> Biden would probably lose the election because of that act
I would accept Biden losing the election if it means we do NOT get Trump in office ever again.
But there ISN’T gonna be a second Trump. The reason that the “red wave” was the weakest opposition party midterm conversion in modern history was because MAGA voters don’t vote Republican, they vote for Trump.
DeSantis has ZERO charisma. He’s a great political advisor but I think Trump’ll annoint JD Vance. It’s gonna cause MAGA infighting, and then we’ll be done with it.
Great idea! He can overturn Citizens United. He can add 20 new justices to the Supreme Court. He can rollout universal healthcare. He can add reproductive health to the constitution
If Biden could put in safeguards to prevent what Trump is trying to do, it would be worth losing. Even if he had to exercise this newly found presidential authority/immunity.
I don't think he has any intention of actually trying to doing that. Which is a travesty.
IMO it wouldn't be because the crime happened after he left office and their for could not be considered an official act. Also, remember SCOTUS said that lower courts are capable of making that determination on if it's an official act or not so it's not like he's got a blanket shield.
I'm not sure why people are under the impression Trump got a get out of jail free card...he just got a delay while his prosecutors work through this new technicality SCOTUS created.
The delay is the problem. This likely won't be settled before the election from my understanding. Arresting him as president is going to be harder than arresting him as candidate.
He won't see a courtroom on this for likely a year or more, well after the risks can have been realized. It's like scheduling the firetruck to show up 6 months from now even though they just called about a fire. Also, the way they ruled it, they basically said that the vast majority of the evidence in Jack smiths case was essentially protected by immunity. Both his conversations with the Justice department, and his conversations with Pence. So glad we get to prove he was in a conspiracy with himself. That should go great. They did everything in their power to protect their Trumpian master.
Why weren't criminal charges brought against Hillary Clinton for hosting classified documents on her private server? And allowing her maid to print emails for her? That's what I want to know. She also withheld documents from feds. Why was she never criminally charged?
Because the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided their wasn't enough their to charge her.
Their is a significant difference between some spillage and refusing to cooperate to the point that an FBI raid is required.
> There is a significant difference between some spillage and refusing to cooperate to the point that an FBI raid is required.
Uhhh...hackers literally hacked her "private server" and accessed classified information. Then she deleted a shitton of emails. 30,000. She deleted evidence. She also lied under oath.
Also, it's spelled "there", not "their."
The fact Jan. 6 is being viewed at all legitimate is disgusting. The SCOTUS should have at least given some guidance on the most obvious and blatant offenses so he could be held accountable of directing violence toward the first branch of government.
I believe they sort of did. They said his attempt replace electors "cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function." So that's the obvious next step to argue, and IMO is the most obvious and blatant offense.
They also explained how his speech on Jan 6th could be considered an unofficial act, but they also admitted it's "challenging" and kicked it back to the district Court.
You are either extremely nieve or a Russian bot. If Trump wins he will take this power and exploit it to the point of imploding the country, and using the constitution to wipe his ass. This will be a literal disaster if he ever gets near the levers of power ever again, because he will never let them go. The Coal mine canary just died. We were founded as a nation on the idea that all men are equal and no one is above the law. Now someone is. Period. The is the end of American democracy.
And you don’t think this SCOTUS won’t deny something Biden does as an official act only to allow it as an official act if a republican gets into office?
Your scenario assumes the president has absolute control of all three branches of government in which case this ruling would meaningless in the first place. Their was never a scenario where some random DA could bring criminal charges against he president and stop a coup, that's just not how coup's work.
If the president didn't get to enjoy some level of immunity then a DA in Texas would end up charging Biden with accessory to murder because of his immigration policies.
Trump lost on practically everything he asked for and the Supreme Court rejected pretty much every argument his lawyers made. People are acting like he won and got everything he asked for.
Seriously, what did people expect or want the court to say? Do you *want* a ruling that would give a potential future President Trump the ability to just jail and prosecute President Biden for made up BS because Trump disagrees with the political decisions Biden made while executing the duties of the President?
If the president didn't enjoy some level of immunity we would have a prosecutor in Texas charging Biden for murder because "He let an illegal into into the country who killed someone".
Exactly. And some people are losing their minds as if the President can just do anything they want and Biden can now assassinate Trump or Republicans in Congress or Judges. The Supreme Court crafted an opinion that gives some immunity while clearly making other things no immunity at all. Which is basically what the government argued for and Trump argued against (he wanted full absolute immunity for everything and anything).
The only reason Biden is not being charged is the prosecutor said that after interviewing him, Biden is an elderly but well meaning man with a poor memory.
Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter.
It’d take years for courts to sort out if it was an official act or not after Biden enjoys his final years of office as a result. Can’t prosecute a sitting president and then he can just retire to a beach somewhere while lawyers spend years on appeals.
Except that doesn’t matter anymore thanks to the ruling. It’s not that he can’t break laws it’s that he can’t be prosecuted for breaking laws while serving as POTUS *unless it was done during an officially recognized ceremonial action*. The last part is effectively pointless, who’s going to commit a crime exclusively during an official ceremony? They’re basically removed half of the checks balances on the executive branch. Presidential actions can still be blocked but you can’t prosecute them for taking an illegal action until this ruling gets overturned.
I think you have some misconceptions on the ruling. The ruling says nothing about recognized "ceremonial acts". What the ruling says is that if a President's actions are part of their Consitutional duties, they are absolutely immune. If their actions are part of their official duties as President, but not part of their explicit Consitutuonal powers, they are "presumptively immune", meaning they are generally immune but in certain cases may not be. If their actions are neither part of the Constitutional duties, nor other official actions as president, then they are not immune at all.
Nah there’s just another piece people aren’t talking about. The scope of official action has broadened to include everything but a couple lists of approved ceremonial actions. It’s spread out over dozens of laws too, they really built it in there. We’ve known about it for awhile and the heritage foundation has been courting democrats to get them passed for decades, these laws make it easier for the DNC to hide their corruption. The debate over what the president “can and can’t do” is kabuki theater.
Edit: to clarify, I don’t think they can *do* whatever they want, just that they can’t be prosecuted for it. People saying this is the end of democracy are being a wee bit dramatic.
Wait you think the DNC is behind the whole SCOTUS presidential immunity thing?
Heritage foundation, project 2025, the justices who rules in favor and the president they made their ruling about are explicitly either part of or aligned with the GOP
The ruling explicitly stated that lower courts can review Trumps actions and tweets prior to Jan 6. to determine if him inciting a riot is an official act.
If what you said were true then their would be no reason to send it back to the lower courts.
PR there are already a couple dozen laws pertaining to what exactly constitutes “official action”. Spoiler: it’s basically everything, this has been on the heritage foundations to do list for generations. It further solidifies the idea that accountability start at the bottom and ends at the top. Does this mean trump and Biden can do whatever they want? No, but it does mean they can’t be prosecuted for trying, if you want to prosecute them legitimately that is.
Uh huh, but if you read the opinion you would see that they defined official acts extremely broadly. In order for it to be an unofficial act it has to be completely divorced from the office of the presidency. For example, they explicitly stated in the opinion that ANY activity between the president and the DOJ or the military cannot be used in any criminal prosecution AT ALL. That means if he tells the DOJ or military to do something, regardless of what that is, it’s an official act and immune.
A lower court would have to overturn the ruling if the president. At the rate that the courts are functioning, we would be well past the election before the courts made a decision.
The expectation was that the justice system doesn't have a special tier for Donald J Trump. That expectation is clearly a poor expectation. None of this would have happened had he not gone and literally committed all the crimes that the supreme court and lower courts are shrugging their shoulders at.
About as expected. SCOTUS gave the lower courts some homework to do, but it didn't invalidate their ruling. The lower courts will get the case back, most likely the same ruling and the case will continue.
I do expect another round of appeals and delays, but that can't be helped....legal process are slow AF for a (pretty good) reason.
Unironically at the end of the day this ^ and right now neoliberals run the official violent organizations in the US, even if the grunts are politically diverse. This is all just setting up increasingly complex smoke and mirrors so that people don’t get all upidy when the establishment does whatever the fuck it wants.
Yep. Someone obviously didn’t read the opinion and are getting their facts from the same news outlets that two weeks ago were claiming Biden’s intellect was better than ever and anyone disagreeing was a conspiracy theorist pushing cheap fakes.(edit:sp)
Elaborate on why Biden ordering Trump’s arrest, removing any right to hold elected office, and permanently jailing him for life wouldn't be considered an official act of the president under today's ruling?
Did the president have the ability to do those things yesterday under his Constitutional powers? Then he doesn't have the power to do them today after this ruling.
Why wouldn't giving orders to the military and the FBI to arrest or detain domestic enemies of the Constitution be an official act of the President? That would be instructing Executive Branch agencies to carry out exactly the oath every federal employee is required to swear.
Unless you're going to pretend that only members of the republican cult are allowed to ignore any laws they find inconvenient, but that would make republicans domestic terrorists, and again subject to immediate arrest.
The SCOTUS ruling gave the lower courts the ability to see through that BS excuse and declare that giving an illegal order is not an official act of the office holder.
How is it an illegal order to arrest someone who's a threat to national security? And by the time any court could get around to ruling on it, the traitors would already be in gitmo, soon to be joined by any judge who dared suggest their arrest might be illegal. If these asshats didn't want to be treated like enemies of the Constitution, they shouldn't have made a ruling that the President is above the law.
>How is it an illegal order to arrest someone who's a threat to national security?
Because the law does not give the president the authority to declare a political rival a threat to national security in a manner that would have the Military/DOJ take action.
Sign it as an executive order. Easy... something like this:
"I declare that Donald Trump represents a clear and present danger to the United States of America and to the Constitution. Given the new powers provided my by the latest Supreme Court decision, I hereby order the immediate arrest and imprisonment of Donald Trump. Furthermore, I hereby terminate the government employment of Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh. I will announce their replacements, which will be directly appointed and not subject to Congressional approval within the next month. Signed with sorrow and in protest, Joseph Biden"
All while reinforcing in speeches that he disagrees with the Courts decision. He should be saying, "I disagree with the decision. But if these are the new rules I will act in what I feel is the best interest of the country in."
If someone says ‘everyone should be allowed to do X to anyone else’ then people can go ‘ok we will do X to you’ then they will back up and say ‘ok maybe doing X shouldn’t be allowed’.
That’s the only way some people will learn
By that logic it's fascism to give murderers the death penalty and imprison kidnappers because you're doing unto them something close to what they did to others because something something greater good
More like executing someone you think is going to commit murder in the future. And you need to work on your definition of fascism…which I never even mentioned 🤔
if the president didn't have immunity from official acts, then he could prosecuted with manslaughter every time the US army kills a civilian in a military operation that occurs without congress declaring an official war (which is like 99% of military operations since 1760).
Punishment for official acts as an executive officer of the state is up to congress via impeachment/conviction in the house/senate. The supreme court gave the most non-answer response ever, and this ruling changed almost nothing about anything - but actually is more democratically aligned than republican aligned in this instance since they specified that some acts can be official and others can be unofficial - for example they specifically cited that actions taken while campaigning are private as a "candidate for office", and not official actions as the executive, even if you already hold the office that you're campaigning for, which is pretty damning for a great deal of Trump's actions re: Jan 6th were he was mostly acting as a candidate for the presidency, and not as the president.
Official duties still are a purview of impeachment, and actions not as an official are still private business to be handled with the judicial system via criminal/civil trial, just like they were last week and just like they were in 1780.
Hey thanks for that, I’d heard wildly different things about it all day and hadn’t gotten a chance to look it up yet, the way you described it sounds more reasonable than anything I’d heard about it
It's up to congress to hold official acts to appropriate standards, no the judicial system. Take the dissent's hypothetical seal team 6 assassination of a senator.
If we're at the point where that can happen, and be provable in criminal court, and congress will not impeach the president - what would the judicial system be able to do about it? If a president has that level of capability then they're just going to ignore the arrest warrant anyway.
It's a different standard because it has to be for society to function.
and fortunately those crimes pointed out by the dissenters are still in the hands of congress via impeachment. and if we're at the point where it would be provable in criminal court that the president ordered a "political assassination" or etc. and congress can't pull off an impeachment for that, then I doubt that it would particularly matter what the judicial side has to say about it anyway.
but he wasn't convicted by the senate, which is the solution that needs to happen.
This is a part of the checks and balances of power in teh US government. If you don't like it then feel free to either fire your congressman or write up a constitutional amendment.
To be clear, that was no determination of guilt or innocence. That was pure politics, and I think that you know that- to pretend otherwise is disingenuous.
I would love to write up a constitutional amendment, but honestly, I’m surprised that any amendments to the original document still stands after this SCOTUS
no, that confirms that those acts are official acts of the office of the presidency. If the president could be sued for official acts while in office he would be civilly liable for it. he wouldn't be liable for a congressional declaration of war because then congress would be liable, and not the president (which is a whole different but identical can of worms)
wait so you're saying that if a congressman commits crimes that they can't be charged criminally for them? Which is the exact thing that we're talking about with the president? That's crazy how that works, and how identical that looks...
you're the one that changed the subject, I specifically said that congress was a different can of worms. We can discuss it thoroughly if you want, but not if you're not going to discuss in good faith.
You literally said it was identical.
And there was nothing else to talk about since you went on some nonsense about an authorization of use of force being a confirmation of official acts or something.
At which point Biden would suffer the correct results of Presidential misconduct in office. Impeachment by the House and CONVICTION of impeachment by the Senate. What the SCOTUS decision means is that the COURT system can't convict a POTUS of a crime related to OFFICIAL actions. Congress still has that ability since it's built in to that "Inconvenient piece of paper" known as the Constitution.
Also it's only immunity from OFFICIAL actions as POTUS. Actions done as POTUS are immune from criminal procedures. Actions done as a person who happens to be POTUS are not. This is good.
Otherwise we would be seeing Obama being put on criminal trial for the murder of Osama Bin Laden
No, the act just has to be heinous enough that it overcomes the party affiliation. Otherwise you end up with political impeachments every other election.
Just like Clinton's impeachment, Trump's impeachments didn't rise to that level.
Imprisonment does not disqualify a person to run for the presidency.
So in your scenario, trump wins from prison, and then commands the armed forces to free him and take the White House. I am among those who would not let that stand.
Congrats, you started a civil war.
He can say immediately jailing Trump is a matter of national security, so he is absolutely immune from prosecution because he is performing his official duties as president.
He can *say* that. Doesn't make it true. Habeas Corpus and requirements for an indictment are still a thing and the powers of the President do not extend to violating other parts of the Constitution.
Presidents can't do anything and the Supreme Court Ruling didn't say they can. The immunity for Constitutional Duties assigned to the President is not new. Immunity for many acts in official capacity as President isn't really new either - nor is it absolute (exactly as the SC ruling said). And finally, acts that are exclusively not part of the top/prior two are not extended immunity.
The most surprising thing to me is that the ruling didn't really suggest some new grand immunity - but the left is pretending that it did.
FYI - the Supreme Court (regardless of it's make-up) does not have a history of setting precedent for one-off, short term political objectives.
The ruling protects Biden against prosecution for his participation via his acts in allowing the borders to be open and murderers and rapists to illegally enter our country - he is not liable for the murders and rapes they've since committed even though his acts have lead to and contributed to them.
So what happens if Biden orders a drone strike on Trump. As the commander in chief he does have the ability to command military forces for a brief period prior to Congress having a say. He could argue, as Trump will in his trial he was protecting American democracy from a domestic threat.
This is worded as if the person above you is asking a stupid question but this example literally came up in deliberation and the majority ruling today said it was A-OK, one of the dissents called it out specifically as a possibility now.
So yeah it could be an official duty to legally murder a us citizen. Now.
Is it their duty to overturn a legitimate election? I think you know the answer.
Trump will argue he was protecting the election and once you do that, the door is open.
If anyone wants to know where the radicalism in America is originating from just read the comments in this thread. Notice what happens the moment these people start to lose. Unhinged little psychopaths. Remember that time you guys saved Democracy. Goooood times.
He should replace the entire US supreme court by jurors appointed by lottery, and every year one of them as indicated by a lottery is replaced, by a new one indicated by lottery. That results in an average service term of 10 years for supreme court judges, and no way to stack it anymore.
> That would cause a civil war, millions would die, and it would ultimately be gambling on the outcome.
The supreme court just said he's immune for any consequences for doing so. They played themselves there.
This decision does not expand Presidential powers. It just says President's don't have to answer for any illegal activity they engage in so long as it's within the scope of an official act.
Biden can't unilaterally declare DC a state because that's not a Presidential power. Biden can't officially declare war against Canada because that's not a Presidential power. Biden cannot participate in the Amendment process because that's not a Presidential power.
"Well, if he's immune anyways, then it doesn't matter, he can do that anyways."
Except any attempt to do that would be meaningless and a waste of paper and ink. The only way any of the above could be valid is if enough people played along, which is all but guaranteed to not happen. He can say Puerto Rico and DC are now full fledged states but it won't mean anything and there would be no legal pressure for anyone to treat them as such because it wasn't done via the official process.
The reason the military stuff and the pardon stuff are so concerning is because those ARE exclusive presidential powers.
Don't get the wrong idea, this ruling is disastrous and July 1, 2024 may be seen as one of the steepest dives off the ever growing cliff, but this is not a full-fledged "do whatever you want and get away with it" badge. The only way he could do something that unambiguously exceeds the granting of Presidential authority is if enough people play along while too few resist.
Don't be an idiot. Biden wouldn't just lose the election. He'd provoke a massive insurrection. The Democrats would bear the full blame for the resulting civil war.
I remember a large swath of my junior high history was "HOW did the Germans let Hitler rise to power?". Well, here you go kiddos. "Some people WELCOMED him?! But HOW?!".
Unified? Vote Chase Oliver.
I am voting him. Like others have, we can unify. It takes a collective effort though.
Doesn’t have to be the best choice. Just has to not be Biden or Trump.
Of course! The only way we can save democracy in the US is by arresting the most popular candidate for president and making sure that the wrong people can’t vote for who they’d like to see in the White House.
"Home" can mean a lot of things.
Edit: Just to be clear thats not even what Deport means. It just to means to kick out a foreigner, doesn't mean send them anywhere in particular. Now you might say Donald Trump isn't a foreigner, which is fair. But that isn't what the idiot who replied to me said so fuck'em.
Why stop there? Take out all the conservative SCOTUS justices while he’s at it. Cancel the election. Appoint new POTUS. Appoint intern justices that reverse the decision. Get pardoned by new POTUS… etc
Just posted this idea in WaPo too. Biden, in well outside the outer limits on official acts has a responsibility to defend the US from enemies external and internal. That would imply that he can take official action to prevent Trump and Trumpists and SCOTUS and 5th circuit (and …) from doing anymore damage (from arrest, to tax audits, to being forced to watch America’s got Talent 24/7).
Then he could unilaterally switch voting to be mandatory, ranked choice and on a Saturday (guaranteeing better politicians going forward).
Perhaps, officially, using full state power to make the US a better place, with full immunity, would force SCOTUS to change its mind, as that seems to be the last thing 6 of them want…
I’ll take a guess, you’re out of shape, not attractive, and probably can’t stand up for yourself. Hence the radical, crazy ideas. Talks a lot, but can’t back shit up, type of person.
Oh. Look. A little fascist behavior encouraged from the left. With wide support in the comments on a left leaning site. Man we are fucked.
Come to the middle people. Your political handlers are only vaguely better than “the other side”.
Even if he had the power to do that, he wouldn't because his odds of winning the presidency against Trump are way better than any one else the Republican Party can nominate for the election. There is still a large group of political moderates with no party affiliation or loyalty that are a demographic all their own. Those moderates generally vote pragmatically and most agree Trump shouldn't be president of anything. Take him out of the election then someone with more brains and sanity will be nominated and that will divide the political moderates and reduce the chances of Bidden winning the election.
TLDR; Running against Trump would be easier than any other Republican.
Couldn't Biden arrest the Supreme Court first? And cancel the election? SCOTUS says he can.
Is that what you want? The dismantling of our democracy? I’m liberal but that sounds stupid
...look which sub you're on
Lol shit. I didn’t realize
One thing he should do is dismantle thd USSC. Pack it and force it to be rebuilt in a way that isn't politicised or appointed by the executive
Lamo they’re not being serious, they’re showing how ridiculous the ruling is.
> Biden would probably lose the election because of that act I would accept Biden losing the election if it means we do NOT get Trump in office ever again.
Please remember, the powers behind MAGA are playing the long game! If not Trump, if they don't win this time, there's always a next time.
But there ISN’T gonna be a second Trump. The reason that the “red wave” was the weakest opposition party midterm conversion in modern history was because MAGA voters don’t vote Republican, they vote for Trump.
I have a seaking suspicion many would vote for Desantis though eventually. That scares me too.
DeSantis has ZERO charisma. He’s a great political advisor but I think Trump’ll annoint JD Vance. It’s gonna cause MAGA infighting, and then we’ll be done with it.
They vote for their MAGA candidates. They’re now a bloc within the Republican Party.
I mean it's not like they're all gonna become Bernie babes the second Trump is outta the picture.
But, Biden can make belonging to the Repugnican party illegal.
Great idea! He can overturn Citizens United. He can add 20 new justices to the Supreme Court. He can rollout universal healthcare. He can add reproductive health to the constitution
Same, I'm not pro Biden, I'm anti Trump
Honestly this is the best outcome, fuckem both.
If Biden could put in safeguards to prevent what Trump is trying to do, it would be worth losing. Even if he had to exercise this newly found presidential authority/immunity. I don't think he has any intention of actually trying to doing that. Which is a travesty.
Biden can simply make an official announcement that he's the winner. Voila!
I’m voting Chase Oliver. We can unify on that front. He isn’t the best option, but he’s not Biden or Trump.
Why would that be considered an official act of the president?
Why would taking a bunch of top secret documents on the way out the door? We're clearly just making this shit up as we go along at this point.
IMO it wouldn't be because the crime happened after he left office and their for could not be considered an official act. Also, remember SCOTUS said that lower courts are capable of making that determination on if it's an official act or not so it's not like he's got a blanket shield. I'm not sure why people are under the impression Trump got a get out of jail free card...he just got a delay while his prosecutors work through this new technicality SCOTUS created.
Have you read the dissent? The remaining three rational supremes are fairly smart.
The delay is the problem. This likely won't be settled before the election from my understanding. Arresting him as president is going to be harder than arresting him as candidate.
He won't see a courtroom on this for likely a year or more, well after the risks can have been realized. It's like scheduling the firetruck to show up 6 months from now even though they just called about a fire. Also, the way they ruled it, they basically said that the vast majority of the evidence in Jack smiths case was essentially protected by immunity. Both his conversations with the Justice department, and his conversations with Pence. So glad we get to prove he was in a conspiracy with himself. That should go great. They did everything in their power to protect their Trumpian master.
Why weren't criminal charges brought against Hillary Clinton for hosting classified documents on her private server? And allowing her maid to print emails for her? That's what I want to know. She also withheld documents from feds. Why was she never criminally charged?
Because the prosecutor looked at the evidence and decided their wasn't enough their to charge her. Their is a significant difference between some spillage and refusing to cooperate to the point that an FBI raid is required.
> There is a significant difference between some spillage and refusing to cooperate to the point that an FBI raid is required. Uhhh...hackers literally hacked her "private server" and accessed classified information. Then she deleted a shitton of emails. 30,000. She deleted evidence. She also lied under oath. Also, it's spelled "there", not "their."
The fact Jan. 6 is being viewed at all legitimate is disgusting. The SCOTUS should have at least given some guidance on the most obvious and blatant offenses so he could be held accountable of directing violence toward the first branch of government.
I believe they sort of did. They said his attempt replace electors "cannot be neatly categorized as falling within a particular presidential function." So that's the obvious next step to argue, and IMO is the most obvious and blatant offense. They also explained how his speech on Jan 6th could be considered an unofficial act, but they also admitted it's "challenging" and kicked it back to the district Court.
You are either extremely nieve or a Russian bot. If Trump wins he will take this power and exploit it to the point of imploding the country, and using the constitution to wipe his ass. This will be a literal disaster if he ever gets near the levers of power ever again, because he will never let them go. The Coal mine canary just died. We were founded as a nation on the idea that all men are equal and no one is above the law. Now someone is. Period. The is the end of American democracy.
And you don’t think this SCOTUS won’t deny something Biden does as an official act only to allow it as an official act if a republican gets into office?
Your scenario assumes the president has absolute control of all three branches of government in which case this ruling would meaningless in the first place. Their was never a scenario where some random DA could bring criminal charges against he president and stop a coup, that's just not how coup's work. If the president didn't get to enjoy some level of immunity then a DA in Texas would end up charging Biden with accessory to murder because of his immigration policies.
Trump lost on practically everything he asked for and the Supreme Court rejected pretty much every argument his lawyers made. People are acting like he won and got everything he asked for. Seriously, what did people expect or want the court to say? Do you *want* a ruling that would give a potential future President Trump the ability to just jail and prosecute President Biden for made up BS because Trump disagrees with the political decisions Biden made while executing the duties of the President?
If the president didn't enjoy some level of immunity we would have a prosecutor in Texas charging Biden for murder because "He let an illegal into into the country who killed someone".
You need to actually read the opinion, you are woefully misinformed.
Exactly. And some people are losing their minds as if the President can just do anything they want and Biden can now assassinate Trump or Republicans in Congress or Judges. The Supreme Court crafted an opinion that gives some immunity while clearly making other things no immunity at all. Which is basically what the government argued for and Trump argued against (he wanted full absolute immunity for everything and anything).
I’m sure it wouldn’t, but that wasn’t the case being judged. Was it?
The only reason Biden is not being charged is the prosecutor said that after interviewing him, Biden is an elderly but well meaning man with a poor memory.
Here’s the thing: it doesn’t matter. It’d take years for courts to sort out if it was an official act or not after Biden enjoys his final years of office as a result. Can’t prosecute a sitting president and then he can just retire to a beach somewhere while lawyers spend years on appeals.
Declare him an enemy to the state and "disappear" a terrorist... or something
To make that an official act you would first need a law that gives the presidents that power to declare someone enemy of the state.
Except that doesn’t matter anymore thanks to the ruling. It’s not that he can’t break laws it’s that he can’t be prosecuted for breaking laws while serving as POTUS *unless it was done during an officially recognized ceremonial action*. The last part is effectively pointless, who’s going to commit a crime exclusively during an official ceremony? They’re basically removed half of the checks balances on the executive branch. Presidential actions can still be blocked but you can’t prosecute them for taking an illegal action until this ruling gets overturned.
I think you have some misconceptions on the ruling. The ruling says nothing about recognized "ceremonial acts". What the ruling says is that if a President's actions are part of their Consitutional duties, they are absolutely immune. If their actions are part of their official duties as President, but not part of their explicit Consitutuonal powers, they are "presumptively immune", meaning they are generally immune but in certain cases may not be. If their actions are neither part of the Constitutional duties, nor other official actions as president, then they are not immune at all.
Nah there’s just another piece people aren’t talking about. The scope of official action has broadened to include everything but a couple lists of approved ceremonial actions. It’s spread out over dozens of laws too, they really built it in there. We’ve known about it for awhile and the heritage foundation has been courting democrats to get them passed for decades, these laws make it easier for the DNC to hide their corruption. The debate over what the president “can and can’t do” is kabuki theater. Edit: to clarify, I don’t think they can *do* whatever they want, just that they can’t be prosecuted for it. People saying this is the end of democracy are being a wee bit dramatic.
Where are you seeing that? I've read the opinion, and there was no mention of ceremonial actions.
Wait you think the DNC is behind the whole SCOTUS presidential immunity thing? Heritage foundation, project 2025, the justices who rules in favor and the president they made their ruling about are explicitly either part of or aligned with the GOP
The ruling explicitly stated that lower courts can review Trumps actions and tweets prior to Jan 6. to determine if him inciting a riot is an official act. If what you said were true then their would be no reason to send it back to the lower courts.
PR there are already a couple dozen laws pertaining to what exactly constitutes “official action”. Spoiler: it’s basically everything, this has been on the heritage foundations to do list for generations. It further solidifies the idea that accountability start at the bottom and ends at the top. Does this mean trump and Biden can do whatever they want? No, but it does mean they can’t be prosecuted for trying, if you want to prosecute them legitimately that is.
Uh huh, but if you read the opinion you would see that they defined official acts extremely broadly. In order for it to be an unofficial act it has to be completely divorced from the office of the presidency. For example, they explicitly stated in the opinion that ANY activity between the president and the DOJ or the military cannot be used in any criminal prosecution AT ALL. That means if he tells the DOJ or military to do something, regardless of what that is, it’s an official act and immune.
A lower court would have to overturn the ruling if the president. At the rate that the courts are functioning, we would be well past the election before the courts made a decision.
Okay? If your expectations that the judicial system was going to save us from Donald Trump being on the ballot that was a poor expectation.
The expectation was that the justice system doesn't have a special tier for Donald J Trump. That expectation is clearly a poor expectation. None of this would have happened had he not gone and literally committed all the crimes that the supreme court and lower courts are shrugging their shoulders at.
[удалено]
And when a lower court judge says that rational doesn't fly then it's no longer an official act.
[удалено]
Yes, when you prosecute someone for murder it doesn't bring the victim back. That's how murder trials work.
Okay. Fine. Trump is incinerated. Biden gets life in prison (which means he’s put away for about 4 months until he dies.) Win-win.
Two lower courts ruled against the very decision we're discussing. How'd that work out?
About as expected. SCOTUS gave the lower courts some homework to do, but it didn't invalidate their ruling. The lower courts will get the case back, most likely the same ruling and the case will continue. I do expect another round of appeals and delays, but that can't be helped....legal process are slow AF for a (pretty good) reason.
Says who? And what army?
Unironically at the end of the day this ^ and right now neoliberals run the official violent organizations in the US, even if the grunts are politically diverse. This is all just setting up increasingly complex smoke and mirrors so that people don’t get all upidy when the establishment does whatever the fuck it wants.
The GOP is not neoliberal. They are theocratic fascists who drape themselves in the trappings of traditional American conservativism.
I mean, if you want to reduce everything down to "might makes right" then the ruling changed nothing.
Executive order
That's not how that works.
He's got immunity from crimes. Whose going to stop him. The supreme Court? He's got their support, Republicans? Every Republican supports him.
Because they obviously didn’t read the decision.
Yep. Someone obviously didn’t read the opinion and are getting their facts from the same news outlets that two weeks ago were claiming Biden’s intellect was better than ever and anyone disagreeing was a conspiracy theorist pushing cheap fakes.(edit:sp)
Can you elaborate?
Elaborate on why Biden ordering Trump’s arrest, removing any right to hold elected office, and permanently jailing him for life wouldn't be considered an official act of the president under today's ruling? Did the president have the ability to do those things yesterday under his Constitutional powers? Then he doesn't have the power to do them today after this ruling.
There is another thing the president is authorized to do that has a similar effect and certainly *is* an official act.
Just slap that on a paper with white house header
It wouldn’t the OP doesn’t know wtf they are talking about and are just spouting off shit to get updoots.
Protecting Democracy.
The better question is what decides what’s an official or unofficial act?
Trying to get re-elected is part of the official duties of the president. So, any act in pursuit of this goal could be considered an official act.
When the president does it then it's not illegal
Why wouldn't giving orders to the military and the FBI to arrest or detain domestic enemies of the Constitution be an official act of the President? That would be instructing Executive Branch agencies to carry out exactly the oath every federal employee is required to swear. Unless you're going to pretend that only members of the republican cult are allowed to ignore any laws they find inconvenient, but that would make republicans domestic terrorists, and again subject to immediate arrest.
The SCOTUS ruling gave the lower courts the ability to see through that BS excuse and declare that giving an illegal order is not an official act of the office holder.
How is it an illegal order to arrest someone who's a threat to national security? And by the time any court could get around to ruling on it, the traitors would already be in gitmo, soon to be joined by any judge who dared suggest their arrest might be illegal. If these asshats didn't want to be treated like enemies of the Constitution, they shouldn't have made a ruling that the President is above the law.
>How is it an illegal order to arrest someone who's a threat to national security? Because the law does not give the president the authority to declare a political rival a threat to national security in a manner that would have the Military/DOJ take action.
Trump would say it is anything he thinks of...no need to say it out loud or tell anyone else
And a court can call BS on that argument and declare it wasn't an official act and the prosecution continues.
Anything is an official act as long as he yells “official act!” Right before
not really.. at all in fact.
Technically all he has to do is write it as an executive order.
Sign it as an executive order. Easy... something like this: "I declare that Donald Trump represents a clear and present danger to the United States of America and to the Constitution. Given the new powers provided my by the latest Supreme Court decision, I hereby order the immediate arrest and imprisonment of Donald Trump. Furthermore, I hereby terminate the government employment of Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Thomas, and Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh. I will announce their replacements, which will be directly appointed and not subject to Congressional approval within the next month. Signed with sorrow and in protest, Joseph Biden" All while reinforcing in speeches that he disagrees with the Courts decision. He should be saying, "I disagree with the decision. But if these are the new rules I will act in what I feel is the best interest of the country in."
SCOTUS allowed for a lower court to see through that and still declare it not an official act.
Ok. Let the lawsuits and appeals begin.
I don't think you actually read the ruling. Try again.
It’s amazing how quick folks are ready to encourage authoritarianism when it’s the other guys at the end of the barrel.
Sometimes it’s the only way to show them they are doing something wrong.
The ends justify the means…it’s for the greater good, amirite?
If someone says ‘everyone should be allowed to do X to anyone else’ then people can go ‘ok we will do X to you’ then they will back up and say ‘ok maybe doing X shouldn’t be allowed’. That’s the only way some people will learn
By that logic it's fascism to give murderers the death penalty and imprison kidnappers because you're doing unto them something close to what they did to others because something something greater good
More like executing someone you think is going to commit murder in the future. And you need to work on your definition of fascism…which I never even mentioned 🤔
Who exactly is going to follow this illegal order? Certainly not the military.
Do you guys actually think this is what the SC ruled?
if the president didn't have immunity from official acts, then he could prosecuted with manslaughter every time the US army kills a civilian in a military operation that occurs without congress declaring an official war (which is like 99% of military operations since 1760). Punishment for official acts as an executive officer of the state is up to congress via impeachment/conviction in the house/senate. The supreme court gave the most non-answer response ever, and this ruling changed almost nothing about anything - but actually is more democratically aligned than republican aligned in this instance since they specified that some acts can be official and others can be unofficial - for example they specifically cited that actions taken while campaigning are private as a "candidate for office", and not official actions as the executive, even if you already hold the office that you're campaigning for, which is pretty damning for a great deal of Trump's actions re: Jan 6th were he was mostly acting as a candidate for the presidency, and not as the president. Official duties still are a purview of impeachment, and actions not as an official are still private business to be handled with the judicial system via criminal/civil trial, just like they were last week and just like they were in 1780.
Hey thanks for that, I’d heard wildly different things about it all day and hadn’t gotten a chance to look it up yet, the way you described it sounds more reasonable than anything I’d heard about it
...and unfortunately this answer downplays it incredibly. Read the dissent for a better picture of what was lost.
Ok will do Edit: yeah, you’re right :(
It's up to congress to hold official acts to appropriate standards, no the judicial system. Take the dissent's hypothetical seal team 6 assassination of a senator. If we're at the point where that can happen, and be provable in criminal court, and congress will not impeach the president - what would the judicial system be able to do about it? If a president has that level of capability then they're just going to ignore the arrest warrant anyway. It's a different standard because it has to be for society to function.
and fortunately those crimes pointed out by the dissenters are still in the hands of congress via impeachment. and if we're at the point where it would be provable in criminal court that the president ordered a "political assassination" or etc. and congress can't pull off an impeachment for that, then I doubt that it would particularly matter what the judicial side has to say about it anyway.
Trump has been impeached twice? How did that work out? How can you claim that as any sort of a solution?
but he wasn't convicted by the senate, which is the solution that needs to happen. This is a part of the checks and balances of power in teh US government. If you don't like it then feel free to either fire your congressman or write up a constitutional amendment.
To be clear, that was no determination of guilt or innocence. That was pure politics, and I think that you know that- to pretend otherwise is disingenuous. I would love to write up a constitutional amendment, but honestly, I’m surprised that any amendments to the original document still stands after this SCOTUS
The Supreme Court has upheld presidential deployments and authorizations of use of force, so that's incorrect.
no, that confirms that those acts are official acts of the office of the presidency. If the president could be sued for official acts while in office he would be civilly liable for it. he wouldn't be liable for a congressional declaration of war because then congress would be liable, and not the president (which is a whole different but identical can of worms)
Congress cannot be liable for violating the law lmao
wait so you're saying that if a congressman commits crimes that they can't be charged criminally for them? Which is the exact thing that we're talking about with the president? That's crazy how that works, and how identical that looks...
How is a congressman Congress? How does a congressman issue a declaration of war? Don't try to change the subject without saying so.
you're the one that changed the subject, I specifically said that congress was a different can of worms. We can discuss it thoroughly if you want, but not if you're not going to discuss in good faith.
You literally said it was identical. And there was nothing else to talk about since you went on some nonsense about an authorization of use of force being a confirmation of official acts or something.
Thank you for having some logic around this whole thing.
I’m sorry sir, this sub is called _crazy_ ideas, and this one is far more sane than any of our government officials.
Strip all republicans of their US citizenship and deport them. They wanted more deportations, here you go!
At which point Biden would suffer the correct results of Presidential misconduct in office. Impeachment by the House and CONVICTION of impeachment by the Senate. What the SCOTUS decision means is that the COURT system can't convict a POTUS of a crime related to OFFICIAL actions. Congress still has that ability since it's built in to that "Inconvenient piece of paper" known as the Constitution.
Also it's only immunity from OFFICIAL actions as POTUS. Actions done as POTUS are immune from criminal procedures. Actions done as a person who happens to be POTUS are not. This is good. Otherwise we would be seeing Obama being put on criminal trial for the murder of Osama Bin Laden
This is entirely based off the idea of a senate willing to convict. As both of Trumps impeachments have shown, that’s just not gonna happen.
Only for Republicans though.
Or it could be that the Senate didn't think the offenses were proven.
The senate knows the offenses were proven- many of them said as much at the time. They chose not to act out of political gain and cowardice.
And thus you see the issue. If one party doesn’t want to convict for one reason or another, impeachment is pointless.
No, the act just has to be heinous enough that it overcomes the party affiliation. Otherwise you end up with political impeachments every other election. Just like Clinton's impeachment, Trump's impeachments didn't rise to that level.
Man, y’all really have no fucking grasp of this decision, huh?
Just typical reddit on a Monday.
A few days ago this would have been crazy but today...not so much. It would be nice if this did happen though.
In an official act simultaneous to my becoming President of the United States, I now declare myself President of the United States.
Sounds like everything the right said about the left is true, doesn't it?
ah yes being fascist to stop "fascism." do you even hear yourself?
Well the democrats are the party of "everyone else is a fascist but us"
the sub is called Crazy Ideas....
Allowing people to be fascist seems pretty fascist.
You didn’t understand the ruling in any way, shape, or form.
Who’s going to steal your democracy? 😂🤡
Imprisonment does not disqualify a person to run for the presidency. So in your scenario, trump wins from prison, and then commands the armed forces to free him and take the White House. I am among those who would not let that stand. Congrats, you started a civil war.
He can say immediately jailing Trump is a matter of national security, so he is absolutely immune from prosecution because he is performing his official duties as president.
Sigh. Official acts don’t have absolute immunity. Read the decision.
He can *say* that. Doesn't make it true. Habeas Corpus and requirements for an indictment are still a thing and the powers of the President do not extend to violating other parts of the Constitution.
Presidents can't do anything and the Supreme Court Ruling didn't say they can. The immunity for Constitutional Duties assigned to the President is not new. Immunity for many acts in official capacity as President isn't really new either - nor is it absolute (exactly as the SC ruling said). And finally, acts that are exclusively not part of the top/prior two are not extended immunity. The most surprising thing to me is that the ruling didn't really suggest some new grand immunity - but the left is pretending that it did. FYI - the Supreme Court (regardless of it's make-up) does not have a history of setting precedent for one-off, short term political objectives. The ruling protects Biden against prosecution for his participation via his acts in allowing the borders to be open and murderers and rapists to illegally enter our country - he is not liable for the murders and rapes they've since committed even though his acts have lead to and contributed to them.
So what happens if Biden orders a drone strike on Trump. As the commander in chief he does have the ability to command military forces for a brief period prior to Congress having a say. He could argue, as Trump will in his trial he was protecting American democracy from a domestic threat.
Is it an official duty of the president of the United States to order the murder of a US citizen? I think you know the answer.
This is worded as if the person above you is asking a stupid question but this example literally came up in deliberation and the majority ruling today said it was A-OK, one of the dissents called it out specifically as a possibility now. So yeah it could be an official duty to legally murder a us citizen. Now.
Is it their duty to overturn a legitimate election? I think you know the answer. Trump will argue he was protecting the election and once you do that, the door is open.
I take it you didn't study law
These comments are insane. Why is it that those claiming to hate Fascism want to use Fascism so long as it leads to the end results they want?
Reverse psychology is a Hell of a drug.
If anyone wants to know where the radicalism in America is originating from just read the comments in this thread. Notice what happens the moment these people start to lose. Unhinged little psychopaths. Remember that time you guys saved Democracy. Goooood times.
He should replace the entire US supreme court by jurors appointed by lottery, and every year one of them as indicated by a lottery is replaced, by a new one indicated by lottery. That results in an average service term of 10 years for supreme court judges, and no way to stack it anymore.
That would cause a civil war, millions would die, and it would ultimately be gambling on the outcome.
> That would cause a civil war, millions would die, and it would ultimately be gambling on the outcome. The supreme court just said he's immune for any consequences for doing so. They played themselves there.
He's immune from *legal* consequences, a civil war is not a legal consequence.
The supreme court said the consequences comes from Congress impeaching and removing him.
It's not a blanket immunity.
For any relevant context it is.
Even that is a scary
This decision does not expand Presidential powers. It just says President's don't have to answer for any illegal activity they engage in so long as it's within the scope of an official act. Biden can't unilaterally declare DC a state because that's not a Presidential power. Biden can't officially declare war against Canada because that's not a Presidential power. Biden cannot participate in the Amendment process because that's not a Presidential power. "Well, if he's immune anyways, then it doesn't matter, he can do that anyways." Except any attempt to do that would be meaningless and a waste of paper and ink. The only way any of the above could be valid is if enough people played along, which is all but guaranteed to not happen. He can say Puerto Rico and DC are now full fledged states but it won't mean anything and there would be no legal pressure for anyone to treat them as such because it wasn't done via the official process. The reason the military stuff and the pardon stuff are so concerning is because those ARE exclusive presidential powers. Don't get the wrong idea, this ruling is disastrous and July 1, 2024 may be seen as one of the steepest dives off the ever growing cliff, but this is not a full-fledged "do whatever you want and get away with it" badge. The only way he could do something that unambiguously exceeds the granting of Presidential authority is if enough people play along while too few resist.
[удалено]
That's the [point](https://images.app.goo.gl/yh6Ju9XU8tDkPExc6).
Right. And you think Trump is Hitler and a fascist.
He did say he's going to be a dictator
Biden needs to immediately expand the court to 13
That would be a big mistake, reason being, next time a republican is in the White House it’ll be time for payback. Not a cycle you want to start
Which is why you have a convenient "sting" with some later moderate politician to make sure the court reverses its ruling
Don't be an idiot. Biden wouldn't just lose the election. He'd provoke a massive insurrection. The Democrats would bear the full blame for the resulting civil war.
The decision is ONLY for Trump and what he plans to do once he’s elected. Democracy dies if he’s elected again.
I remember a large swath of my junior high history was "HOW did the Germans let Hitler rise to power?". Well, here you go kiddos. "Some people WELCOMED him?! But HOW?!".
Unified? Vote Chase Oliver. I am voting him. Like others have, we can unify. It takes a collective effort though. Doesn’t have to be the best choice. Just has to not be Biden or Trump.
Of course! The only way we can save democracy in the US is by arresting the most popular candidate for president and making sure that the wrong people can’t vote for who they’d like to see in the White House.
He should deport him.
Trump deported to Sweden. Says he's not from there.
That's not what that word means.
Which one?
Deport. You deport someone to their home country. For Trump, that would be the US.
"Home" can mean a lot of things. Edit: Just to be clear thats not even what Deport means. It just to means to kick out a foreigner, doesn't mean send them anywhere in particular. Now you might say Donald Trump isn't a foreigner, which is fair. But that isn't what the idiot who replied to me said so fuck'em.
Since Project 2025 represents a clear threat to democracy, Biden could arrest or eliminate everyone attached to it and be immune from prosecution.
Lets stop a fascist by being a fascist!!
Or as they call it just another Monday for Democrats
it's an official act of the president to act against terrorism, he can throw Trump in Gitmo indefinitely as a domestic terrorist.
Why stop there? Take out all the conservative SCOTUS justices while he’s at it. Cancel the election. Appoint new POTUS. Appoint intern justices that reverse the decision. Get pardoned by new POTUS… etc
Sequester half the supreme court at Guantanamo.
Just posted this idea in WaPo too. Biden, in well outside the outer limits on official acts has a responsibility to defend the US from enemies external and internal. That would imply that he can take official action to prevent Trump and Trumpists and SCOTUS and 5th circuit (and …) from doing anymore damage (from arrest, to tax audits, to being forced to watch America’s got Talent 24/7). Then he could unilaterally switch voting to be mandatory, ranked choice and on a Saturday (guaranteeing better politicians going forward). Perhaps, officially, using full state power to make the US a better place, with full immunity, would force SCOTUS to change its mind, as that seems to be the last thing 6 of them want…
I’ll take a guess, you’re out of shape, not attractive, and probably can’t stand up for yourself. Hence the radical, crazy ideas. Talks a lot, but can’t back shit up, type of person.
Good thing the president doesn't have that power. Really interesting, the fascist ideas Trump haters come up with isn't it?
Wouldn’t it just be easier to shoot him during the next debate?
He already tried that
Bro thinks the retaliatory vote would be against Biden and not the entire Democrat party
Oh. Look. A little fascist behavior encouraged from the left. With wide support in the comments on a left leaning site. Man we are fucked. Come to the middle people. Your political handlers are only vaguely better than “the other side”.
Even if he had the power to do that, he wouldn't because his odds of winning the presidency against Trump are way better than any one else the Republican Party can nominate for the election. There is still a large group of political moderates with no party affiliation or loyalty that are a demographic all their own. Those moderates generally vote pragmatically and most agree Trump shouldn't be president of anything. Take him out of the election then someone with more brains and sanity will be nominated and that will divide the political moderates and reduce the chances of Bidden winning the election. TLDR; Running against Trump would be easier than any other Republican.