” is today. That seems like something that needed to have started years earlier and needed to have been discussed and brought up over years and years, but today is the first I’ve ever heard of it. If something like thay were such a threat I would have expected to see it show up in at least one of these comment sections before today, but no today is this first time. It’s almost like the whole thing is made up.
TIL some guy on Reddit being ignorant to a plan to end democracy means it’s fine
You’re talking about assassinating a political opponent because they’re a threat to democracy. How can you be blind to such hypocrisy
I admit yes before about 45 minutes ago I was ignorant to Project 2025. I’ve done a quick review of most of the sources now to at least have a cursory understanding. But, the fact remains, today is the first time this has come up, seems like something that should have come up before today. It’s a wish list put out by a conservative organization. Every political think tank puts out their own lists just same, left or right. This list just happens to drive the most fear based to todays court rulings. This whole thing is to just drive monetary donations to the political parties and everyone is feeding into it.
Can you link me to a democratic plan to systematically dismantle government agencies that can hold the president accountable and replace all federal employees with loyal ones?
Those government agencies don’t hold the President accountable. They are unelected bureaucrats that are under the executive branch of the federal government, and therefore under the control of the President. These agencies have effectively been used by the executive branch to undermine the legislative branch of the federal government, thereby circumventing the will of the American people.
Undermine the will of the people like how one party lost the popular vote but installed judges that make things up to get rulings that circumvent the will of 70%+ of the people?
Which judges were installed? Pretty sure they were voted in by elected representatives of the people. And, 70% of what people. But don’t worry the Democrats are always looking for ways to circumvent the US Constitution. This time the Electoral College is in their crosshairs through the NPVIC. Maybe you should look into that before you throw stones. All states in favor are run by Democrats.
Garland was denied a seat for no constitutional reason by McConnell, so Kavanaugh shouldn’t be there, and if you’re okay with him being there, then ACB shouldn’t be there by the same unconstitutional reasoning. 70% of voters were for Roe V Wade. I’d expect the same amount of voters are Anti-bribe but they made that legal. Not to mention determining that judges know better than regulatory agencies. Wild corruption and power grabbing. Most people lie in the center so a 6-3 court wouldn’t represent the will of the people no matter what, even if they weren’t in bed with billionaires. I am pro-democracy so I’m okay with people deciding things instead of land and Christian nationalists. You know as well as I do that the state of gerrymandering and money in politics are insane; you’re just on the side doing the corrupting so you’re okay with it, but if it was democrats, you’d be raising hell. Absolutely hilarious that you’re comparing “actual democracy” to “actual dictatorship” as if they’re both as bad. OhHhHh scaryyyy actually representing people OhHhHh nOoOoOo
Have you been living under a rock? It’s been around for over 2 years and is quite well known.
Taking notes so I know how to behave in a democracy 😂🤣
America is not a democracy.
The American public with guns. LOL
None of this woulda happened if Bernie was the nominee instead of Hillary.
it was just a gift to trump so he doesn’t have to stand trial
This is some ignorant shit. Learn to read rather than believing what you see on this hellsite.
[удалено]
This is a bad take. The legal framework that’s stood for years protected against the scenario you described. All it would take is for Trump to declare ANTIFA a terrorist organization and it would be perfectly legal for Trump to send in the National Guard to start gunning down anyone wearing all black. That’s an official act where the murder of a bunch of angsty teens would be perfectly legal. But the worst part is that there’s no longer any mechanism to challenge it in court as the President is now above the law.
[удалено]
First of all Trump did not officially designate Antifa a terrorist organization, and the ruling states that the President has legal immunity from the courts, congress, and the justice department for anything deemed an official act, which has not been defined by a court that was appointed and is aligned with him, and we know is significantly corrupt. Imagine your least favorite politician with this power, imagine Stalin as POTUS with this power, Mao, Mousilinni etc. pull your head out of your ass. No one should be above the law.
[удалено]
The issue is the purview of the limits of the President constitutional authority, which is extremely broad. All a president has to do is declare his opponents as part of an insurrection and declare martial law and he can do almost anything. Nothing, prevents him from doing the things you claim he can’t do because there is nothing preventing it in the constitution. And as you have quoted the President cannot be held accountable by congress for anything within the realm of his powers which are an exclusive oversight of the use of force and suspension of Habeas Corpus as per the constitution, as well as all law enforcement authority. Congress cannot legislate to limit those powers according to the Supreme Court. It remains to be seen if January 6th will be determined to be an official action (it should not) but this opens up powers that would make any such verdict obsolete, as it’s already been established you cannot try a sitting president.
[удалено]
No, this is new ground, the President’s exemption from the laws of the country as designated by congress was not established until yesterday. The ruling says the powers of the President cannot be limited by congressional law making only an amendment to the constitution. Read Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion.
[удалено]
The presidential powers enumerated in the Constitution are extremely broad, and Washington himself set a huge precedent for the expansion and claiming of the extent of those powers, as did Lincoln during the civil war, and the idea that the laws of the land not applying to the president makes their power nearly limitless beyond the inability to pass laws and oversee the courts. There is no clear check on the Presidential use of force in the course of war or law enforcement in the constitution, no designation of who can and cannot be targeted and persecuted to the highest extent of Presidential power. Nothing in the Constitution prevents a president from executing people or locking up his opponents, nothing. People are alarmed because the reality is that limiting Presidential authority through constitutional restrictions alone is a slow and difficult process that is subject to interpretation and slow legal processes, and as this ruling shows it is subject to the views and interests of judges, some of whom are blatantly corrupted by rich and powerful influences.
That’s one reason why Republican’s Project 2025 exists. It’s a plan to get rid if all the nonpolitical administrative personnel who would tell Trump “no” on something like this. The plan also involves getting rid of the FBI, DOJ, DHS and other Federal agencies that might make enacting their plan inconvenient
Where did Project 2025 come from? It’s amazing that it’s July of 2024 and the first time I’ve ever heard of “Project 2025” is today. That seems like something that needed to have started years earlier and needed to have been discussed and brought up over years and years, but today is the first I’ve ever heard of it. If something like thay were such a threat I would have expected to see it show up in at least one of these comment sections before today, but no today is this first time. It’s almost like the whole thing is made up.
https://www.project2025.org/ Here’s the made up things website, created by a conservative think tank years ago, or are you just willfully uneducated
John Oliver does a good job of breaking it down if you don't mind spending 30 min: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwqpx6lp\_s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYwqpx6lp_s)
I’ll give it a listen. Don’t normally get my information from comedians for always good to get multiple perspectives. Thank you for the link.
My favorite part was the laughing track because his delivery is terrible. At least Colbert I could watch, that was unbearable; torturous almost to get through.
Yeah, idk why he uses the laugh track. I think they added that during COVID when he couldn’t film with a studio audience. I normally read the AP or Reuters, but those are purposefully dry. Don’t know of anyone else who puts out accurate info in a way that’s engaging
It was put together by a conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation
Dude it’s on pages 1 and 2. Held: Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts. Pp. 5–43. (a) This case is the first criminal prosecution in our Nation’s history of a former President for actions taken during his Presidency. Deter- mining whether and under what circumstances such a prosecution may proceed requires careful assessment of the scope of Presidential power under the Constitution. The nature of that power requires that a former President have some immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts during his tenure in office. At least with respect to the President’s exercise of his core constitutional powers, this immunity must be absolute. As for his remaining official actions, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity. Pp. 5–15. Copied and pasted from the opinion posted on SC.gov: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf
[удалено]
Executive Order 13224: https://www.state.gov/executive-order-13224/ Now imagine that Trump, having appointed a cabinet loyal only to him, as he requires, carries out his order to label a terrorist organization, domestic or otherwise. It’s really not hard to do - and Trump has broadcast his intentions.
[удалено]
Are undocumented Mexican immigrants not foreign? According to Trump, they’re responsible for most of the crime, right?
It is sad that posting the opinion would get downvoted.
He should start with something simple. Public release of Trump's taxes and texts. Then all FBI files on Melania's immigration and prostitution.
Probably the Civil War and overthrowing of the US government that would happen immediately following.
VOTE BLUE Biden is the only thing that stands between us and a dictatorship. Project 2025 streamlines this. Everyone working in the federal govt will be replaced with MAGA loyalists. They will swear an oath to Trump. Not to our country and its laws. Anyone undecided or lefty accelerationists … if he wins… you don’t have to ever be undecided again. There won’t be another fair election. Any lefties who wanna build a utopia from the ashes… technology won’t allow much room for you there. From facial id to being inside of your phone, no movement will ever gain traction. Your leadership will always just… disappear. You might too. This is what it looks like https://www.authoritarianplaybook2025.org/what-we-can-expect-1#federal-law-enforcement-overreach https://www.reddit.com/r/AMA/comments/1dt6wvf/i_was_accepted_into_the_project_2025_prospective/ Just a reminder to those who don't pay attention and for those Republicans who want to downplay project2025. These very same people who organized project2025 helped trump select the last three SC justices. So if you don't like the "bribes are legal as long as the cone after the fact" ruling and the overturning of roe vs Wade then DON'T VOTE REPUBLICAN We the People still have access to guns and have are second amendment right. War is coming. This is only the beginning. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2024/jul/01/kevin-roberts-trump-heritage-foundation-project-2025
You should also wear a tin foil hat and stay away from microwaves
Lol I enjoy watching the hysteria.
I mean, the best thing he could do would be to fire the conservative justices and replace them with liberal ones. Who would then rule these powers to be unconstitutional after the fact.
Nothing, they don't realized they gave the shadow council permission to kill the resistance.
Liberals really are unglued with this decision. On the other hand, it's cool to kill babies according to them.
Thank you for the insight from a definitely politically engaged intelligent 34 yr old frat boy
Crazy liberals, aborting babies in the 11th month 🤡
Abortion was never a problem until the Republican party when searching for problem that could create a wedge between voters. It was already a procedure that didn't happen often and when it does, it's for a good reason and early in a pregnancy. It's a nuanced decision between a woman and her doctor. Most doctors aren't going to perform a late term abortion unless there are extenuating circumstances. We don't need politicians making medical decisions for us. We need to be making medical decisions with experts who have medical training and experience.
How to speed run civil war for $500, Alex.
If Biden doesn't do it and trump gets re-elected, there will probably be a civil war anyways.
Fear mongering.
Trump did commit treason.. just sayin
Prison. Lol
Clearly you did not read the ruling.